Main Article Content
Abstract
The amendment has been broadly condemned as separating based on religion, specifically for barring Muslims. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called it "generally oppressive", including that while India's "objective of securing mistreated gatherings is welcome", this ought to be cultivated through a non-prejudicial "hearty national refuge framework". Pundits express worries that the bill would be utilized, alongside the National Register of Citizens, to render numerous Muslim residents stateless, as they might be not able to meet stringent birth or personality confirmation necessities. Pundits additionally question the avoidance of aggrieved strict minorities from different districts, for example, Tibet, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. The Indian government says that Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh have Islam as their state religion hence Muslims seem to be "probably not going to confront strict mistreatment" there. Be that as it may, certain Muslim gatherings, for example, Hazards and Armadas, have generally confronted abuse in these nations.