Pakistani nationals who overstay in Indican face 3 years in jail, ₹3 lakh fine
Pakistani nationals on short-term visas who fail to leave India within the stipulated deadline are liable to be arrested, prosecuted and face penalties of three years in jail and a ₹3 lakh fine.
Under Section 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025, foreign nationals who overstay their visa, violate visa conditions, or enter restricted areas in India face imprisonment up to 3 years, or a fine of a maximum ₹3 lakh or both.
Also Read: 'Look who's bearing brunt': Children separated from mothers, tears at Attari-Wagah ahead of India exit deadline
The Centre issued a 'Leave India' notice to all Pakistani nationals on short-term visas in India, stating that they had to leave the country by April 27. Special consideration was given to those on medical visas who are required to leave by April 29.
The Indian government's directive came after Pakistani-based terrorist organisation was linked to the attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam on April 22, which left 26 civilians dead.
Also Read: Tears, hugs, final goodbyes at Attari border as hundreds of Pakistanis leave India | Photos
The 12 categories of visa holders who have to leave India by April 27 include those who have a visa on arrival, business, film, journalist, transit, conference, mountaineering, student, visitor, group tourist, pilgrim and group pilgrim.
Union home minister Amit Shah had directed the chief ministers of all states to identify those Pakistani nationals who need to be deported and make arrangements accordingly.
As many as 509 Pakistani nationals, including nine diplomats and officials, left India over the last three days in accordance with the Indian government's directives following the Pahalgam attack.
Also Read: Punjab: Attari-Wagah border closure to hit biz, but traders say they stand with country
A total of 745 Indians, including 14 diplomats and officials, also returned from Pakistan through the Wagah-Attari border, reported PTI.
Mirroring New Delhi's punitive measures, Islamabad also announced retaliatory directives and cancelled visas given to Indians under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES).
Relations between the two neighbouring nations have soured after the Resistance Front, a Pakistan-based proxy of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed responsibility for the deadly attack in Pahalgam.
Pakistan has denied involvement and has called for a neutral probe into the incident. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and defence minister Khawaja Asif have also called for international involvement in the investigation to ensure fairness.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Marathi Sahitya Mahamandal welcomes rollback of GRs making Hindi mandatory from class 1
The Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Sahitya Mahamandal has welcomed the Maharashtra government's decision to withdraw two controversial Government Resolutions (GRs) that made Hindi or other Indian languages compulsory from Class 1 in schools across the state. The decision was announced by Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Sunday, following sustained opposition from political parties and language advocacy groups. The GRs had sparked sharp criticism from writers, educators, and civil society groups. (HT) Milind Joshi, president of the Mahamandal, said the rollback was a much-needed correction in favour of Maharashtra's linguistic and cultural interests. 'This is a decision in the interest of Maharashtra and its students. We wholeheartedly congratulate the Chief Minister and the government for withdrawing the GRs,' Joshi said. The Mahamandal had been protesting against the two GRs issued by the state's school education department earlier this year. These GRs, issued in the name of promoting multilingualism, made it mandatory for schools to learn Hindi or any other Indian language from Class 1, sparking concerns among Marathi language advocates who saw it as an encroachment on the primacy of Marathi in the state's curriculum. He also pointed out that it was Fadnavis himself who had played a key role in making the teaching of Marathi compulsory in all schools in the state. 'We hope he continues to take decisions that protect the rights of Marathi-speaking students and strengthen the use of Marathi in public life,' he added. The GRs had sparked sharp criticism from writers, educators, and civil society groups, who argued that such a policy would disadvantage Marathi students and medium, and was out of sync with the state's linguistic identity. In recent months, the Mahamandal had issued public statements, written to education department officials, and participated in awareness campaigns highlighting the implications of the GRs. Following the rollback, several educationists and parent groups have also voiced support for the decision, calling it a welcome step toward preserving the balance in the state's multilingual education framework. 'We welcome the government's decision to withdraw both GRs instead of just amending the clause that made Hindi or any third language compulsory from Classes 1 to 5, as demanded unanimously across Maharashtra,' said Sripad Bhalchandra Joshi, former president of the Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Sahitya Mahamandal and convenor of Marathichya Vyapak Hitasaathi (Movement for the Larger Interests of Marathi). However, Joshi cautioned that there is a real danger the government will now attempt to push the same idea—of making a third language compulsory—through committees filled only with hand-picked 'experts' from within the ruling political fold.
United News of India
40 minutes ago
- United News of India
Controversy erupts over Defence Attache's remarks on Op Sindoor aircraft losses; Indian Embassy says 'quoted out of context'
New Delhi, June 29 (UNI) The Indian Embassy in Indonesia today sought to clarify the remarks on Operation Sindoor made by the Defence Attache at a seminar, saying that he had been quoted out of context. The controversy arose from media reports quoting a portion of Defence Attache Captain Shiv Kumar's remarks during a 35-minute presentation on Operation Sindoor. To a query that India had lost many aircraft, he said that India 'did lose some aircraft and that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack their (Pakistan's) military establishment or their air defences. But after the loss, we changed our tactics and went for their military installations. So, we first achieved success of destruction of their military air defences, and that is why all our missiles were able to easily go through, our Brahmos, and surface-to-surface missiles,' Indian Defence Attaché to Indonesia Capt Shiv Kumar is quoted as media reports on his remarks, the Indian Embassy in a late evening statement said: 'We have seen media reports regarding a presentation made by the Defence Attache at a Seminar. 'His remarks have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a mis-representation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker. 'The presentation conveyed that the Indian Armed Forces serve under civilian political leadership unlike some other countries in our neighbourhood. 'It was also explained that the objective of Operation Sindoor was to target terrorist infrastructure and the Indian response was non-escalatory.'However, the Congress was quick to seize upon the controversy. Congress leader Pawan Khera, posting a picture of a media report on the subject, wrote on X: 'The Modi government has misled the nation from the start - failing to disclose the aircraft losses during Operation Sindoor. 'There were oblique references to losses in air combat on 6/7 May, during a briefing by the DG Air Ops (Air Marshal Awadhesh Kumar Bharti) when he said - 'we are in a combat situation and losses are a part of combat.' 'Then, it was left to Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan to make the first official admission of our attrition in the air while speaking to Bloomberg TV on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. 'And now, in another shocking revelation by Capt. Shiv Kumar, it has emerged that the Indian Air Force lost fighter jets to Pakistan on the night of May 7, 2025 during its targeting of Pakistan's terror-linked sites 'only because of the constraint given by the political leadership.''This is a direct indictment of the Modi Government, particularly Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. No wonder they are ducking our demand for a Special Session of Parliament like the plague. They know they've compromised national security, and they're terrified of what the Congress Party will expose before the people of India.' His post was reposted by senior party leader Jairam Ramesh. UNI RN
Indian Express
42 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The myths and utopias of two nationalisms
I have been following the fascinating conversation of ideas between Yogendra Yadav ('The nationalism we forgot', IE, May 27 and 'The rediscovery of nationalism', IE, June 5), Suhas Palshikar ('Who stole my nationalism?', IE, May 31) and Akeel Bilgrami ('An alternative nationalism', IE, June 16). I add here my thoughts as a back-bencher. 'Nation', in its earliest Latin sense, meant 'people', referring to their birth, origin, breed, race, or tribe — somewhat like the Indian kula, gotra and vansha. Its earliest meaning in English was 'a people or an ethnic community with a shared language'. After the emergence of John Locke's political theory, the connotation changed to 'a political society — subjects or citizens — inhabiting a defined territory within which its sovereignty is exercised'. That foregrounded the people's identity as citizens and the sovereignty of the political order they adopt, a fundamental shift from the term's original meaning, bringing it quite close to the Indian term rashtra. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) prioritised sovereignty in the arena of international relations. Yet the evolution of the term 'nationalism', based on the root 'nation', had a long wait in store. The League of Nations was established in 1920 and, as a result, the term 'nation' assumed a somewhat defined and universal meaning. 'Nationalism', which until then was confined mostly to Western Europe's politics and history, acquired global currency as a dominant political philosophy during the 1920s. In the India of the 1920s, the Indian term rashtra and the European 'nation' jointly formed the semantic ground for India's nationalism. What had until then been the 'freedom struggle' became India's national freedom movement. It was around the same time that Essentials of Hindutva (1923) by V D Savarkar was published, defining the Hindutva brand of nationalism. It brought together the concepts of pitrubhumi (fatherland) and punyabhumi (sacred geography). Hindutva nationalism primarily drew upon 19th-century European developments that had led to the unification of Italy and the formation of a German-speaking nation. The term pitrubhumi, for instance, shows the deep imprint of the European unification movements on Hindutva nationalism. The national independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi and others had a different orientation. It equated nationalism with freedom. It, too, was inspired by various movements outside India such as the American War of Independence, the French Revolution, the Irish struggle for independence and even the Russian Revolution, but its understanding of how India as a 'nation' was to be constituted differed radically from the Hindutva idea of the nation. In the 1920s, Congress established Prantik Samitis, region-specific committees, and articulated the idea of India as a federation of people speaking many different languages. During the years of World War II, Rabindranath Tagore, Sri Aurobindo and Gandhi alerted the world to the dangers of self-engrossed nationalism. The Constitution of India was shaped in light of that vision of India. It described India, that is Bharat, as a 'union of states'. All through the 1950s and 1960s, Indian territories were reorganised as linguistic states, collectively forming the Indian federation. The nationalism inscribed in the Constitution and Hindutva nationalism have remained at variance from their very inception. The main points of difference between the two were neither patriotism nor sovereignty. It has been the affiliation of citizens to the nation on an equal footing. The ideology of Hindutva nationalism is deeply suspicious of the patriotic loyalties of citizens whose punyabhumi is not geographically part of India. The constitutional notion of nationalism accepts all those who live in India as entirely legitimate and equal citizens. Owing to its peculiar reconstruction of history, Hindutva nationalism puts forward a narrative of Indian society in terms of the 'original' and the 'subsequent' citizens. In that view of history, Sanskrit is depicted as the 'mother' of Indian civilisation and its genealogy is stretched to the pre-Indus Valley civilisation. Many professional historians do not accept the Hindutva historiography as the overwhelming bulk of available archaeological, genetic, linguistic and historical evidence points to its deeply tendentious nature. Hindutva nationalism has, therefore, depended more on propaganda and conversion of the gullible to its vision of history. It has attempted to claim all that was in ancient, proto-historic and prehistoric times as a single and continuous efflorescence of 'Hindu' theology and philosophy, flattening all ancient debates and disagreements and all social tensions in India's past. Similarly, in order to push the thesis about the 'suspected loyalty' of those whose cultural geography does not overlap with India's physical geography, Hindutva nationalism depicts the entire post-Sanskrit mediaeval period as an era of darkness. History shows that both these claims are factually untenable. Archaeology and linguistics tell us that some of the earliest parts of the Vedas were composed in present-day Afghanistan and Pakistan. Similarly, medieval India produced a powerful Bhakti Movement that challenged the varna system and social inequality. In fact, the cultural residues of the Bhakti Movement, which had spread in mediaeval centuries across most languages of India, inspired many leaders of the freedom struggle, such as Tagore and Gandhi. Any mention of that historical fact infuriates proponents of Hindutva nationalism. The nation, not as a people but in its subsequent ideological forms, gradually came to include the past of a people as well as their future. The past, when imagined as being spread over a very long span of time, becomes a challenge to memory and begins acquiring the form of myth, really an irrationally compressed and transformed version of the past. The future, spread over an endless time, becomes a challenge to the imagination and acquires the form of fantasy or utopia. Every brand of nationalism in every part of the world has attempted to generate its myths and its utopias. In India, both versions of nationalism have shaped their own myths and utopias. Constitutional nationalism is based on the idea of a past that was culturally and philosophically diverse, while also being wounded by caste and gender discrimination. The Hindutva version is that of a once-upon-a-time vishwaguru, deeply hurt and humiliated by outsiders who came here. Constitutional nationalism aims at correction; Hindutva nationalism seeks revenge and retribution. Can one of the two be obliterated forever? Can the two versions ever meet? Perhaps India will have a secure future when the nation — the people — manages to go beyond nationalism. Devy is the author of India: A Linguistic Civilization (2024)
