All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  The passage of citizenship amendment act, 201... Start Learning for Free
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 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 author is concerned about the protests to CAA because:
  • a)
    the author believes that ill-informed dissent is legitimate, but violence has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. India has always stood for what is moral and just.
  • b)
    the author believes that given that the CAA does not impinge on a single constitutional right of an Indian citizen, the protests against it on the pretext that it is anti-Muslim are dishonest and against the secular fabric of this great nation.
  • c)
    the author believes that the constitution provides enough protection to minorities in case of discrimination.
  • d)
    the author believes that morality teaches us to favour positive discrimination for minorities to bring them on a level-playing field.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CLAT doubts with EduRev
Verified Answer
The passage of citizenship amendment act, 2019 (CAA) is not only histo...
Out of (B), (C) and (D) option the most relevant one is (B). (A) is against the opinion of the author in the passage.
View all questions of this test
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.As per author the extrajudicial killing of those 4 convicts was a form of

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?

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

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

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of 'limited government', or, 'the government of laws, not of men', as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct 'Judicial Review' could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owing to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the 'normal' and 'emergency' provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owing to multiple amendments of the Constitution.The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.Q. What, according to the passage, is the biggest concern of the author?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

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 author is concerned about the protests to CAA because:a)the author believes that ill-informed dissent is legitimate, but violence has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. India has always stood for what is moral and just.b)the author believes that given that the CAA does not impinge on a single constitutional right of an Indian citizen, the protests against it on the pretext that it is anti-Muslim are dishonest and against the secular fabric of this great nation.c)the author believes that the constitution provides enough protection to minorities in case of discrimination.d)the author believes that morality teaches us to favour positive discrimination for minorities to bring them on a level-playing field.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
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 author is concerned about the protests to CAA because:a)the author believes that ill-informed dissent is legitimate, but violence has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. India has always stood for what is moral and just.b)the author believes that given that the CAA does not impinge on a single constitutional right of an Indian citizen, the protests against it on the pretext that it is anti-Muslim are dishonest and against the secular fabric of this great nation.c)the author believes that the constitution provides enough protection to minorities in case of discrimination.d)the author believes that morality teaches us to favour positive discrimination for minorities to bring them on a level-playing field.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 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 author is concerned about the protests to CAA because:a)the author believes that ill-informed dissent is legitimate, but violence has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. India has always stood for what is moral and just.b)the author believes that given that the CAA does not impinge on a single constitutional right of an Indian citizen, the protests against it on the pretext that it is anti-Muslim are dishonest and against the secular fabric of this great nation.c)the author believes that the constitution provides enough protection to minorities in case of discrimination.d)the author believes that morality teaches us to favour positive discrimination for minorities to bring them on a level-playing field.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 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 author is concerned about the protests to CAA because:a)the author believes that ill-informed dissent is legitimate, but violence has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. India has always stood for what is moral and just.b)the author believes that given that the CAA does not impinge on a single constitutional right of an Indian citizen, the protests against it on the pretext that it is anti-Muslim are dishonest and against the secular fabric of this great nation.c)the author believes that the constitution provides enough protection to minorities in case of discrimination.d)the author believes that morality teaches us to favour positive discrimination for minorities to bring them on a level-playing field.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 author is concerned about the protests to CAA because:a)the author believes that ill-informed dissent is legitimate, but violence has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. India has always stood for what is moral and just.b)the author believes that given that the CAA does not impinge on a single constitutional right of an Indian citizen, the protests against it on the pretext that it is anti-Muslim are dishonest and against the secular fabric of this great nation.c)the author believes that the constitution provides enough protection to minorities in case of discrimination.d)the author believes that morality teaches us to favour positive discrimination for minorities to bring them on a level-playing field.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 author is concerned about the protests to CAA because:a)the author believes that ill-informed dissent is legitimate, but violence has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. India has always stood for what is moral and just.b)the author believes that given that the CAA does not impinge on a single constitutional right of an Indian citizen, the protests against it on the pretext that it is anti-Muslim are dishonest and against the secular fabric of this great nation.c)the author believes that the constitution provides enough protection to minorities in case of discrimination.d)the author believes that morality teaches us to favour positive discrimination for minorities to bring them on a level-playing field.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 author is concerned about the protests to CAA because:a)the author believes that ill-informed dissent is legitimate, but violence has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. India has always stood for what is moral and just.b)the author believes that given that the CAA does not impinge on a single constitutional right of an Indian citizen, the protests against it on the pretext that it is anti-Muslim are dishonest and against the secular fabric of this great nation.c)the author believes that the constitution provides enough protection to minorities in case of discrimination.d)the author believes that morality teaches us to favour positive discrimination for minorities to bring them on a level-playing field.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 author is concerned about the protests to CAA because:a)the author believes that ill-informed dissent is legitimate, but violence has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. India has always stood for what is moral and just.b)the author believes that given that the CAA does not impinge on a single constitutional right of an Indian citizen, the protests against it on the pretext that it is anti-Muslim are dishonest and against the secular fabric of this great nation.c)the author believes that the constitution provides enough protection to minorities in case of discrimination.d)the author believes that morality teaches us to favour positive discrimination for minorities to bring them on a level-playing field.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 author is concerned about the protests to CAA because:a)the author believes that ill-informed dissent is legitimate, but violence has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. India has always stood for what is moral and just.b)the author believes that given that the CAA does not impinge on a single constitutional right of an Indian citizen, the protests against it on the pretext that it is anti-Muslim are dishonest and against the secular fabric of this great nation.c)the author believes that the constitution provides enough protection to minorities in case of discrimination.d)the author believes that morality teaches us to favour positive discrimination for minorities to bring them on a level-playing field.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 author is concerned about the protests to CAA because:a)the author believes that ill-informed dissent is legitimate, but violence has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. India has always stood for what is moral and just.b)the author believes that given that the CAA does not impinge on a single constitutional right of an Indian citizen, the protests against it on the pretext that it is anti-Muslim are dishonest and against the secular fabric of this great nation.c)the author believes that the constitution provides enough protection to minorities in case of discrimination.d)the author believes that morality teaches us to favour positive discrimination for minorities to bring them on a level-playing field.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup