this article on the question of citizenship has been the most ill-fated article in the whole Constitution. This is the third time we are debating it. The first time it was you, Sir, who held the view which was upheld by the House that the definition was very very unsatisfactory. It was then referred to a group of lawyers and I am sorry to say that they produced a definition by which all those persons who are in existence at the present time could not be included as Citizens of India. That had therefore to go back again and we have now a fresh definition which I may say at the very outset, is as unsatisfactory as the one which the House rejected and I will give very cogent reasons for that view of mine. But if it is necessary that I should move my amendment before I do so, I am prepared to do it.
I would, therefore, like to move amendment 164 which is the same as amendment 2 in List III of Second Week. Sir, I move:
“That in amendment No. 1 of List I (Second Week) of Amendments to Amendments, for the proposed article 5, the following be substituted:—
‘5. (i) Every person residing in India—
(a) who is born of Indian parents; or
(b) who is naturalized under the law of naturalization; and
(ii) every person who is a Hindu or a Sikh by religion and is not a citizen of any other State, wherever he resides shall be entitled to be a citizen of India.’”
The Honourable Dr. Ambedkar admitted that this was a sort of a provisional definition and detailed legislation was going to be left to Parliament. I quite agree with the objective, but I am afraid that the definition and the article that he has suggested would make Indian citizenship the cheapest on earth. I would like to proceed with an analysis of the article that he has proposed. I do not see any reason why it is necessary to say “at the date of commencement of this Constitution”. The whole Constitution is going to be promulgated on a specific day. Whatever provisions there are will come into force and be applicable from that day alone. So, I submit that the words “at the date of the commencement of this Constitution” are entirely superfluous, so far as this article is concerned. It is sufficient to say that every person, wherever domiciled in this territory of India …. shall be entitled to be called a citizen of India.
Secondly, all these sub-clauses of this article will make Indian citizenship very cheap. I am sure neither the Members of this House nor the people outside would like this to happen. The first requirement according to this article is domicile. After that, all that is necessary according to (a) is that he should be born in the territory of India. This has no relationship whatsoever to the parentage. A couple may be travelling in an aeroplane which halts at the port of Bombay for a couple of hours and if the lady happens to deliver a child there, irrespective of the nationality of the parents, the child would be entitled to be a citizen of India. I am sure this is not what at least many people would like to accept and provide for. Indian citizenship ought not to be made so very easy and cheap.
Then sub-clause (b) says “either of whose parents are born in the territory of India”. This is still more strange. It is not necessary that the boy or the girl should be born on Indian soil. It is sufficient not only if both the father and the mother have been born in India but if even one of them happens to be born on the Indian soil as accidentally as. I have already pointed out, viz., a lady delivering a child in the course of an air-journey through India. Under the proposed sub-clause (a) the child would be entitled to claim Indian citizenship and under (b) even the son of that child (which happened to be born so accidentally) can claim the same important privilege without any restriction and without any additional qualification whatsoever. Nothing more is necessary except that they should acquire a domicile.
According to sub-clause (c) Indian citizenship is obtainable by any person “who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years”. This has also no reference to parentage, it has no reference to the nationality or the country to which they belong, it has no reference to the purpose for which the person chose to reside in this country for five years. For aught I know he might be a fifth columnist: he might have come here with the intention of sabotaging Indian independence; but the Drafting Committee provides that so long as he lives in this country for five years, he is entitled to be a citizen of India.
The whole House and the whole country is aware of the way in which Indian nationals are treated all over the world. They are aware of the kind of colour prejudice that used to be there in England, the kind of persecution through which Indian citizens are going even now in South Africa, how they are persecuted in Malaya and Burma, how they are looked down upon everywhere else in spite of the fact that India is an independent country. The House is aware how it is not possible except for the merest handful to obtain citizenship in America, although they have spent their whole lives there.
I have known of people who have been there in America and holding various offices for fifteen, twenty and twenty-five years and yet their application number for citizenship is probably 10,50,000th. There is no hope of such a person getting his citizenship until the 10,49,999th application is sanctioned. In America, Indians can obtain citizenship at the rate of 116 or 118 per annum. That is the way in which other countries are safeguarding their own interests and restricting their citizenship. I can well understand, if India was a small country like Ireland or Canada (which are held out as models for our Constitution) that we want more people, no matter what their character is or what the country’s interests are. But we are already troubled by our own overwhelming population. Under the circumstances how is it that we are making Indian citizenship so ridiculously cheap? There is no other word for it.
As I have already pointed out, one of the sub-clauses says anybody who has chosen to stay in India for five years shall be a citizen of India. I had asked the Honourable Commerce Minister (when Mr. C. H. Bhabha was in charge) a question, when sitting in the other Chamber, as to whether there was any register of foreigners coming to India. He said “No”. I asked if there were any rules and regulations governing the entry into the country of people from foreign countries and he said there were none. I have no doubt the situation continues very much the same today. Such is the administration that we have. Is it then wise that we should throw open our citizenship so indiscriminately? I do not side any ground whatsoever that we should do it, unless it is the specious, oft-repeated and nauseating principle of secularity of the State. I think that we are going too far in this business of secularity.
Does it mean that we must wipe out our own people, that we must wipe them out in order to prove our secularity, that we must wipe out Hindus and Sikhs under the name of secularity, that we must undermine everything that is sacred and dear to the Indians to prove that we are secular? I do not think that that is the meaning of secularity and if that is the meaning which people want to attach to that word “a secular state”. I am sure the popularity of those who take that view will not last long in India. I submit therefore that this article is unsatisfactory and worthy of being discarded as we did the previous article, because there is nothing that is right in it. If really we want a tentative definition we can have it from other people, who are probably wiser than us and that should be quite enough for us. That is one of the definitions that I have proposed in, my amendment No. 164, viz.,
“Every person residing in India—
(a) who is born of Indian parents; or
(b) who is naturalised under the law of naturalisation…”
I do not mind if it is left to Parliament to debate the whole question of the citizenship of India. But for the present this very short and brief definition may be absolutely sufficient and that is my contention and my submission to the House. It must be made clear that citizenship shall be primarily obtainable by a person who is born of Indian parents and I do not exclude even those who had been in India previously, provided the requirement of domicile is satisfied. If they are resident here in this country, or if they have not claimed citizenship of any other country or if they are born of Indian parents they shall be entitled to citizenship of India. So far as other persons are concerned, there will be the law of naturalisation which would make detailed provisions. We can lay down the business, the purposes for which or the way in which a person who claims Indian citizenship chooses to live in India.
There would be ample time for the Parliament to debate this question and to lay down the principles. But if you are going to have this definition at this moment you are going to tie your hands, you are going to tie the hands of Parliament from interfering later. Will you then have the courage to deprive them of citizenship, the hundreds and thousands of them who have had it under the Constitution? It is impossible, it is quite improbable and no Parliament in India is going to take such a drastic step as to correct the foolishness that we are complacently committing today. I do not think any Parliament will be able to do it. Therefore I do not like citizenship to be made so cheap or so easily obtainable, because once you do it in this Constitution it will be very difficult for you to go back on it.
And then, this is not a definition in an Act of Parliament that is easily changeable. So, if by the Constitution you are going to give this right of citizenship in the way proposed in this article, you cannot change it later on and this will go against the interests of the Indian nation. So I have proposed that the circumstances and conditions of naturalisation should be left to be decided later on. Nothing need be done on this question by the Constituent Assembly at this stage.
Every condition and every circumstance, which we are convinced should be laid down and satisfied for the conferment of citizenship right on an individual, should come into play when we pass the Naturalisation Act in Parliament. We should not lay down some conditions here in the Constitution and some conditions elsewhere for the grant of citizenship tights. The fact that a person is born in India should not be sufficient ground for the grant of citizenship, nor should five years’ residence be sufficient. I say that we should leave all these things for the Parliament to lay down. We should merely say here that every person residing in India who is naturalised under the Law of Naturalisation will be a citizen of India.
In the second sub-clause I have proposed, I want to make a provision that every person who is a Hindu or a Sikh and is not a citizen of any other State shall be entitled to be a citizen of India. We have seen the formation and establishment of Pakistan. Why was it established? It was established because the Muslims claimed that they must have a home of their own and a country of their own.
Here we are an entire nation with a history of thousands of years and we are going to discard it, in spite of the fact that neither the Hindu nor the Sikh has any other place in the wide world to go to. By the mere fact that he is a Hindu or a Sikh, he should get Indian citizenship because it is this one circumstance that makes him disliked by others. But we are a secular State and do not want to recognise the fact that every Hindu or Sikh in any part of the world should have a home of his own. If the Muslims want an exclusive place for themselves called Pakistan, why should not Hindus and Sikhs have India as their home?
We are not debarring others from getting citizenship here. We merely say that we have no other country to look to for acquiring citizenship rights and therefore we the Hindus and the Sikhs, so long as we follow the respective religions, should have the right of citizenship in India and should be entitled to retain such citizenship so long as we acquire no other. I do not think this claim is in any way non-secular or sectarian, or communal. If anybody says so, he is, to say the least, mistaken. I think my description (amendment) covers every possible case.
The only thing we are agitated about is that our people, thinking that Pakistan would be a happy country, went there and came back. Why should we recognise them by means of this or that provision in the Constitution? Because nothing of the sort is necessary. So long as they are resident in India when the Constitution is promulgated and they are born of Indian parents, they should be entitled to citizenship rights without any fresh registration or evidence. That is what is contemplated in my definition. I hope the House will accept it.
This is part of ThePrint’s Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.