Between the principle and its practice falls the shadow. This is we would sum the entire debate on the question of disallowing Indians of foreign origin to aspire for constitutional posts. The issue was pushed to the limit of a controversy in the face of Sonia Gandhi emerging as a possible candidate for the country’s top job – the Prime Ministership. The IFP has gone into this debate many times before but we are provoked into entering it again by the recent twist given to the controversy, with some even arguing that Sonia Gandhi’s children should also be debarred from similar ambitions. This, we feel is a little too ridiculous, and we even go to the extent that the disgust such wild charges produce, may in the end prove counter productive in the election arena for those making it. We have nothing for or against the subjects of these charges, but argue only on the principles involved. We start with some rhetorical question before going into the substance of the issue. As for instance, where would those who are for debarring naturalized citizens and their children from holding public and constitutional offices place the Anglo India community? Again after the partition of India, and the colossal human tragedy that followed, an unprecedented population shifts took place. The provision in the constitution for giving full Indian citizenship by naturalization had, constitutional history tells, the interest of these refugees as its central concern. But are those thus naturalized special? If not, the former Deputy Prime Minister, LK Advani, may also come under the purview of the present election inspired call for censure. (Pakistan President, Parvez Musharraf, we are told, is also incidentally from Old Delhi’s commercial street, Darya Ganj). What about the Sikkimese who became Indian only after 1975? Is their pre-1975 alien history to be automatically erased?

If the constitution considers these naturalized citizens as equal Indians, entitled to all the privileges and benefits of an Indian citizen, why are some, including the former Lok Sabha Speaker, Purno A Sangma, trying to give the issue an unconstitutional interpretation? Is Indian citizenship calibrated and hierarchic? Are there to be Class 1 and 2 citizens? There seems to be many who believe this should be so. Who then would be the Class 1 citizens? There seems already to be a silent answer to this last question, particularly in the context of the Hindutva upsurge. An article in the “Dialogue” a quarterly journal brought out by a New Delhi based group called “Ashtha Bharati”, by a former commissioner of the Civil Aviation Securities, JN Roy, IPS (retd), threw up an interesting idea relevant to the present debate although the article was about something else. He said it is time for Hindutva to mellow down and give way to Indutva. We too believe that the definition of an Indian should be secular and based on value neutral texts, and what can be better for this purpose than the constitution.

Let Sonia Gandhi and her children be rejected by the electorate if they must, but where is the need or legitimacy for politicians to erect extra constitutional barriers before them. Leave the field open for all citizen just as in so many other countries with a liberal tradition. Let the politicians not undermine the wishes or the intelligence of their electorates. The minute this idea of a calibrated Indian citizenship comes up, the picture evoked is also of the sense of alienation of the northeast. When the Indian identity becomes an exclusive cultural, racial identity there will automatically be chasms between those belonging to this culture and those outside it. In a vast, multi-ethnic, multilingual country like India, the ramifications of such an attitude can only be imagined. No offence meant, but allow us to put it in a language all will understand. Just as Sonia Gandhi, a Meitei or a Naga or a Kuki can never become a Mayang even if they agree to undergo the change, but they all can be proud Indians.