Sonia Gandhi for PM, her Indian citizenship and the rule of law
Published by Yazad Jal May 20th, 2004 in Political Theatre, Lawor Sliding down a slippery slope and clambering back up
Ravikiran asks Why have the citizenship requirement at all? Why not simply have anyone stand for elections in India and become Prime Minister if they and their party win? Indians might elect Mrs. Thatcher as PM. (Maggie as PM? Good idea!)
As Ravi wants to slide down a slippery slope, I’ll slide down further. Why have elections at all? Why have democracy — won’t dictatorship do? Why have a government at all? Ravi, the slope slides down to anarcho-capitalism. (I love where the slide goes)
Ok, time for me to stop being facetious. I am going to make some assumptions here. Doesn’t mean that I agree with them. But it would help make the logical case.
Let’s assume we require something called a government — for things like national defence, law and order, justice, etc.
If we are to have this thing called government, then ideally it would be better that it’s members are chosen by the people of India (by and large). So I assume democracy is the best method of choosing the government, from President and Prime Minister down to the lowly city corporator and village sarpanch.
Now we just can’t say “democracy / elections” and abracadabra! We have democracy and elections. A process has to be developed with certain guidelines. These guidelines need to be fair and steadfast. We don’t want our government to be run by madmen and murderers do we? These guidelines slowly become laws.
Now to the question Ravi asks: Why should one of those laws be that you need to be a citizen to be the PM? Or even why should one of the laws not be that you need to be an “Indian-by-birth” citizen, not a naturalised citizen to be PM?
On a practical plane, someone who is not a citzen is not going to get elected. But for theory’s sake let’s assume that someone does.
If a person is not a citizen of India, then presumably she is a citizen of another country. Presumably she has the right to be elected (or appointed) head of government of that country.
Suppose she does become head of government in the country where she is a citizen. In which case she would be head of two governments simultaneously. Now here a definite conflict of interest will arise.
Sounds far fetched? Yes. Illogical? No. If we are to theorise, then we must take into account even the most far fetched events. Taking this into account, having a non citizen as PM means possibly subordinating the country. It’s a definite theoretical possibility.
Why is this not true for a naturalised citizen? Because when she becomes a citizen of India, she renounces her citizenship of birth. So she can’t head the government in her birth country. Therefore the conflict of interest will not arise.
The only flaw in my argument will occur if more than one country has the “no citizenship required” rule to head the government. In which case, we will see a weakening of boundaries and of government itself and lead on towards anarcho capitalism.
Something I agree with, but Ravi doesn’t so the flaw too is in my favour!
What is the status of dual-citizens? Can a person theoretically be the president of America and France simultaneously? That should be a funny situation to be in.
Some countries allow dual citizenship. What about them?
India doesn’t and as Sonia is not holding dual citizenship, practically the question does not arise.
But to the best of my knowledge, in the case of dual citizenship, you have to renounce one to get full citizenship rights in the other. Dual citizenship generally endows one with 2 passports and easier travel / stay in both countries. In some cases even full voting rights are withheld.
Would be a good subject to read more.
nice…
I like the slide bit. Pot of gold at the end of the slide?
WHat I dont like though, is the fact that citizenships are someting one almost talks of as a commodity. Barter one here for one there.
It ought to be better, or nothing at all.
I wasn’t making a slippery slope argument. I am not saying that letting naturalised citizens become Prime Minister means that we can have non-citizens also as PM. I haven’t yet come to the central part of my argument. I will do so at the appropriate time, in true Congress tradition.
But here, my question is, why not let the voters make a judgment on conflict-of-interest issues? I am sure that you are opposed to the government having a law against a person becoming CEO of two companies (especially competing companies) simultaneously. I am sure you agree that this matter should be left to the shareholders, who, if they are sane, won’t stand for such a thing from their company’s CEO. Why not let voters make such a choice?
I’ll wait till you reveal your central arguement.
Ravi,
Steve Jobs holds two different titles at Pixar and Apple, but everyone knows that he is the real CEO of both firms.
Technically, Sonia is still an Italian citizen. She has only surrendered her passport to the Italian embassy in Delhi, and has not “given up” on her citizenship legally.
Subramaniam Swamy, has rightly pointed out - had she become the P.M, there would have been enough PIL’s to question this and to get all messy…….she has just made a virtue out of necessity.
Nilu, Taking up Indian citizenship requires you to renounce any other citizenships you have. India and Italy do not have dual citizenship agreements. And surrendering a passport is universally accepted as renunciation of citizenship.
Swamy’s point was different. “Naturalised citizens should have the same rights in India as Indians have in the country of origin of the naturalised citizen. As Italy does not allow naturalised citizens to become the Prime Minister, Indians of Italian origin too should not have that right”. Swamy’s point is debateable, but nowhere does he state that Sonia Gandhi is still an Italian citizen.
Swamy’s point is not debatable. It is utterly nonsensical.
This is what it says
Firstly, the section he points to refers to condition for the *process* of granting citizenship, not for the rights of citizens themselves after they become citizens.
Secondly, the section *enables* the government to formulate the rules, it does not bring those rules into force automatically. In any case, the rule cannot be applied retroactively.
Ravi, looks like I stand corrected on this. Can you please post the URL?
here it is
Insisting that each person have exactly one citizenship is like forbidding you to eat both apples and peanuts.
Certainly problems would arise if one person or organisation governed both Italy and India - but do these problems differ in kind (rather than degree) from those of governing both Sicily and Padania, or TN and UP?