Introduction

Indian citizenship was envisioned as singular and uniform, rising above provincial or ethnic divides. Yet, as Ranjan’s recent research (2025) and Sarkar’s reflections suggest, the rise of provincial citizenship has complicated this narrative. Rooted in nativist politics and tied to emotional belonging to one’s State, this phenomenon is altering the politics of domicile, migration, and rights. While the COVID-19 migrant crisis exposed vulnerabilities of inter-state labour, subsequent domicile policies and debates around NRC, SIR, and regional protectionism have re-opened constitutional fault lines. The issue compels us to revisit constitutional provisions, historical warnings, and contemporary challenges to Indian federalism.

Why in the News

The discussion on provincial citizenship has gained traction because it reflects a sharp break from the constitutional promise of uniform Indian citizenship. Jharkhand’s domicile politics, post-2000, demonstrates how regional grievances can weaponize ‘sons of the soil’ sentiment. J&K’s domicile rules post-2019 abrogation illustrate how domicile is used as a tool of inclusion and protection. Assam’s migration-linked exclusions add another layer of contestation. For the first time, an “unofficial citizenship” has become powerful enough to rival the official national framework, forcing judicial interventions and challenging the foundational principle of equality under Article 16(2). This is no longer a marginal issue but a structural problem, shaping electoral politics and democratic legitimacy.

What is meant by Provincial Citizenship?

1. Concept: Rooted in nativist politics, it emphasizes belonging to a State rather than to India as a whole.
2. Political use: Gains leverage in regional elections by mobilising ‘locals’ against ‘outsiders’.
3. Entanglement: Blurs lines between spatial identity, freedom of movement, and constitutional citizenship.

Issues with Provincial Citizenship

1. Exclusion & Discrimination: Creates second-class citizens among internal migrants, violating the spirit of Articles 15, 16(2), 19.
2. Fragmentation of National Unity: Undermines the principle of one nation, one citizenship, fostering parochialism and regionalism.
3. Economic Inefficiency: Restricts labour mobility, hurting industries and services in cities dependent on migrant workers.
4. Judicial Burden: Conflicts between migrants’ rights and domicile rules often end up in Supreme Court adjudication, showing gaps in political resolution.

Benefits of Provincial Citizenship

1. Local Identity & Belonging: Strengthens emotional connection of “sons of the soil” to their State.
2. Protection of Vulnerable Groups: In J&K, domicile rules safeguarded historically excluded groups like Valmikis, Gorkhas, and West Pakistan refugees.
3. Equitable Resource Allocation: Ensures locals are not overshadowed by migrants in jobs, education, and land rights.
4. Democratic Mobilisation: Acts as a rallying point in regional politics, giving voice to sub-national concerns.

How has Jharkhand become a case study?

1. Statehood in 2000: Did not end sub-nationalist demands but transformed them into domicile-based politics.
2. Domicile politics: Used to articulate majoritarian grievances against minority elites.
3. Departure: Unlike Sixth Schedule areas, it encompassed the entire State, challenging federal norms and Article 16(2).

What role does Jammu & Kashmir and Assam play?

1. J&K (Post-2019): Domicile introduced to safeguard minorities like Valmikis, Gorkhas, West Pakistan refugees after abrogation of Article 370.
2. Assam: NRC and SIR processes highlight anxieties around migration and exclusion.

How does this challenge the idea of One Citizenship?

1. Undermines Article 15, 16, 19: Domicile restrictions contradict equality and mobility rights.
2. Supreme Court interventions: Conflicts between migrants and provincial citizenship often need judicial resolution.
3. Multiple vocabularies: Terms like citizen-outsiders (Roy), differentiated citizenship (Jayal), paused citizens (Sharma), hyphenated nationality (Sarkar) capture fragmented realities.

Is this a new phenomenon or an old concern?

1. Historical context: Myron Weiner’s Sons of the Soil (1978) already flagged migration-linked conflicts.
2. SRC Report 1955: Explicitly warned that domicile rules undermine the concept of common Indian citizenship.
3. Newness: The idea has now moved from reports and theory to an active political reality.

Way Forward

1. Constitutional Balance: Uphold national citizenship guarantees while allowing limited affirmative safeguards for locals.
2. Labour Protections: Create a national migrant workers framework to ensure portability of rights and benefits.
3. Dialogue & Federal Coordination: Encourage Centre–State mechanisms to harmonise domicile policies with constitutional provisions.
4. Judicial & Policy Oversight: Courts to curb excesses, and Parliament may revisit domicile laws as warned by the States Reorganisation Commission (1955).
5. Promote Inclusion: Foster constitutional morality and fraternity so regional protections don’t become exclusionary.

Conclusion

The rise of provincial citizenship shows that the unity of Indian citizenship is being tested not by foreign threats but by internal contestations of belonging. Jharkhand’s domicile struggles, Assam’s NRC anxieties, and J&K’s experiments demonstrate that citizenship is increasingly layered, contested, and politicised. Unless reconciled, such provincial claims may fracture the inclusive national vision of Akhanda Bharat and weaken democratic federalism.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2024] Why do large cities tend to attract more migrants than smaller towns? Discuss in the light of conditions in developing countries.

Linkage: This article is best linked with the GS1 PYQ “Why do large cities tend to attract more migrants than smaller towns?” as it directly discusses internal migration, mobility vs sedentarism, and the allure of metropolises for rural workers despite precarity, highlighted starkly during COVID-19. It also adds depth by showing how migrants face exclusion through provincial citizenship and domicile politics, raising constitutional questions under Articles 15, 16(2), and 19 and reflecting federal tensions. For UPSC, it is relevant across GS1 (urbanisation, migration, regionalism), GS2 (citizenship, federalism, rights), GS3 (labour and economic vulnerabilities), and GS4 (constitutional morality vs exclusion), making it a rich theme that connects social realities with polity and governance debates.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now