We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-62318476
Would spare everyone having to deal with the extremely annoying and embarrassing gujju groups all over
then passport was like today's visa - it gave you permission to settle anywhere, the nationality laws were still being drawn up properly and enforcement was lax, india being within the british empire, gave indians the automatic right to emigrate to the UK. so obviously like the UK today restricts visa it restricted passport at that time
also, google path dependence, no insititution can diverge too much from its predecessor, even after French revolution the vestiges of monarchial system remained. independent india simply carried on the practices of the british (this is not a new idea a lot of writers in 1950s wrote about it, the now and then hated communists sloganeered - yeah azaadi jhoota hai - this independence is fake). so when we blame leaders in the past we cannot imagine the situation as it is now but have to cotenxtualise their decisions in their contemporary time.
i am not an apologist for the previous regimes but just want you to be appropriately critical with your thoughts and not just accept what politicians say about the past mistakes