110 Pak immigrants take oath of allegiance to India in first step towards citizenship
It was the first batch of Pakistani immigrants, included 11 minors, in Nagpur to take the oath after the restrictions imposed following the Pahalgam attacks.
Soon after the Pahalgam killings, the govt issued exit orders for Pakistanis living in India. Even though it was later clarified that those on LTV could stay, they were required to fill in their details afresh on a ministry of home affairs (MHA) portal before July 10.
With barely a week remaining for the deadline, those left out are scrambling to upload the details in time.
This group, with the oath taken, is now secured about their stay in the country. The final citizenship card will follow in two to three months, said Rajesh Jhambhia of the Sindh-Hindi Panchayat, an NGO for immigrants. "It could happen because all the security clearances have been completed. The district administration, which handles such cases, was also prompt," he said.
The Panchayat is also helping the remaining Pakistanis fill up the details in the MHA portal, enabling them to continue staying on LTVs and apply for citizenship.
The majority of Pakistani citizens living on LTV are Hindu immigrants from Sindh, and the exit orders post-Pahalgam had left many harried.
Nineteen-year-old Nancy Sewani says she can finally pursue her dream of becoming an air hostess. Growing up in India, she had to wait until her parents became Indian citizens first.
Last year, Nancy appeared for an interview with a leading airline but was rejected for not having a passport, said her brother Akash. Soon she will get an Indian passport, and she hopes to apply again.
Among those taking the oath was a 22-year-old who lost her parents during her stay in India. She stayed behind with her relatives and has finally qualified to become an Indian citizen through naturalisation. "My parents died in 2018 and 2020.
I continued to stay here with my relatives as I found India a better place for education," she said, requesting anonymity.
A Kodalal Bagzai, a 55-year-old from Jacobabad, Pakistan, was also among those taking the oath. He came to India with his five children, one of whom died of a heart attack. "My relatives offered me a job in Nagpur, so we shifted to India for better prospects. Now I drive an e-rickshaw," he says.
"The families prefer to stay in India because of their children's future.
Many of them are taking higher education and wish to pursue their career in India," said Jhambia.
Nagpur: Even as the fate of Pakistani citizens living in India on long-term visa (LTV) seems uncertain — 110 of them in the city took the oath of allegiance to India on Tuesday, the first step towards obtaining Indian citizenship by naturalisation. It was the first batch of Pakistani immigrants, included 11 minors, in Nagpur to take the oath after the restrictions imposed following the Pahalgam attacks.
Soon after the Pahalgam killings, the govt issued exit orders for Pakistanis living in India. Even though it was later clarified that those on LTV could stay, they were required to fill in their details afresh on a ministry of home affairs (MHA) portal before July 10. With barely a week remaining for the deadline, those left out are scrambling to upload the details in time.
This group, with the oath taken, is now secured about their stay in the country.
The final citizenship card will follow in two to three months, said Rajesh Jhambhia of the Sindh-Hindi Panchayat, an NGO for immigrants. "It could happen because all the security clearances have been completed. The district administration, which handles such cases, was also prompt," he said.
The Panchayat is also helping the remaining Pakistanis fill up the details in the MHA portal, enabling them to continue staying on LTVs and apply for citizenship.
The majority of Pakistani citizens living on LTV are Hindu immigrants from Sindh, and the exit orders post-Pahalgam had left many harried.
Nineteen-year-old Nancy Sewani says she can finally pursue her dream of becoming an air hostess. Growing up in India, she had to wait until her parents became Indian citizens first. Last year, Nancy appeared for an interview with a leading airline but was rejected for not having a passport, said her brother Akash.
Soon she will get an Indian passport, and she hopes to apply again.
Among those taking the oath was a 22-year-old who lost her parents during her stay in India. She stayed behind with her relatives and has finally qualified to become an Indian citizen through naturalisation. "My parents died in 2018 and 2020. I continued to stay here with my relatives as I found India a better place for education," she said, requesting anonymity.
A Kodalal Bagzai, a 55-year-old from Jacobabad, Pakistan, was also among those taking the oath. He came to India with his five children, one of whom died of a heart attack. "My relatives offered me a job in Nagpur, so we shifted to India for better prospects. Now I drive an e-rickshaw," he says.
"The families prefer to stay in India because of their children's future. Many of them are taking higher education and wish to pursue their career in India," said Jhambia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
8 minutes ago
- The Hindu
"I don't know anything about it": Trump on U.S. imports of Russian chemicals and fertilizers
U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday (August 5, 2025) stated that he had no knowledge that the United States imports Russian Chemicals and fertilizers. The rebuttal came after India claimed that U.S. continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, fertilisers, as well as chemicals. When asked by the ANI about U.S. Imports of Russian chemicals and fertilizers during a press conference at the White House, Mr. Trump said, 'I don't know anything about it. We will have to check.' ANI has reached out to the President's press team and awaits for a response. The comment came a day after the U.S. President announced that the United States would 'substantially raise' tariffs on India over its purchase of Russian oil. 'India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the oil purchased, selling it on the open market for big profits. They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the U.S.A. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!' Mr. Trump had said in a post on Truth Social on Monday (August 4, 2025). The U.S. President's statement was strongly rejected by India, with the Ministry of External Affairs calling the targeting of India 'unjustified and unreasonable.' In a detailed response, India said its imports from Russia were based on market needs and energy security, especially after Western nations diverted traditional supplies to Europe following the Ukraine conflict. 'In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict. The United States at that time actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets stability. India's imports are meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer. They are a necessity compelled by global market situation. However, it is revealing that the very nations criticizing India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia. Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion,' the statement noted. The government also pointed to continued trade between Russia and both the United States and the European Union. 'Where the United States is concerned, it continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilisers, as well as chemicals. In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable. Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security,' the MEA statement said.
News18
37 minutes ago
- News18
Former BJP Spokesperson Appointed Bombay HC Judge; Oppn Slams Move: 'Blow To Democracy'
Arati Sathe's appointment drew criticism from Opposition, who have raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest and the need to preserve impartiality of the judiciary The appointment of Advocate Arati Sathe as a judge of the Bombay High Court stirred political controversy in Maharashtra, following revelations that she had previously served as the official spokesperson for the Maharashtra unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on July 28, approved the elevation of Ajit Bhagwantrao Kadehankar, Arati Arun Sathe, and Sushil Manohar Ghodeswar as judges of the Bombay High Court. Sathe's appointment drew criticism from Opposition leaders, who have raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest and the need to preserve the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. NCP (Sharad Pawar) leader and MLA Rohit Pawar voiced strong objections, sharing a screenshot of a letter issued on Maharashtra BJP letterhead naming Sathe as the party's spokesperson — a post she herself had acknowledged on social media. Pawar described the appointment as a serious threat to democratic principles. 'The appointment of a person who advocates for the ruling party from a public platform as a judge is the greatest blow to democracy," he said. 'Such appointments will have far-reaching consequences on the impartiality of the Indian judicial system." He further cited concerns about the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. 'Doesn't the appointment of a political spokesperson as a judge undermine the principle of separation of powers and, by extension, constitute an attempt to subvert the Constitution?" he asked. Highlighting the broader implications, Pawar stated: 'When a person appointed as a judge in a High Court has a political background and has held a position in the ruling party, who can guarantee that the process of delivering justice will not be tainted by political bias? Doesn't the appointment of a single political figure raise questions about the entire process of justice delivery?" While clarifying that he had no objection to Sathe's legal qualifications, Pawar said the issue lies in public perception and trust in judicial impartiality. 'The appointment of such a person strikes at the sentiment of ordinary citizens that 'justice is delivered without any bias,'" he added, urging the government to reconsider the decision. 'The Honorable Chief Justice should also provide guidance on this matter." BJP Counters Responding to the controversy, Maharashtra BJP media cell in-charge Navnath Bang confirmed that Sathe had been a spokesperson for the party. However, he emphasised that she had resigned from the role prior to her judicial appointment. Further, Maharashtra BJP's chief spokesperson Keshav Upadhye asked the Congress and Rohit Pawar to answer a few questions. 'Justice Baharul Islam was elected to the Rajya Sabha in April 1962 as a Congress candidate. He was re-elected to the Rajya Sabha in 1968. During this time, he also contested the Assam Legislative Assembly elections but was defeated." 'In 1972, he resigned from the Rajya Sabha and was appointed as a judge of the Gauhati High Court. In March 1980, he retired from the judiciary and re-entered politics," Upadhye said in a clear swipe at the Congress. 'After his retirement, Indira Gandhi's government appointed him as a judge of the Supreme Court in December 1980. In 1983, after he acquitted the then Chief Minister of Bihar, Jagannath Mishra, in a corruption case and faced criticism for it; he resigned from the post of judge. Subsequently, in the same year (1983), the Congress party appointed him again to the Rajya Sabha," he added. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : BJP Bombay HC maharashtra view comments First Published: August 06, 2025, 08:56 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
39 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Necropolitics: who is allowed to live and who may die
Have you ever noticed how an airstrike in Mumbai triggers national outrage, but a similar attack in Kashmir rarely breaks through the noise? We're so accustomed to hearing about violence there that it barely feels like news. It's as if deaths in these regions are already anticipated and normalised. These aren't just accidents of geography. They are symptoms of a deeper system, a politics that decides whose lives are worth grieving and whose deaths are simply part of the landscape. Necropolitics is the use of political power to determine who is allowed to live and who can be made to die. It describes how states and institutions manage death by exposing certain populations, such as refugees, the poor, or racialised communities, to violence, abandonment, or structural neglect. Coined by Cameroonian historian Achille Mbembe in a 2003 essay and later expanded in his book Necropolitics (2019), the concept builds on Michel Foucault's notion of biopolitics but shifts the focus. While biopolitics is concerned with managing life and populations, necropolitics interrogates the power to let people die, deciding who is disposable, who may be sacrificed, and whose suffering is structurally ignored. Biopolitics versus necropolitics Foucault traces how the organisation of power changed over time: from sovereign power, where rulers exercised authority through public spectacles of death, to disciplinary power, which works through institutions like schools and prisons to train individuals using surveillance and routine. This evolved into biopower — the control of entire populations through the optimisation of life via vaccination, sanitation, census-taking, and reproductive governance. Biopower appears progressive, but as Foucault warned, it carries within it the power to 'make live and let die.' Mbembe takes this further. He asks: if biopolitics is truly about preserving life, why are so many still dying? Why are certain lives treated as expendable? Biopolitics tells only half the story. The other half is necropolitics, the deliberate exposure of certain populations to death, not by accident but by design. While biopolitics governs life, necropolitics governs death. It does not merely ignore suffering; it produces it with calculated precision. Necropolitics is not about letting people die, but about making them die. Unlike sovereign power, necropolitics does not rely on the will of a single ruler. It operates through policies, institutions, and global indifference that erases the value of some lives. These lives are stripped of dignity, reduced to statistics, and rendered disposable. This logic, Mbembe argues, has deep colonial roots. Consider the Bengal famine of 1943. Millions died not due to a lack of food, but because British colonial policies prioritised imperial interests over Indian lives. Death was systemic, not accidental. People were treated as tools for the empire, valued only in relation to others' survival. In necropolitical systems, people are not killed through spectacle but through slow, structural abandonment. Death is normalised and bodies become data. The people, whether in borders, refugee camps, or detention centres, are managed, contained, and forgotten. For instance, during the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s and '90s, queer people, especially Black, brown, trans, and working-class individuals, were abandoned by healthcare systems and denied dignity. As scholars like Judith Butler and Jasbir Puar note, only queer lives made respectable through whiteness or middle-class identity were grieved. Puar calls this queer necropolitics, where some queer lives are protected while others are left to die. Characteristics of necropolitics Necropolitics operates through several defining features that together create a system where certain lives are systematically devalued. First, state terror suppresses dissent through surveillance, violence, imprisonment, or elimination, even within democracies. Second, states collaborate with private militias or criminal groups, blurring the line between state and non-state violence. Third, enmity becomes a governing principle, making the right to kill a measure of authority. Fourth, war and terror become self-sustaining economies, fuelling global surveillance and arms markets. Fifth, active predation of certain social groups displaces entire communities, as seen in resource extraction projects. Sixth, death is administered in varied forms like torture, drone strikes, starvation, and disappearance. Finally, these acts are morally justified through ideologies like nationalism, religion, or utilitarianism. Creating a state of exception Necropolitics is sustained not only through violence but through the systematic invention of enemies. Modern states are driven by the desire for an enemy onto whom fear and blame can be projected. This enemy need not be real — the fantasy alone justifies surveillance, exclusion, and elimination. In neoliberal regimes, the threat turns inward, prompting expanded policing and emergency laws that target not just the accused but also those who resemble them. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls this condition the state of exception, when the law suspends itself in the name of preserving itself. Mbembe expands this to show how, for many populations, the exception is not temporary but permanent. In such spaces, legality becomes hollow and rights are applied selectively. What governs is not justice but logistics, such as who gets care, who receives compensation, who can cross a border, and who is punished for trying. These decisions may seem administrative, but they are deeply necropolitical, revealing how life and death are unequally distributed. The living dead Mbembe also introduces a haunting concept within necropolitical thought — the living dead: people who are not killed outright but are forced to live in conditions so degraded, unstable, and violent that life becomes a slow, continuous dying. These are individuals and communities who may remain biologically alive but are stripped of political, social, and moral recognition. We saw this during India's COVID-19 lockdown, when migrant workers were left to walk for days without food, shelter, or transport. Many collapsed and died on highways or railway tracks, not from the virus, but from state neglect. Their deaths were quietly processed and bureaucratically explained and largely unmourned. Mbembe calls these zones death worlds — spaces where populations are exposed to abandonment or sudden violence. Drawing from Agamben's 'state of exception,' Mbembe shows how these spaces operate outside the usual rule of law. Here, death is not a breakdown of governance but its very method. Gaza is one of the starkest examples. After the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, Israeli strikes flattened hospitals, aid centres, and homes. Even the deaths of children were dismissed as collateral damage. The silence that followed reveals necropolitics at its clearest: some deaths are not just permitted but framed as necessary for political strategy and national security. In everyday life Necropolitics does not always come with bombs or guns. More often, it takes the form of law, policy, and bureaucracy — sterilisation drives targeting Dalit and Adivasi women, police databases that profile Muslim names or Black people, drone strikes that label civilians as 'targets,' or detention centres where children sleep on cold floors. These are not failures of a protective system, but features of one designed to discard. It also exists in silence — in the world, including states and global institutions — looking away as thousands of civilians, including women and children, are killed in places like Gaza, while the rest of us carry on with our daily lives. Necropolitics is not confined to war zones. It thrives in the slow violence of poverty, caste, racism, and displacement. So, if power today functions through abandonment and death, what does resistance look like? The goal must not simply be to survive, but to live lives that are recognised, valued, and grieved. Rebecca Rose Varghese is a freelance journalist.
