Recent developments in India reveal growing tensions around internal migration and domicile rights. Despite the ideal of a unified national citizenship, States increasingly assert provincial citizenship to regulate access to resources and political power. This dynamic is especially visible in States like Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, and Assam. The phenomenon raises questions about mobility, identity, and democracy within India’s federal system.
Context of Mobility and Sedentarism
Mobility has been central to human progress and civilisation. Historically, tribes, traders, and pastoralists moved widely. Sedentarism arose to link property and lineage with resource control. Today, globalisation facilitates flows of goods, capital, and labour. Yet physical movement remains restricted within India, especially for migrant workers seeking livelihoods outside their home States. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed their precarity, denoting the urgency of addressing migration issues.
Emergence of Provincial Citizenship
Provincial citizenship is a concept describing how States use domicile to define political belonging. Rooted in nativist sentiments, it shapes regional electoral politics by privileging locals over migrants. This challenges the idea of India as a single citizenship entity under the Constitution. Domicile rules become tools to assert spatial identity and limit freedom of movement, transforming citizenship into a provincial rather than national category.
Case Study – Jharkhand’s Domicile Politics
Jharkhand’s experience illustrates provincial citizenship in action. Formed in 2000, Jharkhand saw domicile laws used to protect majority interests against minority elites. Unlike Sixth Schedule tribal areas, Jharkhand’s domicile politics cover the entire State. This undermines national citizenship rights guaranteed by Article 16(2). Conflicts between internal migrants and provincial citizens often escalate beyond local resolution, requiring Supreme Court intervention.
Comparative from Jammu and Kashmir
After the 2019 abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, domicile policies aimed to protect minorities like Valmikis and Gorkhas. Here, domicile served as inclusive politics to safeguard vulnerable groups. This contrasts with Jharkhand’s majoritarian use of domicile. Both cases show how domicile laws shape political and social inclusion differently across States.
Historical and Legal Perspectives
The States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) of 1955 warned against domicile restrictions. It noted such rules contradict Articles 15, 16, and 19 of the Constitution and undermine Indian citizenship. The SRC recommended replacing domicile policies with Parliamentary legislation to preserve national unity. Despite these warnings, provincial citizenship has grown as a political reality, complicating the federal structure and citizenship ideals.
Conceptual Vocabulary and Academic Debates
Scholars have developed terms like citizen-outsiders, differentiated citizenship, and paused citizens to analyse migration conflicts. These concepts reveal how internal migrants face social exclusion despite constitutional rights. The discourse on provincial citizenship reflects ongoing struggles over who counts as ‘native’ or ‘local’ versus ‘migrant,’ intertwining identity, politics, and resource access.
Questions for UPSC:
- Taking example of Jharkhand and Jammu and Kashmir, discuss how domicile laws affect internal migration and federalism in India.
- Examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on migrant labour in India and its implications for social policy.
- Analyse the concept of provincial citizenship and critically discuss its challenges to the constitutional ideal of national citizenship in India.
- With suitable examples, discuss the role of the States Reorganisation Commission’s recommendations in shaping India’s citizenship and domicile policies, and assess their relevance .
