NEW DELHI: India’s main opposition party Congress has asked all state units to stage protests and hold sit-in demonstration on Wednesday against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Bill that is a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) agenda to marginalise Muslims.
The Bill has prompted widespread protests in India including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s home state of Gujarat.
On the other hand, a group of more than 1,000 Indian scientists and scholars also called for the immediate withdrawal of the bill.
Meanwhile, senior Indian Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a Tweet said that Citizenship Amendment Bill was an attack on the Indian constitution.
Also Read: US seeks sanctions on top Indian officials, including Home Minister Amit Shah
He said anyone who supported it was attacking and attempting to destroy the foundation of Indian nation.
“The bill is an attempt by Modi-Shah Govt to ethnically cleanse the North East. It is a criminal attack on the North East, their way of life and the idea of India.
“I stand in solidarity with the people of the North East and am at their service,” Rahul Gandhi said.
Expressing serious concerns over India’s passage of the Citizenship Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha (the lower house), the United States has sought sanctions against Indian Home Minister Amit Shah and other main leaders over the controversial legislation.
The bill offers Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Muslim-majority neighbouring countries – Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh – citizenship. While, there is no provision for Muslims in this bill.
The opposition parties in India has opposed the discriminatory bill, which was first tabled in 2016 but it could not be successful after an alliance party withdrew. This time it has garnered 311 votes in favor and merely 80 votes against. Now, it would be presented before the upper house.
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has stated that America was ‘deeply troubled’ by the bill, scroll.in reported. It said the legislation was “a dangerous turn in the wrong direction”
