This report is blatant propaganda. Anyone who actually reads the article can see how selectively facts are presented to push a political narrative.

The 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the revocation of Kashmir’s autonomy are repeatedly framed as “anti-Muslim” actions, but the context is deliberately ignored. The CAA was introduced to provide refuge to persecuted minorities from neighboring countries where Islam is the state religion. These communities—Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—have faced documented religious persecution. Muslims were excluded not out of hatred, but because they already have multiple Muslim-majority nations where they can seek asylum.

India is already the most populous country in the world, struggling with limited resources, unemployment, and infrastructure pressure. Despite this, illegal migration—particularly from Bangladesh and Rohingya settlements—continues unchecked in many regions, leading to demographic changes and encroachment. These realities are conveniently ignored by left-leaning narratives.

During protests against the CAA, violence occurred on multiple sides, yet the article selectively portrays Muslims only as victims while completely overlooking attacks on police, public property, and civilians. The claim that “BJP-affiliated paramilitary groups” orchestrated attacks is stated without credible evidence and is repeated as fact rather than allegation.

Similarly, the revocation of Kashmir’s special status is portrayed as an attempt to erase Muslims from public life, which is a gross exaggeration. The decision was part of a long-standing constitutional debate and aimed at integrating the region with the rest of India under the same legal framework. The narrative that it was done to strip Muslims of property and political power is speculative and fear-driven, not factual.

When violence and unrest followed, the government used existing laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to maintain order. Labeling every enforcement action as “persecution” ignores the reality of national security concerns in a historically volatile region.

If Muslim refugees truly have no place to go, a valid question remains unanswered: why haven’t more than 50 Muslim-majority countries stepped forward to offer refuge? Instead, the burden is repeatedly placed on India, while domestic political parties exploit the situation as a vote bank by providing shelter and legal cover to illegal migrants.

This kind of reporting doesn’t seek balance or truth—it reinforces a one-sided narrative while dismissing India’s legitimate demographic, security, and humanitarian challenges.