We must support Muslims and other minority communities: Pichai

We must support Muslims and other minority communities: Pichai
Varghese K. GeorgeWASHINGTON:, DECEMBER 13, 2015 02:52 IST
UPDATED: MARCH 24, 2016 15:19 IST
SHARE ARTICLE 64PRINTA A A
Google's Senior Vice President Sundar Pichai.
Google's Senior Vice President Sundar Pichai.   | Photo Credit: LLUIS GENE

“In a company as well as a country, a diverse mix of voices leads to better outcomes”
Sundar Pichai, Chennai-born CEO of Google who came to the U.S as a university student and rose to be one of the highest corporate leaders, recounted his own experience to rebut on Saturday the anti-immigration rhetoric that looms large over the country. Mr. Pichai also linked the success of Google to the “vibrant mix of races and cultures” among its employees.

“Let’s not let fear defeat our values,” Mr. Pichai wrote on Internet platform Medium in a clear reference to the cacophony triggered by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S, after the Paris terror outrage last month. “We must support Muslim and other minority communities in the U.S and around the world,” Mr. Pichai wrote.

Trump’s remarks
Mr. Trump’s remarks provoked worldwide outrage but condemnation by other Republican candidates has been muted, even as a section of the U.S media continues to cheer him. Mr. Trump has reiterated his statement several times hence.

Mr. Pichai said he debated whether to post a response, “because lately it seems that criticism of intolerance just gives more oxygen to this debate”. He finally did. “…I feel we must speak out particularly those of us who are not under attack.”

Mr. Pichai said it was diversity that made Google a “special place”. “We are urgently working to become much more diverse, because it’s so important to our future success,” he said. Google employs nearly 60,000 people worldwide.

“I came to the U.S from India 22 years ago. I was fortunate enough to gain entry to a university here, and time after time, I saw that hard work opened other doors. I have built a career and a family and a life here. And I’ve felt as much a part of this country, as I felt growing up in India.

Land of opportunity
My experience is obviously not unique. It’s been said a million times that America is the “land of opportunity for millions of immigrants, it’s not an abstract notion, but a concrete description of what we find here,” Mr. Pichai said, adding that America provided access to opportunities “that simply didn’t exist for many of us before we arrived”.

“And it’s not just about opportunity. The open-mindedness, tolerance, and acceptance of new Americans is one of the country’s greatest strengths and most defining characteristics. And that is no coincidence— America, after all, was and is a country of immigrants.

“That is why it’s so disheartening to see the intolerant discourse playing out in the news these days— statements that our country would be a better place without the voices, ideas and the contributions of certain groups of people, based solely on where they come from, or their religion,” Mr. Pichai wrote.

“I walk around the campus where I work and see a vibrant mix of races and cultures. Every one of those people has a different voice … a different perspective … a different story to tell. All of that makes our company an exciting and special place to be, and allows us to do great things together. …I firmly believe that whether you’re building a company or leading a country, a diverse mix of voices and backgrounds and experiences leads to better discussions, better decisions, and better outcomes for everyone.”


G.Rajaram
103 comments0 votes0 followers
FollowFull Profile
G.Rajaram
4y
If Muslim, anywhere, persuades us of his humane, inclusive outlook of life without discriminating people of other faiths, he is to be appreciated and received without any reservation but even the latest media reports about a few well educated, well employed,well-off young Indian Muslims trying to serve the cause of the IS and to induce others of their kind to join them is shocking as well as driving us to be pessimistic about their allegiance to India, their mother land. It is unclear why most of the well informed, savvy Muslims are not yet disturbed and are not yet decisively acting against the fast spreading ideology of the IS just to guard their children from falling into the vicious net of the IS. Until such positive efforts of our Muslim brethren come to the limelight, the misgivings about their allegiance to India will not be above suspicion.





Sundar Pichai Quote On Muslims Revived The quote originates from a 2015 blog post by Pichai, where he talks about supporting Muslims and minorities in the USA ciaoricshaBy - Archis Chowdhury  |  17 Dec 2019 2:15 PM ADVERTISEMENT A 2015 quote by Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai on "supporting Muslims and other minorities in the United States" has been revived in the wake of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests across the country. Protesters allege that the CAA, when enacted with the National Register of Citizen (NRC), would disenfranchise the Muslim community in India. Pichai's quote is being misleadingly shared as being supportive of the current anti-CAA movement in India. Also Read: Did Sundar Pichai Say, "An Illiterate Person Can Become India's FM"? On December 17, 2019, as the protests continue to rock the country, BOOM received an image of a newspaper article on its helpline with the caption :"Bhakts, stop using Google now". Image received on BOOM Helpline The article contained a quote by Pichai stating, "We must support Muslims and other minority communities." Upon searching for the quote on Twitter, we found that a 2015 Economic Times article carrying this quote has been shared multiple times recently on the micro-blogging site. Screenshot of tweets Upon going through the ET article, BOOM noticed that the quote was based on a 2015 blog post on Medium by Pichai himself, where he talks about providing opportunity to Muslims and other minorities and accepted them as new Americans. The blog post ends with the quote, "Let's not let fear defeat our values. We must support Muslim and other minority communities in the US and around the world." While the article largely highlights Pichai's experience as an immigrant in the United States, it does not make any reference to the Indian Muslim community. Furthermore, given that it is from 2015, shortly after he was made the CEO of Google, the quote has no direct link to the ongoing protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in India. Also Read: Just Another Fake Quote By Google CEO Sundar Pichai Pichai has been a favourite target of the rumours mills, with many fake quotes of his "commentary on Indian politics" going viral on social media in the past. This time round, a 4-year old quote of his is being revived in the wake of the ongoing protests. However, Pichai's quote was in the context of Islamophobia in the United States, and has no relevance to the debate around religious discrimination in India.

https://www.boomlive.in/fake-news/sundar-pichai-quote-on-muslims-revived-6312


We must support Muslims and other minority communities: Pichai

What Is The CAB CAA-NPR-NRC NRIC Link?

What Is The CAB CAA-NPR-NRC NRIC Link?

https://whttps://wwww.livelaw.in/top-stories/what-is-the-caa-npr-nrc-linkexplainer-151105?infinitescroll=1

A bare reading of 2003 Citizenship Rules reveals that NPR lays the foundation for NRC.

In the wake of country wide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA), Home Minister Amit Shah recently said that there was no connection between National Population Register (NPR) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The remarks came on the same day when Union Cabinet approved allocation of Rs. 3941.35 crores for NPR.

In this backdrop, let us see if there is any link between NRC and NPR on the basis of the existing legal framework governing them.

What is NPR?

NPR means the "National Population Register", which has its base in the rules framed by the Central Government under the Citizenship Act, 1955 in 2003 called the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003. Incidentally, these are the same rules  which give legal framework for National Register of Indian Citizens as well (more on this below).

Rule 2(l) of these Rules define 'Population Register' as :

"Population Register means  the register containing details of persons usually residing in a village or rural area or town or ward or demarcated area (demarcated by the Registrar General of Citizen Registration) within a ward in a town or urban area;"

The Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner describes NPR as "a register of usual residents of the country." An usual resident for the purpose of NPR is a person who has resided in a place for 6 months or more and intends to reside there for a period of another 6 months or more.

The following demographic details of every individual were taken for NPR in 2010 :

Name of person
Relationship to head of household
Father's name
Mother's name
Spouse's name (if married)
Sex
Date of Birth
Marital status
Place of birth
Nationality (as declared)
Present address of usual residence
Duration of stay at present address
Permanent residential address
Occupation/Activity
Educational qualification


Who prepares the NPR?
The preparation of the NPR is carried out under the aegis of the Central Government.

Under Rule 3(4) of the 2003 Citizenship Rules, the Central Government can decide the date by which the NPR should be prepared. The data for National Population Register was first collected in 2010 alongwith the houselisting phase of Census of India 2011. The updation of this data was done during 2015 by conducting door to door survey.

On July 31, 2019, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs issued the gazette notification for starting the information collection for NPR throughout the country (except Assam) between April 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020. The Registrar General, India acts as the National Registration Authority for NPR. Incidentally, the same officer also functions as the Registrar General of Citizen Registration for NRC.

What is the difference between NPR and Census?

Census is an exercise carried out under the Census Act, 1948. Census data is based on self-declaration made by the persons without verification.

NPR is carried out as per the 2003 Citizenship Rules. Under these Rules, it is compulsory for a person to share the demographic data for preparation of NPR. Therefore, these Rules have a coercive element, as they penalize non-cooperating persons with fines and penalties.

Failure to comply with the NPR data collection can expose one to penal consequences under Rule 17.

It may be noted that both these processes are carried under the supervision of a single office : the Office of Registrar General of India and Census Commissioner.

What is NRC/NRIC?

NRC/NRIC means National Register of Indian Citizens.

This has its base in Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, which says, among other things, that:

1. The Central Government may compulsorily register every citizen of India and issue national identity card to him.

2. The Central Government may maintain a National Register of Indian Citizens and for that purpose establish a National Registration Authority.

Rule 3(1) of the 2003 Rules states that the Registrar General shall establish and maintain the National Register of Indian Citizens.

The National Register of Indian Citizens will be divided into sub-parts consisting of the State Register of Indian Citizens, the District Register of Indian Citizens, the Sub-district Register of Indian Citizens and the Local Register of Indian Citizens.


Is there any link between NPR and NRC?

A bare reading of 2003 Rules reveals that NPR lays the foundation for NRC.

The NRC will contain the details of the persons after "due verification made from" the NPR. This is clear from Rule 3(5), which says :

"(5) The Local Register of Indian citizens shall contain details of persons after due verification made from the Population Register".

For making NRC, the particulars entered in the NPR is first verified by the Local Register of Citizens as per Rule 4(3). Following this verification, the NRC is finalized, after removing 'doubtful citizens'.

The Rules give power to the Local Register to mark 'doubtful citizens' after the verification of NPR particulars.

Rule 4(4) says:
"During the verification process, particulars of such individuals, whose Citizenship is doubtful, shall be entered by the Local Registrar with appropriate remark in the Population Register for further enquiry and in case of doubtful Citizenship, the individual or the family shall be informed in a specified proforma immediately after the verification process is over."

The 'doubtful citizens' are given an opportunity of hearing before removal. After that, a draft NRC for the local area is published. People are granted even opportunity to raise objections against inclusions in the NRC.

Following this, the final NRC is published.

It is also pertinent to note that both NPR and NRC are under the same office (The Registrar General of India functions as the Registrar General of Citizen Registration).

Is NPR the first step for NRC?

It is not necessary that NPR will lead to NRC. As stated above, NPR was first made in 2010 and updated in 2015. This was not followed by NRC.

However, the preparation of an NRC as per the 2003 Rules can be done only after NPR. So, NPR is a necessary pre-condition for NRC.

The present dispensation has on many occasions expressed its intention to bring in nationwide NRC. Even during the Parliament discussion of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, Home Minister Amit Shah had spoken about the intention to prepare nationwide NRC.

Several statements of the government, as made in press releases, replies in Parliament and documents of Census department, indicate that NPR 2020 is intended as the first step for NRC.

There are reports that the questionnaire for the 2020 NPR is different from the 2010 NPR. The 2020 NPR 'Schedule' asks about details of date of birth and place of birth of one's parents, in addition to the details sought in the 2010 NPR (mentioned above). The citizenship status of one's parents is a determining factor for citizenship by birth after the 1987 and 2003 amendments to Citizenship Act 1955. This could be an additional factor showing a nexus between NPR and a possible NRC.


Why is NRC problematic?

The idea of asking a person who had been residing in India  for several years to prove citizenship before administrative authorities on the basis of documents can be problematic at implementation level.

This can lead to bureaucratic high handedness and arbitrariness, especially when a large section of Indian population is uneducated and backward.

The recently concluded Assam NRC process, which excluded nearly 2 million persons, is an example. There are reports that the process was riddled with flaws, leading to arbitrary exclusions.

The 2003 Rules also create a category of "doubtful citizen" (See Para 4.3) - a bizarre category that is inherently subjective and open to administrative interpretation. There are no guidelines mentioned as to how this unfettered discretion to mark 'doubtful citizens' is to be exercised.

The Rules themselves say nothing about what happens if you are found to be doubtful. But the amendments made to Foreigners (Tribunals) Order 1964 in 2019 empower a District Magistrate to refer a 'doubtful citizen' to a Foreigners Tribunal.

Another provision in the Rules which can lead to a lot of hassles is Rule 4(6)(a), which enables any person to file objections against the inclusion of any person in the Local Register of Citizens. This can be a problematic provision, with a lot of possibilities of abuse.

Foreigners Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies where executive officers, without formal judicial training, act at the helm. There are reports of Foreigners Tribunals acting casually and callously, to pass orders without reasons.

As per the present law, the burden will be on the individual to prove citizenship.

So, the consequences of any wrongful exercise of discretionary powers of the NRC officials could be drastic : the de-legitimization of a person.

It can be devastating for a majority of Indians in inverse order to their proximity to privilege, paperwork and social power.

Since there is no official notification regarding NRC, it is premature to talk about what documents may be sufficient to prove citizenship. Yet, the framework of the NRC Rules place an individual at the mercy of administrative officers, who can put one to a lot of hassles and hardship by arbitrary exercise of powers.

Is there any link between CAA and NRC?

There is no apparent link between CAA and the NRC.

But there were remarks by the Amit Shah during campaign for 2019 elections that the Government will bring NRC, which will be followed by the CAA in the order of chronology. When the protests against CAA intensified across the nation, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Sunday that there was no discussion on NRC.

CAA may come in aid of at least a section of persons who may happen to get excluded from a possible nationwide NRC, in case they prove that they are non-Muslim migrants who had fled religious persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan, and that they had entered India before December 31, 2014. The possible impact of CAA on the Assam NRC list is also a matter which will be highly discussed.

[With inputs from Gautam Bhan, teacher/activist and author of "In the Public's Interest: Evictions, Citizenship and Inequality in Contemporary Delhi (2016)


The National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC) will be a Register of citizens of the country. It will be prepared at the local (Village level), sub District (Tehsil/Taluk level), District, State and National level after verifying the details in the NPR and establishing the citizenship of each individual.

What is NRC/NRIC?
NRC/NRIC means National Register of Indian Citizens. This has its base in Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, which says, among other things, that: The Central Government may compulsorily register every citizen of India and issue national identity card to him.

రాష్ట్రాలను సంప్రదించాకే ఎన్‌ఆర్‌సీ - న్యాయ శాఖ మంత్రి రవిశంకర్‌ ప్రసాద్‌

రాష్ట్రాలను సంప్రదించాకే ఎన్‌ఆర్‌సీ -  న్యాయ శాఖ మంత్రి రవిశంకర్‌ ప్రసాద్‌

సోమవారం, డిసెంబర్ 30, 2019

దిల్లీ: జాతీయ పౌర పట్టిక (ఎన్‌ఆర్‌సీ) చేపట్టాలనుకుంటే ప్రభుత్వం అందుకు తగిన ప్రక్రియను అనుసరిస్తుందని కేంద్ర న్యాయ శాఖ మంత్రి రవిశంకర్‌ ప్రసాద్‌ తెలిపారు. ఒకవేళ అలాంటి నిర్ణయమేదైనా తీసుకోదలిస్తే ముందుగా రాష్ట్రాలను సంప్రదిస్తామని ఆయన  చెప్పారు. ఈ మేరకు ఆదివారం ఓ ఆంగ్ల పత్రికకు ఇచ్చిన ఇంటర్వ్యూలో ఆయన పేర్కొన్నారు.

ఎన్‌ఆర్‌సీ చేపట్టాల్సి వస్తే దాన్ని నిగూఢంగా ఉంచాల్సిన అవసరం లేదని రవిశంకర్‌ ప్రసాద్‌ అన్నారు. అందుకు చట్టపరంగా కొన్ని ప్రక్రియలు ఉన్నాయన్నారు. ముందు నిర్ణయం తీసుకోవడం, ఆపై నోటిఫికేషన్‌ ఇవ్వడం, ప్రక్రియ ప్రారంభించడం, పరిశీలించడం, అభ్యంతరాలు స్వీకరించడం, వాటిని విచారించడం, అప్పీల్‌ చేసుకునే హక్కు ఇవ్వడం వంటివి అందులో భాగంగా ఉంటాయన్నారు. ముఖ్యంగా అలాంటిదేమైనా చేయాల్సి వస్తే రాష్ట్రాల అభిప్రాయం తీసుకుంటామన్నారు. ఏది చేసినా బహిరంగంగా చేస్తామే తప్ప దాయాల్సిన అవసరం లేదని రవిశంకర్‌ ప్రసాద్‌ వ్యాఖ్యానించారు.

'Organiser' shows RSS staying the course on NRC

Analysis | 'Organiser' shows RSS staying the course on NRC
Amit BaruahNEW DELHI, DECEMBER 27, 2019 18:04 IST
UPDATED: DECEMBER 27, 2019 18:37 IST
SHARE ARTICLE 0PRINTA A A
Protesters being detained from UP Bhavan under heavy police presence in New Delhi on December 27, 2019.
Protesters being detained from UP Bhavan under heavy police presence in New Delhi on December 27, 2019.   | Photo Credit: R.V. Moorthy

MORE-IN
Bharatiya Janata Party
Citizenship Amendment Act
BJP-led government might have some second thoughts on a nationwide NRC, the RSS, which is the BJP’s mentor, seems to have no such doubts.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assertion at a public rally in New Delhi on Sunday that the Union Cabinet had not discussed the National Register of Citizens (NRC) was likely intended to create some space for his government on the issue of implementing the contentious NRC across the country.

However, even if the BJP-led government might have some second thoughts on a nationwide NRC, the RSS, which is the BJP’s mentor, seems to have no such doubts.

In an editorial for its December 29 issue, the RSS-controlled Organiser weekly wrote: “The Citizenship Act does not affect any of the Bharatiya citizens, NRC, whenever it takes place will have an impact only on the infiltrators [illegal immigrants]”.

The word “whenever” is key. It shows that the RSS is certain that the NRC will take place across the country — with its timing being the only possible question. It may not happen immediately, but happen it will.

The RSS position is in line with what President Ram Nath Kovind said in his address to a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament on June 20. “My Government has decided to implement the process of ‘National Register of Citizens’ on priority basis in areas affected by infiltration.” The President’s speech on such an occasion is prepared by the Government and is its agenda for the coming five years.

It’s evident that if the RSS has its way, the NRC will be implemented across the country. Ever since the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) was passed on December 11, there have been protests across the country and more than 20 persons have been killed in firing incidents around the protests. The majority of the killings had been in Uttar Pradesh and its police has come under criticism for its alleged high-handed methods.

It’s also evident from the RSS position that there is no change in its directive to the government — implement the NRC “whenever” possible. If there is any pause from the government on the issue of the NRC, which has also been linked to the decision to go ahead with the National Population Register (NPR), it’s only over a question of timing.

As has been made clear by several commentators, the NPR prepares the base for the NRC; in fact, data collected in the NPR, parallel to the 2021 census exercise, will most likely be used to constitute a new, national NRC, where citizens will be required to prove their citizenship afresh.

The scale of the protests and the sharp responses in the international media to the government’s CAA-NPR-NRC proposals don’t seem to have influenced the Modi administration enough to allay people’s fears by categorically stating that people will not be asked to prove their citizenship again.

Given that the CAA holds that “any proceeding” against a person would “abate” if they were Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis or Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan and had entered India before December 31, 2014, the apprehension among Muslims is that they would be excluded from a national NRC while their peers from other faiths would have no such problems, even without requisite documents.

all 130 Crore people are Hindu Diaspora

ధర్మ విజయమే సంకల్పం
26-12-2019 03:28:11


భారతీయ సంస్కృతిని గౌరవించే అందరూ హిందువులే
130 కోట్ల మంది ప్రజలూ హిందూ సమాజమే
దాదాపు రెండు దశాబ్దాల తరువాత తెలుగు నేలపై రాష్ట్రీయ స్వయంసేవక్‌ సంఘ్‌ భారీ బహిరంగ సభను నిర్వహించింది. ఉమ్మడి ఏపీలో చివరిసారిగా కరీంనగర్‌లో 1999లో ఆరెస్సెస్‌ భారీ శిబిరాన్ని నిర్వహించింది. నాడు సర్‌ కార్యవాహ హెచ్‌వీ శేషాద్రి అందులో పాల్గొన్నారు. 2009లో హైదరాబాద్‌లో జరిగిన బహిరంగ సభలో అప్పుడు సర్‌కార్యవాహ్‌(ప్రధాన కార్యదర్శి)గా ఉన్న మోహన్‌ భాగవత్‌ పాల్గొన్నారు. ఆరెస్సెస్‌ సారథి అయిన సర్‌సంఘ్‌ చాలక్‌ తెలుగు రాష్ట్రాల్లో స్వయంగా ఒక భారీ సభలో పాల్గొనడం ఇదే మొట్ట మొదటి సారి.

అందరి పట్ల సమభావనే హిందూ దృక్పథం
స్వేచ్ఛ ఉండాలి.. కానీ అరాచకత్వం ఉండొద్దు
లాఠీచార్జీతో చీకట్లు పోవు.. జ్ఞాన జ్యోతి రావాలి
ఆరెస్సెస్‌ కృషి చేసేది అందుకే: మోహన్‌ భాగవత్‌
హైదరాబాద్‌లో ఆరెస్సెస్‌ సార్వజనికోత్సవ సభ
భిన్నత్వంలో ఏకత్వమే కాదు.. ఏకత్వంలో భిన్న రూపాలను సంఘ్‌ సంపూర్ణంగా విశ్వసిస్తుంది. ఈ దేశాన్ని గొప్పదేశంగా తీర్చిదిద్దడం రాజకీయ శక్తి ద్వారా సాధ్యం కాదు. సమాజంలో ఉంటూ సమాజాన్ని ఏకత్వంవైపు తీసుకువెళ్లే ప్రవృత్తి హిందూ సమాజంలో ఎప్పటినుంచో ఉంది. తాము దేశాన్ని విడిచిపెట్టినప్పుడు హిందూ ముస్లింలు కొట్టుకుంటారని ఆంగ్లేయులు భావించారు. కానీ, వారి కోరిక తీరదు. ఎందుకంటే, ఎన్ని భేదాభిప్రాయాలున్నా, సమస్యలున్నా, అందులో నుంచి కలిసి జీవించే ఉపాయం హిందూ సమాజానికి ఉందని రవీంద్రనాథ్‌ టాగూర్‌ చెప్పారు.

రాబోయే కాలంలో దేవతలందరికీ పూజలు చేయడం పక్కనబెట్టి, భరతమాతనే (దేశాన్ని) పూజించాలని, అప్పుడే ప్రపంచంలో భారతదేశం గొప్పస్థానం సంపాదిస్తుందని స్వామి వివేకానంద అభిప్రాయపడ్డారు. సంఘ్‌ కూడా ఇదే లక్ష్యంతో పనిచేస్తోంది.

- మోహన్‌ భాగవత్‌

హైదరాబాద్‌(ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి): సాత్విక శక్తుల విజయంతోనే అందరి శ్రేయస్సు, ఉన్నతి సాధ్యమని.. అలాంటి ధర్మవిజయమే ఆరెస్సెస్‌ సంకల్పమని సర్‌ సంఘ్‌ చాలక్‌ మోహన్‌ భాగవత్‌ అన్నారు. మాట్లాడే భాష, అనుసరించే మతం, పూజించే దేవుడితో సంబంధం లేకుండా జాతీయ స్ఫూర్తి కలిగిన, భారత సంస్కృతిని గౌరవించే ప్రతి ఒక్కరినీ హిందువుగానే భావిస్తామని.. దేశంలోని 130 కోట్ల మంది ప్రజలనూ హిందూ సమాజంగా ఆరెస్సెస్‌ పరిగణిస్తుందని ఆయన స్పష్టం చేశారు. సమాజమంతా మనదేనని.. అలాంటి సమాజ నిర్మాణం కోసం సంఘ్‌ కృషి చేస్తుందని భాగవత్‌ పేర్కొన్నారు. ఆరెస్సెస్‌ విజయ సంకల్ప శిబిరంలో భాగంగా బుధవారం సాయంత్రం ఇక్కడి సరూర్‌నగర్‌ స్టేడియంలో నిర్వహించిన సార్వజనికోత్సవంలో మోహన్‌భగవత్‌, కార్యకర్తలనుద్దేశించి ప్రసంగించారు. ‘‘విజయ సంకల్పం అంటే.. ఎవరి విజయానికి సంకల్పం? ఎలాంటి విజయానికి సంకల్పం? ఇది సంఘ్‌ కార్యక్రమం. సంఘ్‌ కార్యకర్తలు ఎవరి విజయం కోసం కష్టపడతారు? ఎలాంటి పోరాటం చేస్తున్నారు? ముందు ఇది అర్థం చేసుకోవాలి. సంఘ్‌ స్వయం సేవకులు ప్రపంచంలో ఎక్కడున్నా సరే.. దేశం గెలుపునే కోరుకుంటారు. తమ విజయాన్ని కాదు. వారు తమ స్వార్థాన్ని చూసుకోరు. పేరు, ప్రతిష్ఠల కోసం పాకులాడరు. వెయ్యి మంచి పనులు చేసినా.. ఒక్కదాన్నీ తమ ఖాతాలో వేసుకోరు. దాన్ని సమాజానికి అర్పిస్తారు. మేం కోరుకునే విజయం ఏమిటంటే.. ధర్మవిజయం’’ అని వివరించారు. విజయం కావాలని అందరూ కోరుకుంటారు. కానీ.. కొందరికి ఆసురీ (రాక్షస) ప్రవృత్తి ఉంటుందని.. తమదీ తమకే కావాలనుకుంటారని, పక్కవారిదీ తమకే కావాలనుకుంటారని పేర్కొన్నారు. ‘‘నేను చెప్పిందే సరైనది.. నేనే అన్నీ’ అని వారు అనుకుంటారు. నీతి, నియమం, క్రమశిక్షణ గురించి పట్టించుకోరు. ఎక్కడికి వెళ్లినా విధ్వంసం సృష్టిస్తారు. వారు కష్టాల్లో పడతారు. ఇతరులనూ కష్టాల్లో పడేస్తారు. వారి విజయం సర్వనాశనానికి కారణమవుతుంది. అలాంటివారి విజయాన్ని అసుర విజయం అంటారు. హృదయంలో ఏమాత్రం మంచితనం వారున్నవారైనా.. అలాంటివారి విజయాన్ని కోరుకోరు. అలాగే, కొందరిలో రాజసిక ప్రవృత్తి ఉంటుంది. వారు మాటలు గొప్పగా చెప్తారు. పనులు కూడా అప్పుడప్పుడూ మంచివి చేస్తారు. కానీ.. తమకు పేరు తెచ్చే, ప్రతిష్ఠ తెచ్చిపెట్టే పనులే చేస్తారు. వారికి మోహం, లోభం ఉంటాయి. వీలైతే ప్రపంచంలోని సంపద, అధికారం అంతా తమకే కావాలని కోరుకుంటారు. వారు తమ స్వార్థం కోసమైనప్పటికీ.. ప్రజలకు మంచి చేస్తారు. ఉపయోగపడే పనులు చేస్తారు. ప్రజల కోసం పోరాడతారు కూడా. అలాంటివారి విజయాన్ని ధనవిజయం అంటారు. వారి విజయం వల్ల వారికి డబ్బు, పేరు అన్నీ వస్తాయి. వారితోపాటు ఇతరులకు వస్తే సరే. రాకపోయినా వారికి పర్వాలేదు. మన సామాజిక పరంపరలో ఈ రెండు రకాల విజయాలు నిషిద్ధం. మూడోది ధర్మవిజయం. ఈ విజయం సాధించేవారు తమ కోసం ఏదీ కోరుకోరు. తాము కష్టపడినా సరే ఇతరులు సుఖంగా ఉండాలని వారు భావిస్తారు. వారికి తమ మేలు గురించిన చింత ఉండదు. ‘‘‘నత్వహం కామయే రాజ్యం.. న స్వర్గమ్‌ న పునర్భవం’.. నాకు రాజ్యం అక్కర్లేదు. స్వర్గవైభవాలు మోక్షం కూడా అక్కర్లేదు. ‘కామయే దుఃఖ తప్తానాం ప్రాణినామార్తి నాశనం’.. దుఃఖంలో ఉన్న ప్రాణుల దుఃఖాన్ని నివారించడమే నా కోరిక’ అంటారు వారు. ధర్మవిజయం కోరుకునేవారు ఇలా ఆలోచిస్తారు. ‘సంఘ్‌’ ఇలాగే ఆలోచిస్తుంది. హిందూ సమాజం ఇలాగే ఆలోచిస్తుంది. భారతదేశం ఇలాగే ఆలోచించి తన ఉనికిని చాటుకుంటోంది. ఇవాళ ప్రపంచమంతా రాజసిక, తామస శక్తుల ఆట నడుస్తోంది. ఈ రోజు మనదేశంలో కూడా అలాంటి ఆట నడుస్తోంది. వాటిపై సాత్విక శక్తుల విజయం కోరుకోవాలి. సాత్విక శక్తులు తమ కోసం కాక.. లోకం కోసం విజయాన్ని సాధిస్తాయి. ఆ విజయంతో అందరూ కలుస్తారు. చెల్లాచెదురుగా ఉన్నవారంతా ఒక్కచోటుకు చేరుతారు. అందరూ అభివృద్ధి చెందుతారు. ధర్మం పరిఢవిల్లుతుంది. సర్వత్రా శాంతి నెలకొంటుంది. అలాంటివారికీ విరోధులు ఉంటారు. కానీ, వారి హృదయంలో ఎప్పుడూ ప్రేమ తగ్గదు. కాగడా కిందకు వంచినా జ్వాల పైకే ఎగసినట్టు.. పరిస్థితులెలా ఉన్నా సాత్విక శక్తుల సద్వర్తన ఎల్లప్పుడూ పురోగమిస్తుంది. అలాంటి ధర్మవిజయం దేశానికి కావాలి. ఆ సంకల్పంతోనే సంఘ్‌ కార్యకర్తలంతా ఇక్కడ కూర్చున్నారు’’ అని మోహన్‌ భాగవత్‌ వివరించారు. లాఠీచార్జ్‌తో చీకట్లు పోవని.. దీపం వెలిగిస్తే చీకటి తనంతతానే తొలగిపోతుందని అన్నారు. దేశహితం కోసం, సమాజహితం కోసం సాత్విక పరివర్తన కావాలన్నారు. ‘మంచి సర్కారు వచ్చినప్పుడు అంతా బాగుపడుతుంది. కొత్త నేత ఎవరైనా వచ్చి కొత్త వెలుగు తెస్తాడు. నాకు ఎవరైనా మేలు చేస్తారు. నన్ను ఎవరో ఉద్ధరిస్తారు’ అనుకుంటే ఏ ఉపయోగం లేదని, అందరూ కలిసి ఆ కార్యాన్ని సాధించడానికి కృషి చేయాల్సిందేనని పిలుపునిచ్చారు. ఈ కార్యసాధనకు, ధర్మ విజయానికి స్వయం సేవకులు కృషిచేస్తారన్నారు. ‘‘సర్వసృష్టి పరమాత్మ నుంచి వచ్చింది కాబట్టి, అందరి పట్ల సమభావన కలిగి ఉండడమే హిందూ లేదా భారతీయ దృక్పథం. ఈ దేశంలో పరంపరాగతంగా ఇదే కనిపిస్తుంది. ఇక్కడ స్వేచ్ఛ, స్వాతంత్య్రం ఉంటాయి. అరాచకత్వం, విశృంఖలత్వం ఉండవు’’ అని వివరించారు.

వారే ‘నాయక్‌’లు

సమాజంలో సాధారణ ప్రజలు శ్రేష్ట వ్యక్తులను అనుసరిస్తారని.. వారినే రవీంద్రనాథ్‌ఠాగూర్‌ నాయక్‌లుగా అభివర్ణించారని భాగవత్‌ అన్నారు. ఏకత్వ సాధనే మన సమాజ లక్షణమని, సమాజ పరివర్తనతోనే ఉన్నతి సాధ్యమని ఆయన అభిప్రాయపడ్డారు. భిన్నత్వంలో ఏకత్వమే కాదు.. ఏకత్వంలో భిన్న రూపాలను సంఘ్‌ సంపూర్ణంగా విశ్వసిస్తుందన్నారు. ఈ దేశాన్ని గొప్పదేశంగా తీర్చిదిద్దడం రాజకీయ శక్తి ద్వారా సాధ్యం కాదని.. సమాజంలో ఉంటూ సమాజాన్ని ఏకత్వంవైపు తీసుకువెళ్లే ప్రవృత్తి హిందూ సమాజంలో ఎప్పటినుంచో ఉందని అన్నారు. ‘‘దేశాన్ని విడిచిపెట్టినప్పుడు హిందూ ముస్లింలు కొట్టుకుంటారని ఆంగ్లేయులు భావించారు. కానీ, వారి కోరిక తీరదు. ఎందుకంటే, ఎన్ని భేదాభిప్రాయాలున్నా, సమస్యలున్నా, అందులో నుంచి కలిసి జీవించే ఉపాయం హిందూ సమాజానికి ఉంది’’ అని ఆనాడు రవీంద్రనాథ్‌ఠాగూర్‌ తన పుస్తకంలో పేర్కొన్నట్లు మోహన్‌ భాగవత్‌ వివరించారు. రాబోయే కాలంలో దేవతలందరికీ పూజలు చేయడం పక్కనబెట్టి, భరతమాతనే (దేశాన్ని) పూజించాలని, అప్పుడే ప్రపంచంలో భారతదేశం గొప్పస్థానం సంపాదిస్తుందని స్వామి వివేకానంద అభిప్రాయపడ్డారని గుర్తుచేశారు. కాగా.. తన జీవితంలో సాధించిన విజయాలకు తన మాతృమూర్తి కారణమని సభకు ముఖ్య అతిథిగా హాజరైన ప్రముఖ వ్యాపారవేత్త, పద్మశ్రీ అవార్డు గ్రహీత బి.వి.ఆర్‌.మోహన్‌రెడ్డి అన్నారు. భారతీయ సంస్కృతిలో మహిళల పాత్ర కీలకమని పేర్కొన్నారు. మహిళలపై అఘాయిత్యాలు జరగడం విచారకరమన్నారు.

The NRC case: The Supreme Court's role

The NRC case: The Supreme Court's role
V. VENKATESAN
Print edition : October 11, 2019T+ T-

Assam Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal with Union Home Minister Amit Shah along with Nagaland Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio at the fourth conclave of the North East Democratic Alliance in Guwahati on September 9. Photo: Ritu Raj Konwar


Members of the All Assam Student Union protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016 in Guwahati on January 23. Photo: Ritu Raj Konwar

In the NRC case, the Supreme Court should have played the role of a neutral arbiter to check whether the government is acting in consonance with the principles of international law. But its present position leaves no further legal remedy for those who may be illegally deported.
IN the public discourse on the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, the Supreme Court’s role is crucial. The question whether the court played it in consonance with its constitutional mandate or exacerbated the fears and insecurities that the NRC process generated has to be answered with due regard to facts. 

The first case that the Supreme Court decided and which determined the contours of the discourse on the NRC was Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India. In this case, a three-judge bench comprising Justices R.C. Lahoti, G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan, on July 12, 2005, declared as unconstitutional the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals Act), 1983, (IMDT Act) and its corresponding rules, which also dealt with illegal immigration in Assam. 

The petitioner, Sonowal, is currently the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Chief Minister of Assam. He is a former president of the All Assam Students Union, the largest non-political students’ organisation in the State, which was responsible for leading the student movement in Assam on the issue of immigrants in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Sonowal is also a former chairman of the North East Students Organisation, an umbrella organisation of students’ associations from Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh, and was actively involved in issues concerning the rights of the people of Assam, including the question of illegal migrants settled in the State. In his public interest litigation (PIL) petition, Sonowal contended that the IMDT Act was wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and that it discriminated against citizens in Assam, making it impossible to detect and deport foreigners from Indian soil. He argued that while the Foreigners Act, 1946, applied to all foreigners throughout India, the IMDT Act, which was enacted subsequently with the professed aim of making detection and deportation of illegal migrants in Assam easier, had failed to meet even the standards prescribed in the Foreigners Act. 

Invoking Article 355
In Sarbananda Sonowal, the Supreme Court invoked Article 355 of the Constitution to strike down the IMDT Act that would have placed the burden upon the state in a foreigner’s case. The court thus established a constitutional requirement that the burden would always lie on the individual to rebut the allegation that he/she was a foreigner. The court’s rationale for doing so was that it would be difficult for the state to give an exact date of entry of a foreign national who had surreptitiously crossed the Indian border and that the court could not remain a mute spectator to the continuing influx of illegal migrants.

Article 355 casts a duty upon the Centre to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance. Relying upon a 1998 report by the Governor of Assam, the Supreme Court held in this case that there was a flood of Bangladeshi migrants into Assam, which the Act could not check. If an Act has the disastrous effect of giving shelter and protection to foreign nationals who have illegally transgressed the international border and are residing in India, any citizen is entitled to bring it to the notice of the court by filing a writ petition, the court said. In effect, it justified the PIL filed by Sonowal, whose political motives were questioned by the then Central and Assam governments. 

Foreigners (Tribunals) Amendment Order

In Sarbananda Sonowal (II) v Union of India, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices S.B. Sinha and P.K. Balasubramanyan struck down on December 5, 2006, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Amendment Order, 2006, as unnecessary and unreasonable. This order required the Foreigners Tribunal to first consider whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against a person suspected of being an illegal migrant and only on the Tribunal being satisfied that the basic facts were prima facie established could a notice be issued to the person concerned. This was not essential in the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which the 2006 order sought to amend.

The Supreme Court held in Sonowal (II) that there was a lack of will in ensuring that illegal immigrants were sent out of the country. It found the 2006 amendment Act, which sought to make the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, inapplicable to Assam, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Centre submitted in this case that if it earlier had an option to refer a matter to the tribunal, the 2006 amendment made it mandatory to refer it to the tribunal without making any enquiry whatsoever. The Foreigners Tribunal, being a quasi-judicial authority, would be in a better position to judge whether there was a prima facie case against a suspected foreigner to warrant issue of notice, it said. More significantly, the Centre claimed that Article 21 of the Constitution was applicable to a person who had already set foot in India, and therefore, he or she would be entitled to claim compliance of the principles of natural justice. 

However, the Supreme Court not only rejected the idea of making such a claim but reiterated its view that uncontrolled immigration posed a threat to the integrity of the nation. The court reasoned that all the facts required to prove one’s citizenship, namely, date of birth, place of birth, name of parents and grandparents, and their place of birth and citizenship, would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the state. 

On August 13, the Supreme Court relied on these two decisions to justify its intervention in the petition filed by Assam Public Works, which it had been hearing for long, to complete the NRC process within the stipulated deadline.

Vexed issue
A vexed issue was whether to grant citizenship purely by birth, and not by descendance. Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, deals with the acquisition of citizenship by birth in the case of every person born in India on or after January 26, 1950, but before July 1, 1987. The purport and effect of this provision is pending consideration before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The issues waiting for consideration are i) whether the expression “every person born in India” would apply only to persons born to Indian citizens and ii) whether the expression “either of whose parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth” in Section 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, would apply to only a person who is born to parents one of whom is a citizen and the other a foreigner, provided he or she has entered India lawfully and his/her stay in India is not in contravention of applicable Indian laws.

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, introduced through an amendment in 1985 following the Assam Accord, classified illegal migrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh into three groups: those who entered the State before 1966; those who came between 1966 and March 25, 1971 (the official date of the commencement of the Bangladesh War); and those who entered after 1971. The first group was to be granted citizenship. The second group was to be granted citizenship after 10 years, while the third group was to be detected and expelled in accordance with law. The constitutionality of Section 6A was also challenged before the Supreme Court. This is pending resolution before the same Constitution Bench which is likely to determine the validity of Section 3 of the Act. 

A large number of persons acquired citizenship by virtue of Section 6A of the Act without being actually born within the territories of India. According to a special procedure that came to be prescribed, the claims of all persons (including persons born in India) for inclusion in the NRC were to be related to the entries either in the NRC 1951 or any of the electoral rolls prepared up to the midnight of March 24, 1971, or on the basis of any of the additional documents that have been specified. 

Although the resolution of these two issues by the Constitution Bench will have a bearing on the NRC process, the Supreme Court is not unduly worried about the outcome to justify any delay in finalising the NRC’s list of eligible citizens. 

If the Constitution Bench declares these two provisions of the Act unconstitutional, the NRC list, which was prepared on the assumption that these are constitutional, would become untenable or at least be subject to changes by aggrieved citizens.

Stress on deportation
In all these, the Supreme Court’s repeated stress on deportations, in the words of an observer, made the court appear to be more executive-minded than the executive itself. The petition filed by the social activist Harsh Mander, for instance, sought creation of humane conditions in detention centres. But the bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi converted it to be a case about deportations without any justification, and removed Mander from the petition when he questioned its decision (see Interview on page 20). When the Centre sought to release a small number of detainees from these detention centres on fulfilment of certain conditions, the bench used the hearing of the same petition to question the Centre’s move to release them rather than deport. The Centre’s explanation that for deportation the host country’s cooperation was required was not convincing enough to the bench. 

To many people, the Supreme Court’s repeated enquiries about deportation suggested not only an ignorance of the basic international law principles of non-refoulement and against statelessness but also of the doctrine of separation of powers. The Supreme Court’s role should have been one of a neutral arbiter to check whether the government is exercising its discretion to deport a person in consonance with the principles of customary international law. Therefore, when the Supreme Court itself berates the government for its so-called failure to deport people, the affected persons have no further legal remedy of challenging an illegal deportation by the government. The recently held People’s Tribunal in the capital on the issue has, in its interim report, clearly brought this dilemma to the fore (see “Worrying signals”, page 22).

National Register of Citizens & Supreme Court

National Register of Citizens

The process of updating Assam's part of NRC started in 2013 when the Supreme Court of India passed an order for it to be updated. Since then, the Supreme Court (bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Fali Nariman) has been monitoring it continuously.



  (Redirected from National Register of Citizens of India)

This article is about the system for all India. For the system implemented in Assam, see National Register of Citizens for Assam.
The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is a register of all Indian citizens whose creation is mandated by The Citizenship Act 1955 as amended in 2003–2004. It has not yet been implemented except for the state of Assam.[1]

Assam, being a border state with unique problems of illegal immigration, an NRC for the state was created in 1951 based on the 1951 census data.[2] But it was not maintained afterwards. In 1983, the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act was passed by the Parliament creating a separate tribunal process for identifying illegal migrants in Assam. The Supreme Court of India struck it down as unconstitutional in 2005, after which the Government of India agreed to update the Assam NRC. Following unsatisfactory progress on the update process over a decade, the Supreme Court started directing and monitoring the process in 2013.[1] The final updated NRC for Assam, published 31 August 2019, contained 31 million names out of 33 million population, leaving out about 2 million applicants.[3]

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has promised to implement the NRC for all of India, but it did not find the results of the Assam NRC meeting its expectations. It believes that several legitimate citizens were excluded while illegal migrants were included.[4]


Legal and regulatory provisions
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 (numbered "Act 6 of 2004") added the following clause to The Citizenship Act 1955:[5]
14A. Issue of national identity cards.

(l) The Central Government may compulsorily register every citizen of India and issue national identity card to him for Identification.
(2) The Central Government may maintain a National Register of Indian Citizens and for that purpose establish a National Registration Authority.
(3) On and from the date of commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, the Registrar General, India, appointed under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (18 of 1969) shall act as the National Registration Authority and he shall function as the Registrar General of Citizen Registration.
(4) The Central Government may appoint such other officers and staff as may be required to assist the Registrar General of Citizen Registration in discharging his functions and responsibilities.
(5) The procedure to be followed in compulsory registration of the citizens of India shall be such as may be prescribed.
The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, formulated under the Act specify:[5]

4. Preparation of the National Register of Indian Citizens.

(1) The Central Government shall, for the purpose of National Register of Indian Citizens, cause to carry throughout the country a house-to-house enumeration for collection of specified particulars relating to each family and individual, residing in a local area including the Citizenship status.
(2) The Registrar General of Citizen Registration shall notify the period and duration of the enumeration in the Official Gazette.
(3) For the purposes of preparation and inclusion in the Local Register of Indian Citizens, the particulars collected of every family and individual in the Population Register shall be verified and scrutinized by the Local Registrar, who may be assisted by one or more persons as specified by the Registrar General of Citizen Registration. .
(4) During the verification process, particulars of such individuals, whose Citizenship is doubtful, shall be entered by the Local Registrar with appropriate remark in the Population Register for further enquiry and in case of doubtful Citizenship, the individual or the family shall be informed in a specified proforma immediately after the verification process is over.
(5) ...
As explained by the Ministry of Home Affairs in December 2018, "The Citizenship Act of 1955 provides for compulsory registration of every citizen of India and issuance of National Identity Card to him. The Citizenship Rules of 2003, framed under the Citizenship Act of 1955, prescribe the manner of preparation of the National Register of Citizens. There is a special provision under the Rules to prepare the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam which is application-based and distinct from the rest of India where the process is enumeration-based."[6]

NRC and how it's different from the CAA

Everything about NRC and how it's different from the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019

The NRC identified illegal immigrants from Assam on the Supreme Court's order. This has been a state-specific exercise to keep its ethnic uniqueness unaltered.

IANS|Updated: Dec 20, 2019, 10.38 AM IST

As soon as the Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed in both houses of Parliament and given Presidential assent making it a law, loud murmurs started about another move- the National Register of Citizens or NRC. What is NRC  and does it really create a problem if clubbed with CAA, here's what you need to know:

1. What is NRC?
NRC is the National Register of Citizens. The NRC identified illegal immigrants from Assam on the Supreme Court's order. This has been a state-specific exercise to keep its ethnic uniqueness unaltered. But ever since its implementation, there has been a growing demand for its nationwide implementation. Now, many top BJP leaders including Home Minister Amit Shah have proposed that the NRC in Assam be implemented across India. It effectively suggests to bring in a   legislation that will enable the government to identify infiltrators who have been living in India illegally, detain them and deport them to where they came from.

2. Who stands to lose?
The proposed Bill, which till now remains just a proposal, if implemented will target illegal immigrants in India. But Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains and Parsis coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh won't be affected, if they claim they have arrived  India after fleeing religious persecution. Which essentially means, if a nationwide NRC comes in as proposed, any illegal immigrant from other than Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, will be affected. And as for those three nations, people coming from there who belong to the Muslim community will also be affected as they are not included in the Citizenship Amendment Act.

3. What will happen to the affected?
As proposed, if a nationwide NRC comes in place, the affected will be detained and taken to large detention centres, as it is happening in Assam. After that, the Ministry of External Affairs will get in touch with the concerned nations. If the details of the detained are matched and accepted by the concerned nations, deportations will follow. The politics of NRC BJP chief Shah has been raising the pitch for a nationwide NRC for some time now.  As late as this October, Shah raised the matter in West Bengal, not far from Assam. He had said: "We had brought the Citizenship Amendment Bill in the Rajya Sabha, but the TMC MPs did not allow the Upper House to function. They did not allow the bill to be passed, and due to this, there are people in our country who are yet to get the Indian citizenship." In Haryana, Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar too made the promise of bringing the NRC in the state during his election campaigning. Even Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS supremo has been pitching for the same, though behind closed doors. Whether a nationwide NRC will come in place or not is a premature question to answer. But going by the speed the government is moving in bringing some rather bold legislations, like abrogation of Article 370 in the monsoon session of Parliament and CAB in the winter session, a pan-India NRC Bill in the next Parliament session won't be a far fetched idea.

"What NRC?" Nitish Kumar's Big Hint That Another BJP Ally Differs

"What NRC?" Nitish Kumar's Big Hint That Another BJP Ally Differs
Several non-BJP states including Mamata Banerjee's Bengal have already said they will not implement the citizen's register in their state.
All IndiaWritten by Manish KumarUpdated: December 20, 2019 19:45 IST
by TaboolaSponsored LinksSponsored
This newborn from Mumbai is left shaken by a rare syndrome (impactguru.com)
This Anti-Snoring Device Hits All Sales Records In India (SleepQuiet)

Prashant Kishor had said Nitish Kumar assured him there would be no NRC in Bihar (File)


25

New Delhi: Nitish Kumar today gave a big indication that he will not implement the National Register for Citizens (NRC) in Bihar, adding to the troubles of ally BJP as it faces massive nationwide protests against the citizenship law and NRC. "Kahe ka NRC (What NRC)?" - this response to a journalist's question finally revealed the Bihar Chief Minister's mind on the subject.
The comment also confirms what his deputy Prashant Kishor had claimed after a somewhat tense meeting with Nitish Kumar on Saturday, during which the Chief Minister reportedly talked him out of quitting. The poll strategist-turned-Janata Dal United leader had told journalists later that Nitish Kumar had assured him there would be no NRC in Bihar.

Mr Kishor claimed Mr Kumar had told him he had backed the "grant of new citizenship" but later felt the new law, in combination with the NRC, could be "dangerous".

The Chief Minister never said it officially, though he had promised journalists that he would speak in detail on the NRC soon. Sources say public anger against the citizenship law and NRC may have set Mr Kumar thinking.

A section of Mr Kumar's Janata Dal United had also gone public with their annoyance at his sudden change of heart on the citizenship bill after he criticized it in a party forum and in press conferences.

Among them is Prashant Kishor, who posted several tweets critical of his party boss and even offered his resignation from Nitish Kumar's party.


Prashant Kishor
✔
@PrashantKishor
While supporting #CAB, the JDU leadership should spare a moment for all those who reposed their faith and trust in it in 2015. 

We must not forget that but for the victory of 2015, the party and its managers wouldn’t have been left with much to cut any deal with anyone.

8,684
2:44 PM - Dec 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
2,820 people are talking about this
Another ally of the BJP, the Akali Dal, had earlier expressed reservation on the NRC and the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill.  "Akali Dal wants Muslims to be included in the Citizenship Act. We have always talked about the welfare of people of all the religions, not just of the Sikhs," said Akali Dal leader Sukhbir Badal.

Non-BJP Chief Ministers like Mamata Banerjee have said they will not implement the NRC citizen's register in their state.

Critics fear the NRC can be used to target mostly Muslims. The new citizenship law offers citizenship to non-Muslim illegal immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. The worry is that undocumented Muslims will bear the brunt of the NRC that would require people to produce proof of citizenship.

In Assam, the NRC released in August became controversial as 19 lakh people were left out of the new citizens' list with March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date based on the 1985 Assam Accord. The ruling BJP faced resentment within the ranks when many excluded from the list turned out to be Hindus.

BJD, Which Voted For CAA, Doesn't Support NRC, Says Naveen Patnaik

BJD, Which Voted For CAA, Doesn't Support NRC, Says Naveen Patnaik
Naveen also appealed to the people of Odisha to maintain peace and not fall for rumours.

BJD, Which Voted For CAA, Doesn't Support NRC, Says Naveen Patnaik
Odisha CM Naveen Patnaik. Photo: Twitter/@Naveen_Odisha

The Wire Staff
The Wire Staff
GOVERNMENTPOLITICS
18/DEC/2019
New Delhi: Odisha chief Minister Naveen Patnaik on Wednesday said that his party, the Biju Janata Dal, does not support the National Register of Citizens. Naveen’s BJD had notably backed the amended citizenship law in parliament. The chief minister said the reason BJD supported CAA was because it applies only to foreigners.

Naveen also appealed to the people of Odisha to maintain peace and not fall for rumours.


“The amended Citizenship Act has nothing to do with Indians. It deals only with foreigners. The BJD MPs both in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha have made it clear that we do not support the NRC,” Patnaik told reporters before leaving for the national capital.

The chief minister’s statement came a day after people protesting the Act took out a peaceful rally in the state capital and urged Patnaik to make the BJD government’s stance clear on the amended citizenship law and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Go for UN-monitored referendum on CAA, NRC: Mamata's challenge to Centre

Go for UN-monitored referendum on CAA, NRC: Mamata's challenge to Centre
1 min read . Updated: 19 Dec 2019, 06:26 PM IST
PTI
Mamata Banerjee claimed that she has received inputs that the BJP is allegedly buying skull caps for its cadres
Mamata Banerjee said despite imposing prohibitory orders in various parts of the country to curtail protests, the saffron party won't succeed

Topics
Mamata BanerjeeNRCCAA
KOLKATA : Challenging the Modi government to go for a UN-monitored referendum over the amended Citizenship Act and the proposed nationwide NRC, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said on Thursday that the BJP will have to quit if it fails such a "mass vote".

Adressing a rally at Rani Rashmoni Avenue here, the Trinamool Congress supremo alleged that the BJP was trying to brand the protests against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) as a fight between Hindus and Muslims in the country.

"Just because BJP has got the majority doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. If the BJP has guts, it should go for a United Nations-monitored referendum on the issue of Citizenship Amendment Act and the NRC," Banerjee said.


"If the BJP looses this mass vote, then it should step down from the government," she added.

Banerjee claimed that she has received inputs that the BJP is allegedly buying skull caps for its cadres who are wearing them while vandalising properties to malign a particular community.

Reiterating that the contentious law and the proposed country-wide NRC won't be allowed in West Bengal, Banerjee said the BJP was founded in 1980 and was asking for people's citizenship documents of 1970.

She said despite imposing prohibitory orders in various parts of the country to curtail protests, the saffron party won't succeed.

Chitra Padmanabhan - We Are Forging New Maps of Belonging

By Protesting a Law that Divides and Discriminates, We Are Forging New Maps of Belonging

The CAA, which treats the modern day equivalents of people like Badshah Khan as 'illegal immigrants', and the 'all-India NRC' which jeopardises the status of millions of Indians have energised a new moment of dissent.

By Protesting a Law that Divides and Discriminates, We Are Forging New Maps of Belonging
Mahatma Gandhi and Bharat Ratna Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khar, at a meeting in Peshawar during the freedom struggle. Photo: Wikimedia

Chitra Padmanabhan

The photograph above is among the iconic images of India’s freedom movement – the towering Pathan, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan or ‘Frontier Gandhi’ beside Mahatma Gandhi, the communion between them visible even to the untrained eye. Known variously as Badhshah Khan and Bacha Khan, between 1930 and 1947 he moulded his Pathan followers in the North West Frontier Province of undivided India (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan) into arguably the most disciplined and united force of non-violent resistance in the subcontinent during the freedom struggle. In 1987, he was awarded the Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian honour, a year before he died, aged 98.

The striking irony is that if Bharat Ratna Badshah Khan were alive today and were to come across the border seeking asylum, he would not be eligible for the protections of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019. The man behind the Khudai Khidmatgar (Servants of God) movement – who fought alongside the Indian National Congress against British rule, opposed Partition, was imprisoned by the Pakistani establishment for long years and spent his later life in exile, in Afghanistan – would be given the status of an ‘illegal immigrant’. The reason being that the CAA is designed to help only persecuted Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan; it excludes Muslims from that list altogether.

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s name had come up during a talk in Delhi on December 17. It was fitting that the person who imagined the scenario of Frontier Gandhi in the India of 2019 happened to be Gandhi’s grandson, Gopalkrishna Gandhi. He was delivering the first Mushirul Hasan lecture, ‘Freedom and Sons Ltd: The enterprise of free speech in a market of control’, at the India International Centre.

Talk about connections: the reference to Khan in a lecture delivered by Gopal Gandhi in memory of acclaimed modern Indian historian, Mushirul Hasan, who had also been vice chancellor of Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia University at one time. The same Jamia Millia where students peacefully protesting against the CAA on December 15 on the grounds that giving citizenship on the basis of religion went against the foundational principles of the Constitution were subjected to brutal police action. That evening, one felt as if an invisible line had been drawn across time, connecting the compact between a ‘Hindu’ Gandhi and ‘Muslim’ Frontier Gandhi to fight for a free India where citizens would not be discriminated on the basis of religion.

The power of memory


Maps conceived on the basis of exclusionary ideologies and their fabrications of the past have one sole aim – to erase the coordinates of connection across time and geographies. Connections representing accretions of complementarity are anathema, as are the ideas of diversity and pluralism. These are maps to a world of diminished and corrupted meanings, where words are commandeered by the majority and weaponised to isolate and target a minority as anti-national, seditious, mini-Pakistan and so on.


Mahatma Gandhi and Badshah Khan at a prayer meet. Photo: Wikimedia

But the beauty of memory, or remembering, is that it may suddenly throw up a name from another time that can become a talisman in the conflicted present. The mention of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan released a potent memory of a man who achieved the seemingly impossible – he brought together a people seen as ‘untamed’ and given to perpetual feuding and forged them into a united force of ahimsa and civil disobedience for almost two decades, shattering all preconceptions of his community. The memory flagged a significant message for the present — it is possible to rise above the shackles of divisive narratives and contentious definitions thrust upon a community or individual, to imagine a new vocabulary of cooperation, protest and resistance.

In our present context that would mean the possibility of forging a new map of belonging. A map fortified with memories of shared patterns of living in the past but anchored to the Book of our times, the Constitution, signalling a life of dignity and equality for every citizen and would-be citizen, without discriminating on the basis of religion.

In the last six years, there have been stirrings in the student world as universities across the country have borne the brunt of the Modi government’s ideological agenda. A new topography of opposition has emerged, from the Film and Television Institute of India (Pune) to Hyderabad Central University, from Jawaharlal Nehru University, Banaras Hindu University and Allahabad University to Jadavpur University, Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia. Students have faced the gamut of the state’s arsenal – the presence of indoctrinated administrators at the helm doing their utmost to destroy a culture of questioning, damaging fee hike proposals, unwillingness to address caste-based discrimination, the now almost normalised entry of police onto campuses, and sedition charges.

The same majoritarian agenda which sought to crush the questioning spirit of universities was extended through the lockdown in Kashmir following the revocation of Article 370, the National Register of Citizens exercise in Assam, and the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, with the Supreme Court judgment on the Ayodhya issue having its own implications. The students’ canvas of issues became larger, centering around one realization, namely that the fight was for the very idea of India as expressed in its Constitution. It is perhaps this awareness that has brought students out even from institutions such as the Indian Institute of Technology, Indian Institute of Management and Indian Institute of Science in considerable strength.


A drone shot of the Mumbai protesters. Photo: By special arrangement

It is for this reason that the recent images of protest emerging from the student community and people in general have been so heartening. The young women of Jamia who valiantly protected their male friend from the lathis of policemen on December 15 demonstrated a camaraderie that was powerful for its selfless and single-minded purpose. Late in the night, as hundreds of students gathered outside the police headquarters in Delhi to demand the release of colleagues arrested by the police, students with ‘Hindu’ names vowed not to move until their friends, bearing ‘Muslim’ names, were released, and vice versa. Of course, as they told many a bemused media-person, they were there as Indian citizens exercising their democratic right to dissent.

Purity of purpose

On December 19, as students and men and women from all walks of life across states spontaneously stepped out to protest the CAA in the midst of a clampdown, there were many more heartening experiences. In the area near Delhi’s Red Fort, surrounded by a sea of olive green and lathis, a diminutive, sari-clad, elderly woman told a reporter that she was Christian, her husband a Hindu and her children Indian. Not affiliated to any organisation, she felt compelled to reach one of the publicised venues along with her daughter because, in her view, the CAA militated against the principles of the constitution. A young girl holding up a poster defiantly belted, ‘If you are acting like the British government then we will act like Bhagat Singh.’

At Jantar Mantar in Delhi, a young man called Amit stated without any fuss that he and others like him would always stand with their Muslim brothers; they were in it together. In the rallies and protests following the police action against the students of Jamia, many an elderly person remarked that after seeing images of the harsh police action they felt it was imperative for them to show their support for the ‘bachche’ (children) for they were the future of the country.

How can one forget the Nihang Sikh from Bathinda who supported the Jamia students’ demonstrations saying that he would not have mentioned communities specifically in the Act; that the only god of those who are hungry is ‘roti’ and that it was “our dharma” to help all of them irrespective of their religion.


We seem to be witnessing a freshly energised moment of dissent marked by a purity of purpose of the students who are at its core. It is not easy to predict what direction this upsurge against a government perceived as a bully will take. What one can say with some certainty is that a considerable section of Indians has finally announced that they are invested in the search for a new vocabulary of resistance that will create a new map of belonging to counter divisive narratives.

Who knows, maybe the compact of ideas between Gandhi and Frontier Gandhi may come alive once again after decades of neglect and mere lip service. As I see it, the mention of one by the other’s grandson, even if it was pure coincidence, presents an opportunity to think about the transformative power of politics.

Hum Dekhenge - Urdu Nazm by Faiz Ahmed Faiz

Hum Dekhenge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Hum Dekhenge 

by Faiz Ahmed Faiz
Original title	ویبقی و جہ ر بک
Written	1979
First published in	1981
Lines	21

Hum Dekhenge (Urdu: ہم دیکھیں گے‎, हम देखेंगे) is a popular Urdu nazm written by Faiz Ahmed Faiz, with a revolutionary theme.^[1] It was written in January 1979 in United States when Faiz was invited to Honolulu for a writers' conference.^[2] The poem was included in the seventh poetry book of Faiz, titled Mere Dil Mere Musafir in 1981. It was known for its rendition by Iqbal Bano.^[3]

Contents

• 1Writer's historical and cultural context
• 2Meaning and interpretation
• 3Popularity
• 4References

Writer's historical and cultural context[edit]

Main article: Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization

Faiz Ahmed Faiz was one of Pakistan’s most famous poets and public intellectuals. His career spanned several critical phases of Pakistani history, including the traumatic birth of Pakistan, its early years and the rise and fall of a number of governments. Faiz’s work was noted for fusing the traditional concerns of the ghazal,^[4] typically love and intoxication, with deeply political concerns such as revolution and sacrifice.

On 5 July 1977 General Zia Ul Haq seized power in Pakistan through a coup where he disposed Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.^[5] He initially ruled as Chief Martial Law Administrator (CMLA) in 1977, but later installed himself as the President of Pakistan in September 1978, ruling under martial law.

Zia’s dictatorship took an increasingly religious conservative and repressive line, implementing a series of policy measures reflecting his beliefs on the nature of Pakistan as a conservative Islamic State. To his detractors, Zia’s Islamicization programme coupled with widespread political repression was read as a cynical ploy. As one prominent critic put it Zia played "the Islam card" in order to strengthen his grip on power. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979 and Zia’s support of the mujahiddin meant that Western governments, in particular the United States, turned a blind eye to Zia’s domestic policies in exchange for his support in the war against the Soviets.^[6]

Faiz was a prominent Marxist. He was a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize by the Soviet Union in 1962. His political beliefs set him up as a natural critic of General Zia Ul Haq. In 1985, as part of Zia's programme of forced Islamicization, the sari, part of the traditional attire for women on the subcontinent was banned. That year, Iqbal Bano, one of Pakistan's best loved singers and artists, sang Hum Dekhenge to an audience of 50,000 people in a Lahore stadium wearing a black sari. The recording was smuggled out and distributed on bootleg cassette tapes across the country. Cries of "Inquilab Zindabad" ("Long Live Revolution") and thunderous applause from the audience can be heard on the recording on YouTube. Faiz was in prison at the time. (there is some doubt, since Faiz died in November 1984)

Hum Dekhenge was written in 1979. It is considered Faiz’s response to General Zia ul Haq’s repressive dictatorship and a critical commentary of Zia’s brand of authoritarian Islam.^[7]

Meaning and interpretation[edit]

The title of the song "Hum Dekhenge" or "We will see" is a promise. The promise of the poem is a promise that we will see a day where "mountains of injustice" are "blown away like cotton." The poem goes on to describe that day, where the land rumbles like a heartbeat under the feet of the oppressed and lightning crackles over the heads of those in power. The poem's beginning deals with conventional themes such as injustice and oppression, then gives way to more overtly religious symbolism. Faiz writes that the idols will be lifted from the Kabah – the Kabah being the holiest site in Islam, located in Mecca. The poem goes on to describe a revolutionary inversion of power, where the pure hearted who were outlawed, or cast out, will be honoured and "seated on cushions." The crowns (of those in power) will be thrown up in the air (alluding to a celebration) and their thrones will be cast low. The final stanza of the poem is the most religious in tone, declaring that the only name (essentially on people’s lips) will that be of Allah and a great revolutionary cry of "I am Truth" will go up and people of faith will rule again.

Faiz’s description of the idols being lifted from the Kabah echoes the coming of Muhammad and Islam, where Muhammad is said to have personally destroyed all the idols in the Kabah, returning it to the worship of the monotheism of Abraham and the prophets before him. In Islam the prophethood of Muhammad signals the end of the age of "jahilliyah" or "barbarism," a period considered by Muslims to be one marked by darkness, brutality, injustice and ignorance.

Faiz's imagery draws from the rich descriptions in the Qur'an describing Qiyamah, the final Day of Reckoning (or Judgement), when, among other things, even seemingly insurmountable icons of intimidating strength such as mountains will vaporize and be exposed as impermanent and insignificant before Divine Justice. The day of revolution may represent a critical commentary on the nature of Zia ul Haq’s regime. The poem ends on the promise of the day when people of faith rule, suggesting that people of faith are not currently ruling but idolators rule. Faiz is, in effect, calling Zia ul Haq, a man who proudly rules in the name of Islam, a non-Muslim, and an idolator - a worshipper of power and not Allah. In Islam, the greatest sin that one can commit is to make associations with Allah (this interpretation of Hallaj's statement that resulted in his execution), and idol worships falls into this greatest of sins. From an Islamic point of view, there can be no greater judgment or insult to a ruler. The poem could therefore be considered a call to the faithful to overthrow Zia for this gravest of sins.

Popularity[edit]

The nazm was recreated in CokeStudio11, where the featured artists performed it. It was released on 22 July 2018, and was produced by Zohaib Kazi and Ali Hamza.^[8][9][10]

Earlier, it was also recreated by Rahat Fateh Ali Khan, which was then used as the title song for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf in 2013 Pakistani general election, and then in Azadi march, 2014.^{[citation needed]}