Introduction: Individual and the Nation State
The concept of citizenship has been changing since the later half of the twentieth century due to several factors. The most important is the large scale movement of people that has taken place whether as refugees, forced labour, voluntary migration, for economic or family relations or as employees in transnational corporations or for any other reasons. It has also led to the loosening of borders because not only is there a constant transnational flow and relocation of people but also of capital, culture and ideas. An employee of a transnational corporation for example may take a decision in the overall interest of his organization that may not necessarily benefit his place of work and residence. Global and regional groupings that may be economic, commercial or and political, institutions like the United Nations and International Court of Justice, the European Union and others have created several sites for political allegiance, loyalty and identity leading to multiple affiliations, associations and allegiances. It has transformed and some would maintain, even threatened the concept of a nation state with well defined territorial boundaries, exclusive citizenship, linguistic conformity, which was seen as an object of devotion to live and die for.[1]
Nation states have lost their homogeneity and have become plural, multicultural societies with various “cultural communities” living within the national boundaries of a single state who increasingly assert group identity rights. So, paradoxically, globalization is creating not a homogenized global culture but “multiple cultures” that “are being syncretized in a complex way”.[2] It is drawing “elements of particular cultures… from a global array but they will mix and match differently in each setting.”[3] Besides, individual members do not necessarily have commitment to a single nation state and this is also because of large migrant populations with new diasporic identities. As Noah Pickus points out, traditional models of migration assume that when migrants settle down in one place, they take on a new singular, political identity.[4] However, a world interconnected by rapid means of transportation and instant communication ensures that links between countries remains continuous through migrant populations.
Hence a decoupling of the conventional citizen-state relationship has taken place to a certain extent and is rapidly progressing further. This has made dual/ multiple citizenship far more acceptable than before because it is a mere recognition of the reality on the ground level. Citizens have commitment at different levels of society – family, religion, ethnic group, race, profession, residence and others. These identities are deterritorialized and these may be overlapping at times and conflicting at others. As Robin Cohen points out, national identities are challenged because “the world is being organized vertically by nation states and regions but horizontally by an overlapping permeable, multiple system of interactions. This system creates communities not of place but of interest, based on shared opinions and beliefs, ethnicities, religions, cuisine, the consumption of medicines, lifestyles, fashion, music etc.”[5]
A further decoupling has taken place in the conventional citizen-state relationship because of the emergence of individual rights over state rights giving an individual rights even against his own state. The most notable instrument in this context is the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights. Further the monopoly functions of the nation state like war, taxation and legislation are being constantly diluted because of international treaties in these areas so that we seem to be moving towards a consensual world order rather than zealously guarding the sovereignty of a nation state. The erosion is to such an extent that it has been accepted in countries like Canada and USA that even non-citizens can practice law in their courts and can hold office in the government. If we examine Canada’s charter of Rights, all rights are available to both citizens and non-citizens except the right to vote and hold legislative office. Scholars have even argued alien suffrage on grounds of democracy being essentially a participatory process but as Jamin B. Raskin concludes, “To make alien suffrage in national elections acceptable to existing nations, it would probably take regional international agreements which would provide for reciprocal non-citizen voting arrangements … It is possible …. That the spread of local alien suffrage would sufficiently relax the global ideological hold of nationalism, as to make people all over the world comfortable with the idea of making voting rights mobile between nation-state…. Needless to say, such a moment is far off in the next century and likely depends upon the prior success of numerous decentralized local experiments with noncitizen voting all over the world”.[6]
Even dual citizenship has been argued as a human right. Patricia Mc Garvey – Rosendahl has argued that three provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights are particularly relevant to dual nationality. Art 12 gives an individual the right to leave and return to his country. Art.15 states that no person should be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality. Art 16 gives the family unit the right of protection by society and state. Full recognition of these provision would severely limit the ability of the state to eliminate dual nationality through inputed expatriation. The question raised in this concept is why should an individual lose a nationality when he would not otherwise do so if he were a national of only one state. The argument is “when an individual meets the criteria for nationality, nationality should not be revoked or jeopardized merely because the individual also meets the criteria for nationality in another state.”[7] This argument, becomes particularly relevant and significant with the development and widespread acceptance of the Doctrine of Dominant Nationality by which duties of allegiance can be prioritized and conflicts of allegiance solved.[8]
The Challenge
The challenge, then, is how to deal with transnational world of rapid travel instant communication, and widespread mobility of people, ideas and capital and simultaneously with the demands and responsibilities of a nation state. Since multiple allegiances and functional requirements have become a reality the need is to create citizens who share a commonalty of identity and values so that there is harmony of allegiance between the individual, the sending state and the receiving state.
But what is identity. It is, as Duncan Kelly would put it, a self-reflective and self-conscious projection of shared and remembered symbols, myths, traditions, religion, history, language, food, clothing and other such factors. It is also an affirmation of difference because when I know who I am I also know who I am not or how I am different from the other.[9] However, differences are derivative and not constitutive of one’s identity. They can be lessened but real identity can only be maintained by remaining true to one’s own self and not by emphasizing the differences. So, how can individual identities be reconciled with the group identities within a state and how can these together be reconciled with the national identities of both the receiving and sending states. The optimists, says Cohen, suggest that it is possible to recognize minority rights such as those pertaining to language, organization of domestic and family relations, practice of religion and maintenance of communal customs without threat to the overall national unity.[10] This is the conceptual, framework of Canada’s multicultural policy.
Thus, in the context of dual citizenship three entities have now become important – the individual, the sending state and the receiving state. The blurring of national boundaries, the emergence of group rights within the boundaries of a nation state, the movement of people and their diasporic allegiances to states other than in which they live and the primacy being given to individual rights have all led to a reappraisal of what citizenship actually means.
Identity
An individual has many attributes and stands in a host of relationships with others. Some of these are transient and not very vital but others are essential to his identity. “For example, our membership in a club is a contingent fact of our lives as it would not change us profoundly it is ceased. “By contrast our humanity, gender-culture, religion, values, moral commitments, dominant passions, psychological and moral dispositions, and so forth are constitutive of us. We cannot abandon them without becoming different kinds of persons.”[11] We are shaped by innumerable influences both hereditary and environmental. We inherit our genes but are shaped by circumstances of our childhood and upbringing, the people we interact with both in our public and private spheres, our past and our histories. This means that we can reinvent ourselves to a certain extent by changing the external factors that act on us but this change cannot be unlimited. When some of these factors change over time we undergo transformation and become different kinds of persons. However, our roots always remain with us and modify our experiences, the way we respond to them and what use we put them to.[12]
Nations, like individuals, too have their identities. National identity as Bhikhu Parekh points out, is the identity of a political community, its values and commitments, its characteristic ways of talking about itself and conducting its political affairs, its organizing principles and many such factors.[13] It is complex and therefore difficult to reduce easily to a set of identifiable features. The identity that a community develops unites its members around a common self understanding and gives them a sense of belonging. It makes them live up to a certain self-images, cultivate certain virtues and make certain choices regarding their collective life. These choices provide not only the positives of a continual integrating vision but also have a underside because they may not be all inclusive. Hence, certain groups or individuals may get left out. Further, it depends on who is enunciating the national identity because an exclusively dominant community definition can lead to authoritarian and intolerant politics. This can distort issues of public policy because that would flow from the vision of the national identity. Hence what is the national identity has to evolve out of a vigorous democratic domestic debate so that it represents the widest possible range of views, articulates the deepest aspiration of citizens and can be enthusiastically endorsed and owned by all. This debate is an ongoing process as circumstances both within and outside the nation state are continuously changing requiring adjustments and readjustments in the comity of nations.[14]
Citizenship
As Peter Schuck points out, citizenship is a kind of membership in a polity.[15] It ipso facto assumes that the members must accept the identity of that polity. But what is a polity? Does it consist of only citizens or both citizens and non-citizens. If we think that it consists of only citizens then only they would have the power to decide who should become members of this polity and under what conditions should the non citizens be given admission to it. But there many ways of being and becoming citizens. A person can be a citizen by ties of blood (just sanguinus) or by being born in a particular state (jus soli) or by a process of naturalization. It creates a relationship between an individual and a state that fulfils his desire for security, permanence and loyalty. It may presuppose a commonalty experience an affinity of descent and a commitment to the shared values of that states the last being the most important for if the commitment is not there, citizenship can get devalued, a mere functionality or expediency. It is like becoming a member of a club simply on the basis of eligibility because of the advantages that it may bring. It can lead to a semi-detachment or indifference towards the nation-state because, as Cohen points out, “Unlike ethnicity, religion or diaspora, the nation-state is often too large and too amorphous an entity to be the object of intimate affection. Bonds of language, religion, culture and a sense of common history and perhaps a common fate impregnate a transnational relationship and give it an affective, intimate quality that formal citizenship or even long citizenship frequently lacks”.[16] But diasporas or immigrant communities often want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to have the opportunities available in the country of citizenship and also maintain a continuing relationship with their country of origin and other co-ethnics round the world. Many people, see their passports only as glorified travel documents and an instrument for opening doors or economic opportunities in different parts of the world.
Dual citizenship creates dual loyalties that may threaten the cohesiveness of a nation state and make it a mere instrument to keep order and good governance so that the rights of individuals and groups can be protected. On the other hand, it can expand the reach of democratic governance and a shared sense of belonging leading to a new internationalism and world order based on it. Hence, a commitment to certain core values and a shared vision is important between the individual, the receiving state and the sending state.
The Receiving States: Canada
Since Canada and India are linked through an ever expanding Indian diaspora in Canada that vigorously demands dual citizenship of Canada and India, it might be educative to see if such a shared vision is possible between the two nation states. Canada is a large immigrant receiving country accepting about 150,000 people every year. The naturalization process is not very demanding and hence a great diversity of population has taken place within it creating a plural society. The two founding races today constitute about 40% of the population and the largest immigration is today taking place from Asia which will further change the demography of Canada.[17] It has sharpened the discussion and debate on the issue of what is Canadian identity and what is the meaning and significance of Canadian citizenship.[18] A community may subscribe to two broad concepts. It may either regard all those who live in it as necessarily its members or it may demand some degree of affiliation to the dominant cultural values and practices as a prerequistic to naturalization on grounds of shared values that make up the community identity.
A society evolves a distinctive self representation or national identity through a combination of political, historical and social processes. These are not static as they are continually modified by both external influences and internal developments. The question arises whether there are specific features of Canadian identity and self-perceptions that it would like members of its polity to subscribe to.
On April 21, 1994 the Standing Committee on citizenship and Immigration responding to a specific request for assistance from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration undertook to conduct a study of Citizenship Act.[19] The Minister asked the Committee to provide guidance to the government as it was preparing a new Act for introduction in the Parliament in the Fall of 1994. The Act permitting dual citizenship had came into force in 1977 and therefore there was seventeen years of experience with which to review the whole situation.
The Committee felt that one of its prime goals was to identity ways in which the value and visibility of Canadian citizenship could be enhanced. Witnesses from across Canada appeared before the Committee. One of them said”…. (T) he main thrust of any (citizenship) legislation should be does this generate a pride in becoming a Canadian?”[20] a related issue to be explored was how to articulate the Canadian concept of responsible citizen. As a witness pointed it: “If we really want to talk about citizenship, we must begin by addressing the fundamental question how we foster and nurture that sense of citizenship among the people whose birthright it is.[21] Another witness expressed the same concern from the perspective of an immigrant, “…(M)y parents were born elsewhere and they immigrated and my aunts and uncles as well. They are told what it means to be a Canadian citizen. They were just told essentially, pass the tests, pay the taxes, that’s it”.[22]
There was general consensus that the Act must reinforce the most important aspect of citizenship which was its symbolism. Witnesses felt that there was need for a statement of what Canada was about as a country, the common values that transcended diversity and that this should be put in the form of Declaration. Many of them felt that the Canadian society was rapidly changing mainly due to immigration and its consequences and some perceived this as the cause of its increasing fragmentation. They emphasized that common Canadian values needed to be stressed. These had to values that united rather than divided. While diversity was seen as one of the strengths of Canada, it had to be channelized into a “choir not a cacophony.”[23]
However, there was also a feeling that identifying unifying values could itself become divisive as emphasizing that some values and principles were important could imply that others were not. But in the end it was felt that there were some shared core values and principles that needed to be dwelt upon so that an inclusive vision of citizenship could be fostered to which all might belong. Of paramount importance were freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Central to the national vision were also values of justice, fairness, tolerance and respect for fellow citizens. Equality was essential regardless of gender, race, religion or ethnic origin. Young people voiced the importance of environment and the need to conserve it for future generations. The contributions of individuals of differing cultures was emphasized as was Canada’s history of peacefully solving problems through dialogue.[24]
The values enumerated by the Committee were:
(i) Equality, justice and the rule of law (ii) tolerance and understanding; (iii) compassion and generosity, (iv) democracy, freedom and a peaceful society; (v) unity in diversity; (vi) appreciation of the bilingual nature of Canada; (vii) respect for aboriginal peoples, the original inhabitants of Canada; and (viii) conservation of the environment and Canada’s natural beauty.[25]
Dual citizenship that had been granted in 1977 was discussed in the context of these primary values considered dear to all Canadians, Prior to 1977, the Act provided that a Canadian citizen, when outside of Canada, who voluntarily acquired another citizenship (other than by marriage), ceased to a Canadian citizen. In addition, the Regulations until 1973 required applicants for Canadian citizenship to renounce their former citizenship. This applied whether the renunciation would have been recognized by the other state or not.
Almost twenty years later, the wisdom of changing these rules to permit dual and multiple citizenship was questioned. Many wondered what did values of loyalty and belonging to a particular country mean in this modern age of jet travel, substantial migration of people all over the world, and instantaneous community. The Canadian held dual or multiple citizenships, what were the implications for Canada. In this context some witnesses talked of the convenience of travel with multiple passports. Others talked of their continuing love for their former homeland and how hard it was to even symbolically give it up. Also, many felt that they did not want to close their options.[26]
On the other hand, many expressed concern and reservations of the practice of allowing dual citizenship. They questioned whether it was possible to swear loyalty and allegiance to more than one country and believed that the practice lowered the value of citizenship. It could also aid and abet those who saw Canadian citizenship primarily as a convenient commodity, useful to enhance their international trading ability or as an `insurance policy’ which they may wish to use later while residing elsewhere in the interim. Among the advantages of such a policy would be the right to retire in Canada and to use all its facilities especially health care without contributing to it.[27]
Another concern of a large number of witnesses was with “those who import and perpetuate their strident ethnic or nationalistic self interests here in their new country….. I honestly feel that those who choose Canada as their home owe allegiance to our norms, values and principles as first priority.”[28] Therefore, the Committee strongly disapproved of those who brought their quarrels to Canada.
In trying to address the issue of dual and multiple citizenships, the Committee made three recommendations. First to request the government to explore the possibility of restoring the former provision that stipulated that Canadians who voluntarily acquired another nationality or citizenship other than by marriage, lost their Canadian citizenship. Second, to introduce the principle that Canadians who held dual citizenship because of events beyond their control like by birth elsewhere, by marriage, by deriving another citizenship through a parent or any other reasons, must while living in Canada, accord primacy to their Canadian citizenship. Third, naturalized citizens must also declare a similar primacy to their Canadian citizenship if they also held other citizenships.[29]
Thus the close link between identity of the individual and society was seen as a vital to the issue of citizenship. But this is from the point of view of the receiving country Canada. The question arises why should a sending country like India permit the emigrant to retain his Indian citizenship especially when he seems to have apparently abandoned his country for greener pastures. Also whether it would have repercussions on the fabric of India and how would such an idea be received by those who inhabit the nation state as citizens. Again, the issues of great significance would be whether this demand arises out of mere expediency or whether there is commonalty of identity, allegiance and a shared vision of India.
The Sending State: India
India is an ancient civilization but a young country. It emerged as a distinct political community within well defined territorial borders only in the second half of the nineteenth century. Since then, too, its borders have changed. Like any other self-conscious civilization, it has tried to articulate what it means to be an Indian and has come up with different answers at different times which have been given by different people. It became of vital importance at the time of independence when it became a sovereign, territorially united, centralized political community. As Bhikhu Parekh points out, Indians could not just return to or adopt some earlier view of its identity. They had to define and determine their political identity themselves and initiate a new discourse.[30]
Various views were advanced. Some argued that while India was new as a political community it was an ancient civilization with roots going way back to the hoary past that coloured the way of life, thought process and world view of its people. hence the new India had necessarily to be based on it or at least had to be in harmony with the basic tendencies of its civilization. While there was broad agreement on this, views differed on the nature of Indian civilization and the kind of political community that India should establish. People like Sri Aurobindo argued that the Indian civilization was fundamentally spiritual with a hierarchical society and that the Indian state should not only reflect this but also nurture these characteristics. For those in agreement with Gandhi India was essentially a rural, spiritual, and non-violent society based on self-restraint and self-sacrifice.[31] Still others felt that since Indian Society was essentially socio-centric, hierarchical and unworldly at odds with the demands of a modern state its Indian political community should be constructed as decentralized and loosely structured polity. They pointed out that while there had been great political dynasties and epochs like those of the Mauryas and the Guptas they were very far back in time and that India had become a decadent society that plunged into dark ages which lasted for a millennium. Tagore shared some of Gandhi’s views on Indian civilization but further emphasized its aesthetic, internationalist and playful dimensions thereby articulating a more liberal and cosmopolitan view of Indian identity.[32]
The choice of national symbols and the Constitution of India give indications of the consensus that was reached on India’s view of itself. Bhikhu Parekh analyses the Indian Constitution not only as an instrument of governance but also as a statement of the country’s guiding moral principles and social, economic, political and other goals. These are embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution; in the enforceable and almost non negotiable articulation of Fundamental Rights and basic liberties central to the country’s identity which include liberty, equality, justice, individual dignity and fraternity; and finally in the Directive Principles that are not enforceable but are visualized as “fundamental in the governance of the country” the goal to be reached. Taken together, the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles articulate India as an egalitarian polity, and a community oriented liberal democracy. Further, the Constitution derives its authority from the people of India, and establishes it as a secular democracy.[33] Thus the country is defined as made up of both individuals and communities with rights being granted to both.
The national symbols further establish India’s national identity as they are derived from its long history and represent an attempt to link its present to its past. theAshoka Lions and the Wheels, the National Motto of Satyameva Jayate, and the tricolour flag are “multicultural being Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim in their origin: They affirm India’s plural identity.”[34] There are some omissions like the tribal communities, the Jains, the Sikhs and others as Bhikhu Parekh points out but India’s diversity is so great that all of it cannot be covered in its symbols which are basically cultural rather than religious. India’ national anthem is unique. It is written by Tagore in Bengali, a regional language, but in a manner that is intelligible to almost all Indians. Rather than eulogizing the Indian civilization, it articulates the country in terms of its geography and diverse communities on whom it invokes divine blessings thus uniting them in a shared vision.[35]
Taken together, India’s national symbols and Constitution define its identity as both old and new, an ancient civilization but a new state. The new state is linked to its classical multicultural past on which it seeks to build its present and future by acknowledging both individuals and communities as its building blocks. It gives rights to both, is committed to liberal, egalitarian and democratic goals. It is forward looking as it takes its place in the comity of nations respecting the international law, justice and peace.[36]
There is, however, another aspect of India that till recently was not a strong awareness in the consciousness of Indians – that of its diaspora. There are about 20 million people of Indian origin spread all over the world “reflecting the full multiplicity and variety of the rich social, ethnic, religious and cultural tapestry to the land of its origin.”[37] As Bhikhu Parekh has pointed out, it is a myth that Indians have been reluctant to travel overseas. In fact a good part of their history has been enacted outside of India as the have traversed the world throughout the centuries from the Buddhist missionaries to South and South East Asia, the travelers to East Africa, the indentured labour to different parts of the British Empire, and the recent employment in the Gulf countries together with the economic migration to the industrialized developed West, it has made India a significant cultural and economic presence in the world and the world in turn has become a part of India’s consciousness because of its widespread disapora. The histories of India’s people and their contributions to the lands of their settlement and to the land of their origin are just beginning to be articulated and written.[38] With it has come both the demand and the need to recognize the role of the Indian diaspora in mediating between India and the world. If India cannot be defined completely without a reference to its disapora, perhaps the time has come to accept this reality through the idea of dual citizenship for people of Indian origin.
Recently in 2000 a High Level Committee on the Indian Diaspora was set up by the Government as the first major initiative of the since independence to address the various issues concerning the Indian diaspora. It noted: “India’s emergence as a modern society, destined to play a role in knowledge based industries, particularly in the field of information technology, has helped to change the image of the Indian Diaspora globally. It is no longer considered as an economically disadvantaged. Silent minority in many of the lands of its permanent settlement. It has even started playing a role in moulding public opinion in them. It is no coincidence that the last two decades have seen the emergence of members of the Indian Diaspora as elected leaders, politicians and eminent professors and other professionals, managers and entrepreneurs, in their adoptive homelands. This period has coincided with India’s resurgence as a global player and a country of stature in the comity of nations. Members of the Indian Diaspora are also playing an important role in mobilizing political support for issues of vital concern to Indian in their new countries. The United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom are examples of that pro-active role. Because of their increasing economic strength, members of the Indian diaspora are also well situated to play a pivotal role in energizing and augmenting bilateral trade, investments, transfer of technology and tourism with those countries.”[39] The significance of the Indian diaspora and its vital mediating role between India and the rest of the world makes it extremely important that it must share in and subscribe to the values of Indian identity if the concept India a nation is not to get distorted.
Conclusion: Cosmopolitan Citizenship
What we are, then, really talking about is a cosmopolitan view of citizenship and a commitment to internationalism. Cosmopolitan citizenship does not define rights merely in terms of an individual’s obligations to a particular state. It implies a pluralist approach in which cultural communities are seen as simultaneously different and equal. Therefore, cosmopolitan citizenship focuses on ensuring conditions of freedom for individuals and rethinking the reciprocal relationship between a citizen and a community. It can eventually pave the way to internationalism.[40]
Internationalism is the attempt of the human mind and life to grow out of the national idea in the interest of a larger synthesis of mankind. Many conditions and tendencies at present are favourable to the progress of the internationalist idea. There is a constant drawing together of `international life’, because the points of contact and threads of communication have multiplied. Cosmopolitan habits of life are now not uncommon and there are a large number of people who are as much or more citizens of the world as citizens of their own nation. There is growing interest in and awareness among people of each other’s art, culture, religion, ideas that is breaking down several prejudices and the arrogance and exclusiveness of purely nationalistic sentiment. As this becomes stronger and people consciously co-operate more and more with each other, the necessary psychological modification that began quietly and gradually and which has increasingly been gaining force and rapidly will become inevitable. It can bring about a fundamental change in the life of humanity.
However, the nation state is not about to wither away in a hurry. By and large nation states guard their privileges zealously and demand strong loyalty from their citizens. How precarious is the commitment to dual citizenship when the interests of the nation state are threatened can be seen in the CD. Howe Institute Commentary exploring Canada’s possible reactions if Quebec were to cede.[41] Citing international law and customs on whether Canada could withdraw its citizenship from those living in Quebec, the Commentary states: “While the parties are free to negotiate an agreement to permit Canada not to withdraw its nationality from its citizens living in Quebec, there are compelling reasons Canada would likely feel obliged not to follow this course.”[42]: Internationalism for many is still merely an idea. It is not something vital to us or an integral part of our psychology. It is hoped that a world-wide commitment to democratic institutions would minimize the chances of conflict and of the abuse of power but even this cannot be said with any degree of certainty. Also internationalism cannot be achieved at the cost of the individual because that would lead to stagnation. Uniformity would get mistaken for unity as any large organization tends towards uniformity rather than encouraging diversity. It is the complexity of life, its need for diversity and adventure that ensures growth and progress. Cosmopolitan citizenship can become a tool in creating a world order based on a shared vision and acceptance of certain core values but it has to respect the individual, the nation state and the international order. Just as citizenship has to harmonize individual liberty with the needs, efficiency, solidarity, and natural progress of the nation, cosmopolitan citizenship must harmonize national growth and liberty with the growth and solidarity of international order based on respect for international institutions can be achieved only through shared values and identities in the international arena in which the core vision is not forgotten while the individual and nation state is respected. Otherwise, it can only cause conflict and as all selfish interests clash with each other in an ever narrowing world.
Endnotes:-
[1] Robin Cohen, “Diasporas and the nation-state: from victims to challengers,” International Affairs,
Vol.72, No.3, (1996), p.517. See also, Duncan Kelly, “Multicultural Citizenship: The Limitations of Liberal Democracy, “Political Quarterly,” Vol.71, (2000), pp 34-35.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Noah M.J. Pickus, “To Make Natural: Creating Citizens for the Twenty First Century.”
Immigration and Citizenship in the Twenty First Century, Noah M.J. Pickus ed. New York, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Pub. Inc., 1998, pp.110. See also Joseph H.Carens, “Why Naturalization Should be Easy: A Response to Noah Pickus,” Immigration and Citizenship in the Twenty First Century, Noah M.J. Pickus, ed., pp.141-146.
[5] Robin cohen, “Diasporas and the nation-state: from victims to challengers,” p.35.
[6] Jamin B. Raskin, “Legal Aliens, Local Citizens: Constitutional and Theoretical Meanings of Alien
Suffrace,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol.141 No.1391 (1993), pp.1468-1469.
[7] Patricia McGarvey Rosendahl, “A New Approach to Dual Nationality,” Houston Journal of
International Law, Vol.8, No.305 pp.322-323
See also, L.C. Green, “Is World Citizenship a Legal Practicality,” The Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 1987, pp.151-185.
[8] Patricia McGarvey Rosendahl, “A New Approach to Dual Nationality,” pp.324-325.
[9] Duncan Kelly, “Multicultural Citizenship: The Limitations of Liberal Democracy, “Political
Quarterly, Vol.71, (2000) p 32.
[10] Robin Cohen, “Diaspora and the nation-state,” pp.519-520.
[11] Bhikhu Parekh, “Defining British National Identity,” Political Quarterly, Vol.71 (2000), p.4.
[12] Ibid., pp 4-5
[13] Ibid., p.6
[14] Ibid pp. 6-8
See also, Randall Hansen, “British Citizenship after Empire: A Defence,” Political Quarterly, Vol.71 (2000), pp. 42-49; and
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, “Muddled Leaders and the Future of the British National Identity,” Political Quarterly, Vol.71 (2000) pp. 26-30
[15] Peter H.Schuck, “Plural Citizenships,” Immigration and Citizenship in the Twenty-First Century,
Noah M.J. Pickus ed., New York, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc. 1998, p-149.
See also, Michael Jones-Correa, “Why Immigrants Want Dual Citizenship (and We Should Too): A Response to Peter Schuck,” Immigration and Citizenship in the Twenty First Century, Noah M.J. Pickus, ed., 1998 pp.193-197.
[16] Robin Cohen, “Diaspora and the nation state,” p. 518.
[17] Wilson Warwick and T.John Samuel, “From Ashok Chakra to Kangaroo and Maple Leaf: A
Comparison of Indian Immigrants in Australia and Canada,” A paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of the Indian Association for Canadian Studies, Goa University, Goa, May 1994, pp.2-3; 5,8-9.
[18] Wan L. Head, “The Stranger in Our Midst: A Sketch of the Legal Status of the Alien in Canada,”
The Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 1964 pp.107-140. See also,
Austin Vs. British Columbia (Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and culture), 60 D.L.R (4th) pp. 33-41 and Andrews vs. law Society 56 D.L.R. (4th ) pp. 1-45.
[19] Canadian Citizenship: A Sense of Belonging, Report of the Standing Committee in Citizenship
and Immigration, June 1994,House of Commons, Issue No.23.
[20] Ibid., p 4
[21] Ibid
[22] Ibid
[23] Ibid. p.5
[24] Ibid
[25] Ibid., pp 5-6
[26] Ibid., p 15
[27] Ibid
[28] Ibid
[29] Ibid., pp. 15-16
[30] Lord Bhikhu Parekh, “National Identity of India”, Sandhan, Vol.II No.I (Jan – June 2002) p.49
[31] Ibid., pp 49-50
[32] Ibid p.50
[33] Ibid., pp.51-52
[34] Ibid p 52
[35] Ibid., p. 53
[36] Ibid
[37] Report of the High Level Committee on the Indian Diaspore, New Delhi: Indian Council of World
Affairs, Dec. 2001. p xi
[38] Bhikhu Parekh, “National Identity of India,” p.56
[39] Ibid., p vii
[40] Kelly, “Multicultural Citizenship: The Limitations of liberal Democracy,” Political Quarterly Vol.
61 (2000) p.3-4.
[41] Stanley H.Hartt, Divided Loyalties; Dual Citizenship and Reconstituting the Economic Union,
C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, No.67 March 1995.
[42] Ibid., p 7