Talk:National Register of Citizens

ORF/Gupta
Nice job with this page; this is a more elegant solution that attempting to rewrite the monstrosity that was the Assam page. I would be wary of an ORF source that doesn't have editorial oversight, however. Kanchan Gupta', if published by an independent publisher, may be usable, but in a report published by his own organization, I think we should avoid him. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Van, sources are very hard to find for this subject (which is kind of surprising). But I will keep your caution in mind while I use him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's early days, is the trouble. We're going to be reduced to using good media sources (read; international media sources; especially the BBC) until scholars get their act together. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

NRC Assam
The basic criteria for the NRC Assam should have been added so that the public could have easy access to understanding it's nature. With the ongoing situation, this edit will create more ruckus.very bad timing. Themohitrao (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The NRC Assam page is unchanged. You are welcome to summarise it here if you wish. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I should also say that the pan-India NRC is going to be completely different from the Assam NRC process. So I have no idea why people want to understand the Assam NRC. The Assam NRC is finished. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of whether pan india NRC is same as Assam NRC, the Assam NRC is notable enough on its own right. And it rightly deserves its own page. Obviously Kautilya3 made a very good call in creating a seperate page for pan India NRC. That said this NRC page is bare bones and without scholar opinions, from both sides, it is hard to understand the implications and relevance of the same. KT please consider adding Reception, Criticism etc sections. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  11:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Detention Centers
Hi User:DiplomatTesterMan, Kautilya3 do you have the list of the detention centres ? hamy many are being built ? I came to know of 16 in Assam and 1 In Bangalore. Anywhere else ? i am sure there will be. Sources will be appreciated. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  14:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

One in navi mumbai too. Edward Zigma (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you Edward Zigma. I have included it now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  15:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I am glad this stuff is being added. But let us not go overboard with it. Much more basic material about the article is yet to be written. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Check out this report:
 * which has a section on the Assam detention centres starting p. 167. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DBigXray "No Detention Centres In India": PM Modi On National Register Of Citizens (NDTV) then the article goes on to write ".... Many of them are now in detention centres across Assam." DTM (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DBigXray "No Detention Centres In India": PM Modi On National Register Of Citizens (NDTV) then the article goes on to write ".... Many of them are now in detention centres across Assam." DTM (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

BJP dismayed

 * BJP was dismayed due to Hindus being excluded from the list of citizens in Assam.

User:Kautilya3 you have removed this content as POV, IMHO you are engaging in a bit of whitewashing. This is document fact covered by multiple reliable third party sources. Nothing surprising out here. Unless you have a convincing argument, or a better version of this, this line is going back into the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am afraid it is overstating a point that has already been made, but in stronger language. The fact that a newspaper used it is not good enough reason to use it. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
 * There are also plenty of documented cases of genuine refugees with certificates having been excluded from the NRC . So please don't blow the trumpet too hard just yet. One newspaper, one reporter and one POV doesn't make an encyclopedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The government FAQ document
The government FAQ document that is sloshing around is wrong. As per the Indian nationality law, anybody born after 1987 is an Indian citizen only if at least one parent is an Indian citizen. Those born after 2003 also need that the other parent is legal (i.e., not an illegal immigrant). To demonstrate these facts, the parents' birth certificates (or some other proof of their citizenship) might be necessary. In the Assam NRC, they were certainly asked for.

The pan-India NRC is expected to be lighter touch than the Assam NRC. So not everybody may be required to produce all the documents. Only those marked as "doubtful citizens" will be asked to do so. But, to be safe, all people would be well-advised to gather all the requisite documents as per the law. The government FAQ document is of no use. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a hastily prepared hogwash, that initially even the ministry was not ready to own. Its purpose was to mislead. Indeed, no need to use it for anything. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  21:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Move text to Immigration detention in India
DBigXray, Kautilya3, should the text National_Register_of_Citizens be moved to Immigration detention in India (as per Immigration detention or List of detention sites in the United States). DTM (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OR Detention Centers in India DTM (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OR Illegal immigration to India, since a fork isn't really needed DTM (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OR Assam Detention Centre and National_Register_of_Citizens can be merged in to Detention Centers in India DTM (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Q. should the text National_Register_of_Citizens be moved to Immigration detention in India ? Answer: No. It should remain here itself. It is a subtopic of NRC. I was thinking of a seperate article Detention Centers in India but IMHO there isnt enough content to merit a seperate article. for now, it should be a part of NRC and once there is enough content, it can be WP:CFORKED leaving a summary at the NRC article. Also note that ASsam detention center are notable on their own, due to Assam NRC. no need to merge it with anything. You can add a summary of ASsam detention center to wherever you like but don't redirect the Assam detention center. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  10:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that, for the time being, it can remain here. But if it starts becoming UNDUE, it would need to be spun off. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That will eventually happen but I think it will take some time. Currently there is coverage for the Assam camps only and very little coverage on others to expand upon. Obviously in future we will have more coverage and more entries to the list. That will make the CFORK necessary -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  12:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Bangladeshi immigrants
Earlier this year, The Diplomat wrote that there were 10 million stateless people worldwide, but India was becoming the "largest home" of stateless people. This was at a time when the Assam NRC had still excluded 4 million people. That number has since come down to 2 million, with only 700,000 Bengali Muslims. 500,000 were Bengali Hindus, who could possibly pass for refugees, and the rest were north Indians (including locals).

However, a UPA government estimate in 2004 said that there were 12 million Bangladeshi illegal immigrants in India, 5 million in Assam and 5.7 million in West Bengal. The BJP estimates 20 million Bangladeshi illegal immigrants. Demographic indicators support the high numbers. For example, Myron Weiner estimated that, in just one decade 1971-1981, 1.8 million Bangladeshis must have entered Assam.

So, how could the Assam NRC end up with only 1.2 million Bangladeshis overall? The inescapable conclusion is that these people somehow manage to produce the papers to demonstrate their citizenship. So, in the end, the humanitarian problem may not be as bad as people fear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Three-step communal game plan

 * https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-three-step-communal-game-plan/article30374423.ece

Kautilya3, User:DiplomatTesterMan check this out. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  12:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. Please add it wherever Narendra Modi has been plugged in by the gremlins. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, There are some major milestones mentioned in the article above that I believe should be added to the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  13:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Amit Shah today claims that there is no connection between the NPR and NRC. The Rules are published on this page, which say otherwise. He also continues to claim that the UPA government brought in these measures in 2004. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The anchor seems to have failed to finger him on why the NPR is being constructed separately from the Census 2021, which is only one year away. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DBigXray, thanks for sharing the link. So much new info and misinfo being being pointed out!... The CPIM chap writes "...tortuous process of submitting proof of their citizenship." More like tortuous process of trying to keep a grip of on what is happening other than Modi and Shah doing a Trump along the Mexican border! DTM (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 The anchors are sycophants of the lap dog media. They are simply reading out the script that was given to them by the Propaganda dept. IF someone dares to question, they are immediately fired like Abhisar Sharma and Punya Prasun Vajpayee. DTM, one way to avoid disinformation is to avoid listening to the liars. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  16:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

NPR
I think with the new updates a section on NPR is merited, thoughts ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  13:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and started it. Hindu has published pics of NPR form. Should we cover this or wait for more. User:Kautilya3, User:DiplomatTesterMan-- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  18:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to keep in mind that an NPR was done during the 2011 Census. The UPA government had no intention of doing an NRC. So they didn't ask any leading questions.
 * But this time is different. They need to collect enough data to identify the "doubtful citizens". That is what the Rules say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources I've read clearly make a connection, so some material (probably a paragraph or so) is warranted. Whether you need a separate section, I don't know. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Eventually a separate article for NPR will be needed to Fork out. For now a section here seems most appropriate to enable full understanding to the user. The section clarifies that it was done in 2011 as well as 2015.  D Big X ray ᗙ  23:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I could put doubtful next to your name... or I could not
India's Nobel Prize winner Abhijit Bannerjee : "I'd be petrified by that thought and even if I were - you know just the fact that somebody will come and say 'Look, I'm in charge of making this list I could put doubtful next to your name... or I could not. And maybe you could pay me ten thousand rupees' ",

User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Kautilya3, I would like to add this to the article as a notable comment. thoughts ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Nah, it is too cute and fictitious. Everybody will take a potshot at the government while it is down. But the reality is that the sooner the NRC happens the better. Delay it for another generation, and they will have another generation of birth certificates to gather. Who wants that? If only the Nehru government created and maintained the NRC's continuously since 1951, we wouldn't have had all this trauma.
 * Somebody needs to convince the government that the illegal immigrant problem is not as bad as they imagine it to be. The Chaper 3 of the Saikia report gives estimates. Between 1971-2001, they estimate about 0.5 million immigrants into Assam "from all sources". (So, the current Assam NRC has lots of false "foreigners".) The immigrants to West Bengal could be perhaps twice that number and the rest of India a few hundred thousands. That is it. There is not much immigration from Bangladesh happening now, and given the way the Indian economy is going, there is going to be reverse migration in future years.
 * So, the right solution would be to accept all the residents as citizens for the first time, and maintain the NRC continuously afterwards. I don't have a solution for BJP's West Bengal election however. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)




 * (I updated the quote above and added the entire line). I would agree to all your points above, but the comment is kinda off topic to this thread. Talking about the quote, the points in favour are it is from a Nobel laureate (a world known figure), points the problem in the risk of implementation of such an NRC/NPR with an ambiguous criteria. Points the very real problem of corruption and how this entire process can become an expensive failure like Demonetisation. Comparing the pros with the cons (cute and fictitious). I would say, we must include this into the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would still say no. The blatant allegation of corruption in that manner can't be highlighted in a quotebox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Even Minister Paswan doesn't know his parents DoB
It is quite obvious that the government has not thought this through, just like Demonetisation and GST.User:Kautilya3 Do you support this quote "Even I don’t know the date of birth of my parents, forget about producing documents proving the dates,” Mr. Paswan told The Hindu." for inclusion in NPR. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Questions on parents in NPR form may be dropped: Ram Vilas Paswan
 * No, not political pot shots. I am sure he can find the birth dates if he tried hard enough. 33 million Assamese did even if they had far fewer resources than him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Paswan IS part of the government and not opposition. Even if not in quote, this needs to be added as it led to removal of a question.  D Big X ray ᗙ  22:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I didn't realize this is dealing with NPR. Yes, asking parents' birth dates in the NPR is certainly a problem, especially if the government wants to claim that the NPR has nothing to do with the NRC. Paswan can certainly be covered in the text, but let us not make another quotebox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Data on illegal immigrants
In the section above titled "I could put doubtful next to your name...", I wrote some remarks about what I thought were slowing numbers of immigrants from Bangladesh. I scratched it out when I realized that I had misinterpreted the Fig 3.1 of the report as giving "estimates". It was in fact giving census data, i.e., showing the number of people who indicated to the census takers that they had immigrated. That is not a very reliable indicator of the reality.

Later in Chapter 3, the authors do show detailed estimates of their own based on the demographic data of Assam. The numbers of incoming East Bengali/Bangladeshi immigrants (along with their descendants) are as follows:
 * 1951-1961:  295,785
 * 1961-1971:  312,495
 * 1971-1991: 1,121,949 (for two decades)
 * 1991-2001: 1,742,044

The figures are alarming to say the least. Rather than a decline, they actually show an astronomical growth. If the first two decades after independence (when East Bengal was part of Pakistan) the total number of immigrants was a little over half a million, it exceeded 1 million in the next two decades after Bangladesh became independent. Even more remarkably, it almost quadrupled in the decade afterwards (from something like half-million per decade earlier to about 2 million in a decade). It is unfortunate that the authors didn't have the data available for 2011. So, we can't tell whether it is a continuing uptrend or a temporary blip. But with the data available, it has to be said that whatever the Indian government has been doing isn't working and radical measures are warranted.

The total number of immigrants between 1951-2001 (along with their descendants) is estimated at 4.2 million. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Reversion
, In the reversion here, you have removed what was cited in the reference used, that is, ", but no person of any religion should worry.", ", despite the PM Narendra Modi saying that people are being misguided about the new law." and this quotation was probably made just in jest:
 * I therefore, request you to add the first two sentences (citing the same reference) and remove the quotation that was passed in jest. Thanks again!&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The page is not protected. So you cannot make "edit requests". Rather, for inclusion of reverted content you need to argue why they should be included, as per WP:ONUS.
 * For the deletion of the quote box, again, you have not provided any policy-based reason. You claim it was stated in "jest". But the symbolism and the threatening posture are quite clear. And it has been highlighted in a well-respected international policy magazine. Your opinion cannot trump that of the experts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

, You removed the additions to these sentences,:

and

However, my additions were taken from the cited references. My addition for the first sentence was, "but no person of any religion should worry" and for the second sentence, it was, "despite the PM Narendra Modi saying that people are being misguided about the new law". So please re-insert those additions. Thanks!&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already replied to this argument at another talk page. Even if it is taken from the same source (news article), it makes no difference. Only if the source integrated the politician statements into their own narrative, and made the links between different pieces that you are trying to make, the issue remains the same. In fact, making links that do not exist in the source is also prohibited as WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , In that case, we should remove those 2 sentences completely and the reference cited right (since my additions were taken from the cited references and the cited references say that)? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs)
 * To ask for removal of something, again, you have to make a case, and it better be based on policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

, I wonder why you can not understand. In this quotation:-

the but no person of any religion should worry is from the title of the reference cited and in this sentence:-

the despite the PM Narendra Modi saying that people are being misguided about the new law is also from the title of the cited reference, which is why I am asking you to re-insert them!&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You are repeating the same point again and again. You should not. It is considered disruptive.
 * The parts you said I removed are political statements. They are meant for getting people to behave in a certain way. We don't included them unless they are validated by secondary sources. The fact that he planned to implement the NRC is a policy statement, as the responsible minister. We generally include such things, especially when they are validated by secondary sources. There is no equivalence between the two kind of things. Now, you need STOP beating this drum again and again. If you are not satisfied, please get advice from the WP:Teahouse. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

NPR may not have the legal backing
https://thewire.in/law/national-population-register-nrc-citizenship-act/amp/

Author is a legal expert-- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

BJP’s Bengali booklet says Hindu's will be shielded
Amended citizenship law will shield Hindus when NRC will be rolled out, says BJP’s Bengali booklet. I had found the link from this article Quite detailed. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Damn! How come all these English journalists read Bengali booklets? That is not fair. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , "The cat is now out of the bag"  D Big X ray ᗙ  19:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"National Population Register" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Population Register. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Italawar (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Separate article?
Should the "National Population Register" and "National Social Registry" sections be shifted to a separate "National Population Register" and "National Social Registry" article of its own? Italawar (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The National Population Register is an integral part of the process for NRC. It can also be a separate article, if it is important enough. But it would still be covered here as needed.
 * I don't know much about the National Social Registry but I see no relation to the NRC there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Update the article.
Guys update this article because, Government has made a new bill that it is now implemented on the whole country. Dsp darshanpandey (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)