By: Narayanan Komerath
January 28, 2005

“The government has decided to offer dual citizenship to all overseas Indians who migrated from the country after January 26, 1950, as long as their home countries allow dual citizenship under their law”. Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh quoted in the Deccan Herald[i], January 8, 2005.

“Singh said: ‘‘your impatience at our bureaucratic ways is understandable.’’ The PM then announced the decision to ‘‘give substance to the long-standing demand of dual citizenship, without further loss of time. I am painfully aware it was promised earlier. I regret that little has happened.’’ – The Indian Express[ii], January 8, 2005.

“Overseas Citizenship is not Dual Nationality: It may kindly be noted that Overseas Citizenship is not a full citizenship of India and, therefore, does not amount to dual citizenship or dual nationality.” Indian Consulate-General website in New York[iii], January 8, 2005:

Huh?  Whom should I believe? Are the poojya baboojis of Bharat Sarkar  calling the poojya Pradhan Mantriji a liar and a flimflam artist? And are they right?  

I have been crossing international borders since Age 0.25, and write this with a deep sense of regret – it violates my parents’ long-held rule, not to sit outside India and criticize the Govt. of India, as long as it is freely elected by the people. I didn’t quite understand that when I was a 3-month-old bawling at the long weary lines in those hot, dusty Customs& Immigration sheds trudging through the long ordeal of harassment and humiliation by those officious goons in the white uniforms, but I did understand later. I hope that by the time this article appears, or perhaps soon thereafter, its purpose will be achieved. That purpose is clarification, openness, and evidence of good thinking, behind the move to grant Indian citizens the right to dual citizenship – or whatever they are really planning.  

You’ve almost never heard it phrased in those terms. All we hear about is how “PIOs” (Persons of Indian Origin) are to be allowed Indian citizenship or “overseas (non) citizenship”. But there is another category of humans out there. They are Indians, by citizenship, by identity, and by choice. Who looks out for them? Certainly not the Poojya Mantris or the Poojya Babus, if I am to go by what I read. Nor the Poojya Billionaire Desis at the Party for Billionaire Desis (PBD) week this January, where the PM made yet another confusing speech about Dual Citizenship – for the third year in a row.

In December 2003, the Indian Parliament passed a Bill[iv] modifying the Citizenship Act of 1955. It said that applications for Indian “Overseas Citizenship” would be accepted from citizens of 16 selected countries. Three categories of people could apply. Under Clause 7A1(a), people who were already citizens of any of those 16 countries could apply, provided they were persons of Indian origin. Under clause 7A1(c), children of such people could also apply. Makes sense.  Under clause 7b, people who were Indian citizens as of the passage of the Bill (December 2003) and then became citizens of one of those 16 countries could apply. Why the need to distinguish “7A(1)(a)” from “7A(1)(b)”?  

Because the Bill made a very very important statement, as Clause 9. I quote 4:

“9. In section 9 of the principal Act, —
(a) in sub-section (1), after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted,
namely: —
"Provided further that after the commencement of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2003, any citizen of India who voluntarily acquires the
citizenship of a specified country shall not cease to be a citizen of India, if within six months thereof he makes an application for registration as an overseas citizen of India under sub-section (1) of section 7A, until such application is disposed of by the Central Government.";
(b) in sub-section (2) for the word "person", the words "citizen of India" shall be
substituted.” 

A very little thing for the PBD, but it makes all the difference in the world to some of the rest of us. Let me try to explain that. Suppose my dear friend Mariamma Bubba Abdul Ram Singh Jain, were proud holder of the Navy-Blue Passport with the cool Three Lions and the Ashoka Chakra and “Satyam Eva Jayate” on January 1, 2004. Suppose, in addition, that she had been, say, a Permanent Resident of the USA (as one of those 16 countries) for 20-odd years, braving all pressures to become a US citizen, passing up all those “citizens only” opportunities – because she did not want to lose her Indian citizenship. Suppose she saw that this wonderful Bill had been passed, and that President Kalam had signed off on it – and the Indian Embassy site promised to have the procedures all ready in 6 months. And she finally took that plunge and applied for US citizenship. That Clause 9 says that when Mariamma gets US citizenship, all she has to do is to send in a short application with her Indian passport to the desi Consulate, saying, “Hi! I have become a US citizen – here’s proof. Please endorse my Indian passport with the “OIC” stamp.  That should take all of 2 minutes for ordinary offices – and hence within about 3 months, Mariamma should have her passport back. Simple. The law also made it clear that until Mariamma became an OIC, she continued to hold her standard Indian passport – and it was perfectly valid as long as she had submitted an application for the OIC within 6 months of getting the other citizenship. Under this scheme, Mariamma may eventually have been able to reconcile herself to the fact that she could not become President of the US (because she wasn’t born in the US) nor Rail Mantri of India - because the “OIC” was to be denied the right to vote or stand for elections in India.   

I went to the Indian Embassy website for help. They were very helpful. Apart from the note listed at the top of this article³, they also pointed me to the authoritative source – the Ministry of Home Affairs, “Foreigners Division” [v] (I love that Pravasi-friendly attitude coming through already). Where one can admire the might of the new “IT” superpower – a web page with frames and all – ready and waiting for some intelligence to arrive and actually put in some content. 

“This site facilitates an understanding of the provisions of the Act, and the prescribed procedures.”

It facilitates all right: it gives a mailing address.  It gives a Synopsis of the Act, leaving out the parts like Section 9. Perhaps the Babus didn’t read it? Perhaps they care only about “foreigners” and Mariamma is only an Indian?

But what does the Ministry website⁵ actually say?   Mariamma is in for a shock. Firstly, that “6months” promised in January 2004 has now gone beyond 13 – with no end in sight. Not surprising, given who we’re taking about. But it appears that the promise of Clause 9 has been entirely forgotten.  I looked at the forms for applicants under Section 7(a) and 7(b) for Overseas Indian (non) citizenship (OINC).  They are the same.  It gets worse. Lets look at what the baboos want to know about Mariamma when she “applies” again[vi].

“The reason for acquiring present citizenship

“Whether the applicant sought asylum before applying for present citizenship”

Description of immovable property and/or business interests in India/abroad

Details of family members who are staying in India

Details of members of family living in a country other than India

Give details of proceedings of any kind (civil or criminal) taken against you in courts

Names and addresses of two references in India to whom the applicant is well known” 

Mariamma is a proud holder of a valid Indian passport. The Parliament of India guaranteed that she would continue to be an Indian citizen if she became a citizen of one of those 16 countries after Dec. 2003. Why does she need “two references in India” to “become” an Indian citizen? Why is it any business of the officious Baboos what property she owns in India or the Moon? Or how old her relatives in India or anywhere else are? Doesn’t this have “basksheesh” written all over it in neon letters? 

Of course, Mariamma should be so happy to read this:  

“Every person who is registered as an overseas citizen of India under Section 7A(1) shall be issued a certificate of registration in Form XX, duly signed by an officer not below the rank of an Under Secretary to the Government of India and where such a certificate is issued, a duplicate copy thereof shall be prepared and preserved for record by the issuing authority.” 

Oooo! A CERTIFICATE! Signed by a Sarkari Apshar NOT BELOW an UNDER SECRETARY onlee!  Is this what PM Man Mohan Singh calls “simplification” where 3 forms are reduced to one form? Simplification for whom? Silly me – the Baboos of course, not for Indian Citizen Mariamma!  

This “simplification” reminds me of the story of the Engineer and the Mathematician, asked to make coffee.  The engineer took an empty kettle from the rack, poured water in it, turned on the stove and boiled the water, then put coffee powder, sugar and milk in two cups, and filled each cup with boiling water. He then gave the kettle with boiling water to the Mathematician, just to be helpful. The Mathematician poured out the water, and put the kettle back on the rack. He said: “The rest of the problem has been solved previously. Simple”.   

So now, Mariamma has to lose her Indian citizenship, then send in an application and wait for some Baboo (NOT BELOW Undersecretary Rank!)  in Mumbai to decide whether she can be allowed to become an Indian. And wait “four months” (yeah, sure, sure.. how many months did it take the desi system to rule on the Ayodhya land-grab case? 636 and counting?) In the meantime, if her mother falls ill and she must return to India in a hurry, well… she’s out of luck. She can apply for a visa. And maybe the Baboos will decide that the amount of immovable property she owns is inadequate to move their own immovable fundaments and approve her application.

Who told the Baboos that they could take away Mariamma’s citizenship, which was guaranteed by Parliament? Why are they so keen to rid Mariamma of her Indian citizenship? Were they just too lazy to read the law and make another form? For the PM’s and Baboos’ kind consideration, I have attached a suggested replacement for Form XIX⁶ below. That’s what I call “simple and adequate”.

What is now being discussed by the GOI is simply the Indian equivalent of the American Permanent Resident (“Green”) card. They can call it the Red Card – or the Saffron Card, but maybe it’s more honest to call it the Gold Card, reflecting the real intentions. Prime Minister MMS has a name for it, consistent with India’s “Shining IT Superpower” status: The Smart Card. As in “Don’t Leave Bilayat Without It”?  He announced this with all due fanfare at the latest PBD. The assembled PBDs no doubt were mightily thrilled – another card!  

This brings up another issue. If its not dual citizenship, and if it is just a Gold Card, why does it matter whether the other country allows dual citizenship? The US didn’t ask GOI’s opinion before making Mariamma a Permanent Resident of the US, so why should India ask, say, the Phillippines before making one of their citizens a Permanent Resident in India? So the statements emanating from all sorts of openings in the GOI are utterly contradictory and appear designed to confuse and obfuscate. The only people REALLY hurt by this are people like Mariamma. Indians.  

Shri Bhanoji Rao[vii] gave the best description of the issue I’ve seen from the Indian citizen’s point of view. “when a high authority in a foreign country asked me point-blank why I did not take his country's citizenship despite my close association with and love for that nation, I shot back: "Excellency, the fact that I love my adopted mother does not mean I give up my own mother" and I was immensely pleased when the other party expressed respect for my sentiment.” That’s right. People of substance usually do recognize that feeling. Mariamma would, I’m sure. Parliament did. But would the baboos? 

How does the Govt. of India view the value of Indian citizenship? How does that compare to what other countries do, and why is that?  I know something about the US, where I live. The US grants citizenship to people who have been permanent residents for over 5 years and are not members of the Al Qaida etc. (in which case they get “permanent residence” in sunny Guantanamo).  The form asks your name, where you lived the past 5 years, some identifying info such as Social Security number and date of birth, all crimes of which you have been accused/convicted, and what criminal / terrorist / communist organizations you belong to. Once you are a US citizen, they don’t care what other citizenship you hold – all that is secondary. Your US citizenship is primary. They don’t care if you vote in India or anywhere else – they do encourage you to vote, and otherwise participate in the policy process in the US. You can’t become President. Other nations that permit dual citizenship all share that common feature – they proudly regard their own citizenship as primary.  

The Australian version[viii]: "Will I lose my Australian citizenship if I acquire the citizenship of another country?   If you acquired another citizenship on or after 4 April 2002, you will not lose your Australian citizenship. The Australian Citizenship Act 1948 was amended so that from 4 April 2002 Australian citizens can acquire the citizenship of another country without losing their Australian citizenship." 

The same with Israel – though of course there are some religious caveats there. Tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of US citizens are also Israeli citizens, for instance – and they wield enormous power to ensure US-Israel friendship.  Here’s Canada’s version[ix]: “the current Citizenship Act allows Canadian citizens to acquire a foreign nationality without automatically losing their Canadian citizenship. Since February 15, 1977, a Canadian citizen who acquires another nationality may retain Canadian citizenship, unless he or she voluntarily applies to renounce it and the application is approved by a citizenship judge. The current act thus makes it possible to have two or more citizenships and allegiances at the same time for an indefinite period.”

Now for Finland. Not exactly an “IT Superpower” like Bharat – but their Embassy website in Romania[x] has a blue background like our “Foreigners Division” site – and it actually has some information there, which ours does not. “The most important change will be that dual (multiple) citizenship will become acceptable. Finnish citizens will no longer lose their Finnish citizenship when they assume another citizenship. Similarly, foreign citizens who are granted Finnish citizenship will not need to give up their present citizenship. The laws in the other state in question must permit dual (multiple) citizenship before the acquisition of a second (additional) citizenship. Finnish citizens may retain their Finnish citizenship if the state whose citizenship they have assumed permits that.”

Here’s the Phillippines ⁷: “the Republic Act No. 9225 ..took effect on September 17, 2003. …former natural-born Filipino citizens who acquired foreign citizenship through naturalisation are deemed not to have lost their Philippines citizenship under conditions provided” in the Act.

That’s a bit extreme for a lot of desi super-patriots to stomach. It brings about all the insecurities about Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc. etc. So lets move on.. 

Here’s Bilayat law[xi] (which I thought might be closest to our Baboos’ hearts): “When the British Nationality Act 1948 came into effect on 1 January 1949, citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies who subsequently became naturalised citizens of other countries no longer automatically lost their British nationality. Since that date, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who became naturalised citizens of a foreign state retained their status as British subjects, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, unless they made a formal declaration of renunciation in front of a British Consul or other British official authorised to accept such declarations. A declaration made before a foreign official for the purpose of acquiring another nationality or for any other purpose did not affect the position in United Kingdom law.” 

The common factor in all these is that these nations are proud of their citizenship. They regard that as PRIMARY. Not so the Government of  India and its Baboocracy. The GOI says that your OTHER citizenship is primary, and your Indian citizenship is secondary, whether you were Indian or not. Why this sepoy-coolie slave mentality?  

The creators of such rules probably believe that they are doing a great service by keeping foreign traitors from voting, etc. in India. They have lots of supporters, ranging from the “Brasht” superstition where anyone who crossed the seas was excommunicated and banned (as the late lamented Shri Sankararaman is said to have warned the Sankaracharya of Kancheepuram) to today’s versions such as Bhaskar Ghorpade[xii] who declares that “nor do they have any modicum of Indianness in them having lived abroad for years” (unlike the person who headed the panel selecting prize-winners at the PBD, and his co-Editors of the Indian English Language Media who lapped at General Musharraf’s heels in Agra, 2000).  

Ever wonder why self-confident nations such as the US and the Phillippines don’t care about such petty stuff? Its because its none of the business of those deciding citizenship. Voting rights are based on residency – and by all means, I would support that. Want to register to vote in, say, Rae Bareili? Prove that you are a Rae Bareili resident who knows what its like to not have running water in the village after 58 years of “Independence” and electing Prime Ministers.  

Government and Defense jobs? Information is classified as secret, etc. or is unclassified. Even in unclassified information, there is such a thing as a Confidentiality agreement. I agree that people who hold other citizenships should not have access to Classified information except as very specially released to them on a need-to-know basis. Jobs where this poses a huge problem should obviously not be given to such people  - but that is no business of the baboos deciding on Form XIX.  

Taxation? The US taxes worldwide income, but gives you a tax credit on what you pay as tax to any other country. The simple thing for India to do is to tax Indian-source income. The PBDs might yell – but the fact is that if they are obeying the rules of, say, the US, its simply a choice of whether to pay the tax to India or the US – or be a scofflaw. There’s no such thing as legally tax-free in a democracy. Here’s how France, a nation well known for their national pride and for missing no chance to say “boo” to American Presidents, handles this[xiii]:

“A green card holder or a dual citizen (French and American) who receives a French public remuneration is taxable in France and in the United States. The double taxation is eliminated with a tax credit on US side (foreign tax credit): the tax paid in France is deducted from the US income tax.” 

Property rights? That comes with Indian citizenship. So – let me suggest true simplification of the Dual Citizenship rules:  

1.      Publish the law as passed by Parliament, in full on the Home Ministry website, and not just “synopses” which omit crucial features. Take authority away from the Foreigners Division. Mariamma is not a Foreigner, and someone who understands the word “loyalty” should protect her interests.

2.      Implement orders that are completely in line with what Parliament passed.

3.      Hire an 8^th-grader to implement it, so that it actually gets done, including those web pages. It doesn’t take 14 months to make a couple of forms – unless you are out to make a complete mess of it as the GOI has done so far.

4.      Reassure holders of Indian passports that they are NOT going to lose Indian citizenship for an instant just because they follow the law and become citizens of one of those 16 countries.

5.      Then go on with extending the same to other countries, on a country-by-country basis. This may take a couple of weeks of careful effort for most of us – so the GOI should be able to get that done too in six months.

6.      Decouple the issue of voting rights from the citizenship issue by asking local panchayats to check residence status before issuing voter registrations. If we ever get to the point of enabling citizens to vote in absentia through the Internet – well, then we’ll let everyone vote.

7.      Decouple the taxation issue by making Indian-source income subject to Indian taxes – and worldwide income taxable in India for residents beyond 7 years of residence. Indians do not owe tax-free capital gains to anyone – not even their own Mantris and Baboos.  

That makes all the difference in the world to some people who just value Indian citizenship and the Three Lions and the Ashoka Chakra on the blue passport, far more than some "Right to Speculate on Agricultural Real Estate Prices" etc. A Smart Card featuring the mugs of the Teen Murtis - MMS, Sonia and Laloo - just ain't the same thing, you know. Not even if they put Laloo on a hologram. 

Most of all, please get someone to read and explain, real slowly, what it says on the bottom of the 3-lion seal, to the Mantris and Baboos:  

“Satyam Eva Jayate”. 

Postscript: Here’s a statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs website[xiv], January 27, 2005

“Registration of overseas citizens of India (Section 7 A) THE OVERSEAS INDIAN CITIZENSHIP (OIC) SCHEME HAS BEEN PUT ON HOLD TILL FURTHER ORDERS. NO APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT OF OIC MAY BE FILED. REVISED PROCEDURE AND FORMS SHALL BE POSTED IN DUE COURSE.” 

Ah! What was it that the Poojya Pradhan Mantri said? It’s my impatience that’s the problem.