Citizenship has long been considered a foundational element of state sovereignty and individual identity. It grants rights, imposes duties, and fosters a sense of belonging to a nation. Over centuries, citizenship laws have evolved dramatically, reflecting shifting political landscapes, global conflicts, human rights movements, and the ever-pressing need for national security. Today, the world stands at a critical juncture: how can states protect their citizens while honouring the universal principles of human dignity and freedom?
Historical Foundations of Citizenship
In ancient civilizations, such as Greece and Rome, citizenship was a privilege reserved for a select few, conferring political rights, legal protections, and social status. It was deeply exclusionary: slaves, women, and foreigners were left out. The medieval period saw the rise of feudal allegiances rather than modern citizenship. It was only with the Enlightenment and revolutions in America and France that the concept of citizenship became linked to ideals of equality, rights, and participation in governance.
The 19th and early 20th centuries marked the formal codification of citizenship laws. Birthright citizenship (jus soli) and bloodline citizenship (jus sanguinis) became the primary legal mechanisms for determining nationality. However, these laws often mirrored prevailing prejudices, excluding certain ethnic and religious groups.
Citizenship in the Age of Global Conflict
World War I and World War II profoundly reshaped citizenship laws. The massive displacement of populations, the redrawing of borders, and the horrors of statelessness revealed the vulnerabilities of millions. In response, international instruments like the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) emphasized the right to nationality and protection from arbitrary deprivation of citizenship.
Simultaneously, concerns over national security intensified. During wartime, governments introduced restrictive measures, such as the internment of certain ethnic groups (e.g., Japanese Americans during WWII) and denaturalisation of “enemy aliens.” The post-war period continued to reflect this duality: while the world celebrated human rights, states fortified their control over who could belong.
Key Provisions of the Citizenship Act
The Citizenship Act has several key provisions that govern the acquisition, renunciation, and determination of Indian citizenship. Some of the most important provisions include:
1. Citizenship by Birth: A person born in India on or after January 26, 1950, is a citizen of India by birth if either of their parents is a citizen of India.
2. Citizenship by Descent: A person born outside India on or after January 26, 1950, is a citizen of India by descent if their father or mother is a citizen of India.
3. Citizenship by Registration: A person can acquire citizenship through registration if they are married to an Indian citizen, a minor child of Indian citizens, or a person of Indian origin.
4. Citizenship by Naturalization: A person can acquire citizenship through naturalization if they have resided in India for at least 12 years and meet certain other requirements.
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019 is a recent amendment to the Citizenship Act that has been the subject of significant controversy. The CAA provides an accelerated pathway to Indian citizenship for persecuted refugees of religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who arrived in India by 2014.
National Register of Citizens (NRC)
The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is a register of Indian citizens that has been implemented in the state of Assam. The NRC has been the subject of significant controversy, particularly in the context of the CAA.
Contemporary Shifts and Challenges
Today, globalisation, migration, and terrorism have made the question of citizenship even more complex.
- Migration: Mass migration has challenged traditional notions of national identity. Countries grapple with integrating migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers while maintaining social cohesion.
- Terrorism: In the wake of events like 9/11, some governments have adopted stricter citizenship policies. Laws enabling the revocation of citizenship for those involved in terrorism have sparked heated debates about due process and human rights.
- Statelessness: According to the UNHCR, millions of people remain stateless, lacking the basic protections afforded by citizenship. Groups such as the Rohingya in Myanmar and Dominicans of Haitian descent face systemic exclusion.
- Technological Surveillance: States increasingly use sophisticated technology to monitor populations, blurring the lines between security and privacy.
Balancing Act: Security vs. Rights
The tension between safeguarding national security and upholding human rights is not easily resolved.
- Revocation of Citizenship: Some countries, like the UK, have laws allowing the stripping of citizenship for those deemed a threat. Critics argue this creates “second-class” citizens and disproportionately affects minority groups. It also risks rendering individuals stateless, contrary to international law.
- Access to Citizenship: While some nations liberalize access to citizenship through naturalization or dual nationality, others tighten requirements, citing fears of divided loyalties. Policies like “citizenship by investment” also raise ethical concerns about wealth-driven belonging.
- Refugees and Asylum Seekers: States often invoke security justifications to limit the intake of refugees. However, international law obliges countries to protect individuals fleeing persecution. Striking the balance between thorough vetting and compassion is an ongoing challenge.
International Law and Safeguards
International conventions, like the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), set out principles to prevent arbitrary deprivation of citizenship and to protect the rights of individuals. Nonetheless, enforcement remains uneven. Political will, geopolitical interests, and domestic pressures often dictate how faithfully countries adhere to these norms.
Courts have played a crucial role in this balancing act. Judicial decisions in various countries have sometimes struck down citizenship laws or executive actions deemed discriminatory or violating due process.
Future Directions
Looking ahead, several trends are emerging:
- Global Citizenship Movements: There is a growing advocacy for recognizing “global citizenship,” emphasizing shared humanity over national divides.
- Flexible Citizenship Models: Some scholars propose more fluid, multi-layered forms of belonging that accommodate migration realities without rigid national categories.
- Technological Rights Management: As digital identity systems evolve, debates about “e-citizenship” and digital rights will intensify.
- Greater Accountability: Human rights organizations, international bodies, and civil society are increasingly demanding transparency and fairness in citizenship policies.
Conclusion
The evolution of citizenship laws mirrors humanity’s ongoing struggle to define belonging, community, and protection. While national security concerns are legitimate, they must not come at the cost of fundamental human rights. Citizenship should not be wielded as a tool of exclusion but should remain a bridge to equality, dignity, and participation. The challenge for the modern world is to ensure that the gatekeeping function of citizenship does not undermine the very values that make it meaningful.
CONTRIBUTED BY: TANISHA ARORA(INTERN)