Is India open to the idea of dual citizenship?

Do you think dual citizenship for diasporic Indians could become a reality?

Vivek Katju: First, let me distinguish between NRIs living abroad and People of Indian Origin (PIO). NRIs, or Non-Resident Indians, are Indian nationals who hold Indian passports. They have all the rights that accrue to Indian nationals. The only thing they cannot exercise abroad is the right to vote, though I believe arrangements were made at some stage for NRIs to register themselves in the missions so they could vote in their place of residence. PIOs are not Indian nationals, quite clearly, and therefore they do not have political rights. At one stage, the government had given expanded economic facilities to PIOs, and later, what was called a PIO card was converted into an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card. Now, I never understood the reason for this change in designation, as the OCI card does not confer on any person of Indian origin, any additional facilities, or any rights which the PIO card did not already possess. Citizenship essentially has political attributes. If you are a citizen, you have the full right to participate in the political process of the country. A non-citizen does not have that right. So, the word “citizen” is extremely confusing and, in my opinion, it should be avoided as it creates a misleading impression.

Minister Jaishankar’s remarks have opened up an issue that has unresolved contours. Professor Mattoo, what are your thoughts about granting dual citizenship rights to people of Indian origin living abroad?

Amitabh Mattoo: I think Mr. Jaishankar must have made an off-the-cuff remark. It cannot be a serious question to be debated at this point in India that certain people or a class of people who are no longer Indian citizens, or who either gave up Indian citizenship or never were Indian citizens, will be given additional citizenship of India. If you look back at the Constitution of India, Part II deals with this section on citizenship. Article 5 of the Constitution defines who is a citizen of India, either by birth, by parentage, or by acquiring it after having remained a resident in India. There is also a distinction between being a domicile and being a citizen. You may be domiciled in India and yet not be a citizen. This was determined by the Supreme Court in D.P. Joshi v State of Madhya Bharat in 1955. The only major amendment to the Citizenship Act came in 2019, with the Citizenship Amendment Act. Then there was a fast-track process for minorities from certain neighbourhood countries to be allowed to take Indian citizenship. I don’t think it can really be a serious, substantive question to allow people to have citizenship of both India and another country because that would confer political rights. In other words, citizens of the U.S., U.K., or Australia, for example, would not only have political loyalty to those countries but also the right to vote in India. That, frankly, for me is an extremely dangerous idea. As an Indian citizen, I would not be willing to give political rights to anyone with divided loyalties. Because after all, dual citizenship means that you have divided loyalties.

We are not ready to have dual citizenship in this country after just 75 years. I am not xenophobic, I am a person who has grown up with an idea of global citizenship in a larger sense. But in terms of which political dispensation will govern India, I am not willing to share that right with anyone who has but 100% political loyalty to India. Personally, I had the option of acquiring Australian citizenship, and the only reason I did not take it was that it would mean relinquishing Indian citizenship.

The incoming Trump presidency has several Indian-origin people, as well as first-generation Indian immigrants, who will hold public office. Do you think that for certain communities and certain kinds of workers who are employable globally, the idea of citizenship requires some degree of flexibility?

Vivek Katju: No. You cannot have divided loyalties. You are either a citizen of India, which is in full rights, political rights, economic rights, etc, or you are not.

You mentioned that in the U.S., there are people of Indian origin who are holding, who have, and who will be holding the office. I think six persons of Indian origin have been elected to the House of Representatives this time. Let us not forget that they are American citizens. The Indian systems and law demand that the moment you acquire the nationality of another country, you relinquish India’s nationality, which means that you do not have political rights anymore.

I believe it is the democratic right of every Indian to choose the citizenship of another country and relinquish Indian citizenship. But they cannot say I will acquire the citizenship of another country, participate in its political process, and still hold on to political rights in India. Now I know that some other countries allow that, but I must confess I have very orthodox views on this. The international system is a system of states.

Amitabh Mattoo: I completely endorse Mr. Katju’s remarks. We cannot, for the sake of populism or to attract foreign investment, create what the Marxists used to call a “comprador” class — a class of people who will act as foreign agents in India. You give them the right to vote and to elect members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, that is a sure way of recolonising India.

But if you open this Pandora’s box by allowing even a single citizen of another country to have dual citizenship in India, it would be deeply dangerous and subversive. There are situations where people who have decided to make India their home have relinquished earlier citizenship and become citizens of India. Mirra Alfassa, known as The Mother, whose work inspired many and who founded the Aurobindo Ashram in Puducherry, became an Indian citizen despite earlier campaigning for dual citizenship. Similarly, Mother Teresa became an Indian citizen, and economist Jean Drèze, I believe, relinquished his Belgian citizenship and became an Indian citizen. In the U.S., which might seem more flexible, the fact is that you cannot become a President unless you are born in the territory of the U.S. Even Elon Musk, despite all his championing of Donald Trump, can never aspire to be President because he was born in South Africa. So, some laws are much more rigid.

Is the issue being propped by populism?

Amitabh Mattoo: I hope not, because I have great regard for the External Affairs Minister, so I am sure he is not doing it for populist reasons. The diaspora has a great role to play but not as dual citizens. You have the diaspora playing a role in cementing bilateral relations with the U.S. The hugely successful Indian diaspora in the U.S. often acts as a rallying point for leaders’ visits there, and similarly in other countries. The first Indian diaspora of indentured labourer that went into the Caribbean may not have been as successful in material terms as this new wave of diaspora. But, as I said, they can cement bilateral ties and help attract investment from abroad.

As in the case of Microsoft, Satya Nadella has promised investment in artificial intelligence. That is all for the good of the nation. However, the question really is whether this diaspora could become a Frankenstein monster. While its role may appear benign and a source of great good, you may suddenly empower it to the point where it decides who is going to be your next leader. That is where I think there has to be a lakshman rekha. You need to maintain a clear line between the useful role played by the diaspora and its crossing the boundaries. I am not willing to let any Satya Nadella or Vivek Ramaswamy or any person of Indian origin who may just acquire Indian citizenship for instrumental reasons while retaining their American or other citizenship decide my political future. I am an Indian citizen, and I vote for my future along with other Indian citizens who do not have any other loyalties to any other country.

Listen to the conversation in The Hindu Parley podcast