Bengaluru rises in protest against ‘divisive’ CAB

It will widen Hindu-Muslim divide, say protesters.

Update: 2019-12-14 00:40 GMT
Thousands of Muslims protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill and the NRC. (Right) A group of lawyers burn a copy of CAB outside Vidhana Soudha in Bengaluru on Friday DC

Bengaluru: A day after the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB) was passed in Parliament, thousands of Muslims, joined by people from other communities,  took to the streets of Bengaluru to hold a silent protest against it, wearing black badges and carrying flags before mosques  following the Friday prayers even as a group of advocates set fire to a copy of the CAB outside the Vidhana Soudha.

Gathering in huge numbers before some of the prominent mosques of the city like the Mecca Mosque in Neelsandra, Lal Masjid in Shivajinagar and  Shah masjid on Tannery Road, where Muslims are dominant, the protestors raised slogans against CAB and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), calling both “unconstitutional” and an attempt by the BJP government at the Centre to reduce Muslims to second class citizens in the country. The agitators, who took out processions under the banner of Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind, Karnataka chapter, and DJ Halli Federation of Masaajid and Madrasas, from  mosques in different parts of the city,  marched with placards that said,  'We condemn communal law', 'Religious discrimination not accepted', 'Withdraw CAB', and 'Save the Indian Constitution.'

The CAB was passed in the Lok Sabha on Monday and was cleared in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday amidst uproar in both Houses. As many as 125 MPs voted in favour of the Bill in the upper House while 99 MPs voted against it. The Bill immediately got the President's assent, prompting opposition parties to approach the Supreme Court against it.  The protestors said  the CAB violated the fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 14 of the Constitution and was discriminatory in nature against the Muslims. "If offering only non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan citizenship, ignoring the plight of persecuted Muslim refugees from Myanmar, and Srilankan Tamils, is not discrimination, then what else is?"they asked.

Demanding that the government withdraw the Bill immediately as it was against the Constitution of India that guaranteed equality before the law and prohibited discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, they argued that it was not just anti-Muslim, but anti- humanity.  Contending that the Bill struck at the secular fabric of society , the protestors warned that if it was not withdrawn, it would further widen the communal divide between Hindus and Muslims in the country.

“Articles 5 and 11 of the Constitution grant citizenship to people on the basis of their domicile status and not religion. But now by granting citizenship on the basis of religion, the BJP government intends to drive a wedge between people. It was the darkest day in the history of India when CAB was passed,” said several Muslim moulvis,  who participated in the protest. The Muslim clergies and intellectuals charged that the Bill was the handiwork of a few fundamentalists as a majority of the Hindus were in favour of peaceful coexistence with people of all religions and communities.

Also criticising the government for its “communal agenda through the divisive bill,” Chamrajpet MLA, B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan said that Muslims did not need not to prove their identity or love for the nation as they had already proved it during partition. "By choosing to stay in India after the partition we have already proved our identity. Muslims should not panic as the BJPs communal agenda will not sustain," he added.

Meanwhile, a group of advocates gathered outside the Vidhana Soudha on Friday and burnt a copy of the CAB. Advocate Saddam Hussain, who was part of the group,  told the Deccan Chronicle that although the Supreme Court had repeatedly said that the basic structure of the Constitution could not be changed, the BJP government at the Centre had come out with an “anti-national and discriminatory Bill,”  which had also been passed in both Houses of parliament simply  because of its majority.  “But it will not stand legal scrutiny in the Supreme Court,” he warned.

Similar News