Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

Not mentioned, vs. Excluded
About the paragraph headed "Exclusion of Other Persecuted Minorities": Groups that are not mentioned cannot be said to be excluded. After all, they are not specifically excluded based on specific criteria, and hundreds of other minorities are not mentioned. Suggest changing the heading to "Other Persecuted Minorities". 23:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Sooku (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * We use the language that reliable sources used when discussing this law, and to my knowledge such sources largely call it an exclusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not said explicitly who are EXCLUDED
Law never said who are excluded, but talks about communities that are covered under this law. So highlighting that 'Muslim are excluded' is WP:SYNTHESIS : this applies to 'not grant citizen to ATHEIST in these countries. So removed from the lead. Afv12e (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * why don't you add atheists there? Afv12e (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As Kautilya said, we summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. The exclusion of Muslims, including persecuted Muslim minorities, is mentioned prominently by the overwhelming majority of sources; the exclusion of atheists is not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus for lead
Regarding this |this edit

■ "The law does not grant such eligibility to Muslims from these countries." - isn't it apparent from the preceeding sentences ie " It amended the Citizenship Act, 1955 by providing an accelerated pathway to Indian citizenship for persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who arrived in India by 2014. The eligible minorities were stated as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis or Christians." As I noted | here, '''it need not to overstate as it is apparent from the preceding sentences. This law gives citizenship only to minorities from muslim countries'''; Muslims are not minorities in those Muslim majority/ Islamic republics such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. So is it necessary to restate that "The law does not grant such eligibility to Muslims from these countries"?

I think after clarifying this we can move on to other edits I've done on this article's lead. Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It may be apparent, but the exclusion of Muslims - including persecuted minority Muslim sects - is highlighted repeatedly by WP:RS, and is indeed the most prominent focus of any commentary in international sources on this subject. So we absolutely need to spell it out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * persecuted minority Muslim sects like? Echo1Charlie (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got it. This | source reads "But critics say India’s claims that the citizenship law aims to protect religious minorities “rings hollow” because it excludes Muslim minorities who face persecution in neighboring countries, including the Ahmadiyya from Pakistan, Rohingya from Myanmar, and the Tamil from Sri Lanka" - but CAA is for minorities from 3 countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh) right? So isn't it right to clarify as this- "The law does not grant such eligibility to Muslims (+minorities) from these countries, (+such as Ahammadiyya from Pakistan) to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV? Echo1Charlie (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said before, we summarize what reliable sources say on the subject. Overwhelmingly, they note that the CAA excludes Muslims; so we do the same. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "they note that the CAA excludes Muslims" - but they added the word minorities right before the word Muslim - citizenship law aims to protect religious minorities “rings hollow” because it excludes Muslim minorities who face persecution in neighboring countries; as the |source is explicitly stating, '''so isn't it wise to add the word minorities before the word Muslim in this edit? Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You needn't shout, I read the entirety of your reply. There's two related but distinct points here; the basic one about the CAA being framed around religion, which is what the current text is about; and the more complex issue of whether the motivation actually had to do with protecting religious minorities, which is what the source text you highlight is discussing. The matter you highlight is discussed later in the lead, so I see no reason to modify the current text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)