Majority of Muslims in India are descendants of Hindus, says BJP MP

Jan 18: To mark the 30th anniversary of the mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley, members of the community took to social media to post videos of themselves by narrating the "Hum Aayenge Apne Watan" dialogue from an upcoming flick, 'Shikara', with the hope that they would return to their homeland one day.

On January 19, 1990, lakhs of Kashmiri Pandits were forced to leave their homes in the Valley following a genocidal campaign launched by the terrorists.

Theatre actor Chandan Sadhu participated in the campaign and said that Kashmiri Pandits have shown "unimaginable resilience" and hope to return to the Valley soon.

"As Kashmiri Pandits complete 30 years in exile this weekend, let our cry for justice be finally noticed. We have shown unimaginable resilience, and today we resolve to return home. Kashmiri Pandit friends: please record this video statement and put it up with #HumWapasAayenge," Sadhu tweeted.

The #HumWapasAayenge is trending on Twitter as more and more Kashmiri Pandits joined in the campaign to narrate the "Hum Aayenge Apne Watan" dialogue and a pledge to return to their homes.

Noted political commentator Sunanda Vashisht tweeted a throwback image of herself and said that resolve to go back home has strengthened more.

"I don't have many pictures left of my childhood. Choosing between life and family albums is really no choice at all. When lives were rescued, family albums got left behind. 30 years have passed. Resolve to go back home has only strengthened. #HumWapasAayenge," she tweeted.

Radio personality Khushboo Mattoo tweeted a video repeating the dialogue from Shikara and tweeted, "Said this in a BBC interview three years back. And I am saying it again #HumWapasAayenge #Shikara."

Journalist Rahul Pandita also took to his Twitter and captioned his post saying, "30 years of exile from Kashmir. Let us now pledge that we will return home."

'Shikara' chronicles the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley on the night of January 19, 1990. Helmed by Vidhu Vinod Chopra, the movie is slated to release on February 7.

Netizens have supported the initiative and have expressed solidarity with the Kashmiri Pandits.

In July last year, Home Minister Amit Shah said in the Rajya Sabha that the central government is committed to bringing Kashmiri Pandits and Sufis back to the Valley saying a time will come when they will offer prayers at the famous Kheer Bhawani temple.

"Kashmiri Pandits were forced to leave Kashmir. Many of their shrines were demolished. Sufism was targeted in Jammu and Kashmir. Sufism used to talk about unity and harmony but they were attacked. No voice was raised in favour of Kashmiri Pandits and Sufis when they were brutally attacked. Sufis used to talk about the unity among Hindus and Muslims but they were forced to leave the Valley. Narendra Modi-led government is committed to bringing back Kashmiri Pandits, he had said.

The Mata Kheer Bhawani temple is one of the holiest shrines of Kashmiri Pandits, located about 14 kilometres east of Srinagar.

Last September, a delegation of the Kashmiri Pandit community met the Prime Minister in Houston and thanked him for the historic decision to abrogate Article 370 that gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

Modi acknowledged the hardships endured by the community following their exodus from their ancestral homeland back in 1989-1990 due to militancy.

"You have suffered a lot, but the world is changing. We have to move ahead together and build a new Kashmir," the Prime Minister had told the delegation.

"I had a special interaction with Kashmiri Pandits in Houston," Modi had tweeted following the interaction.

In October, Union Minister Prakash Javadekar announced that the Centre has decided to provide compensation of Rs 5.5 lakh each to 5,300 displaced families from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), who initially opted to move outside Jammu and Kashmir but later on returned.

These families were earlier left out in the rehabilitation package that was approved by the Cabinet on November 30, 2016.

The Prime Minister had announced a reconstruction plan for Jammu and Kashmir in November 2016. His plan included a rehabilitation package for a one-time settlement of 36,384 displaced persons' (DPs) families of PoK-1947 and Chhamb.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.