RamaY wrote:This is a slipper slope and that is what I was trying to say in my (allegedly) inflammatory post. India is not obligated to take any refugees unless they come to join India with their lands. If there ever be a refugee scenario, India should send its armed forces to cross the western border to create DMZs for these refugee camps.
RamaY ji,
I am not saying India should accept refugees. Well actually I made that argument but it was in the context of a very different scenario and strategy.
I just said, that even if India accepts refugees, they can be accepted on the basis of their religious persuasion.
RamaY wrote:How can a [sic] secular India accept ONLY religious minority refugees? What kind of humanitarian strategy that would be?
JMT
India secularism has nothing to do with the criteria India uses for allowing in refugees. Refugee applications are accepted depending on whether they are a persecuted group in their home country. The question is all about the determination of which groups in Pakistan are persecuted. If India determines that religious minorities are persecuted, then only those groups should be allowed in.
During the Punjab terrorism wave, where Indian forces were compelled to use strong arm tactics against the Khalistanis, many Sikhs migrated to UK, Canada, elsewhere on the premise they were a persecuted minority in India. 99% of them in reality were simply economic refugees/immigrants. These countries also gave them asylum on the basis of their religious affiliation.
So India is well within its rights to designate Pakistani Hindus and Pakistani Sikhs as persecuted groups and allow them refuge in India, and deny entry to others. It is totally up to India to make that determination.
Our secularism is not a factor, but rather the persecution of the individuals who seek refuge in India.