India needs one citizenship proof, not endless political battles

The latest controversy over passports and citizenship has once again exposed the unfortunate tendency of both the government and the Opposition to convert every legal clarification into a political battlefield. Instead of educating citizens on the law, both sides have chosen familiar roles—the government insisting nothing has changed and the Opposition warning of impending doom.

The result is predictable: confusion among citizens.

It is high time both the government and the Opposition stopped indulging in political theatrics and started behaving like responsible stakeholders in a mature democracy.

The controversy began when External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who, while speaking on Passport Seva Divas, reiterated a long-established legal position that an Indian passport is not conclusive proof of citizenship. Within hours, Opposition parties linked the statement to the possibility of a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC), reviving memories of the NRC-CAA controversy that dominated national politics in 2019.

But before politics takes over, facts deserve precedence.

Contrary to the narrative that is being created, the Modi government has not amended either the Citizenship Act, 1955, or the Passports Act, 1967. These laws were enacted decades ago, long before the BJP came to power. The legal distinction between citizenship and a passport has always existed.

The Citizenship Act determines who is an Indian citizen, while the Passports Act governs the issuance of travel documents. The two are related, but they are not identical.

A passport is one of the strongest official documents issued by the Government of India. It is accepted globally for travel and domestically for identity verification. Yet legally it is still a travel document. Courts have consistently held that while possession of a passport is strong evidence, it is not conclusive proof of citizenship in every legal circumstance. The government has also cited Section 20 of the Passports Act, which permits passports to be issued in certain exceptional circumstances even to non-citizens.

These are not new interpretations. They have existed through Congress, coalition and BJP governments alike.

This makes the Opposition’s portrayal of the issue as a sudden change in citizenship rules difficult to sustain.

What is more surprising is the reaction of senior Opposition leaders, who are fully aware of the legal distinction. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, himself a barrister, asked rhetorically, “If a passport is not proof of citizenship, then what is? A BJP identity card?” Similar comments were echoed by Congress and Samajwadi Party leaders.

Such remarks may generate headlines, but they do little to enlighten the public.

Ironically, some of the strongest rebuttals to the Opposition’s narrative came from within its own ideological space. Former External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid, an eminent lawyer and senior Congress leader, reiterated that a passport is fundamentally a travel document and not a legal certificate of citizenship. Former diplomats too have explained the distinction. Unfortunately, seasoned legal explanations rarely compete successfully against political rhetoric.

The Opposition undoubtedly has every democratic right to question the government’s intentions. That is its constitutional role. It must scrutinise policies, identify potential risks and mobilise public opinion, whenever it believes civil liberties may be threatened.

But questioning policy is very different from creating fear.

Citizenship, identity and documentation are emotionally charged subjects. They affect every family. They therefore deserve careful debate based on facts rather than on speculative assumptions. If the Opposition genuinely believes India needs a better framework to establish citizenship, it should convert this controversy into a constructive political campaign.

Instead of asking whether passports are valid, why not demand that Parliament create a single, universally accepted proof of citizenship? That would be a meaningful political intervention.

Most Indians today possess several government-issued documents—Aadhaar, PAN, voter identity cards, driving licences, ration cards and, for a minority, passports. Each serves a different legal purpose. None was originally designed to function as a universal citizenship certificate.

Why should citizens continue navigating this maze?

The Opposition could have demanded amendments to the Citizenship Act providing every citizen with one definitive document establishing citizenship beyond dispute. Such a proposal would simplify governance, reduce bureaucratic confusion and provide legal certainty.

Instead, the debate has been reduced to allegations that the government is secretly preparing the ground for an NRC.

If that indeed is the Opposition’s concern, then it should ask the government to place a draft NRC framework before Parliament. Let every clause be debated publicly. Let every safeguard be examined. Let every loophole be exposed if they exist. That would constitute effective parliamentary opposition.

Instead, political discourse frequently descends into whataboutery, where discussions on citizenship quickly shift to unrelated subjects—from NEET examination irregularities and unemployment to allegations concerning temple donations. None of these issues answers the central question. The reality is that both sides are speaking to different anxieties.

The Opposition fears that existing laws could be used in future to undertake a nationwide citizenship verification exercise. Those fears are influenced by the Assam NRC experience and the nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019-20.

The government, on the other hand, insists that reiterating existing law does not amount to announcing a new policy. It argues that millions of Indians continue to obtain passports, travel abroad, secure visas, open bank accounts and complete official formalities exactly as before. Nothing has changed legally.

Objectively speaking, both arguments contain elements of truth. The law has not changed. Political distrust, however, has. That trust deficit is what transforms an ordinary legal clarification into a national controversy.

Another overlooked reality deserves attention. According to recent estimates, nearly 91 per cent of Indians still do not possess passports. For millions of citizens, particularly in rural India, passports remain irrelevant because international travel is neither affordable nor necessary. Even among those seeking overseas employment, especially in the lower-skilled sectors, obtaining passports often involves procedural hurdles that discourage applicants.

This raises a more fundamental question. Should India continue relying on a patchwork of documents that serve different purposes, or should it finally establish one clear, legally recognised proof of citizenship for every Indian? That is the debate Parliament should be having. A modern nation of over 1.4 billion people should not leave citizens uncertain about which document ultimately establishes their legal status. Every sovereign country has an obligation to maintain accurate citizenship records while ensuring genuine citizens are protected from bureaucratic hardship.

The government should therefore proactively explain the legal distinction between passports and citizenship rather than merely dismiss criticism as misinformation. Transparent communication builds confidence.

The Opposition, meanwhile, should resist the temptation to convert every clarification into an existential crisis. Fear may produce temporary political dividends, but it rarely produces durable public trust.

Ultimately, this controversy has far less to do with passports than with politics. Governments naturally seek the benefit of the doubt. Oppositions are equally incentivised to question intentions. That is how democracies function. But democracy also demands intellectual honesty.

The citizenship laws are not new. The passport rules are not new. The legal distinction is not new. What is new is the politics surrounding them.

India deserves a debate that generates solutions rather than suspicion. The real challenge is not whether a passport proves citizenship; it is whether the country is prepared to create a transparent, universally accepted citizenship framework that removes ambiguity forever.

That would be politics in the service of the citizen—not politics at the citizen’s expense.

(The author is former Chief Editor of The Hans India)