In Pakistan Hindu teenagers are regularly abducted, converted to Islam and married away.
India is giving refuge to these people.
Muslims are not similarly persecuted in Islamic nations.
That's a gross generalization. See for example, the Ahmadis in Pakistan. Or more generally, the whole Sunni vs Shia split. India is supposed to be a secular country.
Anyways, most of the recent rukkus is in Assam and northeastern India. Most of the people fleeing Bangladesh aren't doing so because of religious persecution; that country doesn't have nearly as stringent islamic laws like Pakistan does. The official platform of the ruling party in Bangladesh, which has 300+ out of 350 seats currently in parliament, promotes secularism as one of four main tenants. There has been communal violence there, just like in India, but it is no Pakistan.
Hindus and Muslims alike leave Bangladesh for various reasons, but in the last four decades, it's mostly because of economic and ecological issues.
Meanwhile, in Assam, there has been more than a century of Assamese vs Bengali (both hindus and muslims, both from India and Bangladesh like) vs other tribal/ethnic groups. This has resulted in several partitions of Bengal (which also caused economic decline, which also caused more refugees), and several carve outs of Assam into a bunch of other states due to many insurgencies.
At least think of some genuine sounding reason rather than this
If Pakistanis persecute Ahmadis, who are Muslims, we from outside cannot even imagine the day to day life of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and others in Pakistan.
Jizya tax was imposed in large parts of India on non-Muslim populations[0]. Not sure how you can call it tolerance?
In other times and in other parts of the world, not even that has been the case.
For example
CAA does not differentiate within Hindu castes saying 'Only Dalits are oppressed, Brahmins are not oppressed, so we won't give citizenship to Brahmins'. It speeds up process for all Hindus.
CAA do not differentiate within Christian sects saying 'Only Protestants are persecuted, Catholics are not persecuted, so we won't give citizenship to Catholics'. It speeds up process for all Christians.
Similarly, CAA does not differentiate within Muslims saying 'Only Shias are persecuted, Sunnis are not persecuted, so we will give citizenship to Shias'. It keeps speed same for all Muslims.
Pak and Bangladesh, which are Islamic countries, can take care of Islamic refugees.
Partition was unfortunate, but the constitution says that India is a secular socialist Republic, so your point is null and void
Interesting scenario. Doesn't that make the person an atheist? The constitution of India doesn't recognize them, unfortunately. I would push for their inclusion once the constitution recognizes atheism.
Null and void
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-be-an-atheist-while-being-a-Hi...
How many scriptures have you read? Bhagwad Gita? Ved? Ramayan? Mahabharat?
Gita itself doesn't have the word Hindu in it.
Hindu word was created by Arabs and it is a short of Al-Hind, i.e. those living beyond River Hind aka Indus.
Again, null and void
What is ignoble is the fact that they have exempted Muslims from refuge, while there is a literal genocide against the Muslim minority (Rohingya) happening in their neighbouring country, Myanmar. A country with which they share more than 1600 km of border.
How could this act be interpreted as anything but a action to further victimize and marginalize the Muslims?
It is quite a sad irony that Myanmar's excuse for the atrocities they do against the Muslims is that they are not citizens, but illegal immigrants in Myanmar. Is this a sign of what is to come to ~200 million Indian Muslims?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/myanmar-new-e...
That is the problem, this whole issue is being misrepresented. The law is about bulk/en masse citizenship of people based on a certain criteria.
Other refugees are still accepted, only their cases are dealt on a case by case basis.