The Urdu Press: NRC polarisation

The Urdu Press: NRC polarisation

Inquilab, in its editorial on July 31, writes: “Once again in Assam, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) has excluded 40 lakh people from the list of citizens, something that indicates the intention of the BJP governments at the Centre and in the state."

Muslim women stand in a queue to check if their names are included in the National Register of Citizens at a draft center in Mayoung, about 55 kilometers (34 miles) east of Gauhati. (AP Photo/Anupam Nath/File)

Inquilab, in its editorial on July 31, writes: “Once again in Assam, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) has excluded 40 lakh people from the list of citizens, something that indicates the intention of the BJP governments at the Centre and in the state. The majority of those excluded from the list are Bengali-speaking Muslims… The manner in which these governments have exploited the issue of illegal Bangladeshi migrants, on communal lines, for deriving advantage in the elections, shows that there will be no justice for these deprived persons…The parameters set for proving one’s citizenship in Assam are very strict. If these parameters are used in other states of the country, millions of citizens would be considered foreigners in their own country…Would the Bengali-speaking Muslim citizens of Assam be made ‘stateless’ like the Rohingya of Myanmar?…It is imperative that the BJP government at the Centre and in the state should not look at the problem of citizenship from the point of view of Hindus and Muslim”.”

Rashtriya Sahara, in its editorial on the same day, writes: “When the original inhabitants of the country about whom no question has been raised and can never be raised from any quarter about their citizenship are being threatened to be thrown out of the country and sent to Pakistan, what could be the fate of those being deprived of their citizenship is beyond imagination… God forbid, if the move to throw non-Assamese out of Assam through the NRC succeeds, what is the guarantee that the same experience would not be repeated in other states?”

Imran and India
Commenting on the post-election scenario in Pakistan, Rashtriya Sahara, in its editorial on July 30, writes: “After assumption of power by Imran Khan in Pakistan, it can be expected that the intense bitterness of the past between Pakistan and India will diminish… But, as is now being said, Imran Khan has the support of the country’s army and his party could become the single largest party with the support of the army. There is indeed a room for some doubts and apprehensions in this regard: Will the Army permit Imran Khan to take an initiative to improve India-Pakistan relations? Imran Khan has a clear understanding of the situation in South Asia. One hopes that he will not be under too much pressure.”

The paper adds: “After winning the election, Imran Khan said that he would like to have better relations with India which is a good omen. India’s Ministry of External Affairs expressed positive sentiments in response, hoping that Pakistan would work towards liberating South Asia from the shadow of terrorism and welcoming the Pakistani people’s expression of commitment to democracy at the elections.”

Roznama Khabrein, in a commentary on July 29, writes: “The result of the Pakistan elections indicate that people are quite fed up with the army’s dictatorial attitude and now they do not like any type of extremism, even if it is religious extremism. In fact, there is now a feeling of hatred against such trends. These extremist groups are looked at with contempt… It is widely said that Imran Khan achieves what he proclaims. Now it is to be seen to what extent Imran Khan lives up to his promises after the formation of the government.”

Inquilab, in its editorial on July 28, writes: “Keeping alive the issue of Kashmir and promoting terrorism and infiltration into India are parts of the Pakistani Army’s policy. In such a situation, even if Imran Khan wants, he cannot adopt an independent foreign policy, particularly one with regard to Kashmir…But, on the front of promoting trade, he can move forward with India.”

Confidence question
Commenting on the outcome of the no-confidence motion against the Modi government in Lok Sabha, Siasat, in its editorial on July 22, writes: “The lifting of the BJP’s morale following the defeat of the no-confidence motion was inevitable. The defeat of this motion was not unexpected because the Opposition was well aware that it would not be able to secure enough votes in its support. But through the motion, it tried to highlight the failures and mistakes of the Modi government in the House and was successful in this regard to some extent… This motion was not a battle for majority. It was a moral victory of the Opposition.”


Noted columnist, Hasan Kamal, in his signed column in Inquilab, writes: “Certainly, it was a big victory for the Modi government. But a deeper analysis of the voting in Lok Sabha revealed that the vote share secured the 2014 elections by the 325 MPs who voted for the government in the House was merely 37 per cent. And those 126 MPs who voted against the government in the house had secured 42 per cent of the total votes in 2014. This implies that a larger section of the people had voted in 2014 for the supporters of the no-confidence motion. It is certainly a moment of introspection for Modi ji and his party.”