The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only historic but also upholds the democratic and moral values of Indian republic. It is not just the expression of the majority but an article of faith to protect the minorities. It is not a law which grants citizenship based on religion but one that grantandrsquo;s citizenship based on religious persecution. Religious persecution per se is against the minority by a majority in a non-secular state.It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum fromJawaharlal Nehruto Jayaprakash Narayan and evenManmohan Singhhave also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against Indiaandrsquo;s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAAQ.The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:a)the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.b)the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.c)the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.d)the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The passage of citizenship amendment act, 201...

Join the Discussion on the App

It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.

It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum from Jawaharlal Nehru to Jayaprakash Narayan and even Manmohan Singh have also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.

When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.

Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against India’s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.

Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAA

Q. The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:

a)
the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.
b)
the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.
c)
the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.
d)
the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT: Mock Test (New Pattern) - 11

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only histo...

(D) is the correct answer as it is clearly stated in the passage that the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Thus if the law include all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, the law will be a failure.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The demand for speedy retributive justice in the recent heinous crime done against a veterinarian has brought into light the question of extra-constitutional killings. The public sentiments, political demand of public lynching of rapists inter-alia have raised the debate whether a democratic country should follow the constitutional norms and adhere to the due process of law or shall it adopt the measures of retributive justice to bring instant and speedy justice to the victim.Retributive justice is a system of criminal justice based on thepunishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation where as in REFORMATIVE THEORY the object of punishment should be the reform of the criminal, through the method of individualization. It is based on the humanistic principle that even if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being.From protests on the ground, to the commentary on social media, to MPs in Parliament, the demand for the instant killing of the accused from all corners created the public opinion for theabandonment of the rule of lawthat appears to have led to the incident.Justice in any civilised society is not just about retribution, but also about deterrence, and in less serious crimes,rehabilitationof the offenders.There is a procedure prescribed by the law for criminal investigation which is embedded in constitutional principles.Article21of the Constitution (which is fundamental and non-derogabl e) states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.Also in theSalwa Judum case in 2011a core constitutional precept was set out that in modern constitutionalism no wielder of power can be allowed to claim the right to perpetrate state’s violence against anyone. This is also the touchstone of the constitutionally prescribed rule of law(Article 14).Hence,it is the responsibility of the police, being the officers of government, to follow the Constitutional principles and uphold the Right to Lifeof every individual whether an innocent one or a criminal.According toDr. B.R. Ambedkar,the pathways of justice are not linear nor without obstacles. But we have, as a people, chosen the route of democracy and the Constitution, so we really have no option but to school ourselves in constitutional morality that with time must replace public moralityQ.What does the author mean by Retributive Justice?

View answer

The Constitution which lays down the basic structure of a nation's polity is built on the foundations of certain fundamental values. The vision of socio-economic change through the Constitution is reflected in its lofty Preamble.The Preamble expresses the ideals and aspirations of a renascent India. By the year 1949, the Constituent Assembly had completed the drafting of the Fundamental Rights Chapter. Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees for the human rights of our people. These rights were one of the persistent demands of our leaders throughout the freedom struggle. The founding fathers were conscious of the fact that mere political democracy, i.e., getting the right to vote once in five years or so was meaningless unless it was accompanied by social and economic democracy. Dr. Ambedkar had said:"We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the government. That ideal is of economic democracy."Our founding fathers, however, were far-sighted people therefore they consolidated the principles of good governance as Directive Principles contradistinguished from issues of rights, government and politics.That is how the vision of our founding fathers and the aims and objectives which they wanted to achieve through the Constitution are contained in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. These three may be described as the soul of the Constitution and the testament of the founding fathers to the succeeding generations together with the later Part on Fundamental Duties.Q. It is fundamental right of every citizen not to be discriminated on the ground of religion, race, sex, place of birth or any of them. However, nothing in the fundamental rights shall prevent the state from making any special provision for women, children or elderly. State of XYZ enacted a law granting reservation of 50% in National Law School XYZ - to the native students scoring more than 75% percent in XII Examination. Based on the essence of the passage, decide whether the move of reservation is constitutional or not

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part - III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.All of the following can be inferred from the passage except

View answer

The Constitution which lays down the basic structure of a nation's polity is built on the foundations of certain fundamental values. The vision of socio-economic change through the Constitution is reflected in its lofty Preamble. The Preamble expresses the ideals and aspirations of a renascent India. By the year 1949, the Constituent Assembly had completed the drafting of the Fundamental Rights Chapter. Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees for the human rights of our people. These rights were one of the persistent demands of our leaders throughout the freedom struggle. The founding fathers were conscious of the fact that mere political democracy, i.e., getting the right to vote once in five years or so was meaningless unless it was accompanied by social and economic democracy. Dr. Ambedkar had said:"We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the government. That ideal is of economic democracy.""Our founding fathers, however, were far-sighted people therefore they consolidated the principles of good governance as Directive Principles contradistinguished from issues of rights, government and politics.That is how the vision of our founding fathers and the aims and objectives which they wanted to achieve through the Constitution are contained in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. These three may be described as the soul of the Constitution and the testament of the founding fathers to the succeeding generations together with the later Part on Fundamental Duties.It is fundamental right of every citizen not to be discriminated on the ground of religion, race, sex, place of birth or any of them. However, nothing in the fundamental rights shall prevent the state from making any special provision for women, children or elderly. State of XYZ enacted a law granting reservation of 50% in National Law School XYZ - to the native students scoring more than 75% percent in XII Examination. Based on the essence of the passage, decide whether the move of reservation is constitutional or not

View answer

The Constitution which lays down the basic structure of a nation's polity is built on the foundations of certain fundamental values. The vision of socio-economic change through the Constitution is reflected in its lofty Preamble.The Preamble expresses the ideals and aspirations of a renascent India. By the year 1949, the Constituent Assembly had completed the drafting of the Fundamental Rights Chapter. Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees for the human rights of our people. These rights were one of the persistent demands of our leaders throughout the freedom struggle. The founding fathers were conscious of the fact that mere political democracy, i.e., getting the right to vote once in five years or so was meaningless unless it was accompanied by social and economic democracy. Dr. Ambedkar had said:"We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the government. That ideal is of economic democracy."Our founding fathers, however, were far-sighted people therefore they consolidated the principles of good governance as Directive Principles contradistinguished from issues of rights, government and politics.That is how the vision of our founding fathers and the aims and objectives which they wanted to achieve through the Constitution are contained in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. These three may be described as the soul of the Constitution and the testament of the founding fathers to the succeeding generations together with the later Part on Fundamental Duties.Q. The state government decided not to charge any amount from lady passengers travelling on state run busses. The move was taken with a view to ensure protection and safety for lady commuters. Inevitably, this caused great rush in busses during peak office hours. Arvind, a daily commuter filed a petition before the High Court stating that the government's decision is violative of fundamental rights as it is discriminatory. Based on the passage, choose the most appropriate option.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only historic but also upholds the democratic and moral values of Indian republic. It is not just the expression of the majority but an article of faith to protect the minorities. It is not a law which grants citizenship based on religion but one that grant’s citizenship based on religious persecution. Religious persecution per se is against the minority by a majority in a non-secular state.It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum fromJawaharlal Nehruto Jayaprakash Narayan and evenManmohan Singhhave also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against India’s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAAQ.The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:a)the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.b)the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.c)the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.d)the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only historic but also upholds the democratic and moral values of Indian republic. It is not just the expression of the majority but an article of faith to protect the minorities. It is not a law which grants citizenship based on religion but one that grant’s citizenship based on religious persecution. Religious persecution per se is against the minority by a majority in a non-secular state.It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum fromJawaharlal Nehruto Jayaprakash Narayan and evenManmohan Singhhave also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against India’s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAAQ.The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:a)the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.b)the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.c)the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.d)the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only historic but also upholds the democratic and moral values of Indian republic. It is not just the expression of the majority but an article of faith to protect the minorities. It is not a law which grants citizenship based on religion but one that grant’s citizenship based on religious persecution. Religious persecution per se is against the minority by a majority in a non-secular state.It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum fromJawaharlal Nehruto Jayaprakash Narayan and evenManmohan Singhhave also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against India’s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAAQ.The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:a)the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.b)the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.c)the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.d)the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only historic but also upholds the democratic and moral values of Indian republic. It is not just the expression of the majority but an article of faith to protect the minorities. It is not a law which grants citizenship based on religion but one that grant’s citizenship based on religious persecution. Religious persecution per se is against the minority by a majority in a non-secular state.It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum fromJawaharlal Nehruto Jayaprakash Narayan and evenManmohan Singhhave also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against India’s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAAQ.The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:a)the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.b)the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.c)the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.d)the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only historic but also upholds the democratic and moral values of Indian republic. It is not just the expression of the majority but an article of faith to protect the minorities. It is not a law which grants citizenship based on religion but one that grant’s citizenship based on religious persecution. Religious persecution per se is against the minority by a majority in a non-secular state.It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum fromJawaharlal Nehruto Jayaprakash Narayan and evenManmohan Singhhave also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against India’s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAAQ.The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:a)the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.b)the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.c)the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.d)the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only historic but also upholds the democratic and moral values of Indian republic. It is not just the expression of the majority but an article of faith to protect the minorities. It is not a law which grants citizenship based on religion but one that grant’s citizenship based on religious persecution. Religious persecution per se is against the minority by a majority in a non-secular state.It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum fromJawaharlal Nehruto Jayaprakash Narayan and evenManmohan Singhhave also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against India’s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAAQ.The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:a)the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.b)the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.c)the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.d)the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only historic but also upholds the democratic and moral values of Indian republic. It is not just the expression of the majority but an article of faith to protect the minorities. It is not a law which grants citizenship based on religion but one that grant’s citizenship based on religious persecution. Religious persecution per se is against the minority by a majority in a non-secular state.It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum fromJawaharlal Nehruto Jayaprakash Narayan and evenManmohan Singhhave also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against India’s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAAQ.The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:a)the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.b)the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.c)the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.d)the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only historic but also upholds the democratic and moral values of Indian republic. It is not just the expression of the majority but an article of faith to protect the minorities. It is not a law which grants citizenship based on religion but one that grant’s citizenship based on religious persecution. Religious persecution per se is against the minority by a majority in a non-secular state.It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum fromJawaharlal Nehruto Jayaprakash Narayan and evenManmohan Singhhave also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against India’s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAAQ.The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:a)the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.b)the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.c)the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.d)the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only historic but also upholds the democratic and moral values of Indian republic. It is not just the expression of the majority but an article of faith to protect the minorities. It is not a law which grants citizenship based on religion but one that grant’s citizenship based on religious persecution. Religious persecution per se is against the minority by a majority in a non-secular state.It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum fromJawaharlal Nehruto Jayaprakash Narayan and evenManmohan Singhhave also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against India’s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAAQ.The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:a)the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.b)the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.c)the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.d)the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only historic but also upholds the democratic and moral values of Indian republic. It is not just the expression of the majority but an article of faith to protect the minorities. It is not a law which grants citizenship based on religion but one that grant’s citizenship based on religious persecution. Religious persecution per se is against the minority by a majority in a non-secular state.It is a fact that religion was a prominent factor in the partition of India and the constituent assembly even debated the demand for naturalised citizenship for communities that were forced into becoming minorities in countries in our neighbourhood. Constitution left the window open to make laws for these minorities, who feared religious persecution, in articles 6,7,10 and 11.It would have been unjust, immoral and unethical for the liberal and secular Indian democracy to look the other way when lakhs of people living in India, having fled from Pakistan after independence, continue to remain without an identity or voice despite their residence and ancestral linkages here. Not only has the Indian state given such people citizenship in the past on a case-by-case basis, but leaders across the political spectrum fromJawaharlal Nehruto Jayaprakash Narayan and evenManmohan Singhhave also expressed the need to grant them citizenship.When secularism is under threat in the neighborhood, must a secular state not perform its Gandhian duty? Selective secularism goes against constitutional morality. Many have asked why the bill did not include Muslims. The purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration. Human rights reports by the UN and countless media reports have the persecution of Jain, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus in these countries. How can a follower of Islam face persecution in a country where the state religion is Islam? Even if such exceptional cases arise, the doors for naturalised citizenship remain open.Conscious fear-mongering over the CAA is not only against India’s national interest but it also hurts the cause of informed dissent on the law. Those who think the law is unconstitutional should approach the Supreme Court and those who think that the anti-CAA protests reflect the mood of the people should make it a part of their political narrative. Parliament is the most legitimate institution reflecting the will of the people. The CAA was passed with an absolute majority.Why should the second-largest Muslim population in the world be threatened by an attempt to grant citizenship to a few lakh persecuted minorities in a fraternal democracy? No one is deporting Indian citizens; no one can deport an Indian citizen. Every right-minded citizen should spread facts, not fiction, about the CAAQ.The law is amended, and the government includes all kind of persecuted minorities from all over the world in the bill, according to the author:a)the law would deliver on its promise of India being vasudev kutambakam.b)the law would not deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the victims of partition and fail to recognise their struggle.c)the law would still deliver on its promise, since it is necessary for the government to have policy to determine who can come and live in India and who cannot.d)the law would be a failure, since the purpose of the act is to address religious persecution, not economic migration.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam