In the volatile landscape of South Asian countries around India, the military’s role in internal crises is both constitutionally defined and politically sensitive. The summer of 2024 and 2025 presented critical moments to test the civil-military frameworks that define democratic governance. Recent events in Bangladesh and Nepal-confronted with massive Gen Z-driven protests-have exposed a troubling trend: armies that hesitate to act when ordered, allowing unrest to escalate and civilian authority to erode. This stands in stark contrast to the Indian Army, which has consistently upheld its apolitical ethos, professional conduct and constitutional mandate, even in the most politically charged situations.

In Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government faced the “Job Quota” protests since early July 2024 that spiralled into anti-government uprising. The army was formally deployed at midnight July 19. Despite being deployed on July 19, the Bangladesh army exhibited considerable reluctance to take effective measures in the initial stages to bring the situation under control and prevent the protesters from marching towards Dhaka. Widespread violence led to attacks on minorities, wrecking of public property, including Indira Gandhi Cultural Centre in Dhaka, ransacking business establishments, destruction of the Banglabandhu museum besides others. This allowed the situation to become uncontrollable.

In a significant development, on the evening of August 3, over two weeks after the initial deployment, the Army Chief, General Waker-Uz-Zaman held a meeting with his generals and made a pivotal decision: the military would not open fire on civilians to enforce the curfew that Prime Minister Hasina had called for. This represented the military effectively disobeying civilian authority by deciding which orders to follow and which to refuse. While the Army’s humanitarian concern of collateral civilian deaths was understandable, inaction violated a fundamental principle of civil-military relations: once a civilian government orders military deployment, the military executes that order or resigns in protest. It does not selectively comply. The consequence was that Hasina, losing military support, was forced to resign on August 5, not because her order was unconstitutional, but because the military refused to enforce it. This represents a subtle coup d’état, where the military effectively vetoed civilian authority by refusing orders. Whether Hasina was autocratic or her policies were parochial become irrelevant; the mechanism through which she was removed-military refusal to obey civilian orders-violated democratic principles of civil-military relations.

Nepal’s experience in 2025 mirrored Bangladesh’s trajectory. Protests erupted over digital censorship, evolving into broader anti-corruption demonstrations again led by Gen G. The youth was frustrated with unemployment, economic inequality, and endemic corruption. Again these protests engulfed the whole country. As demonstrations intensified, Prime Minister Oli’s government faltered. The government in Nepal called out the army to maintain law and order sometimes on the night of September 8-9. On the morning of September 9, the Army Chief with other top civilian functionaries met at the Prime Minister’s residence. During this crucial meeting Oli was informed that the situation had spiralled beyond control. Reports indicate that the Army Chief Sigdel advised Oli to resign, stating that the military could only stabilize the country if the Prime Minister relinquished power. Initially reluctant, Oli eventually agreed to step down. By early afternoon on September 9, protesters had vandalized the Parliament building, other public and private property. The army had several units located within walking distance of critical government buildings but hesitated to intervene to protect the Parliament, Supreme Court, and other important and historical structures from being set ablaze.

In both cases, Bangladesh and Nepal, the consequences were predictable: loss of control, regime collapse, and a vacuum of authority. The constitutions and statutes of Bangladesh and Nepal clearly define the military’s secondary task: to assist civil authorities in times of crisis. This mandate is not discretionary-it is binding. The military’s failure to act decisively when ordered undermined democratic stability and emboldened agitators. The core issue in Bangladesh and Nepal was not lack of capability-it was the exercise of discretion where none was warranted. Armies are not courts. Their role is not to adjudicate the correctness of government orders but to execute them within the bounds of legality and national interest. When armies begin to weigh the political implications of orders, they risk becoming political actors themselves. This undermines civilian supremacy, erodes public trust, and destabilizes democratic institutions. This is particularly dangerous in fragile democracies, where institutional checks are weak and public sentiment volatile. Military hesitation can embolden agitators, weaken governance, and invite external interference

India’s experience offers a compelling counterpoint. The Indian army has long been recognized for its secular, apolitical conduct and disciplined execution of government directives. During Operation Blue Star in 1984, the army was ordered to clear Sikh separatists from the Golden Temple, a mission fraught with religious and political sensitivities. The army did not hesitate. It acted swiftly, fulfilling its constitutional duty without passing judgment on the political context. Similarly, in the aftermath of the Godhra riots in 2002, the Indian army was deployed to restore public order. It moved decisively, securing affected areas and preventing further violence. In both cases, the army did not sit in judgment-it acted as the stabilizing force it was meant to be. Once a government order is given within constitutional parameters, the military’s professional obligation is execution with discipline and competence. The events in Bangladesh and Nepal underscore the urgent need to reaffirm civil-military boundaries. Democracies must ensure clear protocols for military deployment in internal crises, training and doctrine that reinforce apolitical conduct. India’s model, despite its own challenges, offers valuable lessons. The Indian army’s disciplined recognition of supremacy of civilian authority has helped preserve democratic stability even in moments of deep national crisis. When armies hesitate, nations falter.

The post Generals are not Arbiters appeared first on IMR.

What has the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) to do with India’s security ? Everything, since a lack of patriotic and efficient administration contributes handsomely to a nation’s slow progress and makes it economically, diplomatically and militarily weak. The pace of India’s progress in the last seven decades, thanks to the IAS, makes a snail feel like Usain Bolt.

Governance and administration are mistaken as synonyms but are as different as shuttlecocks are from peacocks. Governance relates to a master-slave relationship, wherein a superior authority governs its subjects. Administration, on the other hand, concerns itself with civic management of affairs of equal citizens. While governance has a snobbish, snooty tinge to it, administration has a mellow peerage quality. In mature democracies, citizen is king and its affairs are administered by elected representatives. In pseudo-democracies or banana republics, citizen is a subject, surviving under bureaucratic bosses, serving insouciant political masters. India, though the biggest democracy of the world, has yet to shake-off her banana-like shape, insofar as her public administration is concerned.

ALSO READ: Ignorance and Mental Slavery Impedes National Security (Part 1)

ALSO READ: Ignorance and Mental Slavery Impedes National Security (Part 2)

India’s administration from district and above levels is vested in the IAS. Like the Holy Roman Empire (HRE), which was neither holy nor Roman nor even an empire, IAS is neither Indian – being an elitist avatar of the British bureaucracy, nor administrative – having the psyche of governance deeply embedded in its genes – and certainly not a service, considering its masterly attitude towards a supplicant populace. IAS is as misleading in its nomenclature as a gravy-train, which is neither a train nor carries any real gravy.

How are IAS officers made?

The annual raw material comprises of 700-800 candidates for civil services out of some 11 lakh aspirants who write a tough 3-stage Union Public Services Exam (UPSC) exam. Of these 700-800 candidates, 180 nuggets are chosen for the prized IAS and the rest are consigned to lesser services, viz, Indian Police Service (IPS), Indian Foreign Service (IFS), Indian Revenue Service (IRS), etc. All of them undergo a common 15-week Foundation Course (FC) at Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA), Mussoorie to inculcate camaraderie among civil services, quite like the joint training of Army, Navy and Air Force cadets in NDA, Khadakvasla. After the FC, IAS officer trainees (OTs) remain in LBSNAA and the rest proceed to their respective academies for specific training. OTs undergo about 18 months of training in two phases including one year of District Training aimed at “learning by seeing and doing” in a district of their state cadre. This is a bit like a live-in arrangement, before marriage, a tribal practice now adopted by young millennials. Most training comprises of visits and attachments to various government offices and establishments like Lok Sabha Secretariat, PSUs, Bharat Darshan of nearly 20,000 km and a Foreign Study Tour. No other professional training is as cushy and loaded with leisure as that of OTs. During the training period OTs receive a handsome stipend, close to 85% of their starting salary as an IAS officer, hugely subsidised meals plus all the perks and privileges that would make members of parliament envious. OTs are finally awarded a master’s degree in Public Management by Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) New Delhi. No degree was obtained with as much ease and guarantee.

Unlike for defence services and IPS, there is almost no medical specification for IAS entrance. There is, of course, a medical exam for IAS but without any specification for height, weight, girth or chest. Squinty eyes with colour blindness, spectacles and partial deafness are OK. If one fails an IAS medical exam, one either has malignant cancer, is chronically diabetic or hypertensive or is simply not breathing. There is no psychological assessment of IAS candidates, as done for fauji cadets, which explains their lack of emotional quotient or commitment to any mission.

ALSO READ: Education and History Shape the Nation’s Future

From the time one steps into LBSNAA, an OT is treated like a male child is treated in Bihar – a superior being to be groomed to reign over every government office, department, ministry and enterprise in India. Training of OTs comprises merely of exposure to various facets of government functions, without any deep study of anything, quite like the military training of British princes – Charles, William and Harry. After graduation, an IAS officer never serves subordinate to any other authority other than another IAS officer or a minister. LBSNAA takes the crème-de-la-crème of Indian youth and in less than 2 years churns out snooty, self-serving and unenthusiastic IAS officers, armed with authority, power and jurisdiction far in excess of their capabilities limited to bureaucratic babugiri. If cream could be turned into sour milk, LBSNAA would do it readily. No organisation defies its motto with as much nonchalance and contempt as IAS does ‘Sheel Param Bhushanam’- “character is the ultimate ornament”.

Corruption and the IAS

India is synonymous with corruption, thanks to decades of Congress-inspired decadence since 1947. The blame for corruption is unfairly heaped on politicians, police and government agencies other than IAS. There is no denying the aforesaid are corrupt, no corruption is possible without the willing and active abetment of the IAS, who hold the reins of all administration. No files can move, nor any government funds be released without IAS acquiescence. IAS, after all, heads all government departments, ministries, PSUs and state administration down to district level, makes notings on file and signs all government orders. It may not be wrong to conclude corruption is “professionally administered” by the IAS. Yet, IAS enjoys the lowest conviction rate for corruption among all civil servants and politicians, thanks to a cleverly specious caveat adopted by the masterminds of British bureaucracy. All government orders signed by the IAS are prefaced with the phrase “I have been directed to…”. This absolves the signers of any culpability or consequences and protects them from legal action. They, of course, extract their pound of flesh before signing the document. The brilliance of this sinister caveat must be applauded for its simplicity and legal effectiveness.

IAS officers were never convicted of any corruption charges during Congress regime. The odd case that came to light was tied up in red tape or overturned in legal processes. Corrupt IAS officers would get “suspended” for some time and reverted to duty once the storm subsided. This was easy during the era of no TV, internet, social media, sting operations and a conniving political setup. The truth of IAS involvement in rampant corruption is slowly dawning on the media and on the people, armed with modern technology and awareness.

There is another factor for the premise that police, IRS (Income Tax, Customs, Octroi, Sales Tax) are more corrupt than the IAS. All police corruption is predicated only on criminals or violators of traffic rules. There is no earning for the police from honest, law-abiding citizens. The scope and scale of corruption in the police, therefore, is limited. The IAS, however, earns its black-moolah for signing contracts, giving licences, approving plans, waiving penalties, distributing grants, etc. IAS, thus, has a far vaster scope and scale of corruption-canvas to paint on. The beneficiaries of IAS largesse extend from common citizens (oops, subjects) to influential captains of industry, bigtime contractors, businessmen and even petty politicians. In this, IAS may well be competing with the IRS whose scope and scale is quite similar, if a bit smaller. While the bribe to IPS is grudging, the kickback to the IAS is willing and cheerful. IAS corruption, to a great extent, is also protected by a strong IAS Officers’ Association that fights for the exoneration of tainted IAS officers involved in criminal cases. The old-boy network of IAS, with a finger in every pie of government jurisdiction, can easily browbeat all but the most uncontestable of crimes.

Who is more corrupt – the Mantri or the Babu?

There are many factors that point to the primacy of the Babu over the Mantri when it comes to government corruption. Firstly, even if a Mantri is corrupt, the execution of the corruption lies with the Babu. A Mantri cannot siphon-off public funds without the Babu’s active connivance nor carry-out a corrupt action without involving the Babu. The Babu is the custodian of public funds and no misappropriation is possible without his/her active participation. Secondly, Mantris come and go, but there is a degree of permanence to bureaucracy in ministries and departments. Most mantris are naïve and not as conversant with the ways of the bureaucracy, becoming easy prey to the sycophantic, suave and chashni-coated language of the babus. First-time mantris are easy meat for the Venus Flytrap of red-tape awaiting them. While the Mantri cannot be corrupt without the shoulder of the Babu, the latter does not rely on the Mantri for the same. What oxygen is to combustion, Babu is to corruption – a prerequisite! Honest IAS officers can enforce honesty in their domain far more effectively than honest ministers can in their ministry. An honest minister is not so much of a problem to a corrupt IAS officer as an honest IAS officer is to a corrupt minister. If corruption is a cake, its tiers are made of bureaucracy and the icing is political.

ALSO READ: CAA, NRC and India’s Security

The IAS is not only corrupt, it is solely responsible for the architecture that enables and sustains corruption in India. When a bill becomes an Act, it is the IAS that drafts its Rules, injecting innocuous loopholes for future exploitation. Commissions of inquiry may be headed by judges but are staffed by the Babus. KPMG, one of the world’s largest audit and compliance firms, in its 2004 report on Corruption in India, blames the “excessive bureaucratic regulation” as one of the major causes for corruption. The power of Indian authorities to search and question individuals creates opportunities to extract bribes. Most individuals or businesses prefer a bribe to due process and cost of delay. Lack of transparency allows room for manoeuvre for both demanders and suppliers of corruption. A study conducted by German NGO Transparency International, in 2005, noted that 82% Indians had paid a bribe to a public official to get a valid job done. The catalysts of corruption in India include excessive regulations, complicated systems, numerous departments, opaque bureaucracy, vast discretionary powers, government monopoly of strategic material delivery and opaque procedures. These have been deliberately created and nurtured by the IAS for their benefit. A 2009 survey revealed Indian bureaucracy to be the least efficient among ASEAN, South Korea, Japan, China and Philippines and that working with India’s civil servants was, like halaal, a “slow and painful” process.

Despite rampant corruption, conviction rate of IAS officers has been negligible. IAS officers themselves acknowledge that 35% of them are extremely corrupt, making hundreds of crores of rupees during their careers, 55% are moderately corrupt making tens of crores and about 10% are honest. This makes 90% of IAS officers unacceptably corrupt. Small wonder why IAS officers rarely seek post-retirement employment but are fervently sought-after by business houses, building conglomerates and private industries for the advantages they bring for liaison with government departments.

IAS has perfected the art of heading departments and organisations without much clue of their functioning. An IAS, officer during his career, would head departments as diverse and complex as civil aviation, fisheries, mining, railways, chemicals and fertilizers, shipping, town-planning, finance or revenue, etc – one as different from the other as coal from snow. Heading an organisation while lacking expertise in that field, leads them to pursue the only expertise they truly have -to delay and confuse! It is no surprise that India is so far behind China, Austria and Israel, a few of the countries that got independence after India but are years ahead in all indices of international comparison, except corruption. Their advantage? They do not have IAS.

So, what is the solution?

India has been afflicted with two curses since independence – Congress rule and IAS. While Congress has largely been electorally neutralised by the voters, IAS still needs to be tackled. In the past seven decades, IAS has trampled over all other government services and established its numero uno status. They have formed rules, modified regulations and tweaked pay commissions to their immense advantage, against all “adversaries” especially the military. The most obvious solution for India’s ills would be to discard IAS altogether. This, however, is more desirable than feasible.

Corruption is directly proportional to the population of a country. India, with almost the biggest population, is as conducive to corruption as coffee is to waking-up. Most countries with a high “honesty-index” are sparsely populated. Climate also seems to play a role as colder countries are, statistically, more “honest”. Here, too, India suffers from lying in the Torrid Zone. Administration is best executed in small jurisdictions.

Alternative to IAS

When seeking an alternative to the IAS, it is tempting to adapt administrative models operative in Canada, Singapore, New Zealand and Nordic countries, where the index of corruption is low and that of happiness high. India’s geography, culture, demography and economic status is so different from these countries that transcribing their models here would be like expecting a French chef to make a good jalebi. Let us not forget, India was a civilized nation long before fire was discovered in the West. Instead of aping the West, India needs to dig into her glorious past and relearn the excellent practices of civic administration followed during the Vedic period and subsequently in the Mauryan, Gupta, Chola and Ahom eras in different parts of India. The common strand, during these periods of India’s prosperity, was the acceptance of village as the most important unit of democracy and administration. Even in monarchial dispensations, democratic administration was practised in villages with a village-headman leading a village-council that carried out the wishes of the village-assembly, comprising of all villagers. Towns and cities did not merit as much importance as villages did, as our forefathers and wise kings realised the wisdom of focussing on villages that were not only a majority, they contributed more to the economy too. If India’s decision-making emanates from her villages and sprouts upwards, spreading to her towns and cities it would annihilate Lutyens’ caucus, power-brokers and dalals, having no largesse or licences to distribute. India lives in her villages and if villages are prosperous and happy, India cannot but be prosperous and happy.

Howsoever juicy the prospect, IAS cannot entirely be eliminated because a central administrative machinery is a valid necessity. So, IAS needs to be improved upon, by instilling checks on their unbridled power and removing immunity from prosecution. IAS needs to be accountable for its actions. For the last 5-6 years, the government, seized of this malaise, has been taking steps to plug loopholes, deliberately incorporated by the IAS to exploit the system. There is a crying need to simplify rules and procedures, reduce paperwork and eliminate cash transactions for all official purposes, including disbursal of money to the poor. These steps have been initiated by the NDA government and shall have a salutary effect in reining-in the IAS in times to come. The most important reform required, however, is to make IAS accountable for any order, approval, grant, etc, signed by them, notwithstanding on whose behalf or orders these are signed. IAS officers do, after all, take an oath to protect India and her Constitution and cannot hide behind the caveat of “I have been directed to…” They are educated and ought to be responsible for what they sign.

Names of IAS officers responsible for public services like power supply, water-supply, drainage, road-repairs, street-lighting, local transportation, public urinals, parking arrangements, etc, should be prominently displayed for the public’s knowledge. Public should be educated that provision of these services is an administrative and NOT a political responsibility. It is time IAS and not politicians, are blamed for the state of our deplorable infrastructure and public utilities.

When asked why Tata Nagar (Jamshedpur) was the cleanest city in India, Tata administration exclaimed, “There is no IAS officer involved”!!

The post GOVERNANCE – The IAS and India’s Security appeared first on IMR.

The Act

The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) has amended Section 2 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which defines “illegal migrants” by adding a proviso – Section 2 (1)(b) – according to which any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, and who have been exempted by the Central Government under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or the Foreigners Act, 1946, shall not be treated as “illegal migrant”. Further, any proceeding pending against such persons shall abate allowing them to be eligible to apply for citizenship by naturalisation, which is laid down under Section 6 of the 1955 Act.

The absence of the Muslim community from the proviso is conspicuous and was the subject of intense debate among parliamentarians in the past few days.

It does not automatically confer citizenship on a person from Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan. They have to apply for citizenship and possess the qualifications laid down under the Citizenship Act. The amendments will not affect a person who is already a citizen of India.

The Act also does not exclude Muslims as a whole, as Muslims, including from the three countries specified in the proviso, can become Indian citizens by following the procedure laid down in the act. The prohibition is only if they are “illegal migrants”: those who travel without valid passport and documents, or those with valid documents who stay in India beyond the permitted time period.

There are Muslim communities facing discrimination in Muslim majority countries, such as the Rohingya Muslims who are a persecuted community in Myanmar. The amendment disregards this by classifying Muslims as one homogenous group. Thus, Muslim illegal migrants, as a whole, are denied a benefit irrespective of whether they are persecuted in their home country or not.

Non-Muslim illegal migrants from other countries will not get the benefit of this exemption.

Opposition to the Act

The Citizenship Amendment Act is opposed by Opposition parties and many civil rights activists on the ground that it discriminates against Muslims. They say that such discrimination is unconstitutional under Article 14.

Rights under Article 14 are absolute. These two fundamental rights are not exclusive to the citizens of India but to “any person”. In this backdrop, the Opposition parties and activists have accused the BJP of signaling out the Muslims to further its “hidden agenda”.

Beyond the political arena, civil society and discerning citizenry have vehemently expressed their disagreement with the new national law. More than 720 jurists, writers, actors, activists and citizens had issued a statement against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill and the National Register of Citizens, describing these as “misguided” and, worse, “unconstitutional”.

Protests Against the Act

Even before Lok Sabha cleared the Bill, protesters, majority of them being students took to streets in Guwahati to rally against the Bill on 10 December 2019. Hundreds poured into the streets responding to a shut down call by the North East Student’s Organization. However, the protests went out of control when public infrastructures and vehicles were vandalized and the police resorted to baton charges and firing of teargas. Soon the Army was deployed to contain the situation and the nature of protests turned absolutely violent resulting in the killing of 2 people during firing by the security forces. This also resulted in the cancelation of the annual India-Japan Summit scheduled for 15-17 December 2019 in Guwahati.  However, these agitations remained confined to the North East.

What changed the extend and the momentum of these protests to acquire a pan Indian character started in Jamia Milia Islamia (JMI) University, New Delhi.

Protesters took to violence in West Bengal which started on 13 December 2019. In Lucknow, students of Darul Uloom Nadwatul Seminary gathered in large numbers to protests but the police did not allow them to leave the campus.

Pinched by the brutal police action on students from Jamia and AMU, students from IIT-Madras, TISS, Mumbai, Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU), Hyderabad, Jadavpur University and different cities such as Chennai, Puducherry, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Lucknow, Varanasi, Kolkata and took to streets in solidarity on 16 December against CAA and brutal Police action inside Jamia campus.

Protests against the Act started as a student’s protests but in no time assumed a political character where political parties as well as people holding political offices participated in these protests.

The protests spread to Delhi University (DU), where students organized peaceful demonstrations and boycotted the semester exams.

Although, these protests started as a student’s protests but in no time it assumed a political character where political parties as well as people holding political offices participated in these protests. Mamata Banerjee addressed a rally in Kolkata, while in Delhi the congress organized Bharat Bachao rally to address a variety of issues including CAA. Meanwhile in Kerala, the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) joined hands with the opposition United Democratic Front (UDF) to protests against CAA. Protesters gathered in Mysore, Bangalore, Manglore, Thiruvanthapuram, Kochi, Chennai, Aurangabad and many more districts. 

The protests acquiring a political nature robbed these protests of their original essence, innocence and purpose. These protests that were initially seen as dissenting voice of an empowered youth of the country would have greatly contributed to enhance India’s image as a well functioning democracy. Political party as catalysts to students resorting to violence cannot be denied.

CAA and NRC in Assam

Home minister Amit Shah claimed that this law had nothing to do with Indian Muslims or other Indian citizens. Oddly, in the same speech in the Lok Sabha, he promised a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC) and then attempted to defend the CAB in isolation of that announcement. The law is a perfect example of the maxim, post hoc ergo propter hoc (after it, therefore, because of it). The CAB follows an Assam NRC which backfired and was denounced by the BJP’s own state leadership. The government is yet to publish the religion-wise breakdown of those 1.9 million excluded, but the CAB (Section 6B) seeks to abate proceedings against the Hindus in that list (singling out only Muslims as migrants). The CAB is, thus, a twisted solution to a botched NRC in Assam, and also a pre-emptive precursor to the nationwide NRC, which Shah has declared to be an inevitability. If this nationwide NRC is as badly conducted as the Assam NRC (whose first list identified over four million as immigrants), it will have an error rate of over 50%. The CAB is, therefore, a pre-emptive remedy to save all (but the Muslims) who are left out, something deliberately ignored by this government.

The Implications

Though the amendment does not automatically confer citizenship to Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, it removes the tag of “illegal migrant” which is a roadblock for acquiring citizenship by naturalisation.

Further, it also relaxes the condition to acquire citizenship by naturalisation. As per the current requirement, a person should have 11 years of residence in India or service of government in India. The amendment reduces this to a period of five years.

Muslim illegal migrants from these three countries cannot apply for citizenship and will continue to remain illegal migrants.

The number of Bangladeshis living illegally in India was put at 2 crore by Union minister Kiren Rijiju in the Rajya Sabha in 2016. He did not get into numbers for specific states.

Ever since India became independent there has been an uncontrolled inflow of illegal immigrants for a variety of reasons from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan — many in search of greener pastures while many others are fleeing from religious persecution. Illegal immigration into India is a punishable offence —as it is in every other country. However, when the number of such illegal immigrants is as huge as it is, prosecuting the offenders may not always practicable.

There are at present in different parts of India an unascertained number of such immigrants living as refugees — many are subject to exploitation as cheap labour in several establishments. These illegal immigrants consist of, among others, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians — all minorities in the specified Islamic countries; and also a large number of Muslims who could be safely presumed to have migrated for reasons other than religious persecution.

The Constitution of India specifies who are citizens of this country. It also recognises Parliament’s power to make laws relating to citizenship. Accordingly, the Citizenship Act of 1955 was enacted. That law has been amended several times to meet the needs of the time.

The post Internal Security : Controversy Over Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 appeared first on IMR.