Addressing the Narendra Mohan Memorial Lecture in New Delhi on “Infiltration, Demographic Change and Democracy,” Shah cited census data from 1951 to 2011, noting that over that period the Hindu share of the population fell from 84 percent to 79 percent while the Muslim share rose from 9.8 percent to 14.2 percent. He argued that infiltration rather than natural growth explains that disparity, and pledged a stricter enforcement regime under the banner of his 3D policy.
He differentiated refugees from infiltrators, saying that persecuted minorities entering India deserve protection, whereas illegal entrants must be identified and removed. He also defended the Citizenship Act, saying the law does not revoke anyone’s citizenship but instead addresses past injustices by granting citizenship to persecuted minorities — excluding Muslims.
Shah claimed the Muslim population in India has grown by 24.6 percent while the Hindu population declined by 4.5 percent, and attributed that shift to large-scale infiltration. He repeated that the government’s policy would ensure that only genuine citizens receive voting rights.
Opposition leaders immediately objected, characterising the remarks as polarising and divisive. Critics warned of increased communal tensions, arguing that the minister’s remarks could stigmatise Muslim communities and erode social cohesion. Some pointed out that demographic change is a complex phenomenon influenced by fertility, migration, urbanisation, and economic factors — not merely illegal entries.
Human rights groups also expressed concern. They flagged evidence of contentious mass deportation operations earlier this year, particularly in Gujarat and Assam, where thousands of Muslim men were accused of being illegal immigrants and removed without full due process. Allegations included destruction of identity documents and forced pushbacks into Bangladesh — actions experts say violate domestic and international legal standards.
Border security analysts responded that preventing infiltration is a perennial challenge, especially along India’s long eastern border with Bangladesh and its western border with Pakistan. They note that fencing, surveillance, biometric identification and cross-border cooperation have all been invoked as countermeasures, but contend that systemic administrative gaps and resource constraints persist.
Regional politicians in border states reacted with caution. Some state governments, particularly in West Bengal and Assam, insisted that migration concerns ought to be addressed collaboratively by the federal government rather than being used to score electoral points. They questioned whether rapid roll-backs of citizenship or mass purges from voter rolls might disenfranchise legitimate residents.
Demographers cautioned that Shah’s statistics warrant closer scrutiny. They argued that attributing population change largely to infiltration oversimplifies demographic dynamics. They emphasised that fertility decline, internal migration from rural to urban areas, economic migration, conversion, and differential mortality also play significant roles in shaping population profiles.
Within government planning circles, Shah’s announcement signals a possible intensification of demographic auditing. Officials now expect stricter scrutiny of voter registration processes and sharper enforcement across states. The proposed strategy could heighten legal battles over citizenship and migrate questions into courts, where courts may need to adjudicate individual claims of identity, legality, and human rights.