Debates on citizenship, domicile, and migration spotlight the rise of provincial citizenship, rooted in nativism, challenging singular Indian citizenship and raising risks of exclusion, discrimination, and regional fragmentation.

• Context of Debate: The idea of provincial citizenship is being debated in the wake of NRC updates, domicile policies, and migrant mistreatment in urban India.
• Scholarly Perspective: Scholars like Alok Ranjan and Swatahsiddha Sarkar highlight how domicile politics in states such as Jharkhand, J&K, and Assam is creating a new layer of belonging that competes with national citizenship.
• Global Dimension: This is part of a broader global trend where mobility and migration clash with sedentarist politics, producing conflicts between “locals” and “outsiders.”

Historical and Theoretical Context

• Mobility as Progress: From ancient caravan trails of traders and pastoralists to today’s globalised labour flows, mobility has historically driven civilisation. 
  • Conversely, sedentarism links lineage, land, and resources to exclusionary politics.
• Constitutional Framework: Citizenship is singular and national, regulated by the Citizenship Act, 1955, while rights to equality, non-discrimination, and free movement are protected under Articles 14 (Equality before Law & Equal Protection of Laws), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment), and 19 (Protection of Rights of Citizens).
• States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) Warning (1955): The SRC cautioned that domicile rules would undermine the idea of common Indian citizenship, warning that without corrective legislation, constitutional guarantees would lose meaning.

About Provincial Citizenship

• Definition: Provincial citizenship refers to region-based definitions of belonging, where domicile or ethnic identity becomes the basis for accessing rights, jobs, or welfare.

• Nature: It is not part of official citizenship law, but works through state policies, domicile requirements, and political rhetoric.
• Case Studies:
  • Jharkhand: Domicile rules emerged post-2000 statehood, reflecting majoritarian grievances against migrant elites, undermining Article 16(2)’s prohibition on discrimination.
  • Jammu & Kashmir: Post-2019, domicile provisions were reshaped to include marginalized groups (Valmikis, Gorkhas, West Pakistan refugees), showcasing domicile as both an inclusive and exclusionary tool.
  • Assam (NRC): Exclusionary exercises like the National Register of Citizens (NRC) demonstrate how questions of indigeneity vs outsiderhood redefine belonging.

National Citizenship vs. Provincial Citizenship

Need for Provincial Citizenship

• Protect Local Identity and Resources: Advocates argue that provincial citizenship safeguards land, jobs, and cultural heritage of indigenous and tribal groups, who fear being overwhelmed by outsiders.
• Address Marginalisation: It provides political recognition to communities historically excluded from development benefits, ensuring that their voices are not drowned out in competitive federal politics.
• Electoral Mobilisation: Provincial citizenship serves as a powerful tool for regional parties to mobilise voters by appealing to “sons of the soil” sentiments, often winning immediate electoral leverage.
• Corrective Tool: It is seen as a mechanism to offset the demographic pressures of migration, particularly in states experiencing rapid influx from poorer regions.

Significance of Provincial Citizenship

• Political Visibility and Local Bargaining Power: Provides visibility and leverage to local communities and marginalised groups (Adivasis, Dalits, tribals) whose voices might otherwise be overlooked in national policymaking.
• Regional Autonomy and Federal Assertion: Strengthens the federal structure by allowing States to assert control over jobs, land, resources, and welfare, reinforcing sub-national identity politics.
• Trigger for National Debate: Forces conversations on migration, domicile laws, and welfare portability, which are often neglected in mainstream policy discussions.
• Democratic Sensitivity: Reflects the ongoing tension between state autonomy and national cohesion, showing how regional aspirations can challenge centralised models of citizenship.
• Echo of Global Trends: Resonates with worldwide debates on migration and belonging; while mobility is celebrated globally, India paradoxically treats inter-state migration with suspicion.

Challenges with Provincial Citizenship

• Erosion of Singular Citizenship: Fractures the idea of one Indian citizenship into layered provincial identities, questioning whether all Indians enjoy equal rights across all States.
  • Example: Assam NRC (2019) – Exclusion of 19 lakh people created a divide between “native” and “outsider,” undermining one Indian citizenship.
• Constitutional Conflict: Violates Articles 14, 15, 16, and 19, which guarantee equality, non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and freedom of movement and residence.
  • Example: Maharashtra Domicile Law (2020) – Domicile reservations for state jobs violate Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 by restricting equal opportunity and freedom of movement.
• Exclusion of Migrants: Creates second-class citizens, as migrants—essential to urban economies—face denial of jobs, quotas, welfare, and housing. The COVID-19 crisis exposed this vulnerability starkly.
  • Example: COVID-19 Migrant Crisis (2020) – Millions stranded without access to welfare due to domicile-based restrictions, highlighting vulnerability and exclusion.
• Nativist Politics and Electoral Exploitation: Fuels “son of the soil” rhetoric, inflaming xenophobia and hostility toward outsiders, deepening regional divides and destabilising democratic politics.
  • Example: Maharashtra’s “Son of the Soil” Politics (2019) – Nativist rhetoric targeting migrants from Bihar and UP, deepening regional divides.

• Judicial Overload and Uncertainty: Frequent litigation over domicile-based reservations and exclusions burdens the judiciary, exposing the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks.
  • Example: Supreme Court on Jammu & Kashmir Domicile Quotas (2020) – Frequent cases burden the judiciary, reflecting the lack of a clear legislative framework.
• Precedents and Institutionalisation: Many States already use domicile rules in jobs, education, and subsidies; provincial citizenship risks formalising exclusion further.
  • Example: Assam’s Domicile Policies – Institutionalised domicile-based job reservations now becoming a precedent for other states to follow.
• Marginal Impact on National Goals: Weakens labour mobility and inter-state markets, stifling economic growth, competitiveness, and India’s aspiration to become a $5 trillion economy.
  • Example: Labour Mobility and Growth – Migrant restrictions during the COVID-19 crisis hindered labour mobility, affecting India’s $5 trillion economy goal.

Way Forward

• Parliamentary Legislation: Parliament should enact a national framework clearly defining the permissible limits of domicile policies, ensuring that States do not undermine the principle of one Indian citizenship.
• Strengthen Migrant Protections: Expand welfare portability (e.g., One Nation One Ration Card) into healthcare, education, housing, and employment, so that internal migrants enjoy equal access to rights irrespective of location.
• Balanced Federalism: Allow States limited scope to design residence-based benefits or time-bound eligibility (e.g., after 3–5 years of residence), but prevent them from stripping core constitutional entitlements of equality and non-discrimination.
• Judicial Oversight & Constitutional Limits: Establish clear jurisprudence to demarcate where State-level variations in welfare are valid, while preventing violations of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 19.
• Election Commission of India (ECI) Oversight: Empower the ECI to discourage nativist campaigns targeting migrants, and to integrate codes of conduct and inclusive safeguards into party recognition and funding rules.
• Public Awareness & Inclusion: Launch mass campaigns highlighting migrants’ role in building cities and economies, shifting narratives from “outsiders” to “nation builders.” This will counter xenophobia and encourage social integration.
• Political Accountability: Encourage parties and leaders to adopt responsible rhetoric and policies on migration, promoting mindful integration rather than populist exclusion.
• Lesson from Others: India should retain uniform citizenship to preserve national unity, while strengthening residence-linked welfare inclusion instead of promoting identity-based exclusions, ensuring both equity and integration.

Conclusion

Provincial citizenship may address local insecurities but risks fragmenting India’s unity and equality. Guided by constitutional values of fraternity, justice, and equality and aligned with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), India must reaffirm the principle of “one nation, one citizenship” to ensure inclusive and sustainable unity.

DOWNLOAD PDF