Friends of Nehru dynasty, Romans and Congressmen would like to believe that Sonia’s foreign origin is a non-issue. The intellectual and liberal elite and the honourable mediamen in print and on primetime would debate endlessly the pros and cons of a foreign coach for the Indian cricket team, but would care less about being ruled, in person or by proxy, by a foreign-born foreigner. Sonia’s political opponents stir up from their amnesia only during poll times or to hide their own failings. And the countrymen for their part, obsessed with problems of the stomach and survival, have no time or mind to brood over who they are ruled by: It could be Rama or Ravana or Caesar or even Caesar’s wife. Little wonder, this pumpkin of an issue remained buried in half-boiled political rice.
Thankfully, the pumpkin is out now with the Supreme Court this week admitting a petition seeking, in essence, a judicial clarification on whether a person of foreign origin who is not a citizen of India by birth can hold high public office in the country. With notices being sent to the Centre and the Election Commission, the most ‘settled’ issue of modern Indian history opens up for national debate and rational scrutiny! For many of us, the issue is a lingering thorn in our nationalist psyche and so some judicial enlightenment is most welcome. But having said that, it is our firm view that to see this as a mere constitutional, legal or political issue is to belittle its long- term import on the nation, its security and its honour. Sonia and her political ambitions are only the immediate provocations. Bigger threats loom large if the question hangs any longer. And so, as a statutory precaution we must add that we do not love Caesar or his wife less, it is just that we love the nation more. If that is bias, then so be it.
With the apex court now seized of the matter, it would also be appropriate for the people’s court, steeped in ignorance and individual pursuits, to dust up the facts of the case. Under the Constitution, the basic qualification for a person to hold a public office created by it is that he or she must be a citizen of India. Every person who had his domicile in the territory of India and who or either of whose parents was born in India, or was ordinarily residing in India for not less than five years immediately preceding 26 January, 1950, when the Constitution commenced, were regarded citizens. They and the subsequent generations are the ones we refer to as natural born citizens of India.
Now, this does not mean others are unnaturally born or test-tube babies. Rather, apart from the above two, ie, citizens by birth and descent, there are other classes of citizens, according to the Citizenship Act of 1955. They are, among others,: citizens by registration, citizens by naturalisation, citizens by reciprocity and citizens owing to expansion of Indian territory (eg.Sikkim). While natural born citizens are the ones envisaged by the Constitution, it stands to reason that those who swelled our lot due to expansion of our national borders will also draw level. The other three — those by registration, naturalisation and reciprocity –resulting from a post-Constitution act of Parliament, by the very provisions of that act do not rank on the same footing. Though it is nice to hear that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, it is also a fact that the law itself has sanctioned two classes of citizens! Here’s how.
The citizenship of a natural born citizen is a birthright, unconditional and irrevocable, unless one chooses to renounce it. Even the SC cannot deprive this status. A natural citizen can meet an unnatural death by hanging for treason, but he will die a citizen. In sharp contrast, the citizenship of those by registration, reciprocity or naturalisation is conditional and could be revoked if those conditions are violated or if the State thinks it necessary. And this could be done by a simple executive order of a district magistrate! Sonia is a citizen by registration. The grant of citizenship to her followed an application by her under the provisions of the Act and granted on certain conditions. It would suffice to say that this citizenship is by no means permanent. Quite flattering to know where we, natural citizens, stand vis-a-vis saviour Sonia.
The BJP and Mulayam may have political axes to grind. But there are multitudes outside the pale of politics, men of mettle and with impeccable records of public service as also Constitutional experts and thinkers who are all disturbed over the immediate possibility of Sonia and the distant prospect of any foreign adventurer making a bid to rule the country. The key question they raise is this: ‘Can a person whose citizenship is conditional, subject to challenge and revocation preside over the fate of the nation?’ Their argument is that when the Constitution talks of citizens’ right to hold public office, it is actually referring to natural or ‘permanent’ citizens and not ‘permitted’ citizens. They have a point. The framers of the Constitution could not have imagined the present scenario, particularly in the euphoria of having just evicted foreigners, read, British.
The citizenship law also talks of reciprocity ie., the rules of the game in the country of origin of the applicant, here, Sonia. So Sonia’s ‘citizenship’, besides the above infirmities, also depends on the political restrictions imposed by Italy on Indians seeking citizenship there. As things stand, not just Italy, but most democracies of the world explicitly prohibit non-natural citizens from holding public office. An interesting sidelight is that theoretically Sonia can become the PM of Italy, under Italian law. And so can Rahul or Priyanka, because the Italian Constitution talks of Italians from an ‘ethical’ viewpoint, not necessarily as citizens. To put it simply, once an Italian, always an Italian. The entire family can exercise their Italian rights as and when they choose to. Indeed, Sonia’s inferior Indian citizenship, being one obtained by registration, is more than compensated by the munificence of her country of origin. And then there is the question of her exclusive ‘adherence’ that our Constitution insists on. Now, does the aforesaid political benefits accruing to her under the Italian Constitution compromise her adherence to the Indian Constitution? The SC surely has its hands full!
Sonia’s political and patriotic credentials are a different story and can await scrutiny as and when she makes one of those sacrifices that she is famous for. For now, whatever the SC verdict, constitutional experts suggest a simple amendment to the Citizenship Act which puts public offices out of reach of conditional citizens. After all, ‘inner voices’ cannot be relied upon for ever; they may change tune if the situation warrants. National interest and national pride should be insulated from such risks.
e-mail the writer at [email protected]