Chapter 6 Citizenship

Introduction

Citizenship is defined as the status of being a full and equal member of a political community. In the contemporary world, this political community is primarily the state. States provide their members with a collective political identity, such as being Indian, Japanese, or German, and grant them certain rights. Citizens expect their state to provide rights, assistance, and protection, even when they are traveling abroad.

The significance of this 'full membership' status becomes evident when considering the situation of millions globally who are forced to live as refugees or illegal migrants because no state is willing to grant them citizenship. These individuals often lack guaranteed rights, live in insecure conditions, and may struggle to access basic services or legal employment. For them, achieving full membership in a state, ideally of their choice, is a critical goal, as seen in the struggles of groups like Palestinian refugees.

The specific rights granted to citizens can vary among states, but in most democratic countries, they include:

• Political rights: such as the right to vote and participate in the political process.
• Civil rights: such as freedom of speech or belief.
• Socio-economic rights: which may include rights to a minimum wage or education.

A fundamental aspect of citizenship is the guarantee of equality of rights and status for all members.

The rights citizens possess today have often been achieved through historical struggles. Early struggles in Europe aimed to assert rights against powerful monarchies. In colonial contexts, demands for equal citizenship were central to the fight for independence (e.g., French Revolution, anti-colonial movements in Asia/Africa, the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa). Struggles to achieve full membership and equal rights, challenging existing inequalities based on race, caste, gender, or other factors, continue in many parts of the world today (e.g., women's movements, Dalit movements).

Beyond the relationship between the state and its individual members, citizenship also involves relationships among citizens themselves. It implies certain obligations that citizens have towards each other and towards the community as a whole. These obligations extend beyond legal duties imposed by the state and include a moral responsibility to participate in and contribute to the shared life and well-being of the community.

To understand the concept of citizenship fully, it's important to examine instances where the accepted meaning of 'full and equal membership' is questioned by groups who feel their needs and aspirations are not being adequately addressed.

Full And Equal Membership

The concept of 'full and equal membership' of a political community is not always straightforward in practice. In situations where resources or opportunities are limited (e.g., jobs, healthcare, education, land, water), a division can sometimes emerge between 'insiders' (existing residents/citizens) and 'outsiders' (migrants, even if fellow citizens), with demands to restrict access for outsiders.

This raises crucial questions about what 'full and equal membership' truly entails:

• Does it mean that citizens should enjoy equal rights and opportunities regardless of where they choose to live, study, or work within the country?
• Does it imply that all citizens, regardless of their socio-economic status, should have access to certain basic rights and facilities?

One key right associated with citizenship in many countries is freedom of movement. This is particularly important for workers who migrate within the country in search of jobs where opportunities are available. Markets for skilled and unskilled labor develop in various regions, attracting workers from different parts of the country (e.g., IT workers to Bangalore, nurses from Kerala across India, construction workers to booming cities). However, this movement can sometimes lead to resistance from local populations who resent competition for jobs, especially if migrants accept lower wages. Demands may arise to restrict certain jobs to locals or those who know the local language. Such resistance can even escalate to organized violence against 'outsiders', a phenomenon observed in different regions of India and the world.

These movements raise questions about the extent of the right to freedom of movement: Does it include the absolute right to live or work in any part of the country? Should local residents have preference for jobs and facilities? Should states be allowed to impose quotas restricting access for non-residents to educational institutions?

Another complexity arises in distinguishing responses to different types of migrants. There might be differences in how local populations welcome poor or unskilled migrants compared to skilled and affluent ones. This prompts the question: Should poor and unskilled workers have the same right to live and work anywhere in the country as skilled workers? These are challenging issues currently debated in India regarding the practical application of 'full and equal membership' for all citizens.

Disputes over these issues can arise even in democratic societies. Resolving such disputes requires negotiation and discussion rather than resorting to force. The right to protest, a fundamental aspect of freedom of expression in India's Constitution, allows citizens to influence public opinion and government policy through peaceful means (forming groups, demonstrations, using media, appealing to parties or courts), provided such protests do not harm others or the state. While resolving disputes may be slow, keeping the guiding principle of providing full and equal membership to all citizens in mind is essential for finding acceptable solutions. Settling disputes through negotiation and discussion is a key obligation of democratic citizenship.

Equal Rights

Another critical aspect of citizenship concerns whether 'full and equal membership' means that all citizens, irrespective of their economic status (rich or poor), should be guaranteed certain basic rights and a minimum standard of living by the state. The issue of the urban poor serves as an example of this challenge.

Large populations of slum-dwellers and squatters exist in cities across India. They perform essential labor, often at low wages, contributing significantly to the urban economy. Yet, they are frequently viewed negatively by other residents, sometimes blamed for straining city resources or associated with crime and disease. Their living conditions are often dire, lacking basic facilities like sanitation, running water, or security for life and property.

Despite their contributions, these urban poor may face significant challenges in exercising basic rights. Even a political right like the right to vote can be difficult to exercise, as requiring a fixed address for voter registration may exclude squatters or pavement dwellers. However, awareness of the conditions of the urban poor is growing, and they are increasingly organizing to demand their rights.

Recognizing the plight of the urban poor, governments and NGOs are working on solutions. A national policy on urban street vendors in India, for instance, was aimed at recognizing and regulating their profession to reduce harassment while ensuring compliance with rules. Slum-dwellers have organized themselves, demanding rights and sometimes approaching courts.

The judiciary has played a role in interpreting existing rights to benefit marginalized groups. In a case regarding slum-dwellers in Mumbai (Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985), the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to life (Article 21) includes the right to livelihood. The Court ruled that pavement dwellers could not be evicted without being provided alternative accommodation, linking the right to life to the right to shelter and livelihood.

Beyond the urban poor, other groups like tribal people and forest dwellers face marginalization. Their way of life depends on access to forests and natural resources, threatened by population pressure, demand for land/resources, commercial interests (mining, tourism), and development projects. Protecting these groups and their habitat while pursuing national development is a complex issue affecting all citizens.

Ensuring equal rights and opportunities for all citizens is challenging. Different groups have varied needs, and the rights/claims of one group may conflict with those of another. Equal rights do not necessarily mean uniform policies for everyone; differing needs must be considered to make people more equal. If the goal is to enhance equality, different needs and claims must inform policymaking.

Changes in global, economic, and social contexts necessitate new interpretations of citizenship. Formal laws are a starting point, but their interpretation evolves. While answers are complex, 'equal citizenship' implies guiding government policy towards providing equal rights and protection to all citizens.

Swaraj

Swaraj is a concept from Indian political thought analogous to freedom, meaning 'self-rule' (rule of the self and rule over self). In the context of India's freedom struggle, it was a demand for political independence and a value for social and collective self-governance. Gandhiji emphasized 'rule over the self' as true Swaraj, implying liberation, self-respect, self-responsibility, and self-realization free from dehumanizing institutions. Understanding the 'Self' and its relation to community is crucial for Swaraj, which aims for individual and collective potential guided by justice.

The Sources Of Constraints

Constraints on freedom and equality can arise from various sources, including domination, external controls, and social inequalities based on factors like race, caste, religion, or gender. Systems like apartheid or the caste system impose limits on individuals' rights and opportunities based on their social position or group identity. These constraints prevent individuals from enjoying full and equal membership in society and developing their potential.

The concept of 'full and equal membership' is constantly being debated and expanded to address inequalities and constraints faced by different groups, aiming to ensure that all citizens are genuinely treated as equal members of the political community.

Universal Citizenship

When considering refugees or illegal migrants, we often picture people displaced by war, persecution, famine, or seeking better opportunities, often trying to enter countries illegally. Examples include refugees in Sudan, Palestinians, or migrants in Europe/America. These are people who have been forced to leave their homes and often live without state protection.

While ideally, everyone living and working in a country should have access to citizenship, and many states support universal citizenship, each state sets specific criteria for granting citizenship in its constitution and laws. States have the power to regulate entry and deny citizenship.

Despite restrictions and border controls, significant migration occurs. People displaced by crises may become stateless if no country accepts them and they cannot return home. They might live in camps or as illegal migrants, often lacking legal rights to work, educate children, or own property. The problem of statelessness is significant, with organizations like the UN High Commissioner for Refugees trying to provide assistance.

Granting citizenship to refugees and migrants is a complex issue, balancing humanitarian concerns with political problems like managing large numbers or security risks. Many countries accept those fleeing persecution but may limit intake. India has a tradition of providing refuge (e.g., Dalai Lama and followers), but migrants along borders may remain stateless for generations. Only a few are granted citizenship. This challenges the idea that democratic citizenship and its rights are available to all in the world today, as many people cannot obtain citizenship of a state they desire, and no alternative identity exists for them.

The problem of stateless people is a major global issue, often stemming from war or political disputes that redefine borders. Caught in these disputes, people lose homes, identities, and security, forced to migrate. National citizenship doesn't solve their problem. This leads to discussions about potentially evolving a more genuinely universal identity beyond national citizenship.

Global Citizenship

The increasing interconnectedness of the world today, driven by new communication technologies like the internet, television, and cell phones, is reshaping our understanding of our place in the world. News and events in distant parts of the globe are immediately accessible, fostering shared concerns and sympathies across national borders (e.g., global response to the 2004 Asian tsunami victims).

Supporters of global citizenship argue that this interconnectedness signifies the emergence of a global society, even if a formal world government doesn't exist. They believe that people are already linked across national boundaries and that this feeling should be strengthened. The concept of global citizenship suggests that national citizenship might be insufficient to address many contemporary problems that transcend state borders.

Today, states face numerous problems (climate change, pandemics, terrorism, migration, economic crises) that cannot be solved by individual nations alone, requiring cooperative action. The traditional idea of national citizenship assumes the state provides all necessary protection and rights for a dignified life. However, the complexity of global challenges raises questions about the sufficiency of state-guaranteed rights alone. Proponents argue the time has come for a concept of human rights backed by global citizenship.

One appeal of global citizenship is its potential to facilitate solutions for cross-border problems. It might help address the issue of migrants and stateless peoples, ensuring them basic rights and protection regardless of nationality. However, despite this potential, full and equal membership within a state remains crucial for people today, as it is the state that primarily guarantees rights and security and addresses socio-economic inequalities within its borders. The concept of global citizenship does not replace national citizenship but reminds us of our interconnectedness and the need for cooperation across national boundaries to address shared global challenges.

Exercises

Content for Exercises is excluded as per your instructions.