-On why sharp changes in religious demography are a problem
-On downsides of illegal immigration
-On why persecuted Hindu groups are "exceptional"
Yet articulation on these issues is weak
Aftertaste is one of authoritarianism
The fence-sitters don't seem all that convinced that these moves were worth the hassle
The opposition's narrative on heavy-handedness, lack of a consensual approach on the other hand is striking a chord
1. Hey this doesn't affect Indian muslims
2. Hey this is unfinished business of partition (followed by old soundbytes of how Nehruji, Bapuji felt about giving "aashray" to Pak-Hindus
TP #2 may seem very irrelevant to people not tuned into history
The real need for slowing down demographic change is not driven home
The case for CAA / NRC concerns the big elephant in the room -
Insecurity around religious demography and its implications for Indian politics in the "short run" and for Indian territorial integrity in the "medium to long run"
If the answer to that question is "Yes", then you don't need a CAA or NRC.
Many people think the answer is a No. But this cannot be discussed openly and politely
There is hardly anybody alive today with adult memories of the events of 1940s
Many educated Indians don't have a good understanding of the events of those years
They don't conceive it as a problem caused by the state's unique religious demography
In part because we are not tuned to think that way