USCIRF's Biased Agenda: The Case of India's CAA

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has drawn criticism for its stance on India’s Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). USCIRF has expressed concerns regarding the CAA’s limitations, arguing that it should extend its benefits to persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh – a position seen by some as hypocritical.

USCIRF’s primary concern centers around the exclusion of Muslims from the CAA’s ambit. The act provides a pathway to Indian citizenship for persecuted minorities from neighboring countries, excluding Muslims. This selectivity, according to USCIRF, raises questions about religious discrimination.

Critics point out USCIRF’s seemingly contradictory approach. The same commission advocates for the Lautenberg Amendment, which restricts US aid to countries with poor records on religious freedom – including Iran. The Lautenberg Amendment specifically protects religious minorities in Iran, a country with a significant Muslim population facing persecution.

This inconsistency raises questions about USCIRF’s motives and potential bias. Critics argue that if USCIRF genuinely prioritizes religious freedom, it should uphold the same standards for all countries, including India and Iran.

The perception of USCIRF having “one rule for America and another for India” stems from this apparent contradiction. Critics see USCIRF’s stance as potentially influenced by geopolitical considerations rather than a purely objective commitment to religious freedom.

 

[Sudha]

This biased organisation should recommend to the US government to extend US citizenship to musIims who are rejected of Bharat's citizenship. If they do so then there will be no gripping that musIims didnt get citizenship. Keep your hands off US, Bharat's younger generation can see through the hypocrisy of yours. If yoi want a better relationship with Bharat in future be more balanced in your approach & stop your hypocrisy.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

There is a very large anti-India and anti-Hindoo lobby in western countries. Similarly a Pro-India and Pro-Hindoo lobby also exists. We need to develop and strengthen the latter and weaken the former. This needs a systematic approach on different levels. It will take decades, but I believe that the process has begun since Jaishankar has taken charge

 

[Girish Tyagi]

CAA is extended part of Indian partition which was done based on religion to appease Muslims. There is no base for discrimination in CAA as it is fundamental to it.

 

[alok kumar]

The western world should study more to understand the history of different parts of globe, if they genuinely wants to poke their nose into every affairs. India was formed on secular line, in contrast to its cessationed land which was formed on religious line that too exclusively for Muslims. India was born with the promise to safeguard the interest of minorities of British India. With Muslims successfully creating their own nation and choosing to live on that land, the only obligation left with India is to safeguard the interest of Muslims who are left within newly formed Indian territory and non muslim minorities from entire British India. The earlier leaders of India could not fulfill this promise for several reasons. India is bringing CAA in this context to fulfill that very promise.

 

[Anuj]

Dont fall into their trap. All these bastards organization to destroy Bharat.
It's high time all temples should be liberated and allowed to use their money for upliftment of hindu society and promote ghar wapsi.

 

[Strongman]

Muslims in a Muslim state are not a minority........the act is to protect minority from Specific countries......simple.

 

[charminar_waale_ismail_bhai]

Haan, if US is so fair, toh USCIS waale le jayein na persecuted Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Rohingya and Afghanistaniyon ko.

 

[neil]

The CAA is specifically aimed at those people who were wronged by the specific event of "the partition of India". The muslims of the subcontinent were not wronged by the partition - they got themselves a new country.

It was the Hindus/Sikhs who were living in Lahore, Karachi, Sialkot, Sindh, Dhaka, Chittagong etc who were cheated out of their country when selfish decisions were made in Delhi to partition the homeland on religious grounds.

Consider two people living in Lahore: a Muslim (Farooq) and a Hindu (Ramlal) living side by side. Both are well to do, both own their houses and the land. Both are reputed/respected members of the community. Partition happens. And it happens on religious grounds. Who is the loser? Farooq continues to live peacefully, while Ramlal has to think about abandoning his land/property, leaving behind his ancestors land, his business, his good reputation, his standing in the community, and try to reach alive with his family members to the "new India".

Somehow he's convinced to remain behind in Lahore and reassured that there's no problem. But of course there's a problem. He no longer has the same rights as he once did. His Hindu identity locks him out of Government jobs, welfare schemes. His Hindu identity marks him out for persecution by just about everybody. His daughter is subject to getting kidnapped and converted/married by force, so he has to hide her inside the house and deny her the education/schooling. He is now a man in a foreign country. His land is no longer his. Where can he go, what can he do? His position is infinitely worse than Farooq's position.

Yes, Farooq also lost his country (undivided India), but in return he got a new country that was dedicated to him specifically (to muslims). But Ramlal? He is a net loser, simply because he's a Hindu. He lost his country, and for no fault of his other than the sheer bad luck of living in that part of India which arbitrarily became Pakistan.

So, Ramlal is the wronged party, not Farooq. And the party who has wronged him is the Govt of Undivided India. That's the real guilty party. They're the ones who allowed the partition to happen. And that too on RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. So of course the victims of a religious-partition will have to be looked at from a religious angle for compensation.

The CAA looks at victims from a religious angle, because the original crime (the partition) was perpetrated on religious grounds.

And since we in (the new, Divided) India consider ourselves as the heir or the successor state of Undivided India, we feel it is our bare minimum duty to make good some of the loss that the citizens of Undivided India suffered due to the unethical decision to partition our motherland on religious grounds.

And who suffered from the religion based partition? All the non-Muslims suffered. The Muslims got their new, exclusive, made-for-muslims-only new country, and everyone else suffered.

So, the sins of Partition have to be set right. That painful event left behind many victims, all of them being non-Muslims. So, the CAA is a bare minimum effort to try to give at least some payback, some little compensation for those who were wronged.

We cannot return the land, the property, the house, the good reputation in the community, the high social standing that Ramlal has lost. We cannot give him back the country, the land of his ancestors, that Ramlal has lost. The bare minimum compensation we can give him now is a new homeland in whatever is left of Undivided India.

We can give him the citizenship of India, and invite him to come to India and to try to put back the pieces of his life (by himself, and with no other assistance by the Indian state) that were so brutally destroyed in 1947.

So no, the muslims are definitely not eligible for the benefits under CAA. They were never the victims of 1947.

Even the muslims who remained in India were also not victims as India remained secular, and didn't persecute them for being Muslim.

It's like arguing why the victim of a rape and the rapist should be treated differently. Are both of them not human beings who should enjoy equal human rights? Are they both not equal citizens of a country? So, why should the rapist be sent to the jail alone, while the rape victim goes free? Why this discrimination? The answer lies in the historical context. There was an event in history which defined the relationship between the rapist and the victim. That's why they cannot be treated equally. Treating them differently (i.e. "discriminating between them") is all about justice.

 

[Sangram]

Then we should settle this all rohingyas and illigal Bangladeshi in New York City or in pentagon building.

 

[Sandeep]

India shouldn't care about any rating at all. India decides and make decisions based on what the people want and they want and need. India is a Hindu country which must be recognised as the Hindu republic of India and make changes to defend, protect and promote Hinduism and our culture and values. Why should we be afraid of making that change?

 

[Varaaah]

Muslims in a Muslim state are not a minority........the act is to protect minority from Specific countries......simple.

It is that simple. But somehow Chhappan's govt is not able to convey this message. Perhaps he should do less mann ki baat and do more CAA ki baat.

 

[Varaaah]

Haan, if US is so fair, toh USCIS waale le jayein na persecuted Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Rohingya and Afghanistaniyon ko.

Naa bhaai, unko to Latin American krischans chaahiye.

 

[Varaaah]

Indian govt cannot even ask this simple question to the US that why an Indian has to wait for at least 3 years to get a visum to the US while a Chinese gets it in a few days.

 

[Arun]

It is crazy to imagine a mainstream muslim being persecuted in an Islamic country on religious grounds.

 

[Arun]

Indian politicians should learn from westerners how to play diplomacy. They could have excluded the term minority in CAA. However, strict guidelines should have been issued to officials implementing the policy that religious persecution should be the sole guiding principle in granting of Indian nationality.