Dialogue on climate change, its impact on agriculture to be held in Bhopal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
15 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump slaps 25% tariffs on ‘friend' India starting August 1, plus ‘penalty' for ‘buying Russian oil'
President Donald Trump announced a 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods starting August 1, citing India's high trade barriers and continued energy and defense ties with Russia. More details are being added
Hans India
15 minutes ago
- Hans India
EAM Jaishankar roasts Oppn over India's ‘new normal' policy
New Delhi: External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on Wednesday lashed out at the Opposition over feigning ignorance over the term 'India's new normal' and coined a new name 'Modi normal' to elucidate the new defining strategy of the country in responding to acts of terror and crushing terrorists as well as their masterminds, irrespective of their location. Joining the Operation Sindoor debate in Rajya Sabha, Jaishankar said that some members raised hue and cry over the term 'new normal' and hence he was explaining India's new security doctrine via 'Modi normal' and 'Congress normal'. He said that the 'Modi normal' has clearly laid out guidelines and principles on matters of national security that remain steadfast and non-negotiable. 'Terrorists will not be treated as proxies, cross-border terror will get an appropriate response, talks and terror won't go together, we won't give into nuclear blackmailing, and blood and water won't flow together,' he told the House, outlining the redefined national strategy under the Modi government. Notably, the 'new normal' policy came into being after the Modi government gave full operational freedom to the forces during Operation Sindoor and stated that any act of terror on Indian soil will now be seen as an attack on India's sovereignty and therefore will be responded to by the armed forces in the strongest possible manner. EAM Jaishankar further said that India's Operation Sindoor did a global service by destroying hubs of global terror in Pakistan. 'Bahalwapur and Muridke remain the biggest centres of nurturing terrorists and spreading terrorism in India and abroad. Our forces reduced it to dust; they did a global service and are being suitably applauded by all,' he said. Lambasting the 'sceptical' Opposition, he said that there are ample examples of Pakistani military establishments facing the fury of Indian forces, but there are some who continue to undermine our security forces for certain political motives. The Minister said that Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif made a candid confession about Indian military strikes pulverising its military installations, but this fails to convince those who continue to remain sceptical of the Army's accomplishments. 'Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif admitted that General Munir called him, saying that Indian ballistic missiles hit their Noor Khan air base and missiles like Brahmos targeted their provinces like Rawalpindi,' he said and lamented that the political parties back home are decrying the great achievements of the Indian Armed Forces for scoring political points.
Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bihar's electoral roll revision: Are we shifting from inclusive citizenship to identity-based exclusion?
The recent controversy regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls is indicative of the fading institutional boundaries in contemporary India. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is mandated under Article 324 to revise electoral rolls. Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 authorises the ECI to conduct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of the constituency. Similarly, Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 authorises the ECI to conduct an intensive revision of electoral rolls. However, the present order of the ECI brings in the new concept of Special Intensive Revision (SIR). In the domain of citizenship rights, we are moving from jus soli (citizenship by birth) towards jus sanguinis (citizenship by bloodline). Further, this movement is insisting more on technicalities/documentations, which are affecting the vulnerable sections. The recent Bihar caste survey showed that 63 per cent of the population are backward or extremely backward, and 73 per cent of Muslims are backward. Many of these people are now afraid to be declared illegal migrants. In India, historically, due to migration, different cultural identities have gained their own cultural and political space, creating a multicultural society. In the pre-Independence period, the citizenship debate divided the cultural nationalists and political nationalists. Leaders like V D Savarkar linked citizenship to cultural roots. Based on this, he denied equal citizenship to any community whose punya bhoomi (holy land) is situated outside India. The Constituent Assembly of India, however, deliberated on the issue and gave citizenship — through Article 5 — to those who were born in India or resided in the country for at least five years before the commencement of the Constitution and had not acquired citizenship of any foreign country. Through Article 6 (which later became Article 11), it empowered Parliament to make provisions regarding all matters related to citizenship. The Citizenship Act, 1955, removed the provision of citizenship by birth for those born after January 26, 1950, on the condition that any one of the parents should be an Indian citizen. The Assam Accord in 1985 inserted Assam-specific section 6A, which allowed those who migrated between 1966 and 1971 to be registered as foreigners. Those who migrated after 1971 were considered illegal migrants. Through the 1987 amendment, the state gave citizenship based on the principle of jus soli to those who were born before 1987. However, those who were born in and after 1987 were given citizenship based on jus sanguinis. According to the 2003 amendment, the citizenship of a person born after or in 2003 depends on whether both of her parents are already Indian citizens. If not, at least one of them must be Indian, and the other shouldn't be an illegal immigrant. In the year 2024, the Citizenship Rules, 1956, were amended. It openly mentioned the religious identity of the immigrants. Section 8A of the amended rules empowered the collector of a district, in Gujarat and Rajasthan, to register minority Hindus with Pakistani citizenship, who have migrated to India more than five years ago with an intention to settle down permanently, as citizens of India. The 2024 amendment, by bringing in religious identity for acquiring citizenship, has defied the secular outlook of Article 7 of the Constitution, which deals with people who have migrated from Pakistan to India, without mentioning any religion. In 2015, two significant amendments were made to the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 and the Foreigners Order, 1948. Both are precursors to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. It further institutionalised this religion-based exclusion by making it easier for a certain group of people to get Indian citizenship based on their religious identity. The current SIR of ECI appears to establish hierarchy in citizenship. The Indian Constitution has served as a significant obstacle to such a shift towards cultural identity-based citizenship. We need critical engagement with the constitutional framework to promote inclusive citizenship norms rooted in political identity rather than cultural identity. The writer teaches at Christ University. Views are personal
