Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

Background

The background section currently contains lots of text that is sourced to sources that have nothing to do with CAB. Instead of going into all the details about the treatment of religious minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, links should be given for further reading somewhere in the article.Bless sins (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No. The CAB is about persecuted religious minorities. That is essential background. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Having just gone through these, I'm a little concerned about those sources, too. It's one thing to use sources that don't mention the CAB to elaborate on information that CAB-related sources touch upon; it's another thing altogether to add a whole section on religious persecution in Pakistan with much older sources. No connection to the CAB has been presented. The connection has to be made in reliable sources (and more than just "there has been religious persecution in Pakistan"). @Kautilya3, Winged Blades of Godric, and DBigXray: thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Vanamonde here, all we need here is a line or two that the Government has cited persecution as a justification (excuse ?) for the law. And perhaps may be a link to the article on religious persecution in those countries should suffice as far the CAA article is concerned. A heavily bloated section is not needed IMHO and this has to be cut down massively. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Ispahani source is from 2017, not "much older sources". How is the background on the persecution of religious minorities not relevant when CAB explicitly states "who were compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution"? These scholarly sources published in recent years obviously cannot have anticipated that a law will be passed in December 2019. If you have indeed read sources such as Shuvro Sarker that I cited and other related scholarly sources, it should be pretty obvious that they are discussing religious persecution, refugees and that India needs to amend its citizenship law for refugees from its neighbors. Skipping it all together or trimming it massively would be inappropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, please move these to the individual persecution articles and add a link here to them if you want. This entire section is a massive WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTHESIS. Please explain why the entire section should not be trimmed down to a couple of sentences ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 20:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no coatrack there. Their law clearly mentions "religious persecution" and the background is highly, directly relevant. Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. It states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." There are no new conclusions drawn or implied by combining sources in that section. If you allege synthesis, be prepared to show how and where the summary "reaches or implies a conclusion not explicitly stated". Perhaps, you may want to re-read the examples in that WP:SYNTHESIS section. You are an experienced editor, and you know this. Just stating, for other t/p readers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The law itself is a reliable source only for its own text. It is unreliable for analysis. The connection to persecution has to be made in reliable sources, because government sources can mention absolutely anything they like as a justification (this applies to any law, passed by any government). There are sources making the connection to religious persecution, but only when they mention in the same breath that religious persecution has occurred in all of India's neighbors, and this law only covers some of those victims. If you're going to add material discussing religious persecution, it needs to be a uniform analysis of persecution in all of India's neighbors; not limited to those countries mentioned in the law. Otherwise, I'm afraid this is WP:SYNTH, though you clearly didn't intend it to be; because it is combining material from one unreliable source (the law) with information from reliable sources that cover persecution (but not the law) to imply a conclusion unsupported in any reliable source (this law was passed in response to religious persecution in Pakistan). Vanamonde (Talk) 20:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: The recent article in The Economist and other sources in this article make exactly that analysis and link, plus they go further. They discuss "this law was passed in response to religious persecution in Pakistan" etc, but then go on to state more.... e.g. that Ahmadis etc are also persecuted and much more. So, that link has already been made by external sources. Yes, I can see ways to shorten it plus the whole background section, one above religious persecution section as well. It too uses old pre-2019 sources quite a lot. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: That's an odd reading of the economist article (I assume you mean this one). That article says, very clearly, that the authors opinion the bill was passed to hurt Muslims, not actually in response to religious persecution. Moreover, the article mentions persecution of the Ahmadis, but the section in the article doesn't clarify that they are not covered by this bill. The section above religious persecution is framed on sources about the CAB; it uses other sources for specific dates and factoids that contemporary sources gloss over. If you're unwilling to address these points, we're really going to have to remove that section, because there's now three editors questioning the way in which sources have been used, and you've not budged an inch. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The refugees are there in India. They themselves form the evidence of persecution, since they fled it. There are some recent news sources that covered them [1] [2] [3] [4]. Government officials have said that there are two lakh refugees.[5] The newspapers don't know where they are. Neither have these people applied for long-term visas, as far as we know, except for the 30,000 that have been reported. If the NRC gets implemented then perhaps all of them will come out of the woodwoork and possibly many more. That might explain Amit Shah's "lakhs and crores" phrase.

I think it will be best to summarise the persecution issues in 3-4 lines and then present the actual situation of the refugees. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there's a considerable number of refugees, who have a variety of struggles. The point is, those aren't exclusively Pakistani, Afghan, or Bangladeshi; nor are they exclusively of the religious denominations benefiting from this bill. If we're summarizing the refugee situation, again, it needs to be broader than just those sections of the refugee population; else we're getting into SYNTH territory (I don't think you were suggesting we be selective, K, were you?) Vanamonde (Talk) 21:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: The Economist has several articles on this, and you looked at a different one. Your earlier allegation was, that the section is "implying a conclusion unsupported in any reliable source", i.e. this law was passed in response to religious persecution in India's neighboring countries. Now, let us look at the source (setting aside further analysis, which we can summarize in other sections). In this different article, The Economist writes, "When Amit Shah, India’s home minister, proposed his bill in parliament on December 9th, he framed it as an act of mercy. Henceforth, he promised, people who have fled persecution in neighbouring countries and taken refuge in India would be granted quicker access to citizenship". That is a direct link and support for "this law was passed in response to religious persecution in India's neighboring countries". Do you need more sources? I have already offered to trim that subsection a bit, if we remain consistent in similarly trimming other subsections to a consistent standard. We can also incorporate ideas of Kautilya3 above. I need to run to take care of some chores, but should be able to reply to any additional reasonable concerns you may have within a few hours. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC) [(ps) WP:SYN explains terms such as conclusion/arguments/etc in interchangeable/broad sense; summarizing such background from RS is common practice, see this and other edits by Vanamonde in this article and elsewhere.]

The religious persecution subsection summary does include Ahmadis etc. They are included with Hindus, Christians, etc in the cited sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

If persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh is to be covered in this article, then it needs to be done neutrally. In a section above (Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Pakistan_minorities_etc.), Kautilya3 said, "The topic of this article is Indian citizenship law. This stuff is entirely tangential and doesn't belong her." The topic in question was whether Pakistan's Hindu population had declined or not. If the discussion on Pakistan's Hindu population is raised in this article, then that deserves mentioning. A BBC article also points out that "individual Hindus have risen to prominent positions in both Pakistan and Bangladesh, notably as chief justices in the two countries."[6] And this article does so in the context of discussing CAB. So if detail is to be given to this topic, then all significant viewpoints to this topic should be presented.Bless sins (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, Bless sins. Things changed a bit since we had that discussion. Now it is becoming clear that all the refugees that India absorbed between 1951–2014 are potentially covered by this law. So, the reduction in Hindu populations of both Pakistan and Bangladesh are now relevant, though for a different reason.

• For Pakistan, the census data shows a reduction from 3.44% in 1951 to 1.85% now. (See Hinduism in Pakistan.) That is about 3 million people at today's population levels.
• For East Bengal/Bangladesh, it went down from 22% in 1951 to about 9% now. (See Hinduism in Bangladesh.) That is about 20 million people at today's population levels.

I will let these numbers sit here until we make use of it in the article at some point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

In response to Vanamonde93, the two lakh refugees mentioned are Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Trimmed the bloat. That being said, we ought to use better sources than USCIRF. ∯WBG^converse 13:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

WBG: It would have been better if you had waited for a consensus to emerge. After your bold move, I have trimmed the bloat in the section above the one you trimmed. In the subsection you trimmed, there is an overcite issue and a need for more balance. I will clean that up shortly. We will then have two versions to work with, one before your edit and one after mine. We can work from there, as we collaborate and improve this article further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I spot V93, K3, DBX, BS and me in favor of a trim.; you against. Five-one makes a clear consensus for me. ∯WBG^converse 16:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Are there specific sources you had in mind when you wrote "present the actual situation of the refugees" in the trimmed section? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The second Economist article doesn't support the extended religious persecution section either. The article makes it clear that religious persecution was the motive presented by Amit Shah, and it does not at any point endorse that framing of the issue; and it says quite directly that the law is intended to marginalize Muslims. Indeed this source supports the "religious discrimination within India" framing even more explicitly than the NYT sources do. I note that the section has now been trimmed (thanks, WBG) but my other concern; that this cherry picks persecution in Pakistan and Bangladesh; whereas what we ought to do (if we mention religious persecution at all) is to summarize all the material about religious persecution in India's neighbors. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: The Economist article verifies that is the government's view (with Amit Shah as spokesman). Then it offers its own view. Those are two sides, and this disputes-filled topic has many sides. For NPOV, we must present all sides, not join one side. That subsection is essential for NPOV and was/is summarized in a fashion similar to what you did with this edit to the background section just days ago (and many more of your edits). Let us let it rest. I like the compromise trimmed version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not what NPOV requires. NPOV requires us to present all significant points of view in reliable sources, duly weighted (emphasis mine). The government (or any political party) is not a reliable source. It's views need to be described as reliable sources describe them; we do not balance the government's viewpoint with that of independent scholars and commentators, because that is false equivalence. I do not like the trimmed version for the reasons I have given; it is still a violation of WP:SYNTH. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: The Economist is an RS. The "religious persecution" paragraphs cite independent reliable sources, not any political party or government. We are making no new conclusions, no new arguments, Everything is in and from the reliable sources. So, I do not understand you. Maybe you can explain your point, why just days, ago, you yourself add this, this, etc. @Kautilya3: can you review all this, suggest a compromise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an example of me moving content, not adding it. This was added because, as I've said already, many many sources make it clear that this bill is the first instance of religion being made a criterion for citizenship. It's a fact mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; the Jaffrelot source simply provides additional detail. None of the sources you've provided actually substantiate the claim that this bil was spurred by persecution in Pakistan. That's a claim made only be the government; and we've taken it and provided background for it the same way we would for a claim in a reliable source. That's the problem, and it's concerning me that you can't see that. Kautilya (and WBG, and DBigXray, and others) don't propose a compromise, for god's sake; this isn't just about finding middle ground, it's about following policy. Not all viewpoints are equal with respect to content, and not all opinions on this talk page carry equal weight. Look through the relevant portions of WP:SYNTH, and the sources, and see if you can find a credible argument to cover religious persecution in the manner MSW wishes to. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I agree that we must follow our core policy, rather than any misinformed compromise/consensus. NPOV is a core policy, and that is my primary concern here. You explain your edit with, "It's a fact mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; the Jaffrelot source simply provides additional detail." (let me set aside the claim "was secular" [tense]; you cited pp 41-67 which covers an entire chapter where this Act/Amendment is not mentioned/discussed). In other words, what you did was not WP:SYNTH and you agree that you added a background statement of relevant, related facts from a scholarly source, even though the source itself makes no mention of this Act/Amendment. Would you also confirm:

• You agree that per NPOV, we should not take sides, just explain the sides.
• You agree that it is okay to summarize recent quality sources that discuss this citizenship amendment act and state the government side on religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan
• You agree that it is okay to summarize peer-reviewed scholarly sources published after 1951 that discuss refugee situation in India from its neighbors, the need for changes to its citizenship/refugee law, and/or the need for humantarian action in India for persecuted minorities and such background (on one or more of the following: Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, others)
• You respect that others editors can also add "a fact mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; where the source simply provides additional detail" ("add a background statement of facts from a scholarly source, even though the source itself make no mention of this act/law";)

If not, please clarify. We can then collaboratively revise this article in the spirit of our content policies, rather than a vote that mocks NPOV. I am willing to work with you to remove whatever seem a bit off, and summarize other more relevant/policy-compliant reliable sources. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

From my point of view it is pointless to argue that the Act is not justifiable. It clearly is. If we stop doing that, there would be no need to start justifying it.

My calculations above showed that 23 million Hindus (which may or may not include Sikhs) have likely entered India from Pakistan and Bangladesh since 1951. The successive Congress governments have accommodated them and possibly given them citizenship. So it is not as if Congress does anything different from the BJP but rather that they would like to do it covertly whereas the BJP wants to do it overtly.

The overt treatment is also necessitated by the NRC exercise, which requires people to prove their citizenship. The Congress way of surreptitiously giving them ration cards and voter registrations won't pass muster. So, searching for ulterior motives behind the BJP actions is also quite pointless.

The best thing to do would be to focus on the substance of what Jaffrelot & Laliwala point out:

The CAB would not only change how the state views its citizens’ rights but, it would also revise the conception of group rights in India. ... The Modi government plans to radically reformulate the logic of community rights in India to exclude some Muslims from Indian citizenship. In turn, this new definition of group rights will worsen the socio-economic conditions of Muslims, who are already experiencing some decline.

My favourite analysis comes from Nobel laureate Venki Ramakrishnan:

“Now, people say that the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill doesn’t affect Muslims who are already in India and are Indian citizens. But that’s not the point. The point is that it makes those 200 million Muslims feel as if somehow their religion is not as valid or as Indian as the others. That’s not a good recipe for harmony. India should not be competing with Pakistan or Afghanistan.”

If we stick to solid insights like that, we will make progress instead of going around in circles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3: I don't give two hoots over whether the content we add justifies the bill; what I care about is whether the content frames the bill in the same way reliable sources do. MSW I honestly feel like I'm repeating myself here, but in recognition of your past work in this broad area I will try once more. Our narrative about the bill needs to reflect what reliable sources are saying about the bill. Not what they are reporting, but what they are saying, in their voice. And a broad narrative in high-quality sources has been; "India did not have religion as a criterion for citizenship; now it does, because of the ideology of the present government." The material I added fleshed out details used by contemporary RS (those discussing the bill) to substantiate this narrative. The narrative in RS about persecution is, broadly; "Refugees from religious persecution have entered India from many countries; the BJP has defended this bill on the basis of persecution of non-Muslim religious denominations in Muslim-dominated countries". Substantiating this with older information about persecution of non-Muslims in Pakistan is okay; but this also needs information about persecution of other groups in other regions mentioned in this context by RS (Sri Lankan Tamils; Ahmaddiyas (which are in the section, but the fact that they aren't covered by the bill is lacking there); Tibetan buddhists; Rohingyas). That's what needs to be added. If I had the time I'd add it myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with the last point. There is no obligation on any country to give citizenship to people that it gives refuge to. Giving refuge is a humanitarian concern. Giving citizenship is a national concern. The two need not coincide. Pakistan and Bangladesh were once part of the undivided India. Afghanistan was added later as an afterthought because the Hindus and Sikhs coming as refugees from there were also originally from the undivided India. So those people can be expected to fit into India and become loyal citizens. Others may not be so. There would also be security implications and foreign policy implications in giving citizenship to people of other countries. So we should not go off on tangents. The three countries that are in frame are the only ones that can be discussed to any great extent, at least in this article. Again, I also believe that they should only be discussed to the extent that they affect the refugees and migration into India. Their internal affairs are not the concerns of this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources mention persecution in other countries too in the context of this bill; therefore we have to cover it. It's as simple as that. We are not a news outlet; we don't discard material we don't like because of personal beliefs in it's irrelevance. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 02:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I am not sure why this comment got inserted here. But what you are calling "reliable sources" are in fact news outlets, which are running around like headless chickens and have no clue what is going on. India Today has claimed even two days ago that since persecution is not the criterion, [the Act] does discriminate against illegal Muslim immigrants from these three countries. That too under the pretentious title of Everything you wanted to know about the CAA and NRC. Obviously, the author never bothered to read the Act itself or didn't understand what it said.

People of "Indian origin" (which meant descending from ancestors in undivided India as in the Government of India Act, 1935) always had special provisions in the Citizenship law right from the Constitution of India. Tibetans and Sri Lankans don't belong there. Trying to equate them with the minorities of Pakistan/Bangladesh is nonsense.

Please read the one scholarly comment that has appeared since the bill has passed. EPW has thankfully made it publicly readable. There is no mention of Tibetans or Sri Lankans, or Muslims for that matter. If you have genuine reliable sources (by scholars, policy makers or policy analysts), please bring them forward. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why this comment was inserted here either, but I was on mobile, and odd things often happen. I will move this discussion to its proper place after posting this. Yes, I am calling media sources reliable. The NYT, BBC, The Hindu, India Today, and so forth have been the staple sources for contemporary politics in South Asia for a long time. If you're unwilling to use them, we might as well delete this page, because we have nothing else besides that one EPW source. The EPW source is good, but it discusses the history of the bill itself; it does not explore persecution at all. If we're going to base our narrative on that source (which may not be a bad idea) we'd have to dump the contentious "religious persecution" section above entirely. I have, incidentally, read the entirety of the text of the act. It does not make reference to religious persecution. At all. The "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS" section of the bill, which is only a government statement and isn't passed into law, is what refers to religious persecution. So the India Today isn't wrong; whatever the government's intentions, the act does not only make refugees eligible for citizenship, it makes all migrants eligible. But that's irrelevant. As I've said before, we summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. If insufficient sources exist, the article shouldn't exist. If the sources are contradicting each other, then we use many of them, to determine what the consensus is. Policy forbids picking and choosing sources based on our personal impressions of what the narrative ought to be; yet that seems to be happening a lot on this page, and it's very concerning. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: discussion beginning at first post above by "Karellen93" (my alternative account) has been moved here, because that's where it was supposed to go. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Act covers people who have been exempted by the 2015 central government orders. Those orders exempt people on the grounds of religious persecution. In fact, The Wire ran a story as early as 5 December, covering persecution. If other newspeople can't be bothered to read, there is nothing we can do about that. But the scholarly comment, by one who has thoroughly studied the bill and the debates surrounding it, makes clear that persecution was the grounds on which citizenship is being granted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Where are you getting that? The gazetted act that I am reading doesn't say anything of the sort (link). Also, to be clear, I'm not against discussing religious persecution; it's the manner in which we discuss persecution that's the issue. Anti-Hindu riots in Bangladesh obviously have a place. But enough RS writing about the bill have highlighted Rohingya and Ahmadiyya persecution that not mentioning those isn't an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, I quoted page 2, line 5. The relevant extracts from the 2015 order are given on the main page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: You did not confirm or deny/clarify what I asked above. Since you have been badgering me about policy so far, it would help if you answer them. Those four questions will come up again, if we need to and do take our dispute through the noticeboards, then up (ARBCOM or wherever it might be appropriate). You write, "Not what they are reporting, but what they are saying, in their voice". My reply: We need to do both, per NPOV policy. Those are the notable major sides of this subject and related dispute per the reliable sources. I agree that we need to do this in their voice. I believe the versions created by WBG/Kautilya3/me/you almost always do that, and I welcome rewording/copyediting/revisions to address "in their voice" aspect, and any other issues of style, per the RS. I believe that you are mistaken. Were we to suppress the government/supporters' side and their arguments – as stated in the reliable sources – regarding religious persecution in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Bangladesh in relation to this law, we will violate our cherished NPOV policy. Over the last few days, I have read peer-reviewed articles on their refugees and their last 40+ years of discussions/efforts to review and amend the Citizenship law in refugees-related matters. I am convinced that your views do not reflect what the peer-reviewed scholarly sources (and recent reliable sources) are saying. @Kautilya3: Please summarize that and related sources in the Analysis section. It would improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's possible we are talking past each other, because I am not proposing to suppress the BJP's explanation; what I am opposing is fleshing out that explanation with sources that do not discuss this topic. I could agree with most of your points above, but I find the way you've written them to be ambiguous; so here's my versions of those. a) NPOV requires that we take the side of the preponderance of reliable sources; if no clear consensus exists among reliable sources, then we explain the positions taken by those sources. If a "side" has no support in reliable sources, we do not give them weight. b) Yes, it is perfectly fine to summarize high quality contemporary sources discussing this bill, including summarizing their description of the government's position. c) I agree that it is fine to summarize RS (not just peer-reviewed sources; media sources too; if you're disallowing media sources on this point, we have a disagreement there too) discussing the refugee situation in India, and the persecution of religious minorities in India's neighbors. However, we need to summarize the entire body of this information. If you leave out persecution in Tibet, or Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, we have a problem, because both those situations are mentioned very prominently in the literature. d) No. We can flesh out positions contemporary reliable sources take with information from earlier reliable sources. We cannot flesh out positions merely reported by contemporary sources that have no support in RS, because that is a violation of WP:SYNTH. To make an analogy; we can report that an environmental activist opposes GMOs; but in doing so, we cannot provide "background" that fleshes out theor argument about health risks of GMOs. @Winged Blades of Godric and DBigXray: some fresh perspective would be welcome, and you've both been active here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

So, you answer is a) Yes, b) Yes c) Yes and d) No. We agree on first three, and our dispute is on the last one. It is very odd that your edit(s) in this and other articles have added "fact(s) mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; where the source simply provides additional detail" to background section and you do not consider it WP:SYNTH, but you are unwilling to accept/respect other editors can add "fact(s) mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; where the source simply provides additional detail" to background section because you think that is somehow WP:SYNTH (see my 4th bullet point above). I have earlier reliable sources, by the way, published over the last few decades that discuss India's refugee issues, their 1955 Citizenship act and religious persecution of non-Muslims (both scholars and others such as their non-nationalist former prime minister; as we can expect their nationalists have talked about this years before 2019). Would our dispute be resolved if I were to reference/summarize those as well. If not, is there any other type of reliable source that I can briefly include and summarize to address your concern, as the RS I have read so far do support that religious persecution background is relevant and necessary in the background section for NPOV. If you have no suggestions, and your stance remains the same, then our next option is to pursue this dispute through the appropriate channels as far as we need to, in the best interest of this project. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The content I added explicitly supports the narrative of contemporary sources describing the bill (which make it clear that Indian citizenship law and the constitution did not discriminate based on citizenship). That is why it does not violate WP:SYNTH, because the overall narrative is supported by RS even if the factual detail required more specific sources. At the moment, the text you've added supports the "bill was written in response to persecution in Pakistan" narrative, which no RS supports (only the government). What all RS recognize is that there has been religious persecution in South Asia, and that this history is relevant to understanding the history of the bill. Therefore, the section you've added needs to summarize religious persecution in India's neighbors. You've covered Pakistan already, and Bangladesh to some extent. Religious persecution everywhere else needs to be fleshed out. this would be a decent place to begin, because it summarizes the totality of refugee movement in the region. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• User:প্রলয়স্রোত has blanked the section, with a nice edit summary. I cant say I disagree with them for this. Vanamonde has responded well to the filibustering above. MSW Consensus is against you. Drop the stick and move on. there are other issues waiting to be fixed. Looking at the length of this discussion. Way to much editor time is being wasted on this dispute. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, I do think some coverage of religious persecution is necessary, but it needs to be a holistic view of persecution in India's neighbors and its link to refugee populations in India. We don't need to go into a huge amoung of detail. I will try to add some of this later today. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93, ok, that would be preferred by me as well. Though I am not sure a seperate section (in comparison to few lines) is merited in this case. But I would prefer to have the proposed version discussed on talk first. It would be helpful to gain consensus, if you can share your proposed version of the content here on the talk page first. This will also avoid edit warring among the participants. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 10:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for a bloated Background section. We shouldn't put anything in there that is not covered by reliable sources, and I don't regard newspaper critiques as reliable sources. Newspapers are only reliable for news. Why are we forgetting that?

The Background section need only contain the absolute minimum necessary for a reader to understand the main subject. Nothing more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I also think the current subsection on NRC in the Background section should eventually be moved out, by discussing the interactions between the CAA and NRC in a separate subsection in the Analysis section. Practically everybody now knows and admits that the CAA without NRC and the CAA with NRC are completely different beasts. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

The interactions between the NRC and the CAA absolutely need to be in the analysis section. However, the NRC predates the CAA, at least in terms of implementation. Ignoring it altogether in the background doesn't make sense to me. The background has a paragraph on the NRC at the moment, giving just the bare details; I don't think we need more there, but we should move that bit. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: You did not directly answer my question, but perhaps indirectly AGF. You write, "At the moment [my emphasis], the text you've added supports the "bill was written in response to persecution in Pakistan" narrative, which no RS supports (only the government)." So, I have addressed "at the moment" hint, by adding a summary on background related RS on citizenship act, refugees and religious persecution. Perhaps you were not aware of these. There are many more related RS over the decades on their citizenship act, the refugees, their religious persecution, and proposals/discussions how their act should be amended. We do not need to OVERCITE, but if something is unclear, please let me know. I hope this addresses your concerns. If not, once again, "is there any other type of reliable source that I can briefly include and summarize to address your concern, as the RS I have read so far do support that religious persecution background is relevant and necessary in the background section for NPOV". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• I will note here that MSW has tried to Edit war the disputed content into the article, twice in the last hour [7] [8], This Edit warring behavior while a discussion is ongoing is not expected from an experienced editor. Continued Attempts to wrestle in the disputed section against consens will lead to blocks. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Threats are against WP:TALK guidelines, so I have struck that out. Please respond constructively to my comment above, and explain your objections to the new reliables sources and content added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• I note a third revert from MSW today. The entire section is disputed, In the garb of new content that has not been discussed, you are trying to get your preferred version into the article. MSW the next post will be on WP:ANEW and not on your talk page as I have already warned you and you seem to consider mandatory warning templates as harassment. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Also stop WP:REFACTORing my talk page comments, You are not allowed to do that. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Disputed section: Persecution

Per our NPOV guidelines, just like the newly added background "Bharatiya Janata Party agenda" section with new sources, we should add a similar background "Persecution" section with similar quality sources. Here is a version:

Previously elected members of Indian parliament have discussed and urged the grant of citizenship to persecuted refugees from the minority communities in India's neighboring countries. For example, Manmohan Singh – former Prime Minister of India, in a 2003 parliamentary discussion on India's Citizenship Act, stated that "after the partition of our country, the minorities in countries like Bangladesh have faced persecution" and asked "Indian citizenship for persecuted refugees". A resolution by CPI (M) introduced in the Lok Sabha by Basudeb Acharia similarly demanded in 2012 that the Citizenship Act be amended for "Bangladeshi minority community refugees". However, these requests neither limited the scope of the persecuted minorities in India's neighbors on the basis of religion, nor the list of eligible countries.

According to Tetsuya Nakatani – a Japanese scholar of Cultural Anthropology specializing in South Asia refugee history, after the mass exodus of refugees during the 1947 partition of British India, there were several waves of non-Muslim refugees arrival into India. These refugee movements were in some cases triggered by actions of India such as the annexation of the Muslim princely state of Hyderabad in 1948, or more often after various religious riots between 1949 and 1971 that targeted non-Muslims within West Pakistan or East Pakistan – which after their civil war in 1971 became the independent countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively. Their status in India has remained in a political limbo.

Militancy and sectarianism has been rising in Pakistan since the 1990s, and the religious minorities have "borne the brunt of the Islamist's ferocity" suffering "greater persecution than in any earlier decade", states Farahnaz Ispahani – a Public Policy Scholar at the Wilson Center. This has led to attacks and forced conversion of Christians and Hindus, as well as attacks on Sufis and Ahmadis. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedoms (USCIRF) echos a similar view, stating that "extremist groups and societal actors [have] continued to discriminate against and attack religious minorities" in Pakistan. The European Parliament has expressed it concern that "for years Pakistan's blasphemy laws have raised global concern because accusations are often motivated by score-settling, economic gain or religious intolerance, and foster a culture of vigilantism giving mobs a platform for harassment and attacks" against its religious minorities.

Similar concerns about religious persecution of minorities in Bangladesh have also been expressed. The USCIRF notes hundreds of cases of "killings, attempted killings, death threats, assaults, rapes, kidnappings, and attacks on homes, businesses, and places of worship" on religious minorities in 2017. According to Ashish Bose – a Population Research scholar, Sikhs and Hindus were well integrated in Afghanistan till the Soviet invasion when their economic condition worsened. Thereafter, they became a subject of "intense hate" with the rise of religious fundamentalism in Afghanistan. Their "targeted persecution" triggered an exodus and forced them to seek asylum. Many of them started arriving in and after 1992 as refugees in India. While these refugees were mostly Sikhs and Hindus, some were Muslims. However, India has historically lacked any refugee law or uniform policy for persecuted refugees, state Ashish Bose and Hafizullah Emadi.

References

It is wrong and WP:OWN behavior to summarily remove the new sources and this summary section, as DBigXray insists, without proper reason. Constructive comments on these RS, the summary, as well as any improvements to the above, are welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

MSW, I find your last edit summary funny. Why would i be lying here ? I cursory checked and found both content similar. If you had made subtle diffrences between the two content (that escaped my eyes) then perhaps you should have informed that the 2 versions were different. Now which version The one above or the one below do you want me to review ? Please respect others time also and dont ask multiple versions to review. thanks. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The changes and additions are not "subtle". You continue to misrepresent me in bad faith. Please stop this "wasting time"-style hostility on this talk page. Please read the many newly added sources above in new paragraphs. I have many more RS, and we can discuss them as we make progress in our effort to improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not used to navigating humongous walls of texts spread across multiple threads on multiple pages. So kindly forgive me if I fail to notice the difference. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for partial revert for NPOV

Moved from User talk:DBigXray

Request for partial revert, or an ANI/AN review of your editing privileges

DBigXray: I generally hesitate in starting new ANI cases and requests for sanctions/blocks for editors. Please allow me to offer an interim compromise as a goodwill gesture before seeking a review of your editing privileges. Would be you be willing to at least partially self-revert the section you have reverted twice. Reason: this partial section is entirely new and based on new reliable sources, and none of this has ever been discussed on the article's talk page:

[CONTENT removed as it is same as the one listed above] - this note added by DBigXray was struck and replaced with the following by Ms Sarah Welch

Previously elected members of Indian parliament have discussed and urged the grant of citizenship to persecuted refugees from the minority communities in India's neighboring countries. For example, Manmohan Singh – former Prime Minister of India, in a 2003 parliamentary discussion on India's Citizenship Act, stated that "after the partition of our country, the minorities in countries like Bangladesh have faced persecution" and asked "Indian citizenship for persecuted refugees". A resolution by CPI (M) introduced in the Lok Sabha by Basudeb Acharia similarly demanded in 2012 that the Citizenship Act be amended for "Bangladeshi minority community refugees". However, these requests neither limited the scope of the persecuted minorities in India's neighbors on the basis of religion, nor the list of eligible countries.

According to Tetsuya Nakatani – a Japanese scholar of Cultural Anthropology specializing in South Asia refugee history, after the mass exodus of refugees during the 1947 partition of British India, there were several waves of non-Muslim refugees arrival into India. These refugee movements were in some cases triggered by actions of India such as the annexation of the Muslim princely state of Hyderabad in 1948, or more often after various religious riots between 1949 and 1971 that targeted non-Muslims within West Pakistan or East Pakistan – which after their civil war in 1971 became the independent countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively. Their status in India has remained in a political limbo. According to Ashish Bose – a Population Research scholar, Sikhs and Hindus were well integrated in Afghanistan till the Soviet invasion when their economic condition worsened. Thereafter, they became a subject of "intense hate" with the rise of religious fundamentalism in Afghanistan. Their "targeted persecution" triggered an exodus and forced them to seek asylum. Many of them started arriving in and after 1992 as refugees in India. While these refugees were mostly Sikhs and Hindus, some were Muslims. However, India has historically lacked any refugee law or uniform policy for persecuted refugees, state Ashish Bose and Hafizullah Emadi.

References

Wikipedia, as you know, welcomes new contributions from RS. Your cooperation with a partial self-revert to include the above will be consistent with that guideline and spirit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I have moved this thread from my talk page since there is no need to open multiple threads for the same thing. I will review and respond. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: You alleged "[same as the one listed above]". Not true. Please do not misrepresent others on article talk pages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

replied above (diff)--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This request for partial self-revert, obviously, for a start. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

May I know which version, the one You posted today on the top or the one in this section you want me to review ? I hope that you wish to get one of them and not both at the same time to the article. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Just one. Not both. This shorter version. That is what "partial" means. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that by using the word "partial" you were referring to this "shorter version". With all my knowledge of the language, I would never have guessed that. Talking about the content, this version you are asking me to restore back into the article still suffers from the problem of WP:SYNTH. You have added sources that have absolutely no relation with the "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019" and have cherry picked lines that support your version of the POV and have created this version. I am sorry to say no to your request to self revert, since I cannot agree to add this into the article, You will have to get consensus for this, if you want this version to be added. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: You are misrepresenting the sources. This is self-contradictory too: "added sources that have absolutely no relation with the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019" and "cherry picked lines that support your version"! If there is "absolutely no relation", there cannot be any lines in the source to "cherry pick"! Your arguments are not helpful, just a bad case of WP:TE. The Tetsuya Nakatani, Ashish Bose and Hafizullah Emadi - three scholarly sources – are related, rather directly and explicitly related, to refugees in India, their persecution in neightboring countries, and this Citizenship (Amendment) Act. Please explain why this is WP:SYNTH, given the clarifications on WP:SYNTH and Vanamonde's own use of similar sources for background in this and other articles. In other words, why in the above summary WP:SYNTH, and why is Vanamonde's summary not WP:SYNTH? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This is my second warning to you to stop removing/editing my comment as you did here. Also Why are you moving this thread repeatedly, this thread is on the section "Religious persecution" and it should remain together. Stop this childish behavior please.

As for the content, if you want to cover the "refugees in India, their persecution in neightboring countries" then you better create another article with an appropriate title. I have stated my concerns and I will ignore the continuous accusation of bad faith from you. I will reply only if you make a WP:CIVIL comment addressing the content. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 18:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: Your attempts to WP:OWN this talk page is apparent too. The removal of one of your phrases was inadvertent, one you added as a second edit. It was just a result of an edit conflict; I started the edit before you edited your comment again for the second time to make that minor addition. Now, can you please address the substance of my reply... your misrepresentations of the reliable sources etc above. That is directly-related and necessary background here for NPOV, just like the content recently added to the background section by numerous editors. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

After editing all these years, do I have to teach you that you need to gracefully handle the WP:EDITCONFLICT ? Do I need to remind you that when you see that edit conflict box, you have to be careful so as not to remove another editors comment ? So you blatantly edit war and when your efforts are objected, you accuse them of WP:OWN ? Kindly stop this ludicrous behavior. Talking about the content, among these numbered refs. Tell me by enumerating, which of these explicitly refer to the CAA ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

O please. Learn to communicate with others without that hostile, obnoxious "do I have to teach you" style! I already mentioned three scholar names in my recent replies to you. If you look in the reflist above, the sources corresponding to those names would be [6], [7] and [8]-[9]. Let us focus on these first, we can cover [1]-[5] later, along with the numerous RS on this I have (which all support this partial section above). We can discuss them as we develop a collaborative, consensus version of a more balanced "Background". If you want to focus on just one first, let us try [8]-[9] and work our way back. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

If you do not like being reminded to handle WP:EDITCONFLICT gracefully, then perhaps you should take care not to refactor other's comment that you did twice on this talk page.

6. Tetsuya Nakatani (2000),

7. Ashish Bose (2004),

8. Emadi, Hafizullah (2014).

9. Emadi, Hafizullah (2014).

I note that all these refs are several years old. Oldest being 20 years and newest being 5 years. Are you really claiming that these sources are referring to the CAA "2019" law ? That will be quite impressive if they did.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: Do you understand what the word "Background" means? did you understand what Vanammonde explained a few days ago about relevance to the Background section of "a fact mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; where the source simply provides additional detail"? If you study the edits of other editors including Vanamonde's recent edits, such as this, and actually read what is in that chapter of the source Vanamonde added, you will see it makes no mention at all of Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019. That is pretty common for Background section in encyclopedic articles (and our FA, GA articles, for that matter). But, just like the source Vanamonde added is relevant to the Background, and Vanamonde's contributions are constructive (and not WP:SYNTH), the above sources are relevant to the Background and the summary is constructive (and not WP:SYNTH for the same reason). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, As a matter of fact I do understand. There is a limit to how far back you can go in a background section. At this point you are forgetting that this article is about CAA, and it must only include sufficient background, that helps the reader get the necessary info on the topic. You don't really need to start explaining, how badly Pakistan, or Bangladesh treats its minorities in the CAA article. It is obvious to understand why User:Bless sins and others are crying foul, on this kind of coverage, on a controversial article. Then it becomes a WP:COATRACK, when you are trying to take potshots on Pakistan instead of talking about CAA. There are articles that cover the persecution of minorities (example, Hinduism in Pakistan and Anti-Hindu_sentiment) . you can link to them but there is no need to create a WP:COATRACK of these articles here in the background section. Anyway, I have said that I don't agree with this proposed version and due to the reasons I listed. Obviously there is a difference of opinion between the two of us, and I hope you have enough decency to respect this difference of opinion, instead of accusing others of having malicious intentions and name-calling. Now, lets wait what others have to say. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: It is bad faith for anyone to make up excuses to block or edit war the addition of the mainstream scholarship and related summary from multiple RS. We need this for NPOV. The background is currently taking a side, rather than presenting a neutral version that presents all sides and one that reflects the mainstream reliable sources in their voice. A few sentences summary on persecution, from scholarly sources that discuss "refugees-in-India and persecution and their Citizenship law and their recent attempts to amend that law" – when the senior leaders of both BJP and non-BJP governments have talked about this exact thing in the last 20 years, is not WP:Coatracking. It is essential background content. It is stone-walling, and a violation of our cherished NPOV policy for you to argue otherwise. Will you be fine if the reliable sources I cite are from the same period of time as Vanamonde and others who have contributed to this article, particularly in the Background section? I have so many RS on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Enough, with the WP:ABF. I will wait for others if they have anything to say about your proposed version above.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"It was shocking to me"

At the end of this heart-rending talk by Rohini Mohan on the Assam NRC, a young woman asks (around 1:09:30):

You talked about women who are married to certain people but they wouldn't be able to prove documentation by themselves, right? So, I am trying to understand, even if some one is not a citizen of India, but married to a citizen of India, there is a way you can apply for citizenship, right? How does this work in the whole NRC process?

Can anybody understand, how a man could be an Indian citizen and his wife could be put in detention centre (and perhaps children too)? Anybody?

The answer isn't that great:

None of the ways one can naturalize etc. in the rest of the country, they don't apply in Assam right now.... Even if your husband is Indian, it doesn't matter because you have to prove that your ancestors, your bloodline, is Indian. Ideally, according to the Indian law, you can show your father or mother. But, again, by practice, I have seen many documents, many tribunal orders. They said no, we can't accept your mother's documents. It was really shocking to me. You are supposed to accept any parent. The thing is that in Indian citizenship,... it is kind of by what it is not. Neither of your parents should be an illegal immigrant. They both don't have to be Indian. One could be an immigrant with a visa. But again none of this applies in Assam, under the NRC. Under the NRC, you have to show your blood line.

Mohan apparently remembered the law but didn't quite process it. This doesn't have anything to do with Assam. That is the law. An illegal immigrant doesn't have the ability to apply for citizenship, no matter whom she/he is married to. And the children with an illegal immigrant as a parent, well, they are illegal immigrants too. This isn't a special law for Assam. This is the law for the whole of India.

How the hell could this happen? It was the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, passed unanimously in the Rajya Sabha, and passed "without acrimony" in the Lok Sabha, with full support of the Indian National Congress. And, look at its coverage in The Hindu, the nation's best newspaper: 19 December 2003, 23 December 2003. Apparently a "dual citizenship" law was passed. So much for media "narratives"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing issue

An ongoing issue with this "background" information is that it is of questionable relevance to this topic. There are volumes of information on the treatment of religious minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh etc and most of it doesn't belong in this article. A simple proposal to keep this in check would be: use only sources that connect background information to CAA (with some exceptions). If a source doesn't even mention CAA then it is difficult to guarantee that the information it contains is relevant to this article and it will create disputes. This also alleviates any WP:SYNTH concerns. If an exception to this proposal is sought then the editor must explain why he/she is unable to find even a single WP:RS that ties the information to be included to CAA.Bless sins (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bless sins and what I said above is similar to this proposal. and just to be clear, by CAA we are referring to the CAA law that was passed in 2019, --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins: The new sources Kautilya3 and I are discussing do mention this Citizenship Act. If your comment is directed broadly to the background section, it is problematic. Because if you go through some of the cited sources, they make absolutely no mention of the Citizenship Act, either the original 1955, or discussions/attempts to amend it over the years, or this latest one. We will end up deleting a lot of content that Vanamonde and others added, something that will weaken this article. But, the specific summary Kautilya3 and I are discussing, it and additional sources I have meet your screen. @WBG and Vanamonde93: any additional suggestions on the today's suggestions above by Kautilya3? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No one cares if "a lot of content that Vanamonde and others added" gets deleted or if "a lot of content that MSW added" gets deleted . If the content fails to get consensus, it has to go. Bless sins and I have suggested a good starting point to trim the bloat and create a sensible background. Lets take it from there. A version satisfying this criteria should be created and proposed ON the TALK PAGE and NOT ON THE ARTICLE. After that we can discuss what gaping holes are there and what needs to be allowed even though it fails the criteria. The entire thread shows that MSW is intent on bloating this and all others want it cut down. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of content is unfortunate but part of the WP:BRD cycle. If I add content that is not relevant, it should be deleted too.Bless sins (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

POV tag

Sarah, can you explain what POV you think exists in the current Background section? That is necessary anyway since you have added a POV tag. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The POV issues in the Background section are the following:

• [a] the section presents just one side, the "persecution" is summarized as if it were a recent anachronistic claim, an allegation and the focus of only the BJP government (this is one sided, the RS say that both BJP and non-BJP governments (e.g. Congress senior leaders) have expressed similar views over the decades);
• [b] it does not present the background from high quality RS about the persecution, and thereafter the arrival and the continued presence of a large number of refugees of persecuted minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. These religiously persecuted minority groups of refugees in India, per RS, include both non-Muslims and Muslims. This is important as context to understand the later sections of this article, on both sides. That is, the parts of the Citizenship Amendment Act about non-Muslims such as Hindu, Sikhs, Christians etc; and the concerns of those challenging the Amendment because it does not include persecuted Muslim sects such as Ahmadiyya;
• [c] the perspective of religiously persecuted refugees in India, scholars, humanitarian groups, committees established by past governments, and activists who have studied the 1955 law mentioned in the 2nd-para of this section, and then petitioned for decades for an amendment to their Citizenship Act.

These I submit are relevant, due and important background material to this article that deserve a few sentences. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Re [a] I don't see where "persecution" is mentioned as an anachronistic claim. It is mentioned as a BJP line because BJP made it an electoral cause and later legislative matter. I have shown calculations elsewhere that Congress has admitted 23 million Hindus into India, persecuted or not, without ever making an issue of it. If BJP raises a hue and cry, we have to state it. What choice do we have? The 30,000 people that the BJP wants to take care of is comparatively a drop in the ocean. But the BJP wants to claim glory for it. So the glory, they get.

Re [b] As I have said previously, persecution in other countries should not be discussed in this article to any great extent, but the arrival of refugees can certainly be mentioned. The reason we are not yet doing so is that we don't have good data. We also don't have good information on how they have been integrated into India. See my section on #What is this law about?.

By the way, nobody is challenging the Amendment for the sake of Ahmadiyyas. The Adhmadiyyas just form a red herring to demonstrate that the law is discriminatory. The Hazaras probably form a more real herring, but their numbers are also small. But, nevertheless these example illustrate the principle, which seems entirely valid. The government has never explained why they deliberately excluded Muslims (if anybody really needs such an explanation). The opposition offered clause-by-clause amendments in the Joint Parliamentary Committe. And the BJP voted them all down. So, the BJP didn't accidentally stumble into this tarpit. They deliberately chose it.

Rec [c], I don't understand what you are getting at. If you provide citations, I will be glad to look at them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3: On [a], you write "It is mentioned as a BJP line because BJP made it an electoral cause and later legislative matter"; multiple high quality sources are also saying that several "key non-BJP and senior Congress leaders have promised/asked/demanded/proposed it as an electoral cause and legislative matter" recently and previous decades in the context of refugees and Citizenship Amendments; per NPOV, we should include all sides from these mainstream RS.

On [b], you write, "persecution in other countries should not be discussed in this article to any great extent"; I will accept a "brief extent" version: one that fairly summarizes the mainstream multiple RS on this, in their voice, i.e. the numerous RS written on India's 1955 citizenship law, which discuss the religious persecution of refugees who are in India, the need for an amendment to give the refugees their human rights, and to whom this new amended law applies, and whose persecution as mentioned in this legislation's preamble papers in their parliament; (note: the 1951 UN Convention definition of a refugee requires "persecution" of some sort (see page 3 of that UN document e.g.), it is an essential element ; so it is bizarre if you want to suppress that essential element; a few sentences in the background is a must). The numbers are not really that critical to this law article (i.e. whether 31,313 or 72,727... interesting, but a note suffices).

On [c], just read the sources, embedded quotes and efn notes here (first two para, ignore the last two). There are many more, but let us start with those.

Now a request: Can you explain your objections to the following: "Previously elected members of Indian parliament have discussed and urged the grant of citizenship to persecuted refugees from the minority communities in India's neighboring countries. For example, Manmohan Singh – former Prime Minister of India, in a 2003 parliamentary discussion on India's Citizenship Act, stated that "after the partition of our country, the minorities in countries like Bangladesh have faced persecution" and asked "Indian citizenship for persecuted refugees".[1][2][3]" Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That would be partial information. At the time Manmohan Singh made that statement he wasn't a "former prime minister". He was the leader of the opposition. If we add his statement, then we would need to explain what he did after he became the prime minister. If he did nothing, then we need to say that. We would also need to point out that before he became the prime minsiter, the BJP had amended the Citizenship Law, prohibiting "illegal migrants" from getting naturalised. So perhaps they tied his hand? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, we can briefly summarize and further clarify that additional background, per RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Manmohan Singh comment was apparently made during the Parliamentary discussion on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, which introduced for the first time the notion of "illegal immigrants" to the law. Manmohan Singh was clearly objecting to labelling refugees fleeing persecution as "illegal immigrants". A perfectly sensible thing to do. I would have thought Manmohan Singh's words would have been music to Advani's ears. But I can find nothing in the Bill that takes care of Manmohan Singh's concern.

I can find no further progress on these matters during Manmohan Singh's two terms. Of course, most of the news reports from then are not available online. I did find a stray report where Singh promised a delegation from Assam that he would implement the NRC. I know from elsewhere that they did a pilot in one district or something, and found lots of problems. The Supreme Court took charge of the NRC towards the end of his second term.

It is safe to say that there was full agreement between the Congress and the BJP on the need to exempt the refugees from "illegal immigrants". The only disagreement that arose later was on how the legislation should be worded. Pinging DBigXray, Winged Blades of Godric, Vanamonde93. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

More information is slowly coming up.

In 2012, the then CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat had written to Manmohan Singh, who was prime minister at the time, reminding him of his 2003 statement and urging him to make a suitable amendment in policy to allow “minority community refugees” easy citizenship.

I can't fathom why Congress did not amend the law at that time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• I'm not going through this point by point, because the substance of the text doesn't address the substance of my previous concern. Additional sources and additional detail can only be used when that detail fits within the narrative as framed by RS discussing the bill. If we find RS stating, in their own voice, that the Congress and the BJP have previously agreed upon the need to naturalize refugees, that's something we should add. The statements of politicians, regardless of affiliation, are typically meaningless, and should not be used. Politicians a) say things that bear no relation to their positions as documented by RS, b) typically support/oppose the government's actions based on whether they are affilated with the government or the opposition, and c) produce soundbytes on every bill and every activity of the government. Finally, a NPOV tag isn't supposed to be used as a badge of shame, but as a marker of a substantive dispute needing further attention to reach consensus. At this point, consensus on that section is clear; a large chunk of information on persecution is considered undue by at least six editors. You can try to change that consensus through discussion, MSW, but the tag isn't meant to exist until every user is happy with the page. I suggest you remove it as a gesture of good faith. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately that resolves nothing because we have no agreement on RS means. My position is that newspapers are only good for news, i.e., what they observe and report. They are not RS for constructing narratives. It has been obvious to me for a long time that the NRC necessitates CAA. Manmohan Singh pointed out that immediately in 2003, when NRC was first proposed. I don't see how it can be omitted. And, by the way, Manmohan Singh is not a run-of-the-mill "politician"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Vanamonde has conceded and agreed that "If we find RS stating, in their own voice, that the Congress and the BJP have previously agreed upon the need to naturalize refugees, that's something we should add." Vanamonde has clearly not read the scholarly sources – including the recent scholarly sources cited above, understandable given the "I don't have time" type messages they keep mentioning. Unlike Vanamonde, you Kautilya3, have clearly read far more relevant scholarly articles and RS on this. The NRC is not a recent BJP invention, nor are versions of CAA - per the scholarly literature. The Assam Accord did necessitate NRC, and their political parties and the Supreme Court championed it (its flawed implementation is a different matter). The NRC, as you correctly state, does necessitate CAA. The current article's background section is a very one-sided, misleading and it does not reflect the balanced view found in scholarship (= serious NPOV issues, if Vanamonde would find the hours to read the RS published in the last 40 years; so the tag will remain there V93). But, we may be on the verge of a collaborative break here: Vanamonde finally agrees we can use RS for such additions to the background, we have already found those RS. How about I add something and you read and double-check the sources I cite to confirm that the cites include peer-reviewed RS that meet our policies (and any reasonable concerns of Vanamonde in your review)? If you find that these are not RS of the type Vanamonde mentions, Kautilya3 can revert me wholesale and I will not reinstate the added sentences and cites. Will that be a collaborative way forward? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental problem I see is that MSW wants to add entire emmigration history right from early twentieth century to 2019, into the background section. Please create a seperate article and add everything you want there, spare this CAA from your proposed bloats. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, Kautilya3 and I are not discussing "entire emmigration history right from early twentieth century to 2019". We are discussing something far more specific and directly related to CAA in RS of quality equivalent to or better than those currently cited in the Background section. Let us just note that you did not make any reasoned objections to Kautilya3's comment above. (And once again, in future, please do include edit diffs when you make accusations; you DBigXray have a very bad habit of making false accusations and repeatedly misrepresenting me over the last few days. FWIW, I have never added or tried to add the "entire emmigration history from early twentieth century to 2019" to this article or anywhere in en-wiki. It is disappointing that someone like Vanamonde cares for your opinions and fails to objectively check and examine your wild allegations.) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A few points in response. 1) In the absence of more than 2 scholarly sources discussing this topic, we have to use high-quality media sources (BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc) for constructing the narrative here. Constructing it based on personal analyses of the topic isn't acceptable. If and when more scholarly sources come out, we can transition to those. 2) I don't particularly care if it was Manmohan Singh or the most junior MP in parliament; quotations in the media mean nothing (even if the politician is a particularly honest and upright one, media outlets are notorious for taking soundbytes out of context). We need substantive analysis of policy positions. As such, if there was agreement in the actual positions of the two parties (not just two politicians saying the same thing) then yes, that fragment would be worth adding. 3) That the NRC necessitates the CAA may be bloody obvious to anyone, but that's precisely why the NRC needs to be covered in background, as I've been arguing all along. That argument also has nothing to do with adding reams of information about persecution of non-Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which is what the POV tag was about. 4) MSW, the issues you raised haven't found any support here; that Kautilya and I cannot agree on certain things doesn't mean the tag is justified. Kautilya was the one who first challenged your use of it. 5) Given the history of revert warring on this article, and given that the persecution material doesn't have consensus at all at present, I would strongly recommend placing on the talk page first. 6) Since I'm an active editor of this article, and therefore am unable to take admin actions, I am going to ignore all personall commentary, because I'm not in a position to sanction it, and I'm not going running to the administrator noticeboards unless something truly egregious happens. But it's worth remembering that if this dispute does return to the admin noticeboards, everyone's behavior is going to be scrutinized. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Your comments are duly noted. If we do land up in admin/ARBCOM boards, everyone including you will be scrutinized. I have raised several concerns over the last 2 weeks, and provided RS including scholarly literature related to this law with embedded quotes. I am no longer discussing the original paragraphs that WBG trimmed to a shorter version. Now we have focused on a part of new paragraphs and new sources. Kautilya3 shows support above (please do not misstate). If 2+ scholarly sources is your benchmark, we can meet that too for the content Kautilya3 discusses/supports above. I will resume editing that section after confirmation that we accept a "2 or more scholarly sources" benchmark from either Kautilya3 or you or someone equally experienced with dispute-filled subjects. K3/Other editors: This is a law-related article, one about an "amendment". Laws and amendments typically have a history, scholarly discussions and a background behind why anyone wants to amend the law. This article suffers from serious WP:RECENTISM issues, where a one-sided narrative in breaking news articles/op-eds from select newspapers is being exclusively presented. That is not right. We need balance/NPOV/historical perspective. To make matters worse, summary from mainstream scholarship is being quickly reverted rather than welcomed, since December 26 with false accusations and nasty messages (see DBigXray's accusations and responses for samples). This is supposed to be an encyclopedic/reference article on an amended law. The views of notable leaders such as Manmohan Singh, of legal scholars and of others in peer-reviewed scholarly publications (yes, at least 2 or more RS) about the various attempts/discussions to amend their citizenship act are necessary for NPOV, for a better quality article, and something wikipedia's admins and ARBCOM has repeatedly affirmed in their past decisions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I hope you do understand that typing in all bold font makes one appear as a moron in the eyes of the reader. 2. whatever be your proposal, you have to propose on the "talk page" first, get consensus and only then should it be added to the article. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 00:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: Please dial down your hostility and abuse. Once again, useless, harassing comments such as "makes one appear as a moron" are not helpful here or to this project. Please see WP:TALK on how best to use this talk page. Let us focus on the content, the reliable sources and the essence of what Kautilya3, Vanamonde93 are saying, and weigh these based on our content policy framework please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, happy New Year to you. Can you review the changes made to the Background section and see if the POV tag is still warranted? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3: Thank you and same to you. I will review it in 1–2 days, hopefully later today. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I checked the sources cited in the 29 December version of this article. Some sentences were not supported by the sources at all, while a few needed a bit of rewording. I have made those corrections, and added a few scholarly sources. Please check the update and the sources. You are invited to revise it further. On the tag, please review and add a few sentences summary from scholarly sources such as one by Tetsuya Nakatani, Niraja Jayal, Haimanti Roy, and others on the history of refugee arrivals in India and the political limbo about their citizenship (all these scholarly RS have been published between 1990 and 2019). That will improve the balance/neutrality, reduce the WP:RECENTISM, and justify the tag's removal. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

New paragraph 1

Here is a new paragraph contributed by Ms Sarah Welch, which I think is too detailed:

On August 15 1985, after six years of violent protests against migrants and refugees in the northeastern states of India, the Assam Accord was signed between the the Indian government and the leaders of the Assam movement in the presence of Rajiv Gandhi. This accord, amongst other things, promised that the Indian government will deport all illegal aliens who had arrived after March 1971. A 1986 amendment to the Citizenship Act of 1955 was proposed and passed in 1986 by a Congress-led government. This amendment restricted the Indian citizenship to those born in India prior to 1987 to either a mother or a father who was an Indian citizen. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 1986 effectively blocked jus soli citizenship to the children of couples who were both illegal aliens and to second-generation refugees from citizenship rights in India. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 was proposed and amended by a BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government. It added further restrictions on citizenship, by adding a provision that denied Indian citizenship to those born to an "illegal migrant" parent. Under these citizenship laws, illegal immigrants are deemed to be the citizens of other countries who entered India without valid travel documents, or who remained in the country beyond the period permitted by their travel documents. In addition, in 1983, the Congress government passed the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, thereby establishing a system to detect and expel foreigners through tribunal proceedings. This Act was struck down by the Supreme Court of India in 2005, in part because it required Indian citizens to identify and initiate tribunal proceedings against illegal foreigners. The court ruled that the Act was a big impediment to the proper and effective implementation of the Assam Accord.

References

Comments to follow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• First of all, I firmly believe that this Amendment is a follow-up to the 2003 Amendment, which introduced "illegal immigrants" for the first time into the Citizenship law. What happened earlier is not directly relevant, even though it might be relevant to the NRC, which is a separate topic.
• Deporting illegal immigrants is normal practice all around the world, and it has been present in Indian law since the Foreigners Act, 1946. It is only the implementation that is under issue, not the legislation. The IMDT is a red herring.
• The fact that the illegal immigrants are not eligible for citizenship (which is key to the present amendment) has been lost somewhere.
• I think we really need to focus on what happened since 2003, not before. (Granted that there is very little information available about it. But we need to look.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Replying to each of your bulleted comments,

• This is an article on "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019". The 2016 amendment attempt, the 2003 amendment, the 1986 amendment, the citizenship-related provisions in the Assam Accord, and the 1955 Citizenship Act are directly relevant to the topic. If these earlier amendments/laws are not mentioned, the reader is misled to the impression that the first amendment ever that restricted citizenship rights came in 2003. That is not what the scholarly sources are saying, nor is that accurate/balanced view. A few sentences about the Assam Accord, 1980s legislative developments, are necessary for balance and completeness.
• You are right. This is old. But the version you reverted back to, states, "The [2003 amended] law provided provisions to deport or jail the illegal immigrants." There is a newspaper cite, but I do not see where that source is saying so. It is also wrong. If you review the scholarly sources, this was actually much older provision (as you note), with the most notable changes to the 1946 Act introduced in the 1980s.
• I support you adding an appropriate clarification. Please note that the 1986 amendment already has that language, removing the jus soli citizenship right etc. The 2003 amendment restricted that further. The 2003 amendment did not introduce the idea that "illegal immigrants are not eligible for citizenship". This was true before 2003, for a long time.
• There is a lot of information on the pre-2003 amendment of the Citizenship Act of 1955. See the sources I cited/mention above, for more. These amendments/Tribunal Act/etc were a consequence of the violent protests in Assam in late 1970s and early 1980s. Scholarly publications on the Assam Accord, post-1985, would be another relevant source.

I concur that the 2003 Amendment is relevant. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right that the restriction of jus soli citizenship started in 1986 (and this has a huge impact on the NRC). But the restriction that illegal immigrants (or their children) cannot ever become citizens was introduced in 2003. It is the latter problem that the 2019 amendment addressing. So, I am still not sure why we need to go into the pre-2003 history. I will await more input from the other page watchers. Meanwhile please free to create a page on Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986, which can be one click away. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of 2003 amendment, copied to Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003

@Kautilya3: Any scholarly source for "But the restriction that illegal immigrants (or their children) cannot ever become citizens was introduced in 2003 "? I see you included this in the new article Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 you created, in the lead and cited Mihika Poddar. But, I do not see this in there. Poddar writes, "To put this into context, illegal immigrants [note 7] are not eligible to apply for citizenship by naturalisation, being specifically excluded under s 6 of the Act." The [note 7] explains that "not eligible" part is in the 1955 Act. Please check and correct if appropriate, or explain where you are seeing this. I note that you cited 4 sources, but beyond Poddar the other two are not about the 2003 Act, and the 4th is a newspaper, something we should avoid given their casual/non-specialist/error-prone writing on law/complex topics. The Poddar source is RS. You can also check Jayal, Roy etc on this. Please consider replacing that incorrect information with the 11-year proviso in the 2003 Amendment, which is what I feel you might have had in mind. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Hi Sarah, the 2003 amendment has received very little attention from the media as well as scholars. Since all parties supported it, people apparently thought everything was nice and peachy. So, I checked the actual law. The Universal book gives the 2003 amendment in the first chapter, the amended 1955 law in the second chapter. The page numbers are for the PDF file from the UNHCR download. The clause is there in both section 5 (registration) and section 6 (naturalisation). The amendment to the section 3 (by birth) means that if either parent is an illegal immigrant, the children don't qualify for citizenship. So, they are de facto illegal and are liable to be deported etc. (Remember that that they have to live in India legally for seven years before they can even apply for citizenship.) Before 2003, these restrictions weren't there. The children of illegal immigrants could in theory apply for citizenship. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC) What is generally called the "1955 Act" is the version after applying all the amendments up to 2003. The footnotes generally tell you when the particular pieces of text were introduced in amendments. I haven't been able to find the original Act anywhere, but we have some idea of it from the books of Anupama Roy and Niraja Jayal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Found the original 1955 Act at legislative.gov.in, p.307– -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC) @Kautilya3: Jus soli was available prior to 1986, and the rules became more restrictive in 2003. In other words, pre-1986: Children born in India to illegal immigrants were citizens because they were born in India (jus soli). 1987-2003: Children born in India to a mother OR a father who is an Indian citizen were considered citizens. Post 2003: Children born in India to either illegal immigrant mother or father became ineligible for citizenship. However, Poddar isn't saying "the restriction that illegal immigrants cannot ever become citizens was introduced in 2003 ". This was already there in 1986. Poddar is explaining the first and second proviso under "the Act" – a term defined on page 108, in Introduction section, 4th line as the "1955 Act". On page 111, Poddar explains how Assam Accord necessitated this, and post-1971 rule about "illegal immigrants" (note too the "first time that religion was made an explicit..." part). For additional sources, see [a] Anupama Roy (search for "illegal migrants" if you do not have full access to the book); [b] this, #6 Citizenship by naturalisation, #19 Repeals and the footnotes. Yes, the 1955 pdf you linked is the original. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC) (ps) note the part in Anupama Roy's source about "the state government informed the court [in a 28 August 2000 affidavit] of the various appeals it had made to the central government for the repeal of the Act as well as for making appropriate amendment to the Citizenship Act 1955 in order to declare the children of the illegal migrants entering into India after 1971 as foreigners" . Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Hi Sarah, the first bullet point of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 states the introduction of "illegal immigrants" as part of this amendment, along with citations. I am pretty sure it wasn't there earlier. Your (ps) above in fact confirms that it wasn't there earlier. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC) You seem to be assuming that, if some piece of text is labelled as "The Citizenship Act, 1955", the text dates from 1955. Nothing of that sort. "1955" is part of the name of the Act. That is how lawyers operate. Don't ask me why. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC) @Kautilya3: No that was/is not my assumption. I was just identifying what Poddar means by "the Act". The repeal request is referring to the IMDT Act of 1983. There are two significant parts to your sentence, one about children of illegal migrant(s) and another about illegal migrant(s) themselves. We agree on the major impact of 2003 Amendment on the children born after 2003. What we disagree on is whether it was the 2003 Amendment or the 1986 Amendment that restricted if and how the illegal migrants can apply for naturalization. If I haven't missed something, nowhere does Poddar or Roy support "was introduced in 2003". Quote it here, if you can find something. Else, perhaps you can identify the footnote or something somewhere that indirectly supports the "introduced in 2003" part? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't realize that the Google Books isn't showing the page numbers for Anupama Roy's book. Here is the relevant quote from p.138: In 2003, we see alongside the transnational/overseas Indian citizen, the ‘illegal migrant’ figure in the Citizenship Act in the provision relating to citizenship by birth, making it exclusive and conditional. That is about all she says. (As I said previously, nobody understood what the 2003 Amendment meant until the Assam NRC happened, Anupama Roy included.) And, you have checked the Universal's page 2 for the Act itself, did you not? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Yes. In case you haven't, please do read the 1986 Amendment, Assam Accord and the IMDT Act 1983 at the minimum. You may find these comments made in 1986 interesting too, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Yeah, well, Rudolf and Rudolf called the Indian government a "paper tiger". But why did all these commentators go to sleep in 2003? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Revised paragraph 2

Second paragraph with new bits added (highlighted in red):

The "detection, deletion and deportation" of illegal migrants has been on the agenda of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) since 1996. In December 2003, a coalition led by BJP passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, which included a mandate to create and maintain a National Register of Citizens. The bill received the full support of the Congress and several other opposition parties in the Lok Sabha, and was unanimously approved in the Rajya Sabha. During the parliamentary debate on the amendment to the Citizenship Act, the leader in the Upper House Manmohan Singh – who later served two terms as the prime minister of India, stated that the refugees belonging to the minority communities in countries such as Bangladesh have faced persecution and requested that they should be granted citizenship more liberally.

References

Comments to follow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "coalition led by BJP" and "Congress and several other opposition parties" are technicalities. They are unnecessarily detracting.
• "Unanimously passed in Rajya Sabha" etc. are mentioned on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 page, which is linked. I am not sure why we need to repeat it here. I don't mind adding "Left parties" if we can find a source that says so.
• "who later serves two terms as prime minister". This is certainly important, but I am working on what actually happened in those two terms regarding this issue. My previous contribution was reverted by Vanamonde93. I intend to open a discussion about it. Please join us in that.
• "faced persecution" etc. is fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3: Replying here too, to each of your bulleted comments,

• This paragraph starts with "agenda of the Hindu nationalist" side. That is accurate and relevant. Yet, as you have noted in other threads on this talk page, their history and political positions on refugees/migrants/illegal aliens have been complex. By adding "Congress and several other opposition parties", as well as mentioning the unanimous support in their Upper House of parliament for the 2003 Amendment, the reader discovers that the support was broad and not limited to the "agenda". I encourage more clarification that there was a broad support for the 2003 amendment by their so-called "secular" or "non-nationalist" political parties.
• See above.
• Ok.
• Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Bhavnani, Nandita (2016). "Unwanted Refugees: Sindhi Hindus in India and Muhajirs in Sindh". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 39 (4): 790–804. doi:10.1080/00856401.2016.1230691.
• Kudaisya, Gyanesh (2006). "Divided Landscapes, Fragmented Identities: East Bengal Refugees and Their Rehabilitation in India, 1947–79". Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography. 17 (1): 24–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.1996.tb00082.x. ISSN 0129-7619.
• Nakatani, Tetsuya (2000), "Away from Home : The Movement and Settlement of Refugees from East Pakistan in West Bengal, India", Journal Of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 12: 73–, doi:10.11384/jjasas1989.2000.7
• Roy, Haimanti (2013), Partitioned Lives: Migrants, Refugees, Citizens in India and Pakistan, 1947-65, OUP India, ISBN 978-0-19-808177-7
• Roy, Rituparna (Summer 2009), "The Hungry Tide – Bengali Hindu refugees in the Subcontinent (Review)" (PDF), The Study (51)
• Bhattacharjee, Saurabh (1 March 2008), "India Needs a Refugee Law", Economic and Political Weekly, 43 (9): 71–75, JSTOR 40277209
• Scheel, Stephan; Squire, Vicki (2014), "Forced Migrants as 'Illegal' Migrants", in Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh; Gil Loescher; Katy Long; Nando Sigona (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, OUP Oxford, pp. 188–, ISBN 978-0-19-164587-7
• Poddar, Mihika (2018), "The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016: international law on religion-based discrimination and naturalisation law", Indian Law Review, 2 (1): 108–118, doi:10.1080/24730580.2018.1512290
• Sarker, Shuvro Prosun (2017), Refugee Law in India: The Road from Ambiguity to Protection, Springer, ISBN 978-981-10-4807-4

I think that FAQs for CAA released by Government ought to be put in this section. The given source links are secondary and reliable. And the personal response of Modi on this matter should be removed from this section. ~~ 203.192.204.129 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that FAQs for CAA released by Government ought to be put in this section. The given source links are secondary and reliable. And the personal response of Modi on this matter should be removed from this section. ~~ Abhishekaryavart (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Islam as state religion of Pakistan

Ms Sarah Welch restored this[9]

...Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are "Muslim-majority countries" where Islam has been declared as the official state religion through constitutional amendments in recent decades...

It was sourced to a BBC article[10]. But that same article also notes that

However, all these countries have constitutional provisions stating that non-Muslims have rights and are free to practise their faith.

If the constitutions of Pakistan and Bangladesh are discussed then WP:NPOV requires having all significant viewpoints. There is another article in Indian Express that discusses Pakistan's constitutional provisions regarding religious minorities[11]. A compromise wording could be something like:

Pakistan and Bangaldesh are Muslim-majority countries where Islam is the state religion and theeir constitutions also guarantees freedom of religion to minorities.

Bless sins (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It is better if we stick to what the source is stating. I have added that to the main, wording and attributing it to the source, plus avoiding WP:Synthesis issues. The lead should remain as it is, per WP:Lead guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that, but it seems repetitive and I will try a different wording.Bless sins (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

For now I've removed this from the lead[12]. If anyone puts it back in the lead, then it should be covered more neutrally, using either my wording or Ms Sarah Welch's wording[13] or some other reasonable alternative.Bless sins (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins: The NPOV is with respect to the reliable sources, nothing else. We can't suppress or dilute the arguments from one side, just because our editors from India or Pakistan or wherever feel bad or proud about their country, or just because one side is partly right or wrong. All we can do is to summarize from the reliable sources as to who/why/how/when they are wrong. It, frankly, does not matter whether a constitution has a line or two about people being free to practice another faith, if the quality, mainstream peer-reviewed reliable sources are stating that Ahmadis, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc are being systemically persecuted for their religious beliefs and Churches/etc blown up. The lead must follow WP:LEAD guidelines. It is a short summary of the entire article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bless sins in this discussion. Either we state both facts or we state none. This WP:COATRACKING has been going on at other places as well. it is as if this article is being used to take pot shots at Pakistan and other countries. this is unacceptable POV pushing. I support entirely removing the disputed content. Use a link to the respective article if you need to. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the information is not being removed from the article, but rather left in the body rather than the lead. The Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are not so important to this topic as to merit inclusion in the lead. Not all information in the article merits inclusion in the lead.Bless sins (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Pls add FAQ provided by government and put all facts on wikipedia and ppl will make their own opinion. Wikipedia is not place for spreading one sided propaganda and as of now the article is completely biased and propaganda based Abhishekaryavart (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

What is this law really about?

There is already a section in the Citizenship Act (Section 5 - Citizenship by registration), which gives an unlimited scope for the government to admit people of all religions from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

As far as citizenship by registration is concerned, a person of Indian origin, that is, if he or either of his parents were born in undivided India and who was ordinarily resident in India for five years before applying (p.38) for citizenship, is entitled to be an Indian citizen by registration. Under this type, the following categories of persons can seek citizenship: (1) persons of Indian origin resident in any country by following a set of procedures; (2) a person married to a citizen of India and resident in the country for five years immediately before making an application; (3) minor children of persons who are Indian citizens; and (4) persons of full age and capacity of a country specified in Schedule I (Commonwealth countries) of the Citizenship Act 1955.

So, it does not seem that any new amendment was necessary to admit these people. So why was this done?

At the moment I can think of two reasons:

• The devil in the detail: What the scholars have clubbed under "set of procedures" are not satisfiable by these people. There is in fact a residence requirement as well, which is either seven years or five years depending on which source we are looking at. Most passports don't last that long. So, sooner or later they become "illegal immigrants". There could be other people who are genuinely "illegal immigrants", i.e., they did not have travel documents and never made any effort to register or contact the authorities. It seems that, once they are labelled as "illegal immigrants", they become ineligible for citizenship. The government already passed an order in 2015 making such people "legal". (These are the famous "exemptions", based on religion and grounds of persecution.) Once they are legal, they should be qualified for citizenship and so, again, it is not clear why an amendment was necessary.
• Problem with "Indian origin": The 2016 Bill had this in its Statement of Objects and Reasons:

Many persons of Indian origin including persons belonging to the aforesaid minority communities from the aforesaid countries have been applying for citizenship under section 5 of the Act, but are unable to produce proof of their Indian origin. Hence, they are forced to apply for citizenship by naturalisation under section 6 of the Act, which, inter alia, prescribes twelve years residency as qualification for naturalisation in terms of the Third Schedule to the Act.... It is proposed to amend the Third Schedule to the Act to make applicants belonging to minority communities from the aforesaid countries eligible for citizenship by naturalisation in seven years instead of the existing twelve years.

Being unable to prove Indian origin is entirely understandable. Once they have left their country of origin, there is no chance in hell that they would be able to obtain birth certificates to prove their origin. This seems like a mere technicality, but one that the government takes seriously enough that it cannot give them citizenship by registration. Instead it wants to given them citizenship by naturalisation. Hence it wants to reduce the residence requirement for this particular class of people in line with those for the "citizenship by registration" class. (This makes nonsense of the newspaper commentaries that they were being "fast-tracked".)

But, once again, nothing stops the government from giving them citizenship by naturalisation after the prescribed residence period. So there is no big necessity for the amendment here either.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Everything I have read since this post convinces me that this Act wasn't really needed. In 2003, they didn't think it was needed. Manmohan Singh had requested that the persecuted minorities should be treated more liberally, and Advani had agreed. It seems to have been assumed that the executive orders would take care of it.

Anupama Roy states, "the CAB sought to bring the citizenship law in line with the executive orders and rules issued by the government in 2015". But there was nothing to bring in line. The 2016 CAB had only two clauses. The first was a repeat of the executive order, viz., that these people would not be regarded "illegal immigrants". The second clause said the residence requirement would be six years instead of eleven. The justification given for this was this was that these people were unable to prove their "Indian origin" (which would make them eligible for citizenship by registration). So they were forced to apply for naturalisation, which requires eleven years. So the only reason for the CAB in 2016 was to get the residence requirement reduced for naturalisation.

But the Bill went to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, where it got policised. The BJP was likely trying to make a show of how they were rescuing persecuted Hindus. But the politics badly backfired. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

References

India is for Hindus

But scholars point out that this apparent religious neutrality was illusory. Indian legislation on citizenship has always been informed by the idea of "India is for Hindus".

References

Hi Kautilya3, regarding this line above added by you here I would like to discuss if this is a widely held view or only of this author. IMHO this is highly controversial and feel that this is not the WP:MAINSTREAM view but more of the right wing WP:FRINGE view. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 18:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that practically everybody that has studied Indian citizenship laws and rules comes to the same conclusion, except that this lady said it in more explicit terms than the others. "India is for Hindus" does not mean "India is for Hindus only". It just means that India consistently accommodates the Hindus that want to come and settle in India, especially from other part of the "undivided India". It is there in the Constitution itself if you care to see it. But it is cleverly couched in neutral terms. You have to dig into it to figure out what it really means. And this paper does that.

By my calculation, the Congress party has accommodated 23 million Hindus that fled Pakistan and Bangladesh over the decades. Let them tell us how many Muslims they accommodated. I would guess no more than a few hundred would have been genuinely naturalised. (Of course, millions have been accommodated illegally and they have formed the vote banks for Congress, CPM and TMC in West Bengal and Assam.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I will add some more quotes below as I find them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Chapter 2 argues that the tension between these two conceptions of citizenship was present from the founding moment of the republic, and, with the passage of time, citizenship laws are increasingly rather than decreasingly informed by the divisive legacy of the Partition. Through a survey of the evolution of laws on citizenship, and of the jurisprudence on the subject, the book argues that this bias is most visible in the manner in which law and policy have negotiated the question of Bangladeshi (Muslim) immigrants, as also in the manner in which the claims of wealthy diasporic Indians (mostly Hindus) have been sought to be accommodated.

References

If it is as you say that "It just means that India consistently accommodates the Hindus that want to come and settle in India," then perhaps we should clarify this clearly if we add this into the article, currently it is giving an impression that India is for Hindus only and the Muslim residents need to be thrown out of India (which is a right wing view). --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I think we need to be more careful about the right wing view. They want to throw out the Muslim "illegal immigrants". That is what the law says they should do. And they didn't make that law. So, what do you mean by the "right wing view"? Whoever made that law was of that view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, they did make that law in 2003. So I will need to recalibrate my whole world view. Give me some time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Flyby note:- I don't agree with Kautilya's addition or specifically the framing of it. However, it has been a fact that India's legislation on issues of immigration (and accompanying political stances adopted by a multitude of parties across the divide) have indeed favored the Hindu community, though often in quite nuanced manners (rather than the brazen polarizing nonsense, BJP is indulging in). There is an excellent book by N. G. Jayal on this locus (and the overall domain of citizenship in India), which ought be a necessary read. ∯WBG^converse 06:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have quoted from Jayal's book too above. There is also Anupama Roy's book which makes similar points. But the paper I cite brings it all together as a context for this bill. So it is entirely relevant and proper.

The Congress party knows how to play the secular game while doing the same thing that the BJP does. What stopped it from giving citizenship to the 12 million Bangladeshi migrants that it knew existed? See a quote below from the Assam PCC president which sounds as if it is taken right out of the BJP playbook. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3: You write, "By my calculation, the Congress party has accommodated 23 million Hindus that fled Pakistan and Bangladesh over the decades". Where are these calculations? By "accommodated", do you mean "not deport" or do you mean gave something equivalent to the "Indian citizenship"? Any sources? If you are referring to the Nakatani paper, which page? Based on what I have read so far – e.g. the Rizwana Shamshad source published by Oxford Univ Press, if my memory serves me right – the sources say that the past state governments led by Congress/CPI/TMC leaders gave the Bangladeshi refugees/migrants ration cards, voter ID and other paperwork, but not Indian citizenship. This has been a major political issue in Assam, Tripura, WB, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, essentially, accommodated = not deported/detained/sanctioned. I don't know what they did by way of citizenship. Until 1987 it was not an issue because the jus soli citizenship operated for their children. But now it has become an issue. I haven't studied the Rizwana Shamshad book (don't know why it didn't show up in my searches). If you have precise information about these issues please consider adding them to Refugees in India and/or Illegal immigration to India. Those articles are in poor shape. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, about 23 million, please search for "3 million" and "20 million" on this talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, they and related articles are in appalling shape. Does your 3+20 million calculation assume that "if there was no exodus, the % would approximately be constant" and that the difference reflects net migration? If so, that need not be so. The fertility rates, among other things, have significantly varied among the religious groups in South Asia (1, 2 (Figure 1 and Table 2), 3, etc). This can partially explain the difference and the falling % non-Muslims in Bangladesh and Pakistan between 1951 and 2011. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this assumes the same population growth rate as in the original countries. Please keep in mind that it is a ballpark estimate, not meant to be a precise figure of anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That significantly higher # of children per Muslim woman than # of children per Christian/Hindu/Sikh/etc woman in Bangladesh/Pakistan account for a big part of that 3+20 million over 60 years. This fertility rate was much higher in the 1950s and 1960s, for all groups, than in the 1990s and 2000s. I hope no one has added, or used, or will use, any of this 20+3 million first guess estimate or logic in this or another related wikipedia article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Twice the article states that "scholars point out...Indian legislation on citizenship has always been informed by the idea of "India is for Hindus'". But the source only quotes a single scholar. Are there other scholars as well who share this view?Bless sins (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Even as some scholars might believe "India is for Hindus", that has to be balanced with reliable sources claiming that CAA is the "first time" religion has been used as a criteria for Indian citizenship.[14][15]Bless sins (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To say the "first time", the source must be a WP:HISTRS. In general, WP:SCHOLARSHIP always ranks higher than a newspaper commentary, a lot higher. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have removed the removed the sentence in question. First, I'm unsure if this specific idea (citizenship law, specifically, has favoured Hindus) has wider support. Second, the author's arguments are fairly complex; a single sentence doesn't do them justice. The conclusion of the paper is that the CAB is still reinforcing the "India for Hindus" idea, whereas the sentence added has the effect of exculpating the present government from any responsibility for that concept. Third, I'm concerned about synthesis, as before. The narrative in RS about this bill refers to the Constitution and citizenship law as written, and points out that the CAA changes that from religion-neutral to religion-aware. It says nothing of the intent behind the law or of how it was enforced in practice. This paper is, on the other hand, about intent and motivation. Contrasting the two is tending to original research, because all it's really doing is saying that discrimination against non-Hindu populations in India has been common (which is just stating the bloody obvious). As such, if we use this paper (and I'd support that) we've to make sure we're presenting the author's chief point; that this bill fits in with a history of conceiving of India for Hindus. And I for one would like to see that text gain consensus here before being added. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that after considering the arguments above, I agree with the removal. If someone would now like to get some version of it back into the article, they wil need to propose it on the talk and gain consensus per WP:BRD--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are right about Jayal's book published by Harvard Univ Press. It is RS. He is indeed stating what you write above, "the tension between the two conceptions of citizenship was present from the founding moment of the [Indian] republic, and, with the passage of time, citizenship laws are increasingly rather than decreasingly informed by the divisive legacy of the Partition" (page 14, part of your quote). The real discussion is on pages 52–64. He mentions the impact of Pakistan civil war in 1971, and how the mass influx of Bangladeshi migrants/refugees affected the views of the national leaders. He provides more depth than Sharma, but essentially is saying what you wrote. I also checked the Rodrigues 2008 source in Bhargava (ed), the Sadiq 2009 source, and the Roy 2010 source. These support your comments. Jayal does not quite agree with them, presents a more nuanced view, emphasizing the Muslim and non-Muslims as the perceived primary fault line of the religious difference, particularly since the issue came to the forefront in the 1980s (Assam Accord and the rest). Jayal provides the history of the Act, from different sides and those who opposed/denied the "religious angle". Then writes Jayal (page 61), "Nothwithstanding these denials, the question of citizenship remained deeply imbricated in religion, and closely linked to property" and "Discouraging the putative (Muslim) citizen from returning was thus a dominant theme in the formulation of Article 7 of the [Indian] Constitution". Here is more history:

1. The issue of refugees in India began to be discussed as the partition of British India into a Muslim state (Pakistan) and non-Muslim state (India) became a likely development in the 1940s. In a July 21, 1947 letter to Krishna Das, for example, Mahatma Gandhi wrote, "Jinnah Saheb has himself said that non-Muslims will have the same place in Pakistan as the Muslims. But it remains to be seen whether or not such a policy is implemented. The poor Hindus who will migrate owing to oppression will certainly be accommodated in India. But this much is certain that they will have to labour for their bread." – Mahatma Gandhi

2. "However, the religion-based divide that had informed many of the submissions before the Assembly, seem to be finding ground in recent changes to the citizenship law. Several amendments to the citizenship law and political developments have started to reflect a shift towards a more exclusionary jus sanguinis notion" – Mihika Poddar, India Law Review (2018)

3. "Veteran Congress leaders such as Nalini Ranjan Sarkar and Kiran Sankar Roy, both originally hailing from eastern Bengal but had made their political career in Calcutta, publicly voiced their reasons for supporting the movement. In a series of public lectures and essay in major newspapers, Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, a veteran of the 1905 anti-Partition movement, assured those Hindus who would surely become part of Pakistan in the event of the division that, “In a divided Bengal those Hindus who might be left in East Bengal should have this satisfaction that West Bengal as a separate province would be there as a safe home for Hindu culture and economic interests" – Haimanti Roy, Modern Asian Studies (2009)

So, what Kautilya3 explains above is not the view of just Sarma, or a fringe view. It is at least a significant mainstream view that should be included for NPOV, with attributions and in their voice. But, I must say, that the other side "India is secular" is also in many sources, but Indian secularism "does NOT" mean "separation of religion and state, or religion and law". Indian secularism means something entirely different than what it means in the West (or Japan/Australia/etc). FWIW, I have skipped quite many more sources, Kautilya3, this is already too long a reply. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Poddar's statement above is what Jayal (Niraja - "she") calls consensus view, which "while not incorrect", misses the much more complicated history of the Indian legislation of citizenship. Both Chetana Sharma and Niraja Jayal discuss how the constitution itself is apparently secular but has hidden meanings which you only understand if you know the whole history. I didn't know, until I read these discussions, that the constitution had prescribed two modes of naturalisation, one for "undivided India" and another for the rest of the world. If that is not jus sanguinis then what is? They also point out, for example, that Muslims and non-Muslims were distinguished by euphemisms, such as "refugees" for one and "evacuees" for the other.

Unlike them, I don't think these were necessarily bad ideas. They are inevitable consequences of the Partition. I don't bemoan the so-called "legacy of Parition". India is a product of Partition, and it has to accept it and live with it. India doesn't become any less secular by accepting Hindus and other non-Muslims from the "undivided India". The foreign authors like Nakatani and Kamal Sadiq are able to write much more sensitively and impartially than the Indian authors because they are not saddled with these prejudices.

Coming back to the issues at hand, I think the Washington Post claim should be either junked or immediately contradicted with the informed scholarly view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3: An informed, mainstream summary from these scholarly sources should be included. I am neutral to junking or keeping the newspaper op-ed. FWIW, newspaper op-eds by authors who have no major well-received scholarly book on the topic, are little more than blog-like opinions, one typically limited by space/word-limits. The selection of the author, and the op-ed piece does not go through the kind of scholarly peer-review that journals and university press publications go through. Between the above sources, I favor Jayal more, her discussion of the history of their Citizenship law and revisions/amendments is more thorough. Others can be 2nd/3rd/etc cites. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Kamal Sadiq (2009), Oxford University Press, writes

While a majority of the Bangladeshi refugees returned [after the 1971 Pakistan civil war] to their homes, many Bangladeshi Hindus and Muslims stayed in India. The strengthened Bangladeshi ethnic networks facilitated large flows into the Northeast Indian region, particularly Assam. This led to tremendous anti-immigrant agitation and violence during the mid-1980s, which resulted in the Assam Accord. The centerpiece of this accord was a new section of the constitution, 6A, which was meant to exclude Bangladeshi illegal immigrants from claims to Indian citizenship. Almost forty years after independence, the citizenship law was amended in 1986 and again in 1992. Jus soli would apply only to those born prior to the first amendment; those born in India after 1986 can claim citizenship only if one of their parents is a citizen of India at the time of their birth. The need to protect Indian citizenship from the encroachments of Bangladeshi illegal immigrants was made even more explicit in the 2004 amendment. A new clause was introduced into the Citizenship Act, which states that the right to citizenship by birth specifically excludes any individual whose parent was an illegal migrant at the time of his/her birth. Those gaining Indian citizenship were now assuredly of Indian descent, coming from Indian parentage and nationality. The exclusionary impact of jus sanguinis circumscribed the demos of Indian citizenship from the unwanted influence of illegal Bangladeshis.

– Paper Citizens: How Illegal Immigrants Acquire Citizenship in Developing Countries, (page 10)

The 2019 amendment is built on the 2004 amendment of the Citizenship Act, which itself was one more step after the 1992 and the 1986 amendments (by Congress-led governments). The Jus soli principle was already crumbling in the 1980s. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Sadiq's book makes it clear how the exercises like NRC are self-defeating, because the "illegal immigrants" know how to play this game better than the Indians do. So, by making the requirements harder and harder for people to prove their citizenship, the Indian state would be putting its own people through misery while the "illegal immigrants" will skim through them perfectly fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, a quick one-sentence summary is the New York Times catch line:

India makes naturalization harder for Muslims

While the NYT believes that this has happened now, the scholars say that was always the case from the time of independence. The Indian laws were so engineered that it would be easier for non-Muslims to come and settle in India, while it would be harder for Muslims to do so. Since the means to do this covertly change over time, the Citizenship law was amended repeatedly. Also, a lot of this was done "off-the-book" by amending the "Rules" through which the law is implemented. The Rules can be amended by executive fiat without the public knowing anything about it.

Even now, the game could have been played by replacing the line:

any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan

by

any person belonging to religious minorities of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan

That is all it takes. Then the New York Times and Washington Post could not have claimed that "Muslims are excluded". The difference between the BJP and Congress just amounts to this choice of wording. That is how the game is played, while the intent being the same. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC) While we are on this subject, let me also note that the 2016 bill had subtly different wording

persons belonging to minority communities, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan

Some of the sources commented on this wording even though they were ostensibly talking about the 2019 bill. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Congress U-turn

April 2012: Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi had submitted a memorandum to the then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh on April 20, 2012, pleading that Indian citizens who had to flee due to discrimination and religious persecution at the time of partition, should not be treated as foreigners.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

June 2015: At an executive meeting of Assam Pradesh Congress committee (APCC) held recently, APCC president Anjan Dutta said, "We will take up the unresolved issue of citizenship for the Bengali Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and people of other minority communities who came to Assam after being subjected to inhuman torture post the partition of India.”

Dutta added, "These people were citizens of undivided India and they were forced to flee their own homes for saving their lives after being subjected to atrocities on the grounds of religion. The APCC urges the Centre to grant citizenship to all such people, taking into consideration historical reality and the humanitarian aspect."

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

October 2016: The former chief minister [Tarun Gogoi] said, “I don’t see the minorities in Bangladesh facing any persecution or other atrocities. If such things are really happening there, why hasn’t the Modi government taken it up with the Bangladesh government? Modi should have informed the Hasina government about the atrocities taking place in her country against religious minorities or he should have raised the issue of human rights violations in Bangladesh in international forum. Similar persecutions are taking place in Pakistan too. Why hasn’t he raised it?"

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Government FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act

on 19 December 2019 and later - why not accepted even though widely covered by Indian media

This article at present is hugely biased and has multiple issues. I will list some of them below.

1. If there is no neutrality in an article, meaning that all points from all sides are not represented, then is consensus any good?

I ask this because it can happen in many cases that all the viewpoints are not represented, but there is some consensus in a small or big group of people on that issue. This can especially happen in political topics where people can have a conflict of interest. And consensus on an issue with insufficient viewpoints from all parties involved, does such a non-informed consensus have any meaning ?

2. Why Government response of FAQs on this issue released on 19 december 2019 and later is not allowed in this Wikipedia article ?

Government has released two lists of FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act on 19 December 2019 and even later, with aim of responding to objections and questions on this subject. This was widely covered by Indian media. These are written and more reliable compared to speeches. But that has been rejected when I tried to add those, saying those are poor sources or branding them as "Original research", even though they were from Indian media. I will give some specific links here, please comment whether they are acceptable or not along with detailed reasons -

a) https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279

b) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/what-is-nrc-national-register-of-citizens-documents-required/articleshow/72922238.cms

c) https://www.sentinelassam.com/top-headlines/government-clarifies-as-citizenship-amendment-act-stir-intensifies-across-the-country/

d) https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html

3. Why it is not allowed to tell that Congress was the first who said in Rajya Sabha that law for persecuted minorities should be made ?

a) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/bjp-digs-up-manmohan-speech-seeking-citizenship-for-persecuted-refugees/articleshow/72894010.cms

4. Why Government response to charge of exclusion is not allowed ?

a) https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/caa-not-against-muslim-community-of-india-nitin-gadkari-1630555-2019-12-22

First time, I edited this article, within minutes my edit was reverted saying that "Pov edits with poor sourcing, discuss on the talk page please" Ironically, the user who reverted my edits, posts on my talk page as well accusing my edits of "original research". I request on the talk page of that editor to give few examples of my edits which were poor sources. No response comes.

Then, I again spend several hours to go through all the links and try to improve on the links. And my second edit is also reverted in similar manner with the editor asking me to post on talk page while himself posting on my talk page accusing me of "edit warring". The irony here is that this editor himself has history of block due to edit warring. This shows how much civility and wikipedia policies are really followed by senior editors here. I think Wikipedia is good site. But all this poor management tarnishes its reputation severely.

Edit - Since editors have asked to raise points one by one and since this thread has become very long, raising these issues in other new threads like this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#1st_para_of_%22Indian_government_response%22_references_Modi_instead_of_Indian_Government

Kmoksha (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

All edits to Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. So you need to be able to argue for the necessity and correctness of each edit you make. Until you become experienced, it is best to make small edits, one paragraph at a time so that they can be considered individually. Do not delete sourced content unless you are able to justify it here. Do not touch the lead until you have a complete understanding of MOS:LEAD.

Governments do not have any special place on Wikipedia. We are neither obliged to report what they state, nor to support it or oppose it. We report what reliable sources say.

Here is the revert of your first edit. Please pick the most important issue you think there was and discuss it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. My first query was regarding Consensus versus Neutrality. What if there is consensus and no neutrality for the source links.

I have listed 6 links here which are most important. I would like to know why these links are reliable or not-reliable. They are all from Indian media. I quoted entirely from them. If 6 links are too much, you can pick the first one or two in order of descending. Since the allegations are on the Government, are the responses by the Government not required for sake of neutrality ?

Kmoksha (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Kmoksha please read and understand more about WP:PRIMARY sources. I agree that this must not be included into the article. The government is blatantly contradicting itself. The lies of this Government seems to have no bounds. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have read that. All these links are from media sources, so are secondary. Are written and published statements not more reliable than oral ones. Politicians often give one kind of speech on one day and another on another day. And the article has covered the contradictions of speech of Government. But my question, are these links secondary or primary and why, please give detailed reason for at least first one or two.

Kmoksha (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, In this case they will actually be considered WP:MIRROR source of the government site. Govt. is the real source--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The link given by you in previous comment regarding Mirror is talking about Wikipedia Mirrors- "Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia. " I would request you to talk about the links themselves which are not Wikipedia links like this one for example, why this is non-reliable in your opinion - https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279

Kmoksha (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

yes, The link is about WP mirrors. but I said "Mirror source of the Government" in this case. Sorry if the link caused confusion. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not find any Wikipedia policy like you mentioned "Mirror source of the government site" I do not see any Wiki policy restricting a source which is just quoting the website which is what this link is doing - https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279 Would request again to speak about existing things and not on non-existing things and policies.

Kmoksha (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said before, we are not obliged to report what the government says. I am sure all the journalists in India have seen it and they will take it into account in writing their write-ups. If some of it gets reflected in the news stories, then it might make it into Wikipedia. Coming directly from the government, it is of no value to Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 As I said before, point here is not to oblige government or not to oblige but point here to ensure that the wiki article is neutral, having viewpoints, at least from major parties involved. When allegations are made on Government, why not put properly the Government response to those allegations ? Also, please tell what is your opinion regarding the reliability of links mentioned by me here. For example, for this one - https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279 Kmoksha (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Govt said that NRC will come after CAA in parliament. After few days, Govt Also said that there is no talk of NRC. Govt never said that they have made a U turn and they will no longer bring NRC. Government is misleading the public. This is not GovernmentPedia. Wikipedia is not obliged to mislead the public. We will add what reliable WP:MAINSTREAM media sources are covering. Some of the content is specifically not being added so as to avoid confusion that the Government intends to create by bringing in this leaflet at the same time approving NPR. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 18:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To answer your direct question, this source is reliable for making an attributed statement of the form "Government says XYZ". But it is not a reliable source to decide whether such a statement should be made or not. For that you need WP:SECONDARY sources (i.e., independent analysts/commentators who have demonstrated expertise in the subject). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray I have already mentioned in my previous comment that let the article have the contradictions in speeches by the Government. But why not have the written, released statement by the Government, which was covered and analyzed widely by the media ? Written statement cannot be changed as frequently as oral statements, so is it not more reliable ? Why not to make article neutral to avoid a OnesideoPedia article. In your opinion, is this link from a mainstream media or not - https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279

@Kautilya3 In order to have a better understanding of what is secondary source link, can you please tell that in your opinion, is this link secondary source or not - http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf

Kmoksha (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I said independent analysts/commentators who have demonstrated expertise in the subject. What part of that is not clear?

Wikipedia is a WP:TERTIARY source, written by summarising WP:SECONDARY sources. If you want to write a SECONDARY source commentary, please submit it to a newspaper or magazine. You can't do it here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Examples make things clear. So, in your opinion, is this link secondary source - http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf

Kmoksha (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The answer is no. In future, please take all such basic questions to WP:Teahouse. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Teahouse is not for opinions as far as I understand and I asked your opinion. So, as per your opinion, this is NOT a secondary source link - http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf but surprisingly this link is referenced six times in the article. Can you please tell the reason for doing so.

Kmoksha (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mostly done by newbie editors who don't know better. They will be eventually replaced by other citations, when we get time.

The citations where the text is directly quoted will remain, as per the policy on WP:PRIMARY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

So, for direct quoting, you are using Primary sources in the article. This makes sense because policy has to be quoted correctly, otherwise the meaning will change and that will ruin the article. Even one word changes the meaning completely. Your given link of previous comment for 'Primary link' says that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Coming to the links mentioned in my opening comment like this link - https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279 , you will find that they fit your definition of secondary sources. Your given definition of secondary source - "independent analysts/commentators who have demonstrated expertise in the subject." These links have analysis in their titles and text by independent persons or media - some have more and some have less analysis but all those links have analysis in them. So, they are secondary source links.

Now, please tell that in your opinion, are written statements more reliable or oral statements more reliable and why ?

Kmoksha (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what "oral statements" you are talking about. You started this section asking why not tell the government view? Are you still asking for the government view, or somebody else's view? If it is somebody else, then who? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

There is also the problem that you are mostly talking about the NRC, whereas this is the page on CAA. On this page, nothing about the NRC has yet been said. So what are you on about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have also advised you to pick the most important issue in the edit that was reverted and discuss it. Till now, you have not raised any. Are you satisfied with the revert, or do you have a problem with it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Context is same - "Government FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act" Let me rephrase my question asked - "please tell that in your opinion, are written Government statements more reliable or oral Government statements more reliable and why ?"

Your accusation that "you are mostly talking about the NRC" is untrue. I am talking about CAA, not about NRC. National NRC procedures have not yet been released, so makes no sense to talk about that.

You have asked me about the most important issue which was reverted. I have already told about that. The title says the most important issue - "Government FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act". Edits on this were reverted saying that this is "Original research" and "poor sources" without giving even few examples of "poor sources", so I listed some links used and we are discussing here opinions about those sources.

So, if the question is clear, I would request to give your opinion regarding the written Government statements being more reliable or oral Government statements are more reliable along with your reasoning.

Kmoksha (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else would like to answer this question - "please tell that in your opinion, are written Government statements more reliable or oral Government statements more reliable and why ?"

Kmoksha (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

depends on the situation. A statement made in the parliament which always gets published in the records of the parliament are considered more reliable than PM doing a rally on Ramlila ground and claiming that No NRC exist. You can approach court using the parliament records but you probably cant do the same with rally statements. Also note, All government sources are primary. Secondary sources should be used whenever possible. But it also depends on the content. If you want to reference the statement in the parliament it is acceptable to link the parliament records, even though they are government sources. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

"Sectarian, not religious"

This source claims that attacks on Ahmadiyya Muslims are "sectarian, not religious"[16]. What does that mean?Bless sins (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I had the same Question. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It means, Ahmaddiya are viewed to be a sect of Islam (the position of India/UK/many countries), and they are not non-Muslims or a different religion (the position of Pakistan). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

They are a different religious sect of Islam. The differences between them and other sects of Muslims are religious in nature, not racial or linguistic. Is the BJP Parliamentarian denying this? Does she have a more detailed explanation for her views elsewhere?Bless sins (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

In the Indian legal framework, Shia, Sunni, Ismaili, Nurbakhshia, Bohra, as well as Ahmadiya would be regarded as sects of Islam. They are not separate religions. The Muslim Personal Law applies to all of them, not others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion of the term "sectarian" in the English language. "Sectarianism" refers to more than just division on the basis of religious sect; it can also refer to divisions along other lines (e.g. Hindu-Muslim violence can be considered "sectarian"). Similarly there is confusion over the English term "religious". "Religious" can mean relating to a religion or relating to religion in general. "Religious persecution" includes, for example, persecution of Muslims, but also persecution of Muslim sects. There are plenty of scholarly sources in the English language that use "religious persecution" to describe the persecution of minority sects by majority sects in the same religious group.Bless sins (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have explained the meanings of the terms as used in the Indian legal framework. I am confident that this was the meaning in which Meenakshi Lekhi used them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please make a diagram for the article?

Can someone please make a diagram? Even a simple pen and paper one will do (can be converted later). A diagram of the history-tree of the CAA 2019. How it is linked to previous amendments and acts. No need for extra detailing in the diagram. Just the main stuff, simplified? DTM (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Would this be for inclusion in the article as an image or just for editors on the Talk page to understand it better?Bless sins (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources not mentioning the CAA

I've made this point above several times, but I'm going to repeat it here for the record, because it's being lost in the reams of discussion. There are plenty of sources exploring the history of Indian citizenship law, refugees in India, and persecution in India's neighbors. But, these were written without knowing of the existence of the recent law. Therefore, any attempt to use a narrative drawn from those sources to contextualize the present law is going to be original research by definition, unless the narrative is framed using sources that actually discuss this recent law. Regardless of the weaknesses of these contemporary sources, that is our only option, and this is a point I am becoming tired of making. And before anyone uses this as an excuse; yes, I've read the few decent contemporary sources. Yes, I've read many of the older ones, too; but while I may find them personally edifying, they need to be framed appropriately to include here. Also, for the record, I'd have very little objection to adding such scholarly sources to a new page about the history of Indian citizenship law. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

But you removed content sourced to

• Sharma, Chetna (2019). "Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016: Continuities and contestations with special reference to politics in Assam, India". Asian Ethnicity. 20 (4): 522–540. doi:10.1080/14631369.2019.1601993. ISSN 1463-1369.

which is precisely about this law, and made a statement that directly contradicted the Washington Post. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

@Kautilya3: My issue with the Sharma source was quite different; it was with how the material from the source was presented. I intend to fix that, when I have a moment; I'm not ruling it out as a source at all. I made this quite clear above; why do you feel the need to bring it up again? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

1st para of "Indian government response" references Modi instead of Indian Government

There is a section named "Indian Government Response" in this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Indian_government_response). But surprisingly, it gives references for tweets of Modi and personal twitter handle of Modi. Are we documenting official Indian Government response or personal response of Modi ?

The source links given violate WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as they do not portray the official response of Indian Government, they are telling about personal response of Modi and so are not in accordance with the title of the Section "Indian Government Response" and are not reliable sources.

This issue was partially raised while discussing allegations on my edit as having "Original research". I am raising it here since other editors wanted me to raise one issue at a time.

Point here is that when all sorts of allegations on Government are being covered, the official Indian Government response which was FAQs on CAA released by Indian Government on 19 December 2019 and later and widely covered by Indian Media, should be included for sake of neutrality in the article. These are written and more reliable compared to speeches. Whole article has references to speeches of various politicians but lacks official Indian Government response to allegations even though a section on it has been created in the article.

Some sources which I suggest to include in the article for a balanced view, which are secondary and reliable are -

a) https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html

b) https://www.sentinelassam.com/top-headlines/government-clarifies-as-citizenship-amendment-act-stir-intensifies-across-the-country/

c) https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279

Kmoksha (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Tweets do not constitute an official response, but may (very rarely) merit mention if independent sources have commented on them in depth. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde It is not just tweets, which is the issue, it is tweets of personal handle of Modi. So, it is personal response of Modi and not an official Indian Government response. The official Indian Government response was the release of FAQs on CAA. I have given references for that. If we are talking about "Indian Government response", there should be proper references for that and not references mentioning personal twitter handle of Modi. Modi gets to keep this twitter handle even after he is no more PM.

Kmoksha (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Whoever it may be, tweets can be deleted any time. They are not used in the articles, unless Independent Secondary are discussing them. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 09:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray The issue which I raised is that in the section "Indian Government Response" , the references given are not of Indian Government but they are references of personal response of Modi. Whether tweets should be allowed or not in the article is another matter. But the references given in the first paragraph of this section "Indian government response" are not reliable since they are not responses of the Indian Government.

I have given some reliable references for the response of Indian Government which was on 19 December 2019 and later released in the form of FAQs on CAA. These (or similar reliable references) should be put in the article as response of Indian Government so as to make the section sources reliable and the article neutral.

Kmoksha (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I can see that the PMs tweet is referenced to BBC which is a reliable secondary source. hope that helps. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray These source links violate WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as they do not portray the official response of Indian Government, they are telling about personal response of Modi and so are not in accordance with the title of the Section "Indian Government Response" and so are not reliable sources.

Kmoksha (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Kmoksha, The publication is BBC and the article is on "Citizenship Amendment Act". That is as much context as one may find. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray We are talking here about the particular section of the article named "Indian Government Response". These source links are out of context for the section. The section title says "Indian Government Response" and the BBC article is not about Indian Government Response, it is about personal response of Modi. So, these links are clearly inappropriate for this section of the article.

Kmoksha (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Kmoksha, you linked WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which discusses about the Context of the source. Hence I replied above. It seems you have misunderstood what CONTEXT MATTERS mean here. Please check the link you added once again. As for Modi vs Govt. Modi is the PM and he appoints the cabinet. Did Modi state anywhere that this tweet was his personal response ? If not then how can you call it his personal response ? Anyway, these questions should not arise since BBC a secondary source was used. There are more WaPo VoA, If you want this section to be "Modi's Response" then it would be overkill. The headings are based on the content of the section. regards. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray I am talking about Context of the Source and have checked the Wiki policy link and then only posted the link of that link here.

Modi is PM but Modi is giving his response on his personal platform and so this is not an Indian Government response, it is his personal response. The FAQs to CAA were posted via official platform and so are official Indian Government response.

BBC source link is secondary but is not a context source for this section, which is what I am pointing out. And since the BBC link and Modi twitter link are not in context with the section title, they are inappropriate for this section.

The first paragraph of this section needs to be rectified for the sources, but how we want to improve the section is different matter. I suggest putting links for media coverage of FAQs on CAA released by the Indian Government along with appropriate text.

Kmoksha (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Kmoksha, I see, it seems we have a difference of opinion. I dont see Modi's statement as a problem. Also I do not consider the FAQ as a reliable source since it directly contradicts government's own statements. you seem to think FAQ is reliable. Again this is a difference of opinion. Regardless, you can present your version of the draft here and seek feedback so as to get WP:CONSENSUS, That way you can proceed and get it done or abandon it if you fail to get CONSENSUS. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray This thread is for discussing the context of the BBC link and Modi twitter link for the section "Indian Government Response". Other editors have asked me not to raise many issues in one thread, so I am complying with that and not discussing the rectification of the section in detail in this thread.

If there are contradictory statements of Indian Government, article can point out that there are contradictory statements. It is possible that two contradictory statements are supported by two reliable sources.

I have posted here this issue of links of first para of this section being out of context (with respect to this section) for opinions of other wiki editors after proper reasoning. So, I would request other editors to also give their opinions so that we can make this article better. Let others give their opinions regarding the context of BBC link and Modi twitter link for this section. After that, we can decide what to do further regarding this section.

Kmoksha (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Please respond and give your opinion. How is this section having title as "Indian Government Response" and having references for response of Modi on his personal platform ? Is it not violating WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and making the BBC source link and Modi twitter link inappropriate and unreliable for this section ?

Kmoksha (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the government has issued a FAQ document to dispel myths can certainly be mentioned under the "Indian Government response". But its content cannot be covered unless it has been used by SECONDARY sources in the course of their analysis. (That is, an article that just covers the FAQ is not a SECONDARY source for the FAQ.)

If the FAQ directly contradicts anything that we say in our article and SECONDARY sources have backed the FAQ then we can state it, not otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Using FAQ on CAA released by Government or not is not the main issue raised in this thread. The main issue raised is that the title of the section says "Indian Government Response" and the source links used are of personal response of Modi. So, do you agree that these links are out of context and violate WP:CONTEXTMATTERS ?

Kmoksha (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No, everything said by the prime minister or other ministers gets counted as government. And, BBC News is perfectly qualified to comment on it. There is no issue of "CONTEXTMATTERS" here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 If things said by prime ministers or ministers or party members are to be considered as statements by Government, what if two ministers give seemingly different statements on an issue ? Then, which statement should we rely on and take as "Indian Government Response" ? Is it not obvious that reason each minister has own personal platform and also there is a common platform for the Indian Government so that such situations do not arise ?

Kmoksha (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't comment on hypothetical situations. The policies of Wikipedia ask us to depend on reliable sources. When there are contradictions WP:NPOV considerations come into play. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 It is not hypthetical but such situations are very frequent. Government is not one person, it is a team. Team members can have individual views and a team has collective views. Just like in wikipedia, there is individual opinion and collective opinion. Response of Indian Government is a collective response. But here there is a mismatch. Why cannot we conform the title and content specifically ? Also, I would like to discuss FAQs on CAA release for Government for this section. Should a new thread for that be created ?

Kmoksha (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

You have already received enough answers regarding the Government FAQ but you are not accepting them. You might take it to reliable sources noticeboard and NPOV noticeboard to get outside opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2019

Please change "The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed by the Parliament of India on 11 December 2019. It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities fleeing persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.[2]" to "The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed by the Parliament of India on 11 December 2019. It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan." Garima516 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Agree, with the changes Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Is a consensus not required for making changes to the article ? I disagree with the proposal. The law is what the article said before the edit. All minorities from these countries are NOT straightway given citizenship. There is a condition for giving citizenship to these minorities - Quoting it "who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder"

@Kautilya3 Please give your opinion regarding this.

Kmoksha (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The law if you read it, does not state it anywhere. So it was removed.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Kmoksha is right. They should have been previously "exempted" under the 2015 order, which requires demonstration of religious persecution.

A correct edit would be to change "fleeing persecution" to "had fled persecution" because they should have fled by December 2014. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, ok I am fine with adding your version "had fled persecution before December 2014.

So the line will say "It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities, who had fled persecution before December 2014, from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. hope this is acceptable to all. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DBig. I changed it so. I didn't put "before December 2014" in the lead sentence because it has too much stuff already. The dates and conditions are covered in more detail in the second paragrah. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I would like to keep the date condition. IMHo it is important to note that new immigrants are not welcome. I understand the arguemnt about length but that is weak argument. Law related articles have them and trimming them is generally not done. let me know if you still have stronger objections. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Kautilya3, Thanks for agreeing and making the changes as requested. Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

First reference of this article

@Kautilya3 @DBig, I would like to bring notice to the first reference of this article. That does not have Statement of Objects and Reasons. It should be replaced by this link which is also in the article - http://164.100.47.4/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/Asintroduced/370_2019_LS_Eng.pdf which has the statement of Objects and Reasons. Also, please note that the statements of Objects and Reasons has been the mentioned in the analysis of the PRS link also referenced in the article. So, Statements of Objects and Reasons is important. So, please consider changing the first reference. Kmoksha (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Kmoksha, I have split the thread as it is separate topic. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray Yes, I was also half-minded where to put this. Appreciate your action.

Kmoksha (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Archive settings of this page

User:Kautilya3 you have speeded up the archives, but MSW has changed the settings to 30 days, without explanation. Now this page has crossed 210 KB. I propose going back to 7 days. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Changed it back to 7 days. Ms Sarah Welch, if you would like any thread to stay, you can use {{pin section}}, like I did for the Bibliography section above.

Edit requested

Why mention "The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads the Indian government, ", why can't we just mention it as The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads the Indian government, " A wikipedia article should not be communally biased. - User:Xpeedus

I think this is right. BJP has lot of muslim members and politicians also in it. And it does not call itself as Hindu nationalist, What other editors think about this ?

Kmoksha (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I disagree. This is needed for the context and background Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 23:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as I understand, for seeing Consensus, the edits should also be considered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing). There is clearly no Consensus on this issue as lot of editors are against the words "Hindu Nationalist". See the recent edit by one editor - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019&diff=prev&oldid=933643276 How can a party having muslims be Hindu nationalist ? And the background is anyway disputed, so no need of these manufactured terminology. All these political parties are opportunistic, taking U-turns according to different situations. That does not mean the Wikipedia article should be biased and use manufactured terminology. Only if a party calls itself "Hindu Nationalist", these words should be used. Are there any sources which point towards that direction ?

Kmoksha (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, If you seriously dispute that BJP is not a Hindu Nationalist party, you are looking at a TBan. ∯WBG^converse 10:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric I am saying that there is no Consensus for this term nor there is any reliable source supporting this term for BJP. There are lot of muslims in BJP and neither has BJP called itself "Hindu Nationalist". Kindly mention the full forms when commenting so that the other person understands. Is this the "TBan" you are referring to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban ? Why you bring this up in discussion about Consensus on the term "Hindu Nationalist" ?

Kmoksha (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha please familiarize yourself well with WP:TE. This is a controversial article and such efforts will certainly lead to block/bans. As for the refs I have added these Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 10:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

@DBigXray Here. I did not edit for this issue separately at all nor have I recently edited the article. So, why you bring up the topic of edit bans for this issue ? I am telling that there is no Consensus for BJP as a "Hindu Nationalist" nor there is any reliable source supporting that claim. BJP has lot of muslims in it, so how is it called "Hindu Nationalist" when BJP does not call itself "Hindu Nationalist"?

The references you gave have original research, meaning it is their opinion. They do not give any basis for their usage of this term. All political parties are opportunistic, playing on vote bank politics. They appease Hindus, they appease Muslims etc. But why should the Wikipedia article be biased because of that ?

Kmoksha (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Added EU reactions

Please add reactions from the European Union which has deleted from CAA protest article, this is 2 links from India Today and The Times of India

• EU envoy on CAB: Trust the discussions will be in line with high standards of Indian Constitution
• Hope principle of equality enshrined in Indian Constitution will be upheld: EU on CAB

And please move reactions from OIC that are more related to CAA to this article than the anti-CAA protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.21 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Five Pillars Reminder

Hi everyone. On reviewing the comments on this talk page, I think a reminder of WP:PILLARS is in order. In particular, I suggest that everyone makes sure that their comments are expressed neutrally, that personal comments should be avoided, that you need to have fealty to reliable secondary sources, and that you avoid something I see a lot of in the discussion above, the trap of original research. --regentspark (comment) 17:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)