BJP Defends Foreigners Act — The central government’s latest notification under the Foreigners Act, 1946 has ignited a storm of political debate across India. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has hailed the order as a “need of the hour,” aimed at offering humanitarian relief to persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries. The Opposition, however, has branded the move as “self-contradictory,” communal, and politically motivated — warning that it could deepen divisions in society, especially in states like West Bengal and Assam, where migration and identity issues dominate political discourse.
The order, effective from September 1, 2025, provides immunity from prosecution to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh who entered India on or before December 31, 2024, without valid travel documents. Muslims are explicitly excluded from this provision. Alongside the exemption, the order also empowers local police officers of the rank of head constable and above to arrest suspected “illegal immigrants” without a warrant, raising concerns about misuse and harassment.
This dual approach — extending protection to some while tightening control over others — lies at the heart of the unfolding controversy.
BJP’s Stand: A Humanitarian and National Security Measure
BJP leaders argue that the order is both a humanitarian obligation and a national security safeguard. According to them, minority communities in neighbouring countries have faced decades of persecution, forced conversions, and violence, making India their natural refuge.
A senior BJP spokesperson said: “For decades, Hindus, Sikhs, and other minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh have lived in fear. They have no other country to turn to. India must protect them. This order regularises their stay and protects them from exploitation.”
Supporters also claim the order will reduce harassment by local police and provide stability to families who have lived in India for years without formal papers. They argue that the move aligns with India’s long civilisational ethos of sheltering persecuted people, pointing to examples like the Tibetan refugees or Parsis who sought refuge in India centuries ago.
For the BJP, the order is also a political signal: a reaffirmation of its commitment to safeguarding Hindu and non-Muslim identities, particularly in border states where migration is a live issue.
Opposition’s Counterattack: “Self-Contradictory and Politically Timed”
Opposition parties, however, see the order as deeply problematic.
- Congress leaders argue that the government is undermining the principle of secular citizenship.
- Trinamool Congress (TMC) has slammed it as an attempt to polarise Bengal’s electorate before elections.
- Left parties have termed the order “self-contradictory,” pointing out that the BJP has long decried “illegal infiltration” but is now selectively legitimising certain migrants based on religion.
A Left activist said: “This is not about refugees. This is about vote-bank politics. By excluding Muslims, the BJP is sending a dangerous message that citizenship and belonging depend on religion.”
Critics also highlight the contradiction with the BJP’s earlier stand in Assam, where it promised to expel all undocumented migrants. Now, by exempting non-Muslims, the party risks alienating sections of its support base that fought hard for the Assam Accord of 1985, which demanded identification and deportation of all illegal immigrants irrespective of faith.
BJP Defends Foreigners Act: Constitutional and Legal Dilemmas
Legal experts are divided over the constitutional validity of the order. Articles 14 (equality before law) and 15 (prohibition of discrimination on religious grounds) of the Indian Constitution could be cited in challenges against the order. By excluding Muslims, critics say the government is introducing religious discrimination into India’s immigration and refugee regime.
The order also echoes the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), but with a new cutoff date of 2024 instead of 2014. This extension raises questions about executive overreach — can such a significant shift in citizenship and immigration policy be made through an administrative order, bypassing parliamentary debate?
Civil rights groups have already indicated plans to move courts against the order. Past experiences with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam show that judicial scrutiny of citizenship-related measures can have far-reaching consequences.
For official reference, see the Ministry of Home Affairs website where such notifications are published.
West Bengal and Assam: Political Flashpoints
West Bengal
With its 2,200-km border with Bangladesh, West Bengal is one of the most affected states when it comes to cross-border migration. The new order has set off alarms in border districts like North 24 Parganas, Nadia, and Malda, where tensions between communities often flare up around identity and belonging.
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has accused the BJP of trying to “divide Bengal on religious lines.” She argued that the order could be used to target Bengali-speaking Muslims by branding them as “illegal Bangladeshis” while granting impunity to non-Muslims.
Assam
In Assam, the issue is even more sensitive. The Assam Accord had promised that all illegal immigrants, regardless of religion, who entered after 1971 would be deported. Many Assamese groups view the new order as a betrayal of that promise. Student organizations like the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) have raised alarm that the Centre is undermining the state’s hard-won settlement on the migration issue.
For context, the Assam Accord text is a key historical reference.
Civil Society and International Concerns
Human rights groups within India and abroad have also expressed concern. Organizations argue that selectively privileging migrants based on religion violates international human rights norms, such as those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Refugee Convention.
Although India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, civil society groups say that India has historically respected humanitarian principles. This order, they argue, shifts India away from that tradition and entrenches religious bias into law.
The UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) has previously underlined the importance of equal treatment of refugees irrespective of religion or ethnicity. See UNHCR policy documents for more background.
Possible Outcomes and Scenarios
- Judicial Review
Courts may strike down or amend provisions that appear discriminatory. - Political Mobilisation
Opposition parties in Bengal and Assam could turn this into a campaign issue, uniting minorities and secular voters. - Administrative Challenges
Implementing the order will require massive documentation checks. The risk of police excesses or arbitrary arrests is high. - International Diplomacy
Bangladesh, in particular, may raise objections if its citizens are branded as “illegal migrants” in a politically charged manner.
Broader Implications
The controversy over the Foreigners Act order is not just about migration — it is about India’s constitutional identity, secular values, and democratic ethos.
- For the BJP, it is a chance to project itself as the protector of Hindu and non-Muslim communities.
- For the Opposition, it is a rallying point to accuse the ruling party of communalising citizenship and betraying constitutional promises.
- For India’s democracy, it is a stress test: can the principles of equality and secularism withstand electoral pressures?
The outcome will depend on how courts, civil society, and ordinary citizens respond in the coming months.
🔗 External References for Further Reading (non-media sources):
- Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
- Assam Accord Official Portal
- UNHCR – UN Refugee Agency
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
