Citizenship Form N 14: Fill & Download for Free

Interesting question, thank you for the answer request N.Caveat first - In this answer, I will try to point out the relevant provisions of law and questions that are likely be taken into account by the SC as this has already now been challenged by the Indian Union Muslim league. Emotions run high with both sides of the political spectrum pointing out irrelevant issues and spreading utter misinformation with zero understanding of the law. In this answer therefore, I would be presenting the Constitutional stand point.I will be forced to make small parentheses from time to time, to debunk certain myths and misinformation. Kindly tolerate the same. If you speak to lawyers or law teachers, you should know parentheses are crucial !A) What is CAB -CAB which is now passed by both the houses of the Parliament is an amendment to the Citizenship Act making provision for persecuted minorities of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from 3 neighbouring Islamic countries of Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. What it practically does is, it proposes to accord citizenship on the select 6 communities of people who are already in India before 31st day of December, 2014, and relaxes the years required for citizenship by naturalisation from 11 to 5.It further carves out the “Inner line” or territory within the North Eastern states to which this amendment would not apply. This is done to protect the indigenous culture and population of the states. (For those who are spreading misinformation, the protests in Assam are not about the CAB for the same reasons that the rest of India is protesting. For the rest of India, it is still a theoretical question of their beliefs about the policy of the government and secularism, equality, etc. For Assam it is very real because the state has been battling illegal migrants for decades and is afraid it will go the Tripura way. The Assamese don’t care about the alleged Hindu-Muslim divide of the law, but they don’t want any outsiders.)So, to recapitulate, CAB provides for 4 conditions the fulfilment of which will mean that a person who migrated to India will not be considered an illegal migrant:The person should be a Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian.The person should have migrated from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan.The person should have come to India before 31st December 2014.The person shouldn’t be in the “Inner line”, the protected territories in the North East of India.I will analyse each of these on the touchstone of Art. 14 of the Constitution in the next section.B) Does it violate Right to equality under Art. 14 of the Constitution -Article 14 reads as follows -"The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."There are two aspects to this provision -1. Equality before the law - This means that all people will be treated equally by the laws. So, the law which makes it a crime to steal will be applied to everyone equally. Here there will not be any discrimination on any ground. This is equality before the law.2. Equal Protection of the Laws - This concept is based on the fact that in reality people are not inherently equal. Men and Women are not equal, rich and poor are not equal, so on and so forth. So, when there is so much of inequality, would treating everyone equally then be really just? No. From this concept reservations (or special laws for any community) or affirmative action comes forth.Therefore, Article 14 leaves room for reasonable classification of population. This is permitted under the Constitution, provided the reasonable classification is not arbitrary.Do not interpret the word “arbitrary” in layman’s terms.Whether a law is arbitrary or not is not decided based on random opinions, but the SC has laid down a Test of reasonable classification -The law being challenged has to have intelligible differentia. This means that the law that classifies (things or people) should be clear and intelligible as regards the subject matter that is being classified.The Differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the act.Now applying this test to CAB -CAB identifies the communities very clearly, there is no dispute there. The differentia is certainly intelligible. Three neighbouring countries are identified. Three of them are Islamic. All the minorities are identified.Secondly, there has to be rational nexus between object sought to be achieved and the action taken under the law.Why these minorities and why these 3 countries, why not the rest of the world? -The government has chosen to take in minorities suffering religious persecution from 3 Islamic countries. It is the government’s sovereign right to choose whom to accord citizenship and on what basis. Bear in mind that the law technically, is closed to all people who aren’t citizens of India and is merely relaxing certain norms for some minorities from some countries. This doesn’t violate Article 14 as the purpose of the Constitutional law is not to interfere with the government’s policy decision. Why this choice that the government has made is linked to the unique history of the Indian subcontinent where the subcontinent was divided on the grounds of religion owing to which, India shares more ethnic relations with these three chosen countries. In the future, the government may decide to accord citizenship to minorities in other nations based on linguistic persecution and that shall also be legal (the reason why Srilanka isn’t included). In the future the government may decide to stop applying this relaxation to Pakistan or Afghanistan. That is the government’s prerogative. For the moment, it is restricted to religious persecution in the three neighbouring countries from where the bulk of migrants have come into India. Given that the three neighbouring nations have a state religion that is Islam and there is religious persecution of minorities, this is a humanitarian relief taking into account that much of Asia isn’t open to these minorities as there are 40+ Islamic countries (as opposed to them being secular democracies). So, it is very clear to me, that it is highly likely that the SC will decide that this is a policy decision (bringing in perhaps even the Doctrine of political question) and not a Constitutional argument. The two tests of Art 14 aren’t violated.Why exclude the Muslims?Firstly Muslims are only excluded from this Amendment to the Act. Not the Act itself. Muslims or others from countries other than Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh, can apply for other kinds of asylum (including political asylum) under the Act. Secondly, Muslims are excluded from this amendment simply because the amendment is only applicable to the 3 neighbouring Islamic states. Those states were created by the Muslims, for the Muslims. The state religion there is Islam. This is the reason why they are excluded from the amendment. Again, intelligible differentia and rational nexus are totally met. This amendment doesn’t violate Art. 14 in any way.What about the persecuted communities in other neighbouring countries like Srilanka or China, or the rest of the world?The government has very clearly identified one kind of persecution - one that is faced by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Christians and Parsis (the communities identified as “minorities” ) in neighbouring three Islamic countries. Does this mean other kinds of persecution doesn’t exist? Nope, it exists. The government is choosing to address this one, right now. This fact, doesn’t violate the Constitution.This also doesn’t mean that each minority getting benefit under this amendment will have to prove their persecution. This amendment is applicable to a class of people. The SC in order to determine if Art 14 is violated or not, will not question random families if they were persecuted or not. It will merely see if there is intelligible differentia + rational nexus or not.What about the persecuted communities among Muslims, in these three countries? The Ahmadiyas or in some cases even Shias or Hazaras?There are millions of different kinds of persecution. Persecution that has nothing to do with religion also exists. The government of India doesn’t HAVE to solve all kinds of persecutions in order to solve just one. It has chosen this one. It is a matter of the government’s policy. Again, it doesn’t in any manner violate the Constitution.Does making religion a qualification for citizenship not violate secularism and thus the Basic Structure of the Constitution?This Amendment is merely relaxing the norms for persecuted minorities from three neighbouring Islamic nations. It is not doing anything more than that. As a matter or law, no foreign individual has a fundamental right to get India’s citizenship. There is a procedure laid down in the Citizenship Act for everybody. A foreign national may apply under that procedure, after which it is upon the appropriate authority to decide if the person will become a citizen or not. And they are not obliged to give any reasons for the grant or refusal (section 14, Citizenship Act[1]). The law is clear on that. Thus the normal route of citizenship and naturalisation exists for everybody else, no matter your religion, nationality, sex, political beliefs, etc.This amendment is yet again, a mere relaxation on certain grounds that do not in any way violate the Constitution of India. The grounds could very well be religion. That is not the point. The point for violation of Art. 14 is simple this - Is there intelligible differentia and rational nexus or not?Now for the biggest question that is the source of most amount of misinformation and fear mongering -C) CAB and NRC -The government also announced in December that the National Registry of Citizens would apply to not just the North East but the whole of India.The allegation and fear that is being spread is as follows - In combination with NRC, the CAB will mean that the Muslim citizens of India will have to live in fear of deportation or some kind of disenfranchisement.This is not true at all. And this is how -CAB has nothing to do with NRC. Remove CAB from the picture and NRC for the whole of India would pan out exactly the same way as it would in the presence of CAB. CAB or NRC is not passed to take away privileges / citizenship. CAB is passed to accord privileges on persecuted minorities identified under the law. CAB doesn’t mean the situation of Muslims in India is worse. It only means that that situation of select minorities from three neighbouring countries that have migrated to India will be better. This is the crucial difference.NRC has had its flaws, the government has acknowledged them. If a flawed NRC is implemented throughout India, it will have the same effect, with or without the CAB! CAB is merely going to make certain (very few) people’s life easy. The rest of Indians (99% I must say) will have to deal with a flawed NRC if a flawed NRC is implemented.Application of CAB will technically mean that less people are probably likely to leave India or face that threat.If one has a problem really with this whole exercise, they should have a problem with NRC’s flawed implementation. Not the CAB. In case it is implemented for the whole of India, it should be seen how it is being implemented, before declaring it flawed.CAB is humanitarian and good for many refugees living in terrible conditions.It is not that the Muslims will be worse off because of NRC+CAB. It is merely that the others might be marginally better off. This distinction is very crucial!Further, considering the mammoth task in front of NRC (and the flaws in its implementation in Assam), CAB is only going to make that task easier for the government and 80+% of the Indian population. The question only remains of not goofing it up in case of Indian Muslims - A challenge that remains even without CAB!All depends on whether the implementation of NRC all over India is done properly or not.In any case, whether it is NRC and / or CAB, neither violate the Constitution. If the implementation has systemic flaws, it is an implementation problem (people problem) and not a Constitutional problem.One may very well say that they don’t like the government’s policy or the government. One may also say that we should be more generous as a nation and take in whoever wants to come.Meh, just opinions. I don’t agree with any of them. On principle, I agree with both NRC and CAB. They are actually for the betterment of the nation and providing humanitarian relief to some people.If a flawed NRC is implemented, I might criticise that. But that is about it.The claims relating to India’s secularism being violated, or that this amendment is unconstitutional, don’t hold much water. They are spewed with no understanding of either the law or the Constitution of India.Footnotes[1] https://indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/4210/1/Citizenship_Act_1955.pdf

It’s not a matter of which is “easier”. You have to fill out the correct form that applies in the circumstances, not the form which is easier.You cannot file Form N-400 for a minor; minors cannot be naturalized using Form N-400. Except for certain extraordinary situations, minors can only be naturalized in the United States by derivation. The primary pathway for the naturalization of a minor is under INA 320, 8 U.S. Code § 1431: a minor child is naturalized automatically when:(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.At the first moment that all three of these conditions are true simultaneously, the child becomes, automatically by operation of law, a US citizen. A person who has become a US citizen by the operation of INA 320 may get documentary proof of this fact, in the form of a Certificate of Citizenship, by filing Form N-600 (Application for Certificate of Citizenship). A parent may file Form N-600 on behalf of their minor child. Do not file Form N-400 in this situation; if you file Form N-400 and USCIS determines that you are already a citizen due to INA 320 (or any other provision of law), your N-400 application will be denied, your N-400 fee will not be refunded, and you will have to file a separate N-600 application with separate fees to get your Certificate of Citizenship.However, to get condition (3) above true, you’ll first have to arrange for your child to “resid[e] in the United States … pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence”. For that to happen, you’ll have to file an I-130 petition to have your child immigrate as your immediate relative, have that petition granted, have your child issued an immigrant visa, and have your child arrive in the United States using that immigrant visa. If your child is in the US already, in some other status, you may instead skip the issuance of the visa and move directly to filing the N-600 once the I-130 petition has been granted.If you are a US citizen and meet certain residency requirements, or if either of your parents is a US citizen and meets certain residency requirements, your child may alternatively be granted citizenship under INA 322 (8 U.S. Code § 1433) without an I-130 petition. In this case, you would file Form N-600K instead of Form N-600, and your child will become a citizen at the first moment she is physically present in the United States in any legal status, provided all other conditions of INA 322 are met. Note that INA 322, like INA 320, also operates automatically as a matter of law, and so if its conditions have occurred at any time in the past (even if without intent to cause naturalization), your child has already acquired citizenship, and you need only file Form N-600K to obtain proof. (The requirement to swear the oath of allegiance in INA 322 is waived for children under 14.)Note also that if your child was born a US citizen, you cannot file an I-130 petition for them because citizens cannot immigrate to the United States. If your child was born a US citizen, but you did not obtain a CRBA (Form FS-260 or its predecessor, Form DS-1350) before she turns 18, she will need to file Form N-600 to have a Certificate of Citizenship issued for her in order for her to obtain proof of citizenship. Once she has her Certificate of Citizenship, she can then apply for a US passport. If she is not yet 18, you may still be able to file for a CRBA, which you should do at a consulate in the country where she was born (if at all possible).You might want to consult with an attorney. US naturalization and nationality law is complicated, and many people, especially in uncommon situations, are easily and understandably confused as to what their legal status is.

TLDR? No, I don’t support, but not for the reasons you think!Now, for the detailed answer.Q1. What is CAA?Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act-The Gazette of India, 12th Dec 2019Full text available here- The Gazette of India, 12th Dec 2019[1][1][1][1]Now let’s establish “Religious Prosecution”Nehru Liaquat Ali pact[2][2][2][2] -Basically aimed at the welfare of minorities. From the charts below, we can have a good estimate of how other countries except India have failed to keep their end of the pact. Religious persecution IS a reality!For eg, you can see the %age of Hindus went on decreasing in Bangladesh.While in India, Islam, the principal minority was seen rising.Interestingly, according to Hinduism in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the Hindu population hasn’t shrunk in population. If the population of a community stagnates, it surely is a sign of prosecution. You can find similar data for other religions on the web.Warning SignsThe government had proposed this bill citing that it intends to provide shelter to those who are “Religiously Persecuted”If we go through the whole text, we will not find any mention of the word “Religious Persecution”.So basically the Government is assuming all non-Muslim immigrants in India before the aforementioned date are here to escape religious persecution.This can be a dangerous assumption to make as what happens to those who are here for the Economic opportunities, they get to take away a share of the jobs, the land and other resources for which we never had agreed upon. As of now, there’s no differentiator.The government hasn't laid down any plans about their settlement, and the effect of that can be seen by taking Assam as an example.We can see that there is an increase in Muslim population in Assam since ‘71, i.e during the creation of Bangladesh. P.S- This influx was of Bengali Muslims.As a result of which, the %age of the Assamese speaking population is on the decline.This also adversely affects their native demographics, their culture, their resources, and their job prospects.Steps that can be takenThe Home Ministry should clearly define how it is going to differentiate between “Religiously persecuted” and immigrants who’re here for other pursuits.Ensure that all the immigrants are made to spread out throughout the country so that no single state has to bear the socio-economical burden of this influx.Q2. What is NRC?At its core, the NRC is an official record of those who are legal Indian citizens. It includes demographic information about all those individuals who qualify as citizens of India as per the Citizenship Act, 1955. The register was first prepared after the 1951 Census of India and since then it has not been updated until recently, only in Assam.[3][3][3][3]Why was NRC necessary?"Perhaps what has affected Assam and its population the most is the issue of illegal migration, which has come to dominate not only all aspects of life in Assam but also all narratives emanating from it. Political mobilization and actions in this regard have resulted in over four decades of political turmoil and instability,"- CJI Ranjan Gogoi [4][4][4][4]For inclusion of names of any person in updated NRC, the applicants must produce any one of the following List A documents issued before 24 March (midnight), 1971 where the name of self or ancestor appears (to prove residence in Assam up to 24 March (midnight), 1971):1951 NRC(Yes, it had taken place then as well)Electoral Roll(s) up to 24 March (midnight), 1971 (Remember this date)Land & Tenancy RecordsCitizenship CertificatePermanent Residential CertificateRefugee Registration CertificateAny Govt. issued License/CertificateGovt. Service/ Employment CertificateBank/Post Office AccountsBirth CertificateBoard/University Educational CertificateCourt Records/ProcessesThere’s another List B documents, which you can find here National Register of Citizens for Assam - WikipediaPoints to rememberThe skeleton of NRC the media is showing is that of Assam. It basically was a pilot project by the government, under SC supervisionThe government has never mentioned that it’d be following the same NRC guidelines as Assam, the 1971 cutoff date was specific to Assam. Here’s actually how NRC was implemented in Assam!!The Registrar General of India via its notification Number S.O. 3591 E dated 6 December 2013 notified commencing of NRC updation.[5][5][5][5]Now, let’s see the Citizenship Act of 1955, Section 18.So its proven now that the Govt had handpicked the date of 24 March (midnight), 1971 for Assam. But why?Assam Accord[6][6][6][6]-A six-year agitation demanding identification and deportation of illegal foreign (Bangladeshi) immigrants was launched by the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) in 1979. It culminated with the signing of the Assam Accord. How does the Accord identify one as an immigrant?Link to the document here[7][7][7][7]Ramifications?You see, the date was already set by the Assam accord. Hence, NRC had to consider this date, so that no ambiguity is caused.There’s no evidence that the government is going to use the 1971 cut off date when spanning NRC pan India!!I hope I have been able to explain the basics thoroughly. If this is too much for you, take a break and then come back, because from here on, I’d try to answer some of the myths being spread and why I don’t support it.Q3. Why are Muslims being singled out in NRC?The government has made its stance very clear that as of now it is looking to accommodate only people facing “Religious Persecution” in the neighboring 3 countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. Since all the 3 countries have Islam as their state religion, Muslims cannot be “Religiously persecuted”, and hence left out of the mix.P.S- The Muslims may very well have faced Social, Ethinic, Sectarian persecution as well, but our government isn’t considering those kinds of persecution as of now, hence nope.Q4. India is a secular country, and this bill(CAB) violates all norms of secularism. Should it not be squashed by SC?Yes, if a bill is in violation of the constitution, it can and will be squashed by SC. But there are certain things to take note of.The constitution applies to Indian Citizen, as the immigrants are non Indian citizen, technically it doesn’t apply on them.When we speak of secularism per se, we’re actually referring to Article 14 of Indian Constitution, which statesThe State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of IndiaReading between the lines, we find thisArticle 14 permits classification, so long as it is 'reasonable’!!What does that mean? IT basically means that you can’t go on and arrest people like the Policemen do, or get train tickets using Divyaang quota while being fully able. Here, you can’t say that the system has discriminated against you because of “reasonable classification”. The Police has been allowed to arrest people based on a reasonable classification. Certain religions get special perks due to “reasonable classification” of being the minority.In the case of CAB, if the classification is made by religion, it violates Article 14.But what the home ministry has proposed is that the classification is based on “Religious minorities from neighboring countries”, which is fairly reasonable a classification!It's not me, India’s top shot lawyer, Harish Salve thinks the same!! Harish Salve supports CAB, says it does not violate Indian constitutionSo basically, secularism is out of consideration now.There has been a pamphlet doing rounds on the Social Media, let’s look into itFarhan Akhtar had tweeted this, which lead to this…basically he’s trying to spread facually incorrect info, which may escalate tensions.Here’s a corrected version of it!That kind of answers a lot of the rumors in a single go!Q5. Are immigrant Muslims barred from taking Indian Citizenship?No, even before CAB, there existed a procedure by which one can apply to be an Indian citizen. What CAB only does is that it expedites the process for the aforementioned minorities.In 5 years, Modi govt gave citizenship to 600 Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh: Amit ShahQ6. NRC+CAB= Hindu Rashtra?Not being able to produce documents to prove one’s citizenship is a problem faced by all religions. But what is worrying my fellow Muslim citizens is that if they aren’t on the NRC, then they’d not be reinstated as an Indian citizen under CAB, while a person from literally any other religion if gets his citizenship revoked due to NRC, will be reinstated as Indian citizen under CAB.Let’s recall the lines of CAB.Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December 2014If an Indian Hindu gets deregistered in NRC, the standard procedure is to appeal in the Foreigners Tribunal, and your fate shall be decided in 120 days. The same goes for Indian Muslims as wellFor getting citizenship under CAB, you’ll have to prove you’re from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan. You can’t do that unless you counterfeit the documents.In Assam NRC, 19 lakh people got left out, which included sitting MLAs and War veterans as well, which shows us that NRC isn’t leakproof. Reverification of NRC in Assam is underwayHome ministry needs to come up with reasonable measures that will prevent such errors.Q7. Why do I not support the bill then?No, the bill is too powerful to be allowed without proper guidelines. Home ministry has to define every edge cases, for it to instill a sense of confidence in the Indians. They have so far lacked that. Watch: Amit Shah explains why govt brought in CAB when focus should have been on economy . P.S- He wasn’t convincing enough.The other reason(and my primary reason) being the prospect of dwindling demographics in Assam, and other bordering states, which has been mentioned before in the answer. Unless the Home Ministry can ensure pan India distribution of the immigrants, don’t implement it.Q8. What about all those protests?TLDR- Politics.BengalThe sad reality in today’s India is that NO POLITICIAN can be TRUSTED, everyone’s on their own. Never think that the politicians are fighting for your cause. They’re just shooting off our shoulders, and they’d do anything that suits their case, even if that means setting a state to fire. Some examples below.Godhra(in 2002) was burning of 1 train, and this time 5 trains were set to fire. In the videos you can actually find that the Bangladeshi Immigrants are running riot, majority of them being Muslims. Mamata Banerjee has done Minority Appeasement in the past Opinion: Mamata Banerjee's Appeasement Policies Have Created Real Danger and is continuing to do so by not taking strong action against the arsonists.A few small incidents have happened and they are cancelling long distance trains. Just because some trains were set on fire, the Centre has stopped railway services in most parts of Bengal. This is not right. It is not the State Government’s job to protect Railways. They have their RPF (Railway Protection Force) . But, I have still helped them out (Railways) and police have made arrests,” Didi said.The CM which jailed people for chanting Jai Shree Ram is saying that burning of trains is a SMALL INCIDENT. Can’t afford to upset vote bank, no.Not my job to protect Railways: Mamata Banerjee says the ex Railway Minister.AssamTheir protest isn’t communal yet, but clashes between police and people has intensified. Anti-CAB protests: Assam on boil, two dead in police firing. Even the state govt(BJP) is opposing it there, hence no scope for politics here.DelhiThe protest which changed the whole narrative, taking the focus away from implementation of NRC, CAB and its lacunae and focusing it on Jamia Milia violence.Police violence on students should never have happened. There are plausible evidence of Congress and AAP leaders being on spot for instigating violence.#WATCH Earlier today AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan was seen in the area in Delhi where violent protests took place, police sources tell ANI that they are investigating elements that caused violence. #CitizenshipAmendmentAct pic.twitter.com/3Guwak4sDJ— ANI (@ANI) December 15, 2019Just to show a few.Anti-social elements who aren't Jamia students were most active during violence: MHA sources.Ex-MLA, AISA and AAP Student Leaders Named in FIR After Violent Protest in Jamia NagarEx-Congress MLA Asif Khan, named in FIR on Jamia violence, to surrender before police at 2 pmThe student’s protests should be unadulterated, free from any political indulgences. Any politician who lends their support to such cause only intend to score political brownie points and nothing more. SEE THROUGH IT MATES, SEE THROUGH IT!!Showing Muslims in bad light is course benificial for AAP and Congress, so that they can peddle the idea that BJP is peddling Hindu Rashtra. Hence they also share materials on Social Media which is Hyperbole, only trying to create panic amongst the minorities.It can be bit subtle at times as well…In a viral video from #Jamia we saw two young women save a male friend from police lathis by giving him cover. We also saw the same women standing atop a roof raising hands in another viral image. I meet Ladeeda Farzana & Ayesha Renna, sheroes of Jamia & Shaheen whom they saved pic.twitter.com/q8qfvIDMFT— barkha dutt (@BDUTT) December 16, 2019The lady in the maroon hijab, Ayesha Renna N, has been the poster girl of the JMI protests, well wellShe has, since then deleted the post. There are many more such instances, just google fake news and you’ll have your share of fun.Protest at Jamia was pre-planned, outsiders involved, claims Delhi Police. The political parties had supplied Stones, Indigenous revolvers(Katta) and Wet Towels(to minimise the effect of Tear Gas). The miscreants were ready as ever, with the poor students facing the consequences.I support an inquiry into the police thrashing the protestors as well, but I’d request everyone to not make conclusions until we know both sides of the story.Any more questions? Feel free to ask it in comments, I’d try my best to answer it and cite the sources for the same.Stay safe everyone!KBFootnotes[1] http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf[1] http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf[1] http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf[1] http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf[2] Liaquat–Nehru Pact - Wikipedia[2] Liaquat–Nehru Pact - Wikipedia[2] Liaquat–Nehru Pact - Wikipedia[2] Liaquat–Nehru Pact - Wikipedia[3] What is NRC: All you need to know about National Register of Citizens[3] What is NRC: All you need to know about National Register of Citizens[3] What is NRC: All you need to know about National Register of Citizens[3] What is NRC: All you need to know about National Register of Citizens[4] NRC base document for future, was needed: CJI Ranjan Gogoi[4] NRC base document for future, was needed: CJI Ranjan Gogoi[4] NRC base document for future, was needed: CJI Ranjan Gogoi[4] NRC base document for future, was needed: CJI Ranjan Gogoi[5] https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/showfile?actid=AC_CEN_5_40_00001_195557_1517807319455&type=notification&filename=Notification%20dated%2030%20July%202018%20under%20Citizenship%20(Registration%20of%20Citizens%20and%20Issue%20of%20National%20Identity%20Cards)%20Rules,%202003.pdf[5] https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/showfile?actid=AC_CEN_5_40_00001_195557_1517807319455&type=notification&filename=Notification%20dated%2030%20July%202018%20under%20Citizenship%20(Registration%20of%20Citizens%20and%20Issue%20of%20National%20Identity%20Cards)%20Rules,%202003.pdf[5] https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/showfile?actid=AC_CEN_5_40_00001_195557_1517807319455&type=notification&filename=Notification%20dated%2030%20July%202018%20under%20Citizenship%20(Registration%20of%20Citizens%20and%20Issue%20of%20National%20Identity%20Cards)%20Rules,%202003.pdf[5] https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/showfile?actid=AC_CEN_5_40_00001_195557_1517807319455&type=notification&filename=Notification%20dated%2030%20July%202018%20under%20Citizenship%20(Registration%20of%20Citizens%20and%20Issue%20of%20National%20Identity%20Cards)%20Rules,%202003.pdf[6] Assam Accord - Wikipedia[6] Assam Accord - Wikipedia[6] Assam Accord - Wikipedia[6] Assam Accord - Wikipedia[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20060117130811/http://aasc.nic.in/Acts%20and%20Rules%20(GOA)/Implementation%20of%20Assam%20Accord%20Deptt/Assam%20Accord.pdf[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20060117130811/http://aasc.nic.in/Acts%20and%20Rules%20(GOA)/Implementation%20of%20Assam%20Accord%20Deptt/Assam%20Accord.pdf[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20060117130811/http://aasc.nic.in/Acts%20and%20Rules%20(GOA)/Implementation%20of%20Assam%20Accord%20Deptt/Assam%20Accord.pdf[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20060117130811/http://aasc.nic.in/Acts%20and%20Rules%20(GOA)/Implementation%20of%20Assam%20Accord%20Deptt/Assam%20Accord.pdf