"BJP govt. will not force a single (non-Muslim) refugee to leave the country" : Amit Shah

[cricketjoshila]

can you elaborate pls what kind of appeasement muslims are njoying in bengal

Read that link please. After that you will get some idea.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lines do get blurry between policy and implementation of said policy. It’s happened before.

You might start off with enforcing policy rigidly but over time, discrimination, along with weak controls do start to kick in and India needs to be careful of this. Where potentially Indian Muslim nationals are treated as illegals.

Even counties like the U.K. aren’t immune to this despite having much better governance and control than a country like India. For example the Windrush scandal has resulted in potential deportation for U.K. nationals.

Yes they do. Which is why such an exercise will be conducted under the watch of the judiciary, with a three level appeal process.

I am not very familiar with UK citizenship laws but [MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION] and [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] who both went through the NRC procedure in Assam to prove their citizenship may be able to tell you how difficult or easy it was.

 

[Finisher]

In US and UK.

That is why India is known as a fake democracy

 

[cricketjoshila]

That is why India is known as a fake democracy

That would be pakistan.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">How is the Home Monster allowed to speak like this? Is it not against the constitution to tell refugees that only the Muslims among them will be forced to leave India by the govt? What is going on? These are the seeds of ethnic cleansing being sown in the open for all to see! <a href="https://t.co/YQSPV0Oj0s">https://t.co/YQSPV0Oj0s</a></p>— Siddharth (@Actor_Siddharth) <a href="https://twitter.com/Actor_Siddharth/status/1179023723954868224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[kk1992]

As it is evident, many Indians have embrace the idea of containing the numbers of Muslims in India.

This is the first step, where does this train of hate stop?

Prominent Indian politician continue to give hate speech against Muslims and threatening if they are not subservient.

BJP/RSS will always have an excuse to justify their hate, it will be a law, it will be history, it will money, it will anything and everything as long as they can justify it.

And there will always be one cheerleader on this forum while would be quick to criticize Pakistani for doing the same.

Time will tell how will this unfold for India but one thing is for sure that the action of majority of India are alienating 200+ million Muslims of India.

 

[ahsan17]

That would be pakistan.

What is the relevance of Pakistan to this discussion?

 

[ReverseHit]

Good. Where else would the Hindu, Buddhist and the Sikh refugees go if they get persecuted? As for the Muslims, well Bangladeshi Muslims had already implicitly declared their belief that Hindus and Muslims can't stay together by choosing to stay/migrate to East Pakistan. Just stay honest to your claim, that's all the Indians ask.

 

[sweep_shot]

BJP is an anti-Islam party. Nothing to see here.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

Good. Where else would the Hindu, Buddhist and the Sikh refugees go if they get persecuted? As for the Muslims, well Bangladeshi Muslims had already implicitly declared their belief that Hindus and Muslims can't stay together by choosing to stay/migrate to East Pakistan. Just stay honest to your claim, that's all the Indians ask.

Pakistan wasn't made as a "Muslim" only country, it was made to practice the "Muslim Law" with ease without external pressure. All minorities, ethnicities etc. were welcome to join in.

Not saying that the premise has lived up to the hype.

However, India clearly states that it's a "Secular" state which means anyone and everyone should be welcome and now it's becoming more and more Hindustan and that's a major issue.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes they do. Which is why such an exercise will be conducted under the watch of the judiciary, with a three level appeal process.

In which case, why does the Minister need to distinguish between Muslim and non-Muslim refugees in the speech pertaining to the OP?

Why not just let the due process take course without specifying to the whole of India that only Muslim refugees are unwelcome?

Why are they unwelcome anyway?

 

[Itachi]

Lines do get blurry between policy and implementation of said policy. It’s happened before.

You might start off with enforcing policy rigidly but over time, discrimination, along with weak controls do start to kick in and India needs to be careful of this. Where potentially Indian Muslim nationals are treated as illegals.

Even counties like the U.K. aren’t immune to this despite having much better governance and control than a country like India. For example the Windrush scandal has resulted in potential deportation for U.K. nationals.

You are right. Lines do get blurry between policy and implementation of said policy. However, NRC was a process that was observed by Supreme court and wasn't under GOI. And in this process, utmost efforts were taken in order to prove citizenship in various steps. It wasn't just provide documents or else you will be deemed an illegal foreigner. Here's the timeline of NRC, a process which started way back in 1951.

1951 : First-ever National Register of Citizens (NRC) of India published

1979 : Anti-foreigners' movement started in Assam

January 1980 : All Assam Students Union (AASU) submitted the first memorandum demanding updating of NRC

August 14, 1985 : Historic Assam Accord was signed

1990 : AASU submitted modalities to update NRC to Centre as well state government

1999 : Centre took the first formal decision to update the NRC as per the Assam Accord

May 2005: The then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh chaired a tripartite meeting between the Centre, Assam government and the AASU where an understanding was reached that steps must be taken towards updating the NRC to fulfil the promises made in the Assam Accord. The modalities for this were approved by the Centre in consultation with the Assam government.

July 2009: An NGO called Assam Public Works moved the Supreme Court pleading that the names of those migrants who have not been documented should be removed from the voters' list. The NGO requested the court that the process to update the NRC should be started. This is the first instance how the NRC matter reached the Supreme Court.

August 2013: The petition filed by Assam Public Works came up for hearing.

December 2013: The Supreme Court directed that the exercise to update NRC should start.

February 2015: Though the Supreme Court had ordered updating the NRC in 2013 to identify bonafide citizens and weed out illegal immigrants, the actual exercise began in February 2015.

December 31, 2015: Deadline set by the Supreme Court to publish the NRC was missed and since then the apex court has been constantly monitoring the update

December 31, 2017: The government published the first draft of the NRC.

July 30, 2018: Assam government releases second NRC draft. Of the 3.29 crore who applied, 2.89 crore were declared genuine citizens. The draft NRC excluded over 40 lakh people.

August 1, 2018 : The Supreme Court ruled that the Assam NRC was only a draft, and hence it cannot be the the basis of any action by any authority against anyone. The Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat clarified that the electoral roll is governed by a separate law and exclusion from the final NRC would not mean "automatic removal" from Assam's voters' list.

August 17, 2018: The Supreme Court asked the Assam NRC coordinator to submit the data of district-wise percentage of the population excluded from the NRC draft in the state.

September 5, 2018 : The Supreme court had ordered that any one of the 10 of a total 15 documents provided in List-A of the NRC claim form can be used by the claimants to prove legacy.

December 31, 2018: This was the deadline for the government to release the final version of NRC. However, the deadline could not be met.

June 26, 2019: An additional draft on exclusion list was published. This list had 1,02,462 names, taking the total number of those left out to 41,10,169.

July 31, 2019: The government was supposed to release the final version of the NRC. It could not and the deadline was extended by a month.

August 31, 2019: The government released the final version of the NRC, with over 9 lakh people in Assam left out from the list.

[SUP]source:NRC timeline by economic times[/SUP]

---

Now, the documents that were required were categorized as List A and List B

List A: The first requirement is collection of ANY ONE of the following documents of List A issued before midnight of 24th March, 1971 where name of self or ancestor* appears (to prove residence in Assam up to midnight of 24th March, 1971).

List B: The Second requirement arises if name in any of the documents of List A is not of the applicant himself/herself but that of an ancestor, namely, father or mother or grandfather or grandmother or great grandfather or great grandmother (and so on) of the applicant.

further....

"Such documents shall have to be legally acceptable document which clearly proves such relationship."

List A included:

• Electoral rolls upto March 25, 1971
• NRC of 1951
  
• Land and tenancy records
  
• Citizenship certificate
  
• Permanent resident certificate
  
• Passport
  
• Bank or LIC documents
  
• Permanent Residential Certificate
  
• Educational certificates and court order records
  
• Refugee Registration Certificate

List B included -

• Land documents
  
• Board or university certificates
  
• Birth certificate
  
• Bank/LIC/post office records
  
• Ration card
  
• Electoral rolls
  
• Other legally acceptable documents
  
• A circle officer or gram panchayat secretary certificate for married women

Source:
[SUP]

• http://nrcassam.nic.in/admin-documents.html
• https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/what-is-national-register-of-citizenship-nrc-1567680253-1

[/SUP]

As you can see it from above, none of the documents make any differentiation in the name of religion

---

What happens if some people find it too complicated to go through the process?

For exactly this purpose, NRC seva kendra were formed which will guide the people through every steps. In these centers, the local reputed people were given responsibility and hence, every efforts were made so that no incorrect entries are made.

Even if one does make mistakes, the next stage ensures that any irregularities that were made were indeed rectified.

How do i know this?

While going through this process, i didn't have to face any hassle but my aunt did have to go through a lot. Some other families also claimed the same ancestor (my grandfather) as my aunt and hence, she had to travel around 600 km 3 times for personal identification where crossed checks were made to ensure that the claimants were indeed a part of the family tree.

In my aunts case, while my aunts records were found in the family tree, that of the other family couldn't be found and hence they were asked to show other documents (either rectify the legacy code or provide a document which could relate them to ancestor prior to 1971).

If there was any conflicts, personal verification were made so that the people involved do get ample of opportunity to show their credentials. That's why, even if they made mistakes in the application, it could be corrected later on. In some other cases, personal visits by the authorities were also made in order to varify their address.

This is the reason why the whole process took so much time to complete.

---

But what happens for the excluded individuals?

"Non-inclusion of a person's name in the NRC does not by itself amount to him/her being declared a foreigner," govt has said. Such individuals will have the option to present their case before foreigners' tribunals.

[SUP]Source: https://www.business-standard.com/about/what-is-nrc [/SUP]

The people who didn't find their names in the NRC; can still appeal in the tribunal.

If unresolved, then move to high court.

If unresolved, then move to supreme court.

For assam, the govt also stated that, "it will not detain any individual until he/she is declared a foreigner by the foreigners' tribunal" (source: [SUP]Economic Times[/SUP]) which means, not having names in the NRC doesn't automatically makes one a "foreigner".

Further....

If anybody is declared foreigner at foreigners tribunals then he/she can approach to the higher courts. If somebody is declared foreigner by the courts then he/she can be arrested in the detention centre. As of July 2019; there are 1,17,164 persons have been declared foreigners out of which 1,145 are in the detention.

[SUP]Source: https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/what-is-national-register-of-citizenship-nrc-1567680253-1[/SUP]

which means, out of all the people that are deemed "foreigner", not even 1% is in detention as of now as most probably pursuing the case.

My thoughts: NRC is indeed a very complicated process (as evident from above) but i also feel that the check points at every stage ensured that no legal citizens are strike out whether due to technical errors or due to document preservation.

Every person has been given multiple chances in different ways to prove the declaration that were given in their application. It was an herculean task but Supreme Court ensured that it was free from any biased that may come along with different groups having different agendas.

It may not be the perfect method, but it is perhaps one of the practical ones with higher success rate. For those who may wrongfully declared "foreigner", the system itself provided different ways to prove their claim.

And last but not the least, all these claims of targeting a particular religion is just nothing but attempt to malign the process for their own interest since it is clear from the process itself that, the whole procedure at no stage gives any different weight to people from different religions.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Sad is thing is joshila is a doctor.

What a sad indictment.

Why is it sad? Or is it because he is a doctor who treats only hindus, sikhs, jain, christians and buddhists?

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

What is the relevance of Pakistan to this discussion?

He is obsessed with Pakistan. Thread is about India and illegal refugees from Bangladesh. He has to bring Pakistan in it to give some weight to his arguments here.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

BJP is an anti-Islam party. Nothing to see here.

Yes they are and they are openly confessing that with each passing day.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Pakistan wasn't made as a "Muslim" only country, it was made to practice the "Muslim Law" with ease without external pressure. All minorities, ethnicities etc. were welcome to join in.

Not saying that the premise has lived up to the hype.

However, India clearly states that it's a "Secular" state which means anyone and everyone should be welcome and now it's becoming more and more Hindustan and that's a major issue.

Major issue with whom?

Secular for its citizens, not for illegal immigrants.

 

[cricketjoshila]

In which case, why does the Minister need to distinguish between Muslim and non-Muslim refugees in the speech pertaining to the OP?

Why not just let the due process take course without specifying to the whole of India that only Muslim refugees are unwelcome?

Why are they unwelcome anyway?

The court will carry out the exercise as per the law, the citizenship amendment bill will deliniate that muslim illegal immigrants will not get citizenship.

It has been explained numerous times that why muslim illegal immigrants will not get citizenship.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The court will carry out the exercise as per the law, the citizenship amendment bill will deliniate that muslim illegal immigrants will not get citizenship.

It has been explained numerous times that why muslim illegal immigrants will not get citizenship.

Yes, the reason is that the Hindutva govt is enforcing religious discrimination against Muslim refugees which reflects their general agenda for India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes, the reason is that the Hindutva govt is enforcing religious discrimination against Muslim refugees which reflects their general agenda for India.

Muslim refugees are not Indians so this has nothing to do with India.

Those who seeked partition snd got their land and in the process killed 100s and 1000s of non muslims are not welcome here.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Muslim refugees are not Indians so this has nothing to do with India.

Those who seeked partition snd got their land and in the process killed 100s and 1000s of non muslims are not welcome here.

All those people who "seeked" partition and killed 1000s of non-Muslims will have died years ago, so you don't need to make them welcome. They aren't about to rise out of their graves and shamble across the border like some sort of recalcitrant zombies.

This is like me saying I won't speak to British Indians who butchered 100s and 1000s of Muslims during partition caused by Hindutva bloodlust as payback for Muslim rule in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

All those people who "seeked" partition and killed 1000s of non-Muslims will have died years ago, so you don't need to make them welcome. They aren't about to rise out of their graves and shamble across the border like some sort of recalcitrant zombies.

This is like me saying I won't speak to British Indians who butchered 100s and 1000s of Muslims during partition caused by Hindutva bloodlust as payback for Muslim rule in India.

Whether you speak to british indians or not is your problem.

Its pretty simple logic, they got their land in 1947. Now they cant come here.

 

[Patriot]

The logic is faulty though. Children of those individuals cannot be beholden to their parents views. People can have different views to their parents. How long will this hold true? To the end of times, next century?

The following has no relation to this topic, however it provides a similar example. A few British individuals have inherited property now that was accumulated from slavery. Should the British Government take it back or should they say, the current generation is not responsible for what their ancestors did.

 

[Itachi]

The logic is faulty though. Children of those individuals cannot be beholden to their parents views. People can have different views to their parents. How long will this hold true? To the end of times, next century?

The following has no relation to this topic, however it provides a similar example. A few British individuals have inherited property now that was accumulated from slavery. Should the British Government take it back or should they say, the current generation is not responsible for what their ancestors did.

I'll give a simple example. A company bifurcated into two divisions. Now, employees were given option to chose either division A or division B but after which no transfer between divisions can happen.

Years later, A new employee joins division A but due to his personal interest, he wants to move to division B. Can he claim that he should be able to give the option to change divisions since at the time of bifurcation, he wasn't able to provide his option (as it happened years earlier w.r.t his joining time)?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I'll give a simple example. A company bifurcated into two divisions. Now, employees were given option to chose either division A or division B but after which no transfer between divisions can happen.

Years later, A new employee joins division A but due to his personal interest, he wants to move to division B. Can he claim that he should be able to give the option to change divisions since at the time of bifurcation, he wasn't able to provide his option (as it happened years earlier w.r.t his joining time)?

That should apply regardless of religion then as Hindu and Sikh ancestors also made their choice to stay in East Pakistan at time of partition.

 

[Patriot]

I'll give a simple example. A company bifurcated into two divisions. Now, employees were given option to chose either division A or division B but after which no transfer between divisions can happen.

Years later, A new employee joins division A but due to his personal interest, he wants to move to division B. Can he claim that he should be able to give the option to change divisions since at the time of bifurcation, he wasn't able to provide his option (as it happened years earlier w.r.t his joining time)?

If that’s company policy then yes he/she shouldn’t be able to switch. Similarly if that’s in the Indian constitution then that’s fine, but it goes against the whole ethos of a secular democracy.

 

[cricketjoshila]

If that’s company policy then yes he/she shouldn’t be able to switch. Similarly if that’s in the Indian constitution then that’s fine, but it goes against the whole ethos of a secular democracy.

Secularism Democracy all these rights belong to Indian citizens not to foreigners who enter illegally.They cannot claim parity with Indians.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The logic is faulty though. Children of those individuals cannot be beholden to their parents views. People can have different views to their parents. How long will this hold true? To the end of times, next century?

The following has no relation to this topic, however it provides a similar example. A few British individuals have inherited property now that was accumulated from slavery. Should the British Government take it back or should they say, the current generation is not responsible for what their ancestors did.

Presently 2mn people are said to be illegal ommigrants from BD into Assam. Even more are expected to be in Bengal and all over India. So we gave up the land and now even after 70yrs we are expected to take in muslims from BD. Are they going to come with their land as well?

The number of non muslims in are limited and are a very tiny percentage in these countries. But muslims are the majority. So the number of immigrants will be very large if we allow everyone to come in comared to only letting in non muslims.


Thirdly a large number of hindus in India faced great difficulty during partition at the hands of muslims in these countries and their sentiments need to be respected as well. Are they supportive of letting these people come in?

S number of organisations in these countries are anti Indian, and they are almost exclusively Islamist organisations, members of such organisations will get a free entry into India then.

The non muslims in these countries reside in a islamic republic, their rights are limited and they face persecution, so giving them refuge makes sense and while muslims are maonly economic immigrants.

Lastly, a large number of these refugees are in border districts. Giving citizenship to a large number of foreign muslims may change the demography of the area from a hindu majority to a muslim majority. If tommorow these foreigners start a demand to have these bordering areas separated with application of Sharia law, like their forefathers, then are we looking at another secession?

Why as an Indian will i take so many risks? What do i have to gain?

 

[Patriot]

Presently 2mn people are said to be illegal ommigrants from BD into Assam. Even more are expected to be in Bengal and all over India. So we gave up the land and now even after 70yrs we are expected to take in muslims from BD. Are they going to come with their land as well?

The number of non muslims in are limited and are a very tiny percentage in these countries. But muslims are the majority. So the number of immigrants will be very large if we allow everyone to come in comared to only letting in non muslims.


Thirdly a large number of hindus in India faced great difficulty during partition at the hands of muslims in these countries and their sentiments need to be respected as well. Are they supportive of letting these people come in?

S number of organisations in these countries are anti Indian, and they are almost exclusively Islamist organisations, members of such organisations will get a free entry into India then.

The non muslims in these countries reside in a islamic republic, their rights are limited and they face persecution, so giving them refuge makes sense and while muslims are maonly economic immigrants.

Lastly, a large number of these refugees are in border districts. Giving citizenship to a large number of foreign muslims may change the demography of the area from a hindu majority to a muslim majority. If tommorow these foreigners start a demand to have these bordering areas separated with application of Sharia law, like their forefathers, then are we looking at another secession?

Why as an Indian will i take so many risks? What do i have to gain?

I’m not saying India shouldn’t do it. I’m just saying you can’t call yourself a secular democracy. It’s semantics but a secular country wouldn’t treat one religious group differently. And arguing you are still a secular democracy because these people rejected India is a cop out. The people who rejected are most likely dead.

 

[Patriot]

And I’m not talking about India citizens here.

 

[Itachi]

And I’m not talking about India citizens here.

I think the argument between you and CJ ultimately boils down to difference in opinion about fairness.

You believe equality is proper implementation of secularism and CJ believes equity is proper implementation of secularism.

 

[Patriot]

Secularism Democracy all these rights belong to Indian citizens not to foreigners who enter illegally.They cannot claim parity with Indians.

Lol that’s not how it works. Secularism is where your legislation, policies are not religiously driven. It’s not about citizenship or being an illegal. This is a clear case of policy that is religiously driven. No is saying India shouldn’t do it. Just don’t be hypocrites and call yourself secular.

 

[Patriot]

I think the argument between you and CJ ultimately boils down to difference in opinion about fairness.

You believe equality is proper implementation of secularism and CJ believes equity is proper implementation of secularism.

That is true I guess.

 

[Patriot]

Ignore the above post.

Not sure that it is that. I’m not saying that everyone should be treated completely equally as there are differences. But in this instance I don’t see the basis of favouring some over others to be truly fair.

 

[Itachi]

Ignore the above post.

Not sure that it is that. I’m not saying that everyone should be treated completely equally as there are differences. But in this instance I don’t see the basis of favouring some over others to be truly fair.

Let me clarify. You defined what is equality.

On the other hand, equity is when Hindus from refugee section is given a preference because the minority situation in Bangladesh is worse.

For example, in India, if you are a hindu, then you fall in the general category (from religion pov) and you don't have any reservations. But if you are Muslim, then you can apply for minority quota in job sectors which will give you access to the reserved positions.

This isn't equality since it does differentiate between two people based upon different religion but it is equity for the fact that, since in many places Muslims are in economically weaker section and hence needs a boost to bring up the standards of living.

Equality doesn't take circumstances into consideration. Equity does.

 

[Patriot]

Let me clarify. You defined what is equality.

On the other hand, equity is when Hindus from refugee section is given a preference because the minority situation in Bangladesh is worse.

For example, in India, if you are a hindu, then you fall in the general category (from religion pov) and you don't have any reservations. But if you are Muslim, then you can apply for minority quota in job sectors which will give you access to the reserved positions.

This isn't equality since it does differentiate between two people based upon different religion but it is equity for the fact that, since in many places Muslims are in economically weaker section and hence needs a boost to bring up the standards of living.

Equality doesn't take circumstances into consideration. Equity does.

You should have started with this, i.e. Hindus are worse off. In that case, I can see the argument for taking an equatable position as they should get preference.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lol that’s not how it works. Secularism is where your legislation, policies are not religiously driven. It’s not about citizenship or being an illegal. This is a clear case of policy that is religiously driven. No is saying India shouldn’t do it. Just don’t be hypocrites and call yourself secular.

Its a policy thats not religiously driven. If you check the citizenship act, this only entails to south asian countries and so does the amendment. These are country specific laws.

Muslims from outside these countries will still be eligible to get citizenship.

Even persons from these countries with proper visas will be eligible to get citizenship once they fulfill the cricteria.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Its a policy thats not religiously driven. If you check the citizenship act, this only entails to south asian countries and so does the amendment. These are country specific laws.

Muslims from outside these countries will still be eligible to get citizenship.

Even persons from these countries with proper visas will be eligible to get citizenship once they fulfill the cricteria.

If it's a policy that's not religiously driven, then why did the minister need to make the religious clarification in the OP?

 

[cricketjoshila]

If it's a policy that's not religiously driven, then why did the minister need to make the religious clarification in the OP?

Its about a particular community from particular countries, a policy based on what happened at partition.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Its about a particular community from particular countries, a policy based on what happened at partition.

What do those particular communities from particular countries based on partition have in common? I am just trying to establish how courts in India would make their judgements joshila bhai, as you know, the legal process is quite particular.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Amit Shah makes clear three times over the course of this two minute clip that the implementation of a population registry in West Bengal will be tied to a citizenship bill that will grant refugee status to every religious community except for Muslims. <a href="https://t.co/3ItuPyOoOo">pic.twitter.com/3ItuPyOoOo</a></p>— Arif Rafiq (@ArifCRafiq) <a href="https://twitter.com/ArifCRafiq/status/1182006841171156993?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[cricketjoshila]

What do those particular communities from particular countries based on partition have in common? I am just trying to establish how courts in India would make their judgements joshila bhai, as you know, the legal process is quite particular.

What they have in common is that they demanded partition and got their share of land, in the process 100s of 1000s were killed. They also form the bulk of anti India extremist organization and are not welcome in India.

 

[Amit2]

What do those particular communities from particular countries based on partition have in common? I am just trying to establish how courts in India would make their judgements joshila bhai, as you know, the legal process is quite particular.

India is a labour surplus country with huge young population and unemployment. Hence we are not in a position to take in illegal economic migrants who are mostly unskilled labourers. Most of these migrants are from Bangladesh which is a Muslim country. The none Muslims can be given citizenship based on their status of refugees from religious prosecution not as economic migrants.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What they have in common is that they demanded partition and got their share of land, in the process 100s of 1000s were killed. They also form the bulk of anti India extremist organization and are not welcome in India.

They are all dead or on the verge of dying. How can those demanding partition now be seeking a home in India? It is physically impossible.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">HM Amit Shah: Hindu, Buddhist,Sikh,Jain, Christian, Parsi refugees should get citizenship,that is why Citizenship Amendment Bill is needed so that these refugees who are being discriminated on basis of religion in Pakistan,Bangladesh or Afghanistan, get Indian citizenship <a href="https://t.co/5Bu56ZRxOQ">pic.twitter.com/5Bu56ZRxOQ</a></p>— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1197054860991987712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Abdullah719]

India's NRC and BJP's dangerous game of citizenship and religion

Spoiler

After Partition in 1947, the most pressing issue before India was how to reconcile and bridge the deep religious divide in the country. The challenge was not only to heal the wounds of Partition but also lay the foundation of a new democratic and secular polity.

The country's founding fathers envisioned a democratic, secular, and multicultural republic, which was a unique experiment for a new nation impoverished by 200 years of colonial rule. And the post-1947 democratic and secular profile of India allowed it to carry a lot more regional and international weight than many of its economically richer contemporaries, with the strength of its soft power helping it in establishing an imprint world over despite limited economic and geopolitical strength.

But seven decades down the line, India seems to be giving up the notion of reconciliation and of upholding secular values. And as this is happening, the country risks frittering away all the moral capitals it had earned as a constitutional and secular democracy.


Religion and citizenship

In a recent address to the Parliament, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah declared that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government will pass the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 that seeks to grant citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Christians, Parsis, and Buddhists who have come illegally to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. This amendment bill excludes Muslims and is in stark contrast to the Citizenship Act of 1955 that does not define citizenship on the basis of religion. Hence this is for the first time in modern India that religion is becoming the prime criteria for citizenship.

In the same speech, Shah announced that India will also implement the National Register of Citizens (NRC) across the country.

The idea of the NRC, an exercise to identify genuine citizens of India, was exclusive to the northeastern state of Assam, a border state where there has been a long held demand that illegal immigrants from Bangladesh should be identified and deported. The state had also experienced a violent political movement in the 1970s and the 1980s that ended with the Assam Accord of 1985 where it was decided that a national register of citizens would be prepared and those who have entered India after March 25, 1971 would be deported.

However, the idea of the NRC did not make much headway until the Supreme Court intervened in 2013. The court fixed a time frame to implement the process of identifying illegal immigrants. This was followed by the BJP coming to power in Delhi in 2014 and also capturing Assam two years later.

The NRC was primarily meant to identify illegal immigrants irrespective of their religion. However, the BJP, which claims Hindu Bengalis as its core constituency in Assam, injected a communal angle to the exercise and exploited its state machinery to exclude as many Muslims from the NRC as possible.

At the same time, the BJP promised to amend the citizenship Act and make stateless Hindus citizens of India. On August 31, Assam's NRC was published that declared 1.9 million people stateless, the number was far less than what had been anticipated.


Dirty politics

Over the years, a divisive narrative has been injected in the national and Assam polity that there are more than six million illegal Bangladeshis in Assam and that Muslims would take over the state very soon. However, the NRC data came as a big jolt to this propaganda and what was shocking for the BJP was that a majority of the 1.9 million left out of the NRC were Hindus.

When the myth met with the NRC post-truth, the BJP began discrediting the same NRC which its had so strongly advocated for the state. And last week, when the Home Minister announced that India would carry out an NRC exercise across the country, he added that Assam will go through the process again.

The question is, why is the BJP so keen on the NRC process to be carried throughout India despite knowing the huge human, emotional and financial costs involved in the process. Assam, which is a small state of 30 million people, spent more than 10 million dollars in preparing the NRC, so one can only imagine the cost of this exercise when it is carried out all across India.

We know the answer to this motivation. After the amendment of the Citizenship Act, the only group that could be targeted through the NRC is India's Muslim population because while non-Muslims will have protections through the citizenship amendment bill, Muslims won't.

With the Ayodhya temple agitation running out its course, the BJP needs another divisive agenda to polarise the nation and stay relevant in the electoral arena. And the issue of illegal immigrants strikes a chord with a section of the population which feels that the presence of Rohingya Muslims and illegal Bangladeshi Muslims poses a grave threat to India's security. To make matters worse, political propaganda and media narratives are further fuelling that anxiety.

The BJP thinks that sloganeering based on the idea of a terror free India conflated with casting suspicions against the country's Muslim population will have resonance among the public and would accrue electoral dividends for the party.


Deep anxiety among Indian Muslims

On the other hand, the Muslim community is in deep anxiety with many fearing for their fates if they are not included in the NRC. There is a fear that many poor and illiterate Muslim families living on the margins of society may not have adequate resources to collect documents to support their citizenship claims.

Moreover, people living in rural parts of the country are not so particular about maintaining documents, and many women who shift from one part of India to another after marriage sometimes do not have any documents that state their place of birth and nationality. In Assam, many poor Muslim women were left out of the NRC because they didn't have the documents that provided this information.

This anxiety is also visible among Muslims in West Bengal and they are spending their days procuring certificates from concerned government offices. Suicides have been reported from the state on account of the fear of losing citizenship, with West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee stating that 11 people have already taken their own lives. But in its attempts to capture power in the eastern state of Bengal in the next Assembly elections in 2020, the BJP is in overdrive to create a wedge in society around religion by declaring the implementation of NRC and the Citizenship Amendment Bill, human costs be damned.


What happens when a person is left out of the NRC?

When one's left out of the NRC, he or she is declared stateless. While this does not mean that they can be thrown out of the country, the alternative is perhaps just as bad, if not worse. The Indian government is building detention centres in various places for those who will be declared stateless as a result of the NRC exercise. In Assam, seven detention centres are being built on top of the three existing ones, which are operating from within jails.

When declared stateless, the individual will also lose all fundamental rights afforded to him or her in a democracy and stands disenfranchised. But the NRC aims to do just that — create a new class of stateless citizens in India with no fundamental rights, and its very premise if read together with the Citizenship Amendment Bill is an attack on the fundamental rights of Muslims guaranteed in the country's otherwise secular constitution.


An attack on India's secular identity

Not only is this an attack on India’s civilisational past where the land has been known for protecting prosecuted people irrespective of religion and culture, the NRC is an attempt to redefine India’s identity as a majoritarian Hindu nation.

Most importantly, the NRC and the new citizenship bill will only go on to validate the two nation theory that India has always rejected. Reopening the wound of Partition with its Muslim citizens as targets has the potential to destabilise Indian society. Human rights activist Harsh Mander writes that the NRC “risks tearing the country apart, reopening the wounds of Partition, and ultimately destroying India’s secular democratic Constitution”.

A section of the Muslim community has started a campaign to boycott the NRC process when it starts. And while Muslims seem to be its prime target, the NRC in fact is an attempt at transforming the nature of India's identity and an attack on its secular ethos and therefore all right-thinking Indians should take a strong stand against it.

If India turns its back on its secular principles and declares itself a Hindu nation the impact would be felt in the region at large and would fuel religious extremism across South Asia, endangering the lives of religious minorities not just in India but also in neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Ultimately, any attempt to attack the Indian constitution's secular character will have far-reaching consequences that a government guided by its narrow political vision cannot even begin to fathom.

Sanjay Kumar is a New Delhi based journalist covering South Asia. A keen observer of politics in India and the subcontinent, Kumar in his 15 years of journalistic career has worked with both national and international media. A news reporter, columnist, commentator, producer and blogger, Kumar does not confine himself to one particular genre in journalism.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1519154/indias-nrc-and-bjps-dangerous-game-of-citizenship-and-religion