On my citizenship

Har ek baat pe kehte ho, ki tu kya hai? Tumhi kaho ye andaaz-e-guftagu kya hai !

The sense of belongingness doesn't come easily. Ask that to the millions of people who are homeless, seeking refugee in foreign lands, forced to leave their homes due to prolonged conflicts and living in makeshift-camps/places. It is a matter of who we are, where do we come from, what do we believe in and who we consider as our brothers and sisters. No one likes being questioned about these things. 

Belonging to a country, being a citizen, is not just a matter of having a passport, a birth certificate, a voter ID, a particular number (Aadhar or social security), a PAN card or any set of documents. It is a matter of belonging to a collective identity, a culture, a set of beliefs, a world-view and a sense of togetherness developed, formed and articulated over many centuries and for a country like India over a thousands of years. It is not only difficult and dangerous but almost impossible to define this identity in any one particular way simply because of millions of influences and practices that shape this over such a long span of time. For a diverse and plural society that is India, it can not be language, region, appearance, colour, occupation or religion. Pluralism was not just something that we humans (Indians in this case) created and fostered over hundreds of years, it was in the air, land, climate and geography of the region. There are sands of Rajasthan for every chinar leaf of Kashmir, there are rains of Meghalaya for the snowfall of Himachal and Uttarakhand, there are flood plains of Ganges and there are the dry white sands of Kutch, there are backwaters of Kerala and the lofty Himalayan mountains of Ladakh, there are forests of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand and there are ancient-modern town-cities such as Kashi, Delhi and others. 

It was imperative that this plurality is protected, this diversity be encouraged and this spirit be understood. Hence, the founding fathers of the modern nation-state of republic of India tried to do just that by articulating the same unmistakably in the document was to govern the way we carried out our lives as countrymen - the Constitution of India. Again, as if to protect it against misuse, dilution and change (subtle and stark both) in the years that were to come, they made these principles, values integral to the very basic nature of the Constitution and as a part of the preamble. This constitution is then studied by children in schools, practiced by executive and legislative arms of the union and protected by the judiciary.

Any question or attack on the Constitution is then not just a questioning of a document, it is an attack on the very idea of this country, on each and every citizen and vice-versa. Let us try to put it the other way - any questioning of the ordinary Indian, or citizen especially about his/her existence, about his/her definition of country, is an attack on these very basic principles and values and a direct attack on the Constitution.

This is fundamentally problematic and hence, despite the claims of technical complexities, chronological anomalies, misleading narratives, this is very easily understood by most Indians and summarily rejected by a large number of them. The outbursts, the protests, the anger on streets or otherwise is a testament to that. To term this a misled, leaderless, opposition-conspired, liberal and intellectual futile expression is missing the point completely or simply being an ostrich.

My idea of this country is mine, it is not based on my religion, it is not based on the language I speak, it is not based on how I look, the colour of my skin or what I do. I am not obliged to tell it to any one if I do not choose to or shout at rooftops if I so feel like it as long as I do not I do it peacefully without breaking the law and order. I am not obliged to answer any of such questions. That answer was given for all of us, all of us Indians who could express and who could not express themselves, the majority and the minority, the rich and the poor - in the Constitution. That answer was that, "we the People of India.... will secure for all citizens (no qualifiers here!) 

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

And, in the years following the independence and adoption of the Constitution, the debate and discussion, the disagreements and agreements were on the modalities of achieving these ideals. The 'hows'. Whether, socialism was the way or capitalism and market, whether a vibrant and independent media was the better option or a one that was controlled by the state, whether empowered institutions such as the Election Commission, CBI, Lokpal others were important for functioning of state, in simpler terms left, right or centre? But, rarely has there been a question on 'who' and trying to assert that Justice, Liberty and Equality will be for some and not be for some basis a set of documents. This is not acceptable.

Firstly, I have a say. The constitution was adopted and enacted by me or my father or my grandfather or grandmother on my behalf along with millions together when we became a republic. I also decided that there are certain provisions and principles that won't be changed or played with in future simply because people in executive and legislation think so.

Second, the idea of my citizenship and my link to this country can't be questioned. More so on the basis of my belief, my faith, my thoughts and my expression. I would not profess to any one or two or three sets of ideas or beliefs or any and I can't be forced. I am free and this right is guaranteed to me by me or my forefathers.

Thirdly, whether I have a set of documents or not, whether I have the capacity to even understand these documents or not, whether I have used these documents to vote, elect governments, pay taxes, travel abroad or not, I am an Indian and I do not need to prove that.

Finally, what's the need? What are we trying to do here? Why? Even if it assures me (no idea how?) of more economic prosperity, more social acceptability or political voice, I reject it as nothing can come at the cost of my existence. Stop asking me and attacking me for who I am. I reject this language, tone and this manner of conversation.