Opinion In Bihar electoral roll revision, a regressive idea of citizenship
The present SIR of ECI seems to create hierarchy in citizenship. The Indian Constitution has been a major roadblock for such transformation towards cultural identity-based citizenship
In the pre-Independence period, the citizenship debate divided the cultural nationalists and political nationalists.(ANI) 
The recent controversy regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls is indicative of the fading institutional boundaries in contemporary India. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is mandated under Article 324 to revise electoral rolls. Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 authorises the ECI to conduct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of the constituency. Similarly, Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 authorises the ECI to conduct an intensive revision of electoral rolls. However, the present order of the ECI brings in the new concept of Special Intensive Revision (SIR). In the domain of citizenship rights, we are moving from jus soli (citizenship by birth) towards jus sanguinis (citizenship by bloodline). Further, this movement is insisting more on technicalities/documentations, which are affecting the vulnerable sections. The recent Bihar caste survey showed that 63 per cent of the population are backward or extremely backward, and 73 per cent of Muslims are backward. Many of these people are now afraid to be declared illegal migrants.
In India, historically, due to migration, different cultural identities have gained their own cultural and political space, creating a multicultural society. In the pre-Independence period, the citizenship debate divided the cultural nationalists and political nationalists. Leaders like V D Savarkar linked citizenship to cultural roots. Based on this, he denied equal citizenship to any community whose punya bhoomi (holy land) is situated outside India.
The Constituent Assembly of India, however, deliberated on the issue and gave citizenship — through Article 5 — to those who were born in India or resided in the country for at least five years before the commencement of the Constitution and had not acquired citizenship of any foreign country. Through Article 6 (which later became Article 11), it empowered Parliament to make provisions regarding all matters related to citizenship. The Citizenship Act, 1955, removed the provision of citizenship by birth for those born after January 26, 1950, on the condition that any one of the parents should be an Indian citizen. The Assam Accord in 1985 inserted Assam-specific section 6A, which allowed those who migrated between 1966 and 1971 to be registered as foreigners. Those who migrated after 1971 were considered illegal migrants. Through the 1987 amendment, the state gave citizenship based on the principle of jus soli to those who were born before 1987. However, those who were born in and after 1987 were given citizenship based on jus sanguinis. According to the 2003 amendment, the citizenship of a person born after or in 2003 depends on whether both of her parents are already Indian citizens. If not, at least one of them must be Indian, and the other shouldn’t be an illegal immigrant.
In the year 2004, the Citizenship Rules, 1956, were amended. It openly mentioned the religious identity of the immigrants. Section 8A of the amended rules empowered the collector of a district, in Gujarat and Rajasthan, to register minority Hindus with Pakistani citizenship, who have migrated to India more than five years ago with an intention to settle down permanently, as citizens of India. Further the 2004 amendment, by bringing in religious identity for acquiring citizenship, has defied the secular outlook of Article 7 of the Constitution, which deals with people who have migrated from Pakistan to India, without mentioning any religion. In 2015, two significant amendments were made to the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 and the Foreigners Order, 1948. Both are precursors to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. It further institutionalised this religion-based exclusion by making it easier for a certain group of people to get Indian citizenship based on their religious identity.
The current SIR of ECI appears to establish hierarchy in citizenship. The Indian Constitution has served as a significant obstacle to such a shift towards cultural identity-based citizenship. We need critical engagement with the constitutional framework to promote inclusive citizenship norms rooted in political identity rather than cultural identity.
The writer teaches at Christ University. Views are personal
Share
