Citizenship | CBSE Class 11 Political Science Notes

This note covers citizenship as full and equal membership, rights and obligations, struggles against exclusion, freedom of movement, the urban poor, equality and social class, citizenship in India, national identity, refugees, universal citizenship and global citizenship.

What does full and equal citizenship mean?

Definition: Citizenship means full and equal membership of a political community. A state gives its members a collective political identity, rights and an expectation of help and protection.

A political community is a community whose members share political membership, rights and obligations. In the contemporary world, people identify themselves as Indians, Japanese or Germans through the state to which they belong. Citizens expect help and protection even when travelling elsewhere.

Full membership matters because people whom no state accepts may lack guaranteed rights. Palestinian refugees in the Middle East illustrate the struggle for membership of a state of their choice. People excluded from membership generally live in precarious, or insecure, conditions.

Which rights can citizenship include?

The precise rights granted to citizens may vary from state to state. In most democratic countries, they would include political rights, civil rights and some socio-economic rights. Equality of rights and status is a basic principle of citizenship.

The distinction between having membership and lacking it is therefore practical as well as legal. It affects protection, opportunities and the ability to claim rights. Full and equal citizenship asks whether people can participate as equals, rather than merely carry a formal label.

Two questions follow: should citizens enjoy equal opportunities wherever they live, study or work within their country, and should all citizens, rich or poor, enjoy basic rights and facilities? These questions connect membership with freedom of movement and conditions of everyday life.

How have struggles expanded citizenship rights?

Citizenship rights have been won through struggle. Some early struggles challenged powerful monarchies, meaning rule by monarchs, to assert independence and rights. Many European countries experienced such movements, some violent, including the French Revolution of 1789.

In the colonies of Asia and Africa, demands for equal citizenship formed part of independence struggles against colonial rulers. In South Africa, the black African population struggled against the ruling white minority for equal citizenship. This struggle continued until the early 1990s.

What did exclusion mean in South Africa?

Under the discriminatory practices that operated until 1994, whites could vote, contest elections, elect governments, purchase property and move throughout the country. Blacks lacked these rights. Living in the same country did not give the two groups equal political status.

Separate colonies housed white and black people. Blacks needed passes to work in white neighbourhoods and could not keep their families in white areas. Schools were also separated by colour. Exclusion therefore reached work, family life, residence, education and political participation.

These arrangements denied full and equal membership because one group enjoyed opportunities and freedoms withheld from another. Citizenship cannot be understood simply as presence within a territory when rights and access to institutions depend upon colour.

Why do struggles continue?

Struggles for full membership and equal rights continue in many parts of the world. In India, the women’s movement and dalit movement, collective efforts to secure equality for these groups, seek changes in public opinion and government policy.

They draw attention to needs that existing arrangements may fail to recognise. Their demands show that legal membership does not settle every question about equality. Groups can challenge accepted meanings of citizenship when those meanings do not adequately include their aspirations.

Why did Martin Luther King Jr. oppose segregation?

Segregation means enforced separation of groups. In many southern states of the United States of America, Segregation Laws maintained inequalities between black and white populations. The Civil Rights Movements of the 1950s challenged these inequalities.

The laws denied black people many civil and political rights. They created separate areas for black and white people in railways, buses, theatres, housing, hotels and restaurants. Martin Luther King Jr., a black leader of the movement, argued for their abolition.

What were King’s main arguments?

First, all human beings are equal in self-worth and dignity, regardless of race or colour. Segregation violated this equality. Second, it inflicted deep psychological wounds on those subjected to it. King called segregation “social leprosy”, comparing its damage to a disease affecting the political community.

Segregation also diminished the white community’s quality of life. When a court directed that black people should be allowed into some community parks, the white community chose to close the parks instead. Some baseball teams were disbanded because the authorities refused to accept black players.

Third, segregation created artificial boundaries between people and prevented cooperation for the country’s overall benefit. The injury was therefore not confined to those directly denied entry. Practices of exclusion damaged shared institutions and opportunities to act together.

How should resistance be organised?

King called for peaceful and non-violent resistance. Protest should not degenerate into physical violence. His position connected the aim of equal citizenship with a method that recognised the dignity of people and challenged unjust laws without embracing violence.

The parks and baseball examples explain why equal rights concern the whole political community. Keeping one group out can deprive others of shared facilities too. A society divided by segregation loses possibilities for cooperation that would benefit its members.

What obligations do citizens have towards one another?

Citizenship concerns both state-citizen relations, the relationship between a state and its members, and citizen-citizen relations, the relationships among fellow citizens. Rights claimed from the state are accompanied by responsibilities towards other people and the wider community.

Legal obligations are obligations imposed by the state. Citizens also have a moral obligation, a responsibility beyond legal requirements, to participate in and contribute to shared community life. They are considered inheritors and trustees of the country’s culture and natural resources.

How can disputes be addressed democratically?

The right to protest forms part of the freedom of expression guaranteed in the Indian Constitution, provided protest does not harm the life or property of other people or the state. Democratic disagreement must respect this condition.

Citizens can seek to influence opinion and policy through the following avenues. These are possible methods, not compulsory stages that every campaign must follow:

1. Form groups to bring people’s concerns into organised public discussion.
2. Hold demonstrations to express demands without harming life or property.
3. Use the media to influence public opinion about disputed issues.
4. Appeal to political parties to seek attention to their needs and demands.
5. Approach the courts, which may decide a matter or urge government action.

This may be a slow process, and varying degrees of success are sometimes possible. Negotiation and discussion, rather than force, are basic democratic ways of settling disputes. Accepting this responsibility is part of citizenship.

The guiding principle is full and equal membership for all citizens. It should help people arrive at acceptable solutions when interests conflict. Participation involves more than insisting on one’s own claims: it also requires considering the rights and needs of fellow members.

Why does migration create debates about equal membership?

Migration means movement from one place to another, including movement in search of work. The crowded bus or railway compartment provides an analogy: people who fought to enter may, once inside, unite to keep others out.

The division between insiders and outsiders can also develop in cities, regions and nations. When jobs, medical care, education, land or water are limited, demands may arise to restrict newcomers even when they are fellow citizens. “Mumbai for Mumbaikars” expressed such feelings.

Why is freedom of movement important?

Freedom of movement, the right to move within the country, is especially important for workers. Labour tends to migrate when employment is unavailable near home. Information technology workers may flock to Bangalore, while nurses from Kerala may work throughout the country.

Building activity and infrastructure projects, such as road making, attract workers from different regions. However, local resistance often develops when many jobs go to outsiders, sometimes at lower wages. Demands may favour state residents or people who know the local language.

Political parties may take up these demands. Resistance could even become organised violence against outsiders. Almost every region of India has experienced such movements. The central question is how local concerns can be reconciled with the equal membership of fellow citizens.

Are all migrants welcomed equally?

There may sometimes be a difference between responses to poor migrants and skilled migrants. People may welcome skilled, affluent workers more readily than poor, unskilled workers. This raises the question of whether the latter should enjoy the same opportunities to live and work elsewhere.

Cartoon: “A day in the life of urban Indian middle class without immigrant workers” shows people handling rubbish, cooking, caring for a child, teaching and washing a car. It invites reflection on work that supports urban life.

Debates also concern preference for long-term inhabitants in jobs and facilities, and quotas for students from other states in professional colleges. Equal citizenship supplies a guiding principle for discussing these claims; differences should be negotiated rather than settled through force.

Why can the urban poor struggle to exercise equal rights?

The urban poor are poor people living in towns and cities. Their circumstances raise the question of whether full membership should guarantee basic rights and a minimum standard of living to all citizens, regardless of wealth.

Slum-dwellers, people living in crowded settlements with inadequate facilities, may perform necessary and useful work, often at low wages, yet are often viewed as unwelcome visitors by the rest of the town population. They may be blamed for straining resources or spreading crime and disease. Such accusations are attitudes towards them, not an explanation that justifies exclusion.

How do living conditions affect membership?

Conditions in slums are often shocking. Many people may share small rooms without private toilets, running water or sanitation. Life and property are insecure. The city probably spends relatively little on providing slum-dwellers with services such as sanitation or water supply.

Nevertheless, slum-dwellers contribute significantly through their labour. They may work as hawkers, petty traders, scavengers, domestic workers, plumbers or mechanics. Small businesses such as cane weaving, textile printing and tailoring may also develop in slums.

Squatters and pavement dwellers, people occupying sites or pavements for shelter, may find it difficult to provide the fixed address required for inclusion in a voters’ list. Thus even a basic political right such as voting may be difficult for them to exercise.

How have street vendors sought recognition?

A national policy on urban street vendors was framed in January 2004. Street vendors, who sell goods in public places, often face harassment from police and town authorities. The policy sought recognition and regulation of their occupation.

Its intention was to enable vendors to work without harassment so long as they obeyed government regulations. This condition matters: recognition was linked to regulation. The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 is also relevant to this topic.

Awareness of urban poverty has grown among governments, other agencies and slum-dwellers themselves. Slum-dwellers have begun organising to demand their rights and have sometimes approached courts. Their experience shows why rights on paper and the ability to exercise them must be distinguished.

How did T. H. Marshall connect citizenship with equality?

T. H. Marshall (1893 to 1981), a British sociologist, connected citizenship with equality and rights. In Citizenship and Social Class (1950), he understood citizenship as the status of full membership of a community, carrying equality in the rights and duties attached to that status.

Here, status means a person’s recognised standing as a member. Equality involves two changes: the quality of rights and duties improves, and the number of people receiving them grows. Better rights and wider inclusion are therefore connected aspects of citizenship.

How do civil, political and social rights differ?

These three kinds of rights together make it possible to lead a life of dignity. Equal membership cannot be reduced to one category alone. Protection of liberty, participation in government and access to social opportunities address different dimensions of membership.

Why does social class matter?

Social class, a hierarchy of unequal social positions, was a system of inequality in Marshall’s account. Citizenship counters the divisive effects of class hierarchy. It thereby helps create a more integrated and harmonious community.

The urban poor illustrate why this connection matters. Equal formal status may coexist with insecure shelter, limited services and difficulties in exercising rights. Thinking about citizenship through equality directs attention to the conditions under which people actually live as members of a community.

Marshall’s framework therefore goes beyond describing citizenship as a legal label. It connects rights, duties and inclusion with the wider organisation of society. The improvement of rights and their extension to more people are both important to the meaning of equal membership.

Why need equal rights not mean identical policies?

Uniform policies apply the same arrangements to everyone. Equal rights need not require uniform policies, because different groups may have different needs. If the aim is to make people more equal, those needs and claims must influence policy.

What did the Olga Tellis case establish?

In 1985, social activist Olga Tellis brought a Public Interest Litigation, a court petition concerning public interests, against Bombay Municipal Corporation. The petition claimed a right to live in slums or on pavements because alternative accommodation near work was unavailable.

Forced removal would also mean losing their livelihood, their means of earning a living. The Supreme Court held that Article 21, the constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to life, included the right to livelihood.

If pavement dwellers were to be evicted, they should first receive alternative accommodation under the right to shelter, the claim to accommodation. Housing and livelihood were connected because moving people away from work could deprive them of their means of survival.

Why do forest dwellers require attention?

Tribal people and forest dwellers depend on access to forests and natural resources to sustain their way of life. Many face threats from population pressure and the search for land and resources. Commercial mining interests and tourism also threaten their livelihoods and habitat.

Governments face the problem of protecting these people without endangering the country’s development. The rights of one group may conflict with those of another. Protection of their habitat, the environment in which they live, concerns all citizens.

What does the Zimbabwe land dispute ask us to consider?

The Zimbabwe land-distribution example places historical dispossession alongside the claims of people who have lived in the country for generations. The land figures are:

A hectare is a unit of land area. Whites had taken fertile land from native people a century earlier, but had subsequently lived in Zimbabwe for generations and considered themselves Zimbabweans. Whites accounted for 0.06 per cent of Zimbabwe’s population at the time.

In 1997, President Mugabe announced plans to take over around 1,500 farms. The dispute raises questions about correcting inherited inequality while considering the citizenship claims of both black and white citizens. Equal rights and protection should guide discussion of competing claims.

How can national identity include some people more easily than others?

A nation state claims that its boundaries mark not only a territory but also a unique culture and shared history. The concept developed in the modern period. French revolutionaries in 1789 made an early assertion of national sovereignty and citizens’ democratic rights.

Sovereignty means the state’s authority over its political affairs. National identity may be expressed through a flag, anthem, language or ceremonial practices. Most modern states contain people of different religions, languages and cultural traditions.

What does an inclusive identity require?

A democratic national identity is supposed to offer a political identity shared by all members. States usually try to make it as inclusive as possible, allowing all citizens to identify with the nation. In practice, most countries tend to define their identity in a way that makes identification with the state easier for some citizens than others.

The United States, which prides itself on being a country of immigrants, also faces this difficulty. National identity may influence not only existing citizens’ sense of belonging but also which new applicants find it easier to obtain citizenship.

What does the French example show?

France claims to be secular and inclusive. Secular here concerns a public political identity that does not require all citizens to share one religion. Citizens include people of European and North African origin. Culture and language are important to French national identity.

Assimilation means fitting into the national culture. Citizens are expected to do this in public life while retaining personal beliefs and practices privately. Yet the boundary between public and private is not always simple.

Some schools disallowed Sikh boys’ turbans and Muslim girls’ head scarves on the ground that these brought religious symbols into state education. People whose religions did not demand such practices faced no equivalent difficulty. Assimilation into the national culture would therefore be easier for some groups than for others.

Religion or ethnic origin may receive priority in citizenship decisions in countries such as Israel or Germany. Ethnic origin refers to a person’s community of descent. Turkish workers in Germany demanded automatic citizenship for children born and brought up there, illustrating debate over membership criteria.

How does India understand citizenship as an inclusive project?

India defines itself as a secular, democratic nation state. The independence movement sought to unite people across religions, regions and cultures. Although Partition occurred in 1947 when differences with the Muslim League could not be resolved, leaders strengthened their commitment to an inclusive Indian state.

This commitment entered the Constitution, the framework of the state’s fundamental rules and rights. It attempted to accommodate a very diverse society without forcing citizens to abandon personal beliefs, languages or cultural practices as the price of equality.

Which groups did constitutional inclusion seek to accommodate?

The Constitution attempted to extend full and equal citizenship to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, constitutionally recognised caste and tribal groups, and to many women who had not previously enjoyed equal rights. It also included remote communities in the Andaman and Nicobar islands.

Some of those island communities had had little contact with modern civilisation. The challenge was to provide equality across these differences. The Republic Day parade in Delhi symbolises the attempt to include people of different regions, cultures and religions.

Where are citizenship provisions found?

Citizenship provisions appear in Part Two of the Constitution and subsequent laws passed by Parliament. The recognised ways of acquiring citizenship are birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and inclusion of territory.

• Birth connects acquisition with being born.
• Descent connects acquisition with parentage.
• Registration refers to formal recording as a citizen.
• Naturalisation refers to admission to citizenship through a legal process.
• Inclusion of territory connects acquisition with territory becoming part of the state.

The Constitution lists citizens’ rights and obligations. The state should not discriminate on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. It also protects religious and linguistic minorities, groups distinguished by religion or language.

Why is democratic citizenship unfinished?

The women’s movement, dalit movement and struggles of people displaced by development projects show that inclusive provisions do not end disputes. New issues arise as society changes. Groups that feel marginalised, or pushed to its edges, raise further demands.

Democratic citizenship is a project, an ideal to work towards. Formal law supplies a starting point; its interpretation evolves with social and economic change. Democratic states must negotiate new claims while treating equal rights and protection as guiding principles.

Why does universal citizenship remain difficult to achieve?

Universal citizenship expresses the promise that citizenship rights and a political identity should be available to all people. Full membership is often assumed to be available to those ordinarily living and working in a country and to those applying for citizenship.

Yet each state sets criteria for citizenship, conditions governing admission to membership, generally in its Constitution and laws. Even states supporting universal and inclusive citizenship use their powers to keep unwanted visitors out. Restrictions do not stop considerable migration.

What happens to displaced people?

Displacement means being forced away from one’s home. War, persecution and famine may cause it. Persecution means oppressive treatment; famine means extreme shortage of food. Refugees are people forced to leave their homes and seek protection.

If people cannot return home and no state accepts them, they become stateless people or refugees. Stateless means lacking the membership and protection of a state. They may live in camps or as illegal migrants, people whose stay lacks legal authorisation.

Often they cannot legally work, educate their children or acquire property. Borders redefined by war or political disputes can cost people their homes, political identities and security. Refugee examples include Palestinians and people from Darfur in Sudan, Burma and Bangladesh.

What choices confront states?

The United Nations, an international organisation of states, appointed a High Commissioner for Refugees to try to help displaced people. Many countries accept people fleeing persecution or war but may resist numbers they regard as unmanageable or posing security risks.

India provided refuge to the Dalai Lama and his followers in 1959. Entry across India’s borders has also left many people living for years or generations as stateless people or illegal migrants. Only relatively few are eventually granted citizenship.

Deciding how many people to absorb presents a humanitarian and political problem. Protection of human beings must be considered alongside states’ concerns. The existence of people without citizenship challenges democratic citizenship’s promise, because no alternative political identity exists for many of them.

Could global citizenship supplement national citizenship?

Global citizenship is the idea of strengthening links and responsibilities across national boundaries. It responds to an interconnected world in which events in one country can affect people elsewhere and some problems require cooperation among several societies.

The internet, television and mobile phones enable immediate contact with distant developments. Immediate contact with developments, including watching wars and disasters as they happen, has helped to develop shared concerns and sympathy among people in different countries. Earlier, news from another part of the world might have taken months to arrive.

Which examples show interdependence?

Help and sympathy crossed borders after the 2004 tsunami affected several South Asian countries. International terrorist networks also show cross-border connections. Efforts by the United Nations and states to prevent bird flu spreading illustrate the need for cooperation over health threats.

Bird flu refers to influenza affecting birds. The concern included the possible emergence of a human viral pandemic, an epidemic spreading across countries. These examples show that interconnectedness includes shared dangers as well as opportunities for solidarity.

Supporters of global citizenship acknowledge that a world community and global society do not yet exist, but argue that people already feel connected across borders. They interpret international help after calamities as a sign of an emerging global society.

What might it achieve, and what are its limits?

Global citizenship might make it easier to address problems extending across borders. It might help secure an acceptable solution for migrants and stateless people, or at least basic rights and protection regardless of the country where they live.

Socio-economic inequalities threatening equal citizenship within a country can ultimately only be solved by its government and people. National citizenship therefore remains important. It might need to be supplemented, or supported further, by willingness to work with people and governments across borders.

Glossary

• Citizenship — Full and equal membership of a political community, involving rights as well as obligations.
• Civil rights — Rights protecting an individual’s life, liberty and property within the political community.
• Political rights — Rights enabling citizens to participate in governance, including the right to vote.
• Social rights — Rights giving people access to education and employment and supporting a life of dignity.
• Segregation — Enforced separation of groups, exemplified by laws dividing black and white access to civic amenities.
• Freedom of movement — The right to move within a country, particularly important to workers seeking employment elsewhere.
• Livelihood — The means through which people earn their living and sustain their everyday lives.
• Nation state — A state claiming a territory together with a unique culture and a shared history.
• Assimilation — Adoption of a national culture, especially in public life; in the French example, this would be easier for some groups than for others.
• Refugees — People forced away from their homes who seek protection, including those displaced by war or persecution.
• Stateless people — People lacking membership of a state and the rights and protection attached to that membership.
• Universal citizenship — The promise that citizenship rights and political identity should be available to all people.
• Global citizenship — An idea encouraging shared concerns, responsibilities and cooperation among people across national boundaries.

Common errors and misconceptions

• Misconception: Citizenship concerns only the relationship between an individual and the state. Correct: It also concerns obligations towards fellow citizens and participation in the shared life of the community.
• Misconception: Every democratic state gives precisely the same rights to citizens. Correct: The precise rights may vary. Most democratic states provide political and civil rights and some socio-economic rights.
• Misconception: Equal legal rights mean everyone can exercise them equally. Correct: Poverty and insecure residence can obstruct their exercise, as difficulties providing an address for voter registration illustrate.
• Misconception: Equal citizenship requires identical policies for every group. Correct: Different needs and claims may require different policies if the purpose is to make people more equal.
• Misconception: The right to protest permits harming other people’s life or property. Correct: Protest is protected provided it does not harm life or property belonging to others or the state.
• Misconception: Giving refuge automatically means granting citizenship. Correct: Many displaced people remain without citizenship for years or generations; states set conditions for membership.
• Misconception: Global citizenship has already replaced national citizenship. Correct: National membership remains important. Global citizenship might supplement it by encouraging cooperation over shared problems.
• Misconception: India’s inclusive Constitution makes democratic citizenship a completed achievement. Correct: New demands arise as society changes, making citizenship an ideal that requires continuing negotiation.

Exam-style questions with model answers

Q1. Citizenship means full and equal membership of a political community. It involves rights from the state and responsibilities towards fellow citizens. Identify its two dimensions from this description. [2 marks]

1. Citizenship involves relations between a state and its members, including the rights and protection citizens expect.
2. It also involves relations among citizens, including responsibilities towards one another and their shared community life.

Q2. Marshall associated civil rights with life, liberty and property; political rights with participation in governance; and social rights with education and employment. Explain how each category contributes to citizenship. [3 marks]

1. Civil rights protect the individual’s life, liberty and property. They provide protections that matter to being recognised as a member of the community.
2. Political rights enable participation in governance. Citizens are therefore able to take part in the political processes affecting their community.
3. Social rights provide access to education and employment. Together with civil and political rights, they make a life of dignity possible.

Q3. In 1985, Olga Tellis petitioned against Bombay Municipal Corporation because pavement dwellers lacked alternative accommodation near work and eviction would destroy their livelihood. The Supreme Court linked Article 21’s right to life with livelihood and required alternative accommodation before eviction under the right to shelter. Explain four aspects of the connection between housing and citizenship in this case. [4 marks]

1. The lack of accommodation close to work made residence inseparable from earning a living. The petition connected shelter with livelihood rather than treating housing in isolation.
2. The petition pursued housing and livelihood claims through the courts. This illustrates how citizens can use legal proceedings to seek protection of their rights.
3. The interpretation of Article 21 connected the constitutional right to life with the right to livelihood, giving the claim a basis in rights.
4. Alternative accommodation before eviction recognised the right to shelter. This response addressed the particular needs of pavement dwellers when considering protection of citizens.

Q4. Workers move to seek employment; information technology workers may go to Bangalore and nurses from Kerala may work throughout India. Local residents often resist jobs going to outsiders, sometimes at lower wages. Poor migrants may receive a less welcoming response than skilled, affluent workers. Protest must not harm life or property, and democratic disputes should be negotiated. Use these facts to explain five citizenship issues raised by migration. [5 marks]

1. Movement for employment makes freedom of movement practically important. Citizens need opportunities to seek work when it is unavailable near their homes.
2. The Bangalore and Kerala examples show that labour can serve needs beyond its place of origin. Regional movement connects workers with opportunities elsewhere.
3. Local resistance raises a conflict between residents’ employment concerns and the equal membership of fellow citizens who move into the area.
4. Different responses to poor and affluent migrants raise an equality issue. The claim to live and work elsewhere should not be assessed without considering poorer workers’ needs.
5. Protest must respect life and property. Disputes should be addressed through negotiation and discussion, keeping full and equal citizenship as the guiding principle.

Q5. Segregation Laws separated black and white access to amenities in many southern states of the United States. King argued that all people possess equal dignity, segregation wounds those subjected to it, and artificial boundaries prevent cooperation. Some parks closed rather than admit black people, and some baseball teams disbanded rather than accept black players. He advocated peaceful, non-violent resistance. Explain six features of his argument and method. [6 marks]

1. Equal self-worth and dignity do not depend on race or colour. Laws imposing unequal treatment contradicted this basic equality between human beings.
2. Segregation inflicted deep psychological wounds on its victims. Its harm concerned people’s sense of dignity as well as their access to facilities.
3. Segregation diminished the white community’s quality of life too. Closing parks and disbanding baseball teams rather than admitting black people deprived white people of shared facilities and opportunities.
4. King argued that the segregation laws should be abolished. Their denial of equal dignity, psychological harm and obstruction of cooperation justified removing these laws.
5. Artificial boundaries prevented cooperation between people. Abolishing segregation would remove an obstacle to working together for the country’s overall benefit.
6. King’s method was peaceful and non-violent resistance. Protest against discriminatory laws should not become physical violence while seeking equal citizenship.

Q6. People displaced by war, persecution or famine may be unable to return home or obtain membership of another state. Often they cannot legally work, educate children or acquire property. States control admission and may fear unmanageable numbers or security risks. Global citizenship might promote cross-border cooperation and basic protection, but inequalities within a society ultimately require action by its own people and government. Explain six implications for universal and global citizenship. [6 marks]

1. The absence of a state willing to accept displaced people challenges universal citizenship, which promises citizenship rights and political identity to all.
2. Displacement may remove people from homes and established protection. When return and acceptance are unavailable, statelessness can leave them in insecure conditions.
3. Restrictions on lawful work, children’s education and property make exclusion practical. Lacking citizenship affects the conditions needed for everyday life and dignity.
4. States face humanitarian and political choices because admission must be considered alongside concerns about numbers and security. Inclusive ideals do not remove these disputes.
5. Global citizenship might encourage cooperation and basic protection across borders. Its potential benefit is support for people regardless of where they live.
6. National citizenship remains important because domestic inequalities ultimately need domestic action. Global citizenship might supplement national membership through wider cooperation rather than replace it.

Key takeaways

• Citizenship means full and equal membership, combining rights from the state with obligations to fellow citizens and shared community life.
• Rights have developed through struggles against exclusion, including colonial rule, racial discrimination and unequal opportunities within existing political communities.
• Freedom of movement raises questions about local employment concerns, migrant contributions and equal opportunities for poor and skilled workers.
• Equal legal rights do not guarantee equal ability to exercise them; poverty, insecure shelter and different group needs matter.
• Marshall linked citizenship with civil, political and social rights, which together make a life of dignity possible.
• India’s inclusive constitutional citizenship remains a project requiring negotiation of new demands as social and economic conditions change.
• Statelessness challenges universal citizenship because many displaced people lack membership, guaranteed protection and access to ordinary opportunities.
• Global citizenship might supplement national citizenship through cooperation, while national membership remains important for addressing inequalities within a society.

Test yourself

What is the basic meaning of citizenship?

Citizenship means full and equal membership of a political community, involving both rights and obligations.

Why does citizenship involve relations among citizens?

Citizens have responsibilities towards one another and a moral obligation to contribute to the shared life of their community.

What condition qualifies the right to protest?

Protest must not harm the life or property of other people or the state.

How did Marshall describe the expansion of equality?

The quality of rights and duties improves, and the number of people receiving them grows.

Why may uniform policies fail to achieve equal citizenship?

Different groups may have different needs and claims. Policies aiming to make people more equal need to take these differences into account.

What connection did the Olga Tellis case make?

The Supreme Court connected Article 21’s right to life with livelihood and linked eviction to provision of alternative accommodation under the right to shelter.

What are the five ways of acquiring Indian citizenship listed here?

They are birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and inclusion of territory within the Indian state.

Why might global citizenship supplement rather than replace national citizenship?

Cross-border cooperation may help address shared problems, but inequalities within a country ultimately require action by its own government and people.