Jump to content

Talk:Illegal immigration to India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

other immigrants

[edit]

what about illegal immigrants though smaller in numbers from other countries except of bangladesh and pakistan?

  • erstwhile USSR's smaller countries like uzhbekistan,kazakistan etc. these people most of them simply mingle out among Indian Cities. they enter with visa and vanish.

the porous nepal border through which pakistanis(mohajir) enters is also a entrance for immigrants from afghania,tajekistan etc.

  • russians colonize cities in west coast of India especially in Goa
  • African countries from where drug sellers and scamsters enter India. they also target our girls.

India may be a developing country of 125crore people. but,still some people want to immigrate to this place!wth

also NEPAL has one of the largest number of people who are working/living in India. but, Indo-Nepal border is visa-free hence kind of acceptable by GOI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.14.201 (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reality

[edit]

In South Asia region ,India is a country of opportunities.the slumdogs of mumbai to bengal to madras ,many of them are illegal immigrants from failed islamist countries neighbouring India like pakistan,bangladesh etc.how can they simply deny this?We ,the Indians knows that ,Our Country is leeched by these illegal muslims who are inherently violent and religiously polarized coming into a Secular Country and works as undercover for terrorists supports ,at the same time Enjoying the facilities of India.India "looks" Poor;but India is the Best compared to any country near to it.be it bangladeshi or pakistani,srilankan or burmese ,they are Jealous of Bharat.it is the reality.Frankly I said this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.41.24 (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

The article in its entirety (as it stands now) is a laundry list of allegations, reports from "Indian media"/intelligence, rather than any neutral third party sources. I've tagged it as POV and will edit it soon to make it NPOv. --Ragib 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a good job. --Bhadani (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bhadaniji, thank you too for fixing some references. --Ragib 21:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

I really don't think people should be referred to as "these aliens" or "most of the aliens". And, I don't really think that India is "tolerating" something is a fact, no matter "according" to which Indian official. "Extremely hard" is clearly an example of a peacock word, so is "has become a champion". As far as I know the "fence" thing is not happening in reality, not anymore. And, I believe there has been allegations of bigotry against the "Organizer", one of the sources cited. For something as big as what is claimed in the article, there seems to be a curious lack of scholarly sources used. Has anyone outside of India or Bangladesh ever cared about this happening? Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other big problem/POV with this article is that, several sections are just quotes from random news items. For example, the crime section just mentions a random robbery. Wikipedia is not a crime-journal. Also, isolated incidents like this are not encyclopedic. If you take any nationality X living in country Y, you can dig up a newspaper report of a criminal of X nationality. That incident by itself is meaningless. For example, Indian businessman working in Bangladesh has fled after taking Crores of takas from local businessmen. That by itself does not generalize into an encyclopedic article like "Indian criminals working in Bangladesh".

The Nandigram claim is ridiculous. I have NOT seen this implication even in the most right-wing Hindutwa-badi news sources that all problems in Nandigram are also the result of any foreigners. A passing mention/remark in a newspaper taken out of context is not really encyclopedic material. --Ragib (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Left Front puts Nandigram land acquisition on hold Sanjay Basak
The state government has reports that illegal Bangladeshi migrants have trickled into parts of rural Bengal, including Nandigram, over the years, and settled down as sharecroppers with the help of local Left leaders. Though a majority of these immigrants became tillers, they lacked documents to prove the ownership of land. --Vikramsingh (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen that ... but what report? What agency? The reporter does a really bad job of making those vague remarks without clarifying anything. Also, not even that article made any inference about the state sponsored Nandigram killings and Bangladesh. --Ragib (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denial

[edit]

Ragib,

You can see with your own eyes enormous slum colonies of Bangladeshis in many cities of India, even outside of Bengal.

Yet Bangladesh leaders have always denied the presence of Bangladeshis in India.

"When Begum Khaleda visited India as Prime Minister during her first term, she made an extraordinary statement that there were no Bangladeshis in India. No doubt, this remains her stand even today. Her Foreign Minister, Mr Morshed Khan, told a Press conference at Dhaka on February 6 that there is not a single Bangladeshi migrant in India".

I am sorry to say, that is simply dishonest.

The illegal migration of Bangladeshis has been widely studied, by government agencies, (even in Sachar report) in India as well as overseas researchers.

I note that you have not expressed any concern about Hindus in Bangladesh, or the enormous problems several states of India are facing. You want to stonewall these tragic facts.

--Vikramsingh (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have any recent plans to visit and "See with my own eyes". There are neutral third-party agencies that are there to do this, not the Indian media, right-wing political parties etc. That you feel a statement by Bangladesh Govt to be dishonest is your interpretation, which has not a lot of impact on any Wikipedia article. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and NOT a blog. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no ad hominem comments please. You probably have better things to do than trying to figure out what I'm trying my hardest to "Stonewall", but that's of not really related to *this* article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground, nor an Indian newspaper. --Ragib (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I guess I have met quite a few people of Bangladeshi origin who migrated into India illegally. But, that can only be a basis of original research, and not in any way a tool to derogate a group or people. Does Wikipedia have articles on how India illegally occupies Bangladesh land (a about a decade back Bangladesh Rifles actually fought a small battle against BSF for a piece of such land, a briefly publicized event on Bangladesh media)? How India harbors Bangladeshi extremists (Bangladesh government has lodged quite a few requests to get some people alleged to be Islamist extremists, and there are complaints form the Bangladesh civil society on local media)? Or, how India keeps Bangladeshi foreign relations terrorized (Bangladesh newspapers has been publishing articles, news and commentaries telling that for 30 years now)? I don't think we should, unless there is reliable and neutral data and sources to support those claims. If we want, we can turn Wikipedia into a battleground of mud-slinging. But, do we really want that? If you want to make a complaint about these illegal aliens draining India, there always are newspapers and other websites. I hope none of my comments hurt anyone, as they are not my viewpoints and rather are random facts (unverified, of course). Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands looks fairly balanced. "Indian newspapers" are reliable sources, like it or not. But there are numerous sources, like Al-Jazeera, BBC, etc that document this phenomenon. As for unverified things, no one is under any obligation to believe them, unless you show something from the Daily Star, Dainik Ittefeq, etc (or other reliable Bangladeshi source) that corroborates. The Nandigram section is probably the biggest news garner right now.Bakaman 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Currently the facts are well sourced, though I still have a problem accepting the Organizer, and it'd be nice to keep it that way. But it doesn't seem to be as balanced. The Bangladesh side of the story is written is given more as outrages than factual presentation of comments, and the Bangladeshi population residing illegally inside India are presented as not-people (like a legal/economic problem). A slight bit of copyediting might solve that easily. And, Baka, I am only supporting Ragib's edit of the article as he turned the article what it is now from a quite offensive article. I have no intention of ruining a fair article (sourced and balanced). And, I am happy that you could see my seeming "anti-Indian" examples as what they are - mere examples of acute views that the press can generate. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many sub-headers

[edit]

Does the article really need separate sub-headers for every couple of short sentences? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actual number of illegal immigrants and POV

[edit]

The number 20,000,000 is unrealistically high. This statement was given in 2003. By then population of Bangladesh was 138.4 million. [1] That makes the number of immigrants a hopping 14.4% of the total population of Bangladesh. This is not possible. Does anyone have any better reference? Extrapolating the abnormal increase in muslim populations in bordering states of WB and Assam, the number seems to be between 1-3 million.

I am working on to improve the article's tone and style to remove the NPOV banner.

--Iball (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the data is true Uddhav9 (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The data is not true. The centre doesn’t have any centralised official data, and most of the data mentioned has no verifiable sources. Bigeyemoony (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Complete

[edit]

I have finished work on the article. Please comment if the NPOV tag can be removed. If required we can open a DRR.

--Iball (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is still too Bangladesh-centric. Check here for some other numbers. And, there is little Bangladeshi, or even non-Indian POV presented here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Added some info on Burmese and Nepali immigrants as well. Also added some non-Indian POV in the estimated population section. However I doubt the correctness of the link you mentioned. It claims number of illegal immigrants in Assam to be 4 million. Given that Assam's total muslim population at 2001 was 8 million it would mean 50% of the population was living illegaly. Not likely.--Iball (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. I have reorganized it a little to make it more academic and less journalistic (though the full credit of salvaging this article goes to you, of course). It seems that it might still need a bit of copyedit to balance out strong words like "infiltration" at few places, but overall it's nicely balanced now. And, I have removed the tag too. Great work, again. If you are willing I can lend a hand now and work together to take the article to at least a GA status. Say what? Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have made one minor reordering to give the census tables a bit of context. And I myself was thinking bout the word 'infiltrate'. It may apply to Kashmir but not to average villagers along WB-Bangla border. Changed it. Thanks for removing the NPOV tag and please go ahead if you can add some data that will be great. --Iball (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has improved a lot, but there are some confusions in the "origins" section. Firstly, the 1971, and pre-1971 immigrants were mostly Hindus ... so "increase in Muslim population" arguments presented in the next sentence is misleading. Are the Hindu immigrants from Bangladesh considered "legal" whereas Muslim immigrants considered "illegal"? The article also does not provide any statistics on the abnormal increase in Hindu population of West Bengal or Assam as a result of immigration from Bangladesh. Unless the increase in Hindu population of WB/Assam caused by immigration is presented, the article will remain pov. --Ragib (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. India doesn't consider those who came before 1971 as illegal immigrants but as refugees. See here. Search for 1971. I understand it's quite xenophobic in tone but increase in muslim population in Assam and WB is the main indicator of this phenomenon as Bangladesh is a muslim majority state. The number 3,084,826 denotes all people who came from Bangladesh since 1947 and includes both hindus and muslims. The number two million is extrapolated from the demographic trends in Assam and West Bengal and also includes both hindus and muslims.
More importantly the situation in Assam and West Bengal stands in comparison with the national growth rates of both communities. As you can see in all cases the hindu growth rates in Assam and West Bengal are substantially lower than the national averages. This is because these two states were comparatively advanced than the rest of the country (and still are). So the growth rates of muslims in these two states should also have been proportionally lower than the national average and so the gap(the 'Difference' column in the table) in between. But in reality the gap was substantially higher than the national level in most cases. This is the fundamental origin of this issue. The table only represents that phenomenon. If Bangladesh were a hindu majority country then the argument would have been opposite that hindu growth rates in WB and Assam are much higher than local muslim growth rates (if migration occurred). --Iball (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get the point about the 1971 and pre-1971 immigrants (presumably most of whom were Hindus). But what about 1971-current? Several other articles (such as Persecution of Hindus) claim that many Bangladeshi Hindus are also leaving Bangladesh (giving supporting "proofs" of Hindu population percentage declining in Bangladesh). Now, this raises two questions: if the Hindu minorities are indeed leaving Bangladesh for India, then why is that statistics not included here? The current stats seem to imply that the current set of immigrants are exclusively Muslims resulting in the demographic change in WB/Assam. The other question is, if the Hindus do not make up a large portion of the immigrants, then the demographic shift in Bangladesh (i.e., more births for Muslims compared to Hindus, resulting in decreasing Hindu percentage) can explain the demographic shift in WB/ASsam as well (i.e., *Indian* Bengali Muslims having more births). I'm not disputing any of your stats ... just that the claims of Hindu migration from Bangladesh to India as presented in the other article does not match the premise of the section (which states Muslim migrants are moving to India). --Ragib (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 - Where did I ever mention in this article that the declining percentage of hindus in Bangladesh is a proof that they are migrating to India? I am well aware of the often repeated fact that % of hindus in Bangladesh reduced from 13.5 to 9.34 between 1974 and 2001. I didn't include it here because a simple calculation on difference between the fertility rates of the two communities neatly explains this phenomenon. In fact a whole lot of articles are infested with this gross mistake that this happened because of migration. (It did happen during Pakistani period, particularly in late sixties) I just took a look at the Hinduism in Bangladesh article. Same old story.
Point 2 - .....if the Hindus do not make up a large portion of the immigrants, the demographic shift in Bangladesh (i.e., more births for Muslims compared to Hindus, resulting in decreasing Hindu percentage) can explain the demographic shift in WB/ASsam as well (i.e., *Indian* Bengali Muslims having more births).....
Indian muslims do have higher fertility rate than hindus, like Bangladesh but see what I wrote - 'In 1991 census muslim population growth rates in these states were found to be much higher than the growth rates of the local hindu population even after adjusting for the usual higher growth rate of muslims observed throughout the country.' This is what I meant in last comment that the relative difference between the growth rates of the two communities should be in tune with the national average. If hindu growth rate is lower than the national average of hindus in some state then the local muslim growth rate should also be lower than the national average of muslims. But in Assam, for example, between 1971-81 the trend was completely opposite. See the difference column in the tables. You cannot have such huge differences in growth rates between two communities living in the same area while all other states show a much less difference between growth rates. Moreover inside Assam itself, this growth happened predominantly in the districts adjoining Bangladesh border. The only explanation is migration from Bangladesh, mostly due to economic reasons. It's obvious that hindus made a portion of the migrants proportional to their population. I presented the tables only to demonstrate this because throughout India this difference in growth rates IS the main argument behind this issue. The tables themselves are imperative that if muslims are migrating, a proportional number of hindus are too. --Iball (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May be can be dealt with in an easier way. If illegals are Muslim and legals are Hindu, or pre-1971 are refugees and post-1971 are immigrants, I am pretty sure there is some source that says so. We can always put in Indian state position on the topic, and if possible, some referenced critique of that position. Say what? Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Search for 1971. It will give you the definitions.
What I stated is India's position and some critique of that both from within and without. If you have some additional references please add.--Iball (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infiltration by terrorists

[edit]

Would Mar4D explain his edit warring sourced content out of this article? A great many terrorists are infiltrated across the border who then reside in India, specifically in J&K. This is obvious illegal immigration so why remove it? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bull crap is what I would say, prove how spying/espionage or infiltrating is related to immigration? And please do not use WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS arguments. Mar4d (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, terrorists are infiltrated across the LOC and then take up residence to carry out their terror campaigns, this is illegal immigration as cited by the three sources given. Also please remain civil. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, terrorists are infiltrated across the LOC and then take up residence to carry out their terror campaigns - where do they take up residence and what WP:RS do you have? ..this is illegal immigration as cited by the three sources given - How do you know if they are non-Indian nationals? Let me get this, Kashmiri infiltrators move back into Kashmir (their homeland) which is administered by India. Flawed logic; unless they suddenly become non-Indian overnight, or you're saying Kashmiris are not Indian, the crux of your argument is contradictory. I will remove this soon as there is nothing credible n your argument relating this to immigration. Mar4d (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if they are Indian or Pakistani nationals, and neither do you. The content is sourced and as such shall stay per policy. If you wish to gain a consensus for it's removal (bear in mind I am not the only person to have restored this) and if you wish to continue to restore Nangparbat edits then please start an RFC to gain a consensus for the removal of the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d Please explain why you are changing a section header from Pakistani when the sources in that section all mention Pakistani immigrants and terrorists? Your OR that all of these are Kashmari citizens is, while amusing, entirely wrong. Please explain your actions. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not call them "Kashmiri", if the militant group is from Azad Kashmir, Sindh, Punjab or whatever they We won't refer to them as Kashmiri, Sindhi, Punjabi etc. They are all Pakistani --Farah DesaiTalk 15:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaging in WP:OR, where does it say they come from "Azad Kashmir, Sindh, Punjab" or whatever? The text previously said Kashmiri and I am going to restore that, please do not change around the wordings to mislead. @Darkness Shines: It is very clear that these spies include Indian Kashmiris, thus they cannot be referred to as Pakistanis. Just Kashmir is sufficient. Mar4d (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who is engaging in OR, the sources say they come across the LOC, from Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly Mar4d you need not be so quick to revert edits that are still being discussed. As per Darkness Shines you are the one who is engaging in WP:OR, the sources state only Pakistani that come from the other side of the LOC, and had these spies been Indian Kashmiris then it would not be applicable to this article because Indian Kashmiris can't be illegal immigrants in India. --Farah DesaiTalk 13:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again, the sources do not state anything credible about their nationality and as Darkness Shines himself confessed above: I do not know if they are Indian or Pakistani nationals, and neither do you. The original text said Kashmiri (meaning groups that are active in Kashmir), you are deiberately engaging in falsification by changing that as it was to "Pakistani". And in reply to had these spies been Indian Kashmiris then it would not be applicable to this article because Indian Kashmiris can't be illegal immigrants in India, I had actually removed the whole section for that reason as it was self-contradictory yet out friend above seems to be bent towards thinking all Kashmiris are Pakistani citizens, just after saying he himself does not know their nationality. One contradiction after another. Mar4d (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you have quite finished raising strawmen I will talk to you. The sources state that these infiltrators come across the LOC. They say they come from Pakistan. I am following the sources, you are just making it up. Come with sources to back your claims, until then goodbye. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the one raising strawmen here or you? Where does it mention their nationality or citizenship? Do not engage in WP:SYNTHESIS. And let me just quote what you were saying before, I do not know if they are Indian or Pakistani nationals, and neither do you. Now you are contradicting yourself and also seem very confused. Mar4d (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt there are large numbers of illegal from bangladesh, pak, burma. Why leave a shithole for another shithole? its like mexicans immigrating to honduras or colombia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.13.222 (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source misrepresentation

[edit]

The source used does not state that Roy is a "a pro-Indian scholar" This is a BLP violation and source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Roy is not pro-Indian scholar, the guy who commented about the trip from Bangladesh to India is a pro-Indian scholar, here is the link: http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=OdwNU8csNKAC&pg=PA725&dq=ISBN+3540684883&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qHz-UszpIoeFrAfl2IGYCw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ISBN%203540684883&f=false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Musketeer (talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not call anyone a "pro-Indian scholar" Darkness Shines (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - it calls, see the line "but the issue of internal migration could hardly dissuade the pro-Indian state scholars" A.Musketeer (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you write "scholar"? And the source says a commentator, not a scholar said " the trip to India from Bangladesh is one of the cheapest in the world, with a trip costing around Rs.2000 (around 30$ US), which includes the fee for the "Tour Operator" Also on the voting, you state that as fact, but the source is explicit in that comment being from the same commentator. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Okay then I will change it into "According one commentator". A.Musketeer (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Illegal immigration in Angola which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illegal immigration to India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illegal immigration to India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Illegal immigration to India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very strange article

[edit]

How did the article degenerate from this to the current strangeness? I thought people like User:Darkness Shines was looking after the article. Since, they have failed obviously, someone needs to do something about it. May I? Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with a citation.

[edit]

Number 8’s source is no longer available. (Deep10shu (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

September 2019 edits

[edit]

@Misbah3102: I told you to raise the issue here in the talk. You can't just edit war / POV push a long standing part of the article. I'd suggest you to revert your edits back to this version as per WP:STATUS QUO and gain a consensus here. Your wordings like "allegedly", "East Pakistan" , "Rhetorical figures" , changing Bangladeshi to "Bengali" reeks of POV. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Count

[edit]

Random unnamed police officials cannot be used as sources for estimating migrant-counts or their modus operandi. A substantial number of sources document how such numbers are wildly exaggerated in a motivated manner for pandering to right wing sentiments and demographic anxiety. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_India&oldid=1215051183"