Talk:Indian nationality law

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indian nationality law article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Indian nationality law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 12, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assam issues

Chaipau, this article has just become a GA. However, I am not confident of the Assam-related content. Can you please review it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the Assam accord set 1971 as the cut-off date for immigration from East Pakistan. But where is the legal provision for giving them citizenship? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a specific mention of Section 6A. Horserice (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: good question. Also, the paragraph is too Assam Movement/Accord heavy. I shall take some time find out. Chaipau (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think Bhatia is not a very good source for this: "time and again some movement of people from East Pakistan into Assam (and vice versa) occurred due to riots and disturbances and/or natural disasters". No data and no citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Assam Movement ended up targeting Bengal Muslims who came in after 1900. They came in as cultivators, and their immigration was encouraged by the British because it improved the revenue situation. The Assam Movement was aimed at clearing the electoral rolls of foreigners, and the movement leaders opposed elections (1980 and 1983) without corrected rolls. Even as the the Citizenship Act of 1955 got an Assam Accord special section (6A), another law, the IMDT law, applicable only to Assam made it difficult to detect foreigners. Chaipau (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence on IMDT, and the reference to that is [1], p3237. I shall add the citation later. Chaipau (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I added the cite and rewrote it a bit. Horserice (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just muddying waters. In the first instance, expulsion of foreigners is quite a separate issue from citizenship law. The Foreigners Act, 1946 was already available and that has not been talked about at all. Finally, the IMDT Act was entirely worthless, basically fraudulent, and was eventually declared unconstitutional. It achieved nothing. I don't see why we should mention it. Certainly not here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but the IMDT definitely was one of legislative responses to immigration. As was the 1985 ammendment. Chaipau (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lose sight of the fact that this is a page on citizenship law, not Assam movement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Much of the details about the movement are unnecessary. But the legislative parts here are important. The 1983 IMDT, The 1985 amendment, and the recent 2019 amendment. The IMDT was not worthless, it did its job. The government tried to protect ~~votes~~ immigrants from harassment. The 2019 amendment is also about ~~votes~~ immigrants. Chaipau (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Weiner's estimates of immigration. I am OK is they are replaced by more recent estimates. Chaipau (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good to see the numbers. Otherwise, the "time and again" people will continue to live in their imaginary worlds. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

Time for a GAR - will start one tomorrow. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When a single editor is drafting articles on citizenship regimes of nations as wildly different as India and China, the output will be garbage. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the content, list out specifically what you think needs correction. Don't just come into this discussion with nothing constructive to say. Horserice (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From where do I even start? There is an entire genre of scholarship focused on "histories of citizenship" which you seem to be oblivious about. The postcolonial citizenship laws were deeply influenced by Partition-migrations (dozens of scholars have dwelt on these issues) but we have nothing on it.

The entire article, barring a section on amendments, is a literal reproduction of technical details about citizenship laws, as they stood and stand. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I got from this is that you think further embellishment of how those regulations came to be would be helpful. That's fine, you should point out specifically where you think that can be improved and provide sourcing for better information.

Before you do any of that, please explain your attitude. I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish by being condescending and dismissive. You sound like you want to provoke a fight. Horserice (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really interesting edit! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holding multiple nationalities

Hi, You need some proof that you can get an Indian passport if you already have one from another country. I doubt that is possible. Yann (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having multiple nationalities is not the same as having multiple passports. Nevertheless, it is possible, if the Indian passport was applied first. The passport manual cites the case of Indian children born in Mexico. If you are born overseas, one has to choose nationality at 18. If born in India to parents from two different countries for eg, you get to keep dual citizenship for life since it was automatic and not acquired. That is the current law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.8.170 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section on dual citizenship

Should there be a separate section for dual citizenship? Most people seem to assume that dual citizenship is not allowed. And the section I added was removed repeatedly. solomonsunder 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonsunder (talk • contribs)

This is already covered under the acquisition and loss section. That assumption is generally correct since Indians born with another nationality cannot retain that nationality past the age of 18, and any Indian citizen of any age would automatically lose that status on their naturalisation elsewhere. Horserice (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This assumption is not generally known and is marked specifically as dual citizenship by the government. Also, there are court cases where it has not been decided yet, if children born in India with 2 nationalities will actually loose it all. Same with the case of residents from Goa who have Portuguese citizenship through acquisition of territory and have court cases going on since the individuals never "acquired" another citizenship so to say. Hence it is better to create a new section and write the relevant information there in my opinion. solomonsunder 20:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonsunder (talk • contribs)