As a diplomat I have had postings overseas and have traveled the world. My passport described me as a citizen of the Republic of India, a rising power and representative of a great civilization. He has been a matter of pride for me. That’s why when the Ministry of External Affairs recently said that a passport is not proof of citizenship, I was confused. The government may have its own reasons, but for decades Indians have understood that a passport is the formal confirmation of their citizenship. The process of obtaining it is preceded by extensive tests. Applicants are required to submit documents, establish their identity, provide proof of residence and undergo police verification. A passport is issued not merely because a person wishes to travel abroad, but because the State is satisfied that the applicant is an Indian citizen. In fact, Section 6(2)(a) of the Passport Act clearly states that a passport can be issued only to a citizen of India. The emotional importance of this document was greater than its administrative utility. It represented a connection between the individual and the nation. For Indians traveling abroad, it was not just a booklet, but a declaration of identity and belonging. It is true that passports can also be obtained fraudulently by hiding facts, forging documents or giving false information about one’s identity. In such circumstances, the state has the full right to cancel the passport and prosecute the culprit. But on this basis the presumption that a valid passport issued under due process is proof of citizenship should not be rejected. Voter ID card can also be obtained fraudulently. Ration card can also be manipulated. Aadhaar card can also be misused. Property related documents can be forged. This question becomes more worrying in the context of the current state of documentation in India. Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship. Voter ID card is not proof of citizenship. Ration card is not proof of citizenship. Birth certificates are also often challenged on procedural grounds. Now if passport is also not the proof of citizenship, then the question arises what is the proof of citizenship? No modern nation can function on the basis of ambiguity. Citizenship is not an abstract thing, ultimately all constitutional rights are based on it. A person must be recognized as a citizen before he can exercise the right to vote, claim legal protection, receive government benefits, or enjoy the rights conferred by the Constitution. If no documentation conclusively establishes this position, the onus falls on the individual. Whereas the state itself should have certified the citizenship of the citizen through its institutions and documents, but instead the citizen is forced to prove again and again that he belongs to this country. When the state itself questions citizenship—despite issuing the documents that have traditionally certified it—the citizen is left in a state of uncertainty. He has documents, but not enough. He follows the procedures, but gets no certainty. If citizenship remains a matter of dispute, authorities have more power to ask for additional proof. Citizens become dependent on arbitrary interpretations and bureaucratic satisfaction. In many countries including the US, UK, Canada, Australia, passport is accepted as a strong proof of citizenship, because citizenship is verified before issuing it. The real solution lies in strengthening the verification process at the time of issuing documents, improving verification mechanisms, integration of various databases and imposing stricter penalties against fraud. Another question lies at the heart of this debate. In a democracy, should the citizen live with a preconceived notion of legitimacy or with doubt? If citizenship continues to be a matter of dispute, authorities have more power to demand additional proof. Citizens then become dependent on arbitrary interpretations and bureaucratic satisfaction. (These are the author’s own views)
Source link
Pawan K. Verma’s Column: Should citizens live in a circle of trust or suspicion?
