Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 FACTS & LIES

CAA – FACTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
Prepared by Jacob George Michael 16/02/2020

WHO ALL ARE CONSIDERED AS CITIZENS OF INDIA?
(PART II OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION DEALS WITH CITIZENSHIP. THEY ARE ARTICLE 5 TO ARTICLE 11)
Article 5: Citizenship During the Commencement of the
Constitution (26.01.1950)
During the commencement of the Indian Constitution, each
person who has his or her domicile (domicile is the place where you maintain a
permanent home. Your intent to remain in this place indefinitely makes it your domicile and
makes you its domiciliary.Your domiciliary status subjects you to specific laws. Thus, domicile
is a legal construct used to determine where you vote, file lawsuits, pay taxes, claim benefits,
and oblige governmental authority.) in the territory of India and :
(a) who was born in the Indian territory; or
(b) either of whose parents was born in the Indian territory; or
(c) An individual who has been ordinarily resident in the Indian territory
for at least 5 years immediately preceding such commencement (5 years
before 26.01.1950), shall be a citizen of India.
Slide 1Prepared by Jacob George Michael 16/02/2020

Article 6: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Persons who have Migrated to India
Territory from Territory of Pakistan
 The sixth citizenship article of the Indian constitution provides citizenship rights to
migrants from Pakistan to India.
 Regardless of anything in article 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of
India from the territory currently enclosed in Pakistan shall be deemed to be an
Indian citizen at the commencement of this Constitution (i.e. on 26.01.1950) if –
a) he or either of his parents/grand parents was born in India, as defined in the Govt
of India Act 1935, and
b) (i) In the case were such person has so migrated before 19.07.1948 he has been
ordinarily resident in the territory of India since the date of his migration, or
(ii) in the case were such person as so migrated on or after 19.07.1948, he has
been registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed in that behalf by the
Govt of the Dominion of India, on an application made by him, before the
commencement of the constitution, in the form and manner prescribed by that
Govt:
Provided that no person shall be so registered unless he has been registered in the
territory of India for at least six months immediately preceding the application.

Article 7: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Migrants to Pakistan
 Regardless of anything in citizenship article 5 & 6, a person who
has after the 1st day of March 1947, migrated from the territory
of India to the territory now included in Pakistan, shall not be
deemed to be a citizen of India.
 Given that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who
after having migrated to the territory now included in Pakistan
has returned to the Indian territory under a permit for
resettlement or returning permanently issued by the authority
of any law and every such person shall for the purposes of
clause (b) of article 6 (refer previous slide) be deemed to have
migrated to the territory of India after the 19th day of July 1948.

Article 8: Right of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin, residing
outside India.
• Not withstanding anything in Article 5 any person who or either of whose
parents or grandparents were born in India as stated in the Government of
India Act 1955 and who is residing ordinarily in any country outside India
shall be considered to be a citizen of India. If he has registered as a Citizen
of India by an Indian diplomatic or consular representative in that country
on an application made by him or her in the prescribed document form to
such diplomatic or consular representative, whether before or after the
commencement of the Constitution.
Article 9: Persons, voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign state not to
be citizen of India.
• No person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of Article 5, or be deemed to
be a citizen of India by virtue of Article 6 or Article 8, if he has voluntarily
acquired the citizenship of any foreign state.

Article 10: Continuance of the rights of citizenship.
• Every person who is, or deemed to be a citizen of India under
any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall, subject to
the provisions of any law that may be made by the
Parliament, continue to be such citizen.
Article 11: Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law.
(RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO AMEND THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, COMES FROM THIS ARTICLE)
• Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part, shall derogate
from the power of the Parliament to make any provisions with
respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and
all other matters relating to citizenship.

WHERE DOES THE AUTHORITY OR RIGHT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
COME FROM, TO AMEND THE CITIZENSHIP ACT OF THE COUNTRY.
Article 11 of the Constitution, bestows this power on the Parliament. Please
refer previous slide.
HAD EVER BEEN CITIZENSHIP GIVEN TO ANYONE, ON THE BASIS OF
RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS?
One such amendment was the Frank Lautenberg Amendment of 1990, in the US
parliament. It allowed Jews, Christians, Bahai and other religious minorities to
escape religious persecution in Iran and in former Soviet Union. Details about the
same, are available in the public domain. One can access them through Google
search.
There is also the mention about Frank Lautenberg Amendment in a recent report in
the Times of India, with the caption The inconvenient truth about the Anti-CAA
protests dated 3.01.2020 given in the next slide.

Prepared by Jacob George Michael 16/02/2020

REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION OF MINORITIES , MENTIONED IN CAA
1. The religious minorities selected are from Pakistan,
Bangladesh (former East Pakistan), and Afghanistan which
are theocratic states with ISLAM, being declared as the state
religion in their constitution.
2. These minorities are connected with transmigration, during
the period of partition, the basis of which is the Liaquat/Nehru
Pact of 1950, brought about by the hostage theory of Muslim
League. The basis of the hostage theory was, the mutual care of
the minorities from different faiths in both the countries,
depending on, taking care of the majority of the one nation; left
as minority in the second nation. This Pact was applicable in
both Pakistan and Bangladesh, as Bangladesh was East Pakistan,
before it was liberated by India, through the 1971 Indo Pak war.

POLICY MATTERS OF GOVERNMENT IS NOT QUESTIONABLE IN A COURT OF LAW
If it was the policy of the Govt, to address the problems of the religiously persecuted
minorities in three Islamic countries, were transmigration of population took
place during partition. This cannot be considered to be a violation of the
constitution of India. Eg: We have Visa relaxations given to those travelling to India,
from the neighbouring countries like Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Citizens from
these countries are given Visa on arrival. But, we do not extent the same facility for
people travelling to India from Bangladesh, Pakistan or Myanmar.
This is not done on religious considerations, but taking into account, various
parameters including those that affect the security of the nation, which is part of the
foreign POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT, NOT QUESTIONABLE in a court of law.
One such policy matter of the Government was questioned through a litigation
filed by BALCO Employees Union Vs The Govt of India in 2002, where the court
upheld the statement of the Attorney General that the wisdom and advisability of
policies of Government are not amenable to judicial review and that it is not for
Courts to consider the relative merits of different policies and that the court is not
the forum for resolving the conflicting clauses regarding the wisdom or advisability
of policy.

Wakhan border
WHY WAS AFGHANISTAN INCLUDES IN THE ACT?
Lack of knowledge of Indian history have become the reason behind this
controversy. Please note the two pictures above. First, it has to be first
accepted that the part of Kashmir which Pakistan occupies today, was and is
an integral part of India. As per UN, it is a disputed territory. This part of India
had a border (Wakhan border) of 106 kms shared with Afghanistan as shown
above. But, this was NOT part of the partition process of India at the time of
independence. continued……......

History says that in 1947 there was a province which shared its border with
British India. It was called, North Western Frontier Province (NWFP). One of the
very popular leaders from there was called the Frontier Gandhi or more well
known by his name, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. A referendum was conducted in
this province during the time of partition, asking them their readiness to joining
any one of the two separable nations, Pakistan or India. But 99% of those who
took part in the referendum voted in favour of going with Pakistan. Just about
3000 people voted for going with India. But, only 50% of the population of NWFP
took part in the referendum. The rest 50% including Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan
wanted two more options to be given. 1. Choice of an independent nation in the
name of Pashtunistan. 2. To join Afghanistan. This brought about the boycott of
50% of the population of that province, from the referendum. The majority of
the people in this area were from the Pashtun tribe who were Hindustani
Pathans, Persian Afghan and Pashto-speaking people residing primarily in the
region that lies between the Hindu Kush in northeastern Afghanistan and the
northern stretch of the Indus River in Pakistan. This area was an area lying
between 1000 kms into Afghanistan and about 1600 kms into Pakistan. The
voices of these people were simply overlooked by the then rulers of British India.

This brought about a transmigration of a large number of Hindus and Sikhs
residing in the Potohar plateau to Afghanistan. This was followed by
transmigration of a lot of others from Sind and Balochistan also, to
Afghanistan, that also shared its border with India.
A report by Centre for Applied South Asian Studies have cited that the sudden
increase in the population of Afghanistan, was due to the transmigration
of a significant number of Sikhs, from the Potohar Plateau. The Sikh and
Hindu population in Afghanistan is estimated to have been almost close to
250,000 in the 1940s
Potohar Plateau

There were a significant number of Punjabi Sikhs and Hindus in
Afghanistan prior to the 1990s, after which period, it came down
drastically with the after effects of the Soviet invasion in 1979 and
the ensuing Afghan civil wars. These events sparked off a gradual
start, to a later exodus of these communities, declining the
population of Afghanistan in due course of time. Most people
migrated to Pakistan or India, while others resettled in North
America and Europe. The current population of such migrated
people in Afghanistan, is estimated to be around 3,000 with a large
majority of them living in Kabul.
From this it becomes clear that the selection of the three countries
were not arbitrary, but are done on the basis of TRANSMIGRATION
of a large number of people, connected with the incidents that
happened during the partition of India. The basis of CAA, being the
Liaquat/Nehru Pact of 1950 (refer slide 9).

Arguments on RIGHT TO EQUALITY being violated
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution: The state shall not deny to any person,
equality before the law, or equal protection of the law, within the territory of
India.
Connected to the CAA, there are arguments that the choice of people from countries
selected to be beneficiaries of this act has been totally arbitrary, considering the
exclusion of people from Islamic faith, in special. Please refer slide 8 to counter
these arguments. It shows the logic behind the selection and clearly expels all
arguments on arbitrary considerations being resorted to by the government. Here,
the main controversy was raised saying that the Ahamadiyas, Rohingyas and Sri
Lankan Tamils were omitted. Let’s check on this.
WHO ARE THESE AHAMADI MUSLIMS? It is a Muslim sect founded by Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad of Qadian in 1889. Ahmad claimed that he was the awaited Messiah and
Mahdi prophesized by Prophet Muhammad and foretold by the Holy
Quran. Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, are
known as Ahmadi Muslims. Hence they were people de-recognized as Islamic
believers in the constitution of Pakistan, by an amendment to their constitution in
the year 1974, which re-classified them as non-muslims without stating a religion.
But, they still believe in the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammed. Hence, they are
internationally recognized as people of Islamic faith.
continued……………………

During the signing of the Liaquat Nehru pact of 1950, these people were
considered as Muslims. However, India did not recognize such changes, that were
brought into Pakistan constitution, due to doctrinal differences within a
particular religion. Currently, a Govt document given as an identity to the
Ahamadiyas, state their religion as ‘NON-MUSLIM’, inspite of being Islamic
believers. They cannot be included under CAA, as they are still Islamic believers.
The 3rd point about the Ahamadiyas: There was a movement in Pakistan called
the Ahamadiya Movement in the 1940s. These people had come up with a
demand for a separate Islamic nation by the name ‘Pakistan’, through Lahore
Resolution drafted by them. They later came up with the Ahamadiya Militia. This
Militia came up as a renewed Uniformed fighting force, after the independence
of India under their leader Mirza Mahmood with a new name Furqan Force, for
the liberation of Kashmir in the first Indo Pak war of 1948, under request from
the then independent govt of Pakistan, which up to this date have kept the
geopolitics of Kashmir in a constant state of security threat to India. This is the
history of the Ahamadiyas. Hence the Govt of India, under the existing rules do
not want to grant, neither a valid entry nor consideration for grant of citizenship
to any individual or group of individuals, who had stood against the integrity of
India’s borders or whose presence could affect the security of the nation in many
ways, depending on its past experiences.

CASE OF ROHINGYAN MUSLIMS OF MYANMAR: According to 2014 census,
there were as many as 1.1 million registered Muslims in Myanmar. But,
this figure does not take into account, 1.2 million Rohingyan Muslims, as
they are not considered as citizens of Myanmar but are considered as
illegal migrants from Bangladesh. It is these people, who have been
considered as the persecuted Muslims in Myanmar. Many Islamic nations
in South East Asia and in the Middle East have restricted the entry of
Rohingyan Muslims sighting them as being a security threat
causalities. This happened during the 2nd UPA rule in India. The then
foreign minister of India, Shri. Salman Khurshid went to Myanmar, offering
the Govt of Myanmar, 1 Million US Dollars for all the losses they had to
incur in their stand-off with ARAKAN ROHINGYA SALVATION ARMY.
The Rohingyas who are settled in the Rakhine state of
Myanmar have an insurgent unit called ARSA. This state
is a mineral rich area. The Rohingyas want to liberate
this area, for which they set up the ARAKAN ROHINGYA
SALVATION ARMY. This militant unit had a direct conflict
with the Myanmar Security forces, causing very severe

News report in NDTV regarding pay-off to Myanmar by INDIA

Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi, in 2017 had shared his concern with the
govt of Myanmar, on the terrorist activities they had to face, that killed
many of its security force personnel, the after effects of which came as an
all out anti-insurgency drive in the Rakhine province, by the Govt of
Myanmar, that brought about the genocide of Rohingyan Muslims and
their subsequent mass exodus across Bangladesh and Indian borders.
Very recently a report of Amnesty International titled “Myanmar: New
evidence reveals Rohingya armed group massacred scores in Rakhine
State” dated 22.05.2018 gives horrendous narration of violence carried
out by ARSA, in which scores of Hindus, Buddhists and Christians were
massacred by them.
The Rohingyan crises is not a crises of religious persecution, but of the
ethnicity of Rohingyas and their insurgent activities, since there are other
indigenous Muslims of Myanmar, who live integrated with the rest of the
population, and are NOT persecuted.
HENCE, THE ROHINGYAS ARE
CONSIDERED AS A SOURCE OF THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY by all
standards.

Why Myanmar (former Burma) is not considered in CAA?
The British colony of Burma was part of the British India, from 1824 to
1937. However, Burma was separated from the rest of the British Indian
Empire in 1937, just ten years before India became an independent
country, in 1947.
The question of Transmigration did not arise with Myanmar, during the
independence of India. Moreover, there were no instances of religious
persecution in Burma, except with what that happened to the Rohingyan
Muslims, which is connected to local internal security threats they created
for the Govt of Myanmar (refer slide 17)
It has to be kept in mind, that not all Muslims in Myanmar are persecuted.
Myanmar does not recognize Rohingyan Muslims as their citizens and they
classify them as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
Hence, they have been excluded from CAA, on the basis of intelligible
differentia that distinguishes, reasonably, between persons that are
grouped together to be beneficiaries of CAA, with such as these, who are
left out of the group, as from nations like Myanmar or Sri Lanka, where
the reason for persecution had been different.

India was not a signatory of the Refugee Convention of the United
nations, in 1951. The Refugee Protocol of 1967 was also not
signed by India. The reason for this stand by India was that, India
had very porous borders through which lots of transmigration
took place on a regular basis and it was very difficult for India to
monitor or arrest the movement, especially at that time. It was
indeed a very good decision taken up by the Govt, as signing
these UN conventions would have created monetary obligations
and liabilities and instances of security threat to our nation.
India informed the UN, that it would consider refugee status claims,
on a case by case basis. For that a Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP) was created on 29.12.2011, according to which the process
of identification still goes on.

CASE OF SRI LANKAN TAMILS: It is not a case of religious persecution, rather a case
of sectarian/ethnic or linguistic identity. It happened during the period 23.07.1983
to 2009 and their presence in 107 detention camps in Tamil Nadu, is not
connected to any transmigration during the time of Indian independence.
THE REFUGEE CONVENTION OF 1951 AND THE REFUGEE PROTOCOL 1967, both of
which India did not sign.

WHO IS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT?
1. An undocumented person who is not a native, and from a foreign land.
Not in possession of any valid permit for travel, entry or stay; like
passport, VISA, or such other govt authorized documents, and has entered
India through illegal means, deliberately evading the attention of the
authorities, for financial motives or for other illegal activities.
2. A person who continues to stay in India, after all or some of the travel
documents held by the person, has gone invalid due to an expiry date
attached to it.
WHO IS A REFUGEE? There are various conditions to be fulfilled to be in India
on a refugee status.
1. He has to be a person subject to persecution; either political, religious,
linguistic, cultural, sectarian etc.
2. He has to inform the govt about it and the Govt authorities will have to be
convinced about their claims. Such people are given ‘REFUGEE STATUS’.
They have the option to stay in India for 11 years and can apply for citizenship
status through process of ‘NATURALIZATION’. In this process, neither religion,
nationality, language, sect or culture does not form part of the criteria, provided
their claim for citizenship is found justifiable and reasonable.

Article 19. It is the right of a CITIZEN OF INDIA & not an illegal migrant.
This clause for REASONABLE
RESTRICTIONS, is implemented
through detention centres

What are considered as ‘REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS’
on people living in detention centres?
The freedom of an illegal immigrant is subject to reasonable
restrictions as laid down in Article 19:
1. He is forbidden from having outright freedom of employment within the
nation, that being the only right of a citizen of India, but with relaxations
over a period of time and under certain conditions.
2. He is forbidden to be part of any political activities, demonstrations,
sport events or be a part of any group, organized or otherwise.
3. He is not entitled to move about and reside anywhere within the nation,
which is the right of the citizens of the country and of foreigners who
have valid travel and stay documents.
4. He is not entitled to hold any property, movable or immovable, such as a
residence or shop or commercial space on rent or on ownership.
It is for the curtailment of such rights, that he is kept in a detention centre, until
deportation is arranged, in consultation with the nation to which he belongs as a
citizen. Just like imposing reasonable restrictions on law breakers, by putting
them in jail, this is a means to restrict some civic rights of illegal immigrants.

ROW ON DETENTION CENTRES: What are detention centres? Is
it infringement on right to freedom: Article 19
Lack of knowledge or false propaganda, has created the DETENTION centres, as
appearing like a place of imprisonment and torture, like the concentration camps
or the Gas chambers that ones existed in Nazi Germany. Considering the present
opposition against the introduction of CAA, it is important to state that, it is not
using the CAA, that people are send to detention centres. People, who are picked
up by authorities due to lack of legally valid travel documents, on the basis of
Foreigners Act and Passport Act, are send to detention centres. They are not
criminals to be send to jail. Hence, detention centres are used to house them.
Such centres have basic facilities for ration, water, electricity, dormitories,
schooling facilities for children, medical facilities, besides being guarded 24/7. All
these facilities are made available at govt expenditure. A person staying in a
detention centre can come out and work in private sector after a period of three
years, if he can produce an affidavit from any Indian citizen, guaranteeing his good
conduct.
TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF A DETENTION CENTRE
REFER previous slide, ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
Article 19 confers certain rights to the CITIZENS of India and NOT to foreigners or
illegal immigrants and the govt has right to impose reasonable restrictions on
them.

There is a widespread allegation, that CAA violates Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. This Article is about equality among equals. E.g. A Brahmin who is an Indian
citizen, cannot be given concessions in education, job etc, as enjoyed by a person
who is a Dalit, SC, ST or OBC, inspite of both being citizens of India. As regards CAA,
the people selected are part of the transmigration during partition and are
minorities in theocratic states, suffering religious persecution. That is reasonable
classification as by law.
CAA intents to give citizenship to people from 3 countries, through the process of
naturalization. As per govt records, 31,313 persons belonging to minority
communities (Hindus- 25447, Sikhs-5807, Christians-55, Buddhists-2 and Parsis-2)
who have already been given Long Term Visa and are currently staying in India on
the basis of their claim of religious persecution in their respective countries are to
be the beneficiaries of this Act. (continued next slide)
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
This is the right of any person, not just the citizen alone.

REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION (refer slide 8) of those
included in the context of CAA, is very much distinct
and exceptional from those that have been omitted
from the classification. That is the intelligible
differentia, meaning difference capable of being
understood. Moreover, the logic for REASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION (to include people affected by
partition of the nation), has a clear relationship with
the objective (grant citizenship to persecuted
religious minorities in those countries affected by
partition), which the legislation seeks to achieve.

Article 15. It is the right of a CITIZEN OF INDIA & not for an illegal
migrant.

RIGHT TO LIFE. Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is the right of any
person, not just the citizen alone.
(Hence, such people are kept in detention centres)

The freedom to travel and reside permanently anywhere in India, is a
freedom that is guaranteed to Indian Citizens only. Detention
centres are maintained to restrict such freedom to those who are in
India without valid travel documents. Such people who are housed
in detention centres are send back to their own countries, through
a govt to govt contact and are deported at the cost of the govt of
India. The Rohingyas have filed a case in an Indian court saying that
they are to be given refugee status in India and be accommodated
in India as Indian citizens, when they have actually entered India as
illegal immigrants. That’s not allowable under law of the land (refer
Article 21, slide 29), except until they have entered India as
refugees who are subject to persecution; either political, religious,
linguistic, cultural or sectarian and such claims upheld by the
nations govt, under reasonable validity of their arguments.
Citizenship of any nation is not the fundamental right of a foreign
citizen. It is the fundamental right of a valid citizen of India only.
Citizenship is NOT for illegal migrants.

WHY SHOULD WE HAVE CAA -2019 AMENDMENT AT ALL?
To know as to why CAA was brought about, it is important to understand what the
Liaquat/Nehru Pact is all about. The Liaquat/Nehru Pact (or the Delhi Pact) was a
bilateral treaty between India and Pakistan, where refugees were allowed to return;
to dispose of their property, retrieve abducted women and looted property, for
forced conversions to be unrecognized, and minority rights recognized. The treaty
was signed in New Delhi by Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru and the Prime
Minister of Pakistan Liaquat Ali Khan on April 8, 1950. The treaty was outcome of six
days of talks sought to guarantee the rights of minorities in both countries after the
Partition. The agreement was signed in the backdrop of large-scale migration of
people belonging to minority communities between the two countries in the wake of
attacks by the majority communities in their respective territories. While India stuck
to the clauses of the Pact, Pakistan failed to observe it. This necessitated the CAA
2019 to take care of the persecuted minorities in Pakistan affected by partition.

The Pact was to ensure equality of citizenship, irrespective of religion,
security in respect of life, culture, property, personal honour, freedom of
movement, occupation, speech and worship, subject to law and morality,
participate in public life, hold political and other offices, and to serve in
the countries civil and armed forces.
Pakistan, however failed on many of these counts, while some of them were
not totally not guaranteed in Bangladesh and did not happen in
Afghanistan. Had Pakistan and Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) observed
the treaty, the CAA amendment would not have been necessary at all.
The countries mentioned in CAA, are theocratic states, with Islam as their
state religion. The minorities in these countries were Hindus, Sikhs,
Christians, Parsis, Jains or Buddhists.
The CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act -2019) is meant to grant citizenship to
those people who have entered the territory of India as refugees, fearing
oppression in their native countries with the cut-off date set at December
31 2014, the number of such people who will benefit from the
amendments stands at 31,313, (demographic split up in slide 26) as per figure
submitted by the IB during a parliamentary committee hearing on the bill
in 2016.

The Muhajir people are Muslim immigrants, of multi-ethnic origin, and their descendants, who
migrated from various regions of India to Pakistan, after the independence of Pakistan.

Graph showing status of minority in Bangladesh

DEMOGRAPHIC FIGURES OF BANGLADESH

MY CONCLUSION
LOOKING AT THESE FACTS AND REALITIES, AND THE PRESENT ONGOING AGITATIONS, I AM FORCED TO
BELIEVE, THAT A VAST MAJORITY OF THE INDIANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR A RIDE, BY THE EVER
TREACHEROUS, POWER THIRSTY CONGRESS DYNASTY AND THEIR BOOT-LICKERS, TO CREATE
UNREST WITHIN THE NATION, WITH BASELES FALSE NARRATIVES. NO INDIAN CITIZEN IS HARMED IN
ANYWAY, BY THE CAA.
INDIAN IS NOT A DHARAMSHALA FOR OTHER NATIONALITIES TO COME IN AS HE/SHE SO PLEASES, AND
CLAIM CITIZENSHIP AND LIVING RIGHTS. WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN AND WE HAVE ENOUGH
LAWS TO TAKE CARE OF IT. THE EARLIER GOVTS OF THE TRAITOROUS UPA REGIME, MADE NO USE
OF LAWS, BUT SILENTLY LET FOREIGN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS OF A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY COME
IN AND RESIDE IN INDIA, GIVING THEM FALSE IDENDITY DOCUMENTS, ON CONDITION THAT THEIR
VOTES ARE GUARANTEED, AND SO ARE THE VOTES OF THOSE IN INDIA, FALLING UNDER THE SAME
COMMUNITY. PLAYING THE APPEASEMENT CARD, THAT STANDS TO CHANGE THE DEMOGRAPHY OF
OUR BELOVED NATION, AND PUTTING OUR MOTHERLAND INTO A VERY DANGEROUS FUTURE IN
THE HANDS OF MULLAS.
UNTIL AND UNLESS, THE HINDU MAJORITY REALISES THESE FACTS, UNTIL AND UNLESS THEY UNITE
UNDER ONE STRONG RULER THEY CAN POST AT THE CENTRE, WHO CAN VOUCH TO TAKE CARE OF
OUR MOTHERLAND, THIS NATION STANDS TO BE DEVOURED BY THE SILENT GAME OF ENEMIES
FROM WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE BORDERS.
I MAKE A FERVENT CALL TO ALL TRUE PATRIOTS
TO STAND BY THE PRESENT GOVT, FIRM IN RESOLVE
TO HELP FIGHT THE ENEMIES FROM WITHIN AND MAKE OUR NATION SAFE
FOR A PEACEFUL LIVING. LEST, THE BLOODBATH ONCE STARTED
WILL DESTROY THIS NATION, WORSE THAN IRAQ AND SYRIA, AS IT LIES DESTROYED BEFORE THE WORLD
VANDE MATHARAM
JAI HIND.
Slide 36Prepared by Jacob George Michael 16/02/2020 Email: jacob.george.michael@gmail.com

Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 FACTS & LIES

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 FACTS & LIES

Similar to Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 FACTS & LIES (20)

More from Patriotic Indian Christian

More from Patriotic Indian Christian (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 FACTS & LIES