Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

State domicile has gained prominence as a governance framework in India, as several state governments have taken protectionist policy decisions to privilege the interests of ‘residents’ against migrants. The principle operates on the two registers of politics of belonging and constitutionality and puts the construct of singular citizenship of the nation-state under strain. Primarily focusing on Jharkhand, this article studies the contentious politics of domicile as an emergence of ‘provincial citizenship’. Analytically, it rethinks the territorial assumptions of Indian citizenship and argues for studying it beyond the site of the nation-state.

Keywords

State domicile Jharkhand Indian citizenship internal migration politics of belonging

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbas

(2016). Internal migration and citizenship in India. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(1), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1100067

Agnew

(1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80.

Albrow

(1996). The global age: State and society beyond modernity. UK Polity Press.

Ambwani

M. V.

, & Sinha

(2023, November 17). High court strikes down Haryana law on 75% domicile reservation in private jobs. The Hindu Business Line. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/high-court-strikes-down-haryana-law-on-75-domicile-reservation-in-private-jobs/article67544702.ece

Amin

M. M.

(2020). The domicile law of Jammu and Kashmir: Fears of demographic change. Economic & Political Weekly, 55(37), 18–21.

Austin

, & Bauder

(2012). Jus domicile: A pathway to citizenship for temporary foreign workers. In Bauder

(Ed.), Immigration and settlement: Challenges, experiences, and opportunities (pp. 21–36). Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Barla

, Xaxa

, & Tirkey

(2023). Jharkhand’s new sthaniyata (local resident) policy: The 1932 khatiyan, sociocultural fabric, and land rights. Economic & Political Weekly, 58(18), 34–40.

Baruah

(1999). India against itself: Assam and the politics of nationality. Oxford University Press.

Bauder

(2012). Jus domicile: In pursuit of a citizenship of equality and social justice. Journal of International Political Theory, 8(1–2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.3366/jipt.2012.0038

10.

Bauder

(2014). Domicile citizenship, human mobility and territoriality. Progress in Human Geography, 38(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513502281

11.

Baviskar

(2006). The politics of being ‘indigenous’. In Karlsson

B. G.

& Subba

T. B.

(Eds), Indigeneity in India (pp. 33–50). Kegan Paul.

12.

Bhatia

(2020, October 8). Jammu and Kashmir’s new domicile law: Justice for some, repression for many. The India Forum. https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/jammu-and-kashmir-s-new-domicile-law-justice-or-repression

13.

Blank

(2007). Spheres of citizenship. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 8(2), 410–452. https://doi.org/10.2202/ 1565-3404.1156

14.

Chauhan

(2022). Gender, law, and rights of permanent residents in Jammu and Kashmir: From the lens of article 370 and beyond. In Niumai

& Chauhan

(Eds), Gender, law and social transformation in India (pp. 207–226). Springer.

15.

Chowdhury

S. R.

, & Chakraborty

(2023). The ‘outsider’ within: Emerging politics of citizenship in India. In Chakraborty

(Ed.), Citizenship in contemporary times: The Indian context (pp. 16–35). Routledge.

16.

Corbridge

(2003). The continuing struggle for India's Jharkhand: democracy, decentralisation and the politics of names and numbers. In Wyatt

and Zavos

(Eds.), Decentering the Indian Nation (pp. 53–68). Frank Cass and Private Limited.

17.

D. P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat (1955). 1 SCR 1215, AIR 1955 SC 334.

18.

Damodaran

(2006). The politics of marginality and the construction of indigeneity in Chotanagpur. Postcolonial Studies, 9(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790600657843

19.

Daniyal

(2020, June 19). How the COVID-19 crisis is strengthening the concept of a state domicile in India. Scroll.in. https://scroll.in/article/964558/how-the-covid-19-crisis-is-strengthening-the-concept-of-a-state-domicile-in-india

20.

Davidsdottir

(2021). Our rights are carved in stone: The case of the Pathalgadi movement in Simdega, Jharkhand. The International Journal of Human Rights, 25(7), 1111–1125. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1878351

21.

Debroy (2023, March 4). Why domicile status is not relevant to India. The New Indian Express. https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2023/Mar/03/why-domicile-status-is-not-relevant-to-india-2552865.html

22.

Ekka

(2000). Jharkhand tribals: Are they really a minority? Economic & Political Weekly, 35(52/53), 4610–4612.

23.

Government of Assam: Home & Political. (n.d.). PRC guidelines. https://homeandpolitical.assam.gov.in/frontimpotentdata/prc-guidelines

24.

Hoffman

(1997, October). Citizenship and the state [paper presentation]. Citizenship for the Twenty-first Century Conference, University of Central Lancashire, UK.

25.

Hoffman

(2004). Citizenship beyond the state. Sage Publications.

26.

IMT Industrial Association v. State of Haryana (2021). CWP Nos. 26573, 24967, 25037, 25539 and 25998. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189756307/?type=print

27.

Isin

E. F.

(2007). City.state: Critique of scalar thought. Citizenship Studies, 11(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020701262644

28.

Jayal

N. G.

(2013). Citizenship and its discontents: An Indian history. Harvard University Press.

29.

Jayal

N. G.

(2019). Reconfiguring citizenship in contemporary India. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 42(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2019.1555874

30.

Kostakopoulou

(2008). The future governance of citizenship. Cambridge University Press.

31.

Kumar

(2014). The politics behind Jharkhand’s domicile policy. Economic & Political Weekly, 49(17), 22–23.

32.

Kumar

, & Bhagat

R. B.

(Eds). (2022). Migrants, mobility and citizenship in India. Routledge.

33.

Kumar

(2018). Adivasis and the state politics in Jharkhand. Studies in Indian Politics, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/232102301876

34.

Kumar

& Sardesai

(2015). BJP wins with some help from opponents: Jharkhand assembly election. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(19), 62–65.

35.

Marshall

T. H.

(1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge University Press.

36.

Munda

R. D.

& Mullick

S. B.

(Eds). (2003). Introduction. In Jharkhand Movement: The indigenous peoples’ struggle for autonomy in India (pp. iv–xvii). International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.

37.

Neveu

(2013). Sites of citizenship, politics of scale. In Maas

(Ed), Multilevel citizenship (pp. 203–212). University of Pennsylvania Press.

38.

Palshikar

& Kumar

(2019, December 26). Explained: How Jharkhand Assembly elections result fits into a pattern. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/how-jharkhand-assembly-elctions-result-fits-into-a-pattern-hemant-soren-caa-protests-narendra-modi-6184855/

39.

Pandey

(2016, April 9). 16 years after formation, Jharkhand spells out its domicile policy. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/jharkhand-domicile-raghubar-das-bjp/

40.

Pingali

(2023). Removing Adivasis from the Adivasi state. In Indigenous question, land appropriation and development: Understanding the conflict in Jharkhand, India (pp. 35–47). Routledge.

41.

Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984). SCR (3) 942.

42.

PTI. (2019, July 2). SC dismisses PIL challenging Inner Line Permit. Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/sc-dismisses-pil-challenging-inner-line-permit-744263.htmlhttps://www.deccanherald.com/india/sc-dismisses-pil-challenging-inner-line-permit-744263.html

43.

Purveen

(2020). Politics of sons of soil. In Rajan

S. I.

& Sumeeta

(Eds.), Handbook of internal migration in India (pp. 550–560). Sage Publications.

44.

Rajan

S. I.

, & Sumeetha

(Eds). (2020). Handbook of internal migration in India. Sage Publications.

45.

Ranjan

(2020, August 1). Jharkhand tribals stir row over lifting of soil from ‘Sarna Sthal’ for Bhumi Pujan in Ayodhya’s Ram Mandir. The New Indian Express. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/Aug/01/jharkhand-tribals-stir-row-over-lifting-of-soil-from-sarna-sthal-for-bhumi-pujan-in-ayodhyas-ram-2177483.html

46.

Roy

(2008). Between encompassment and closure: The ‘migrant’ and the citizen in India. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 42(2), 219–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/006996670804200202

47.

Roy

(2010). Mapping citizenship in India. Oxford University Press.

48.

Roy

(2022). Citizenship regimes, law, and belonging: The CAA and the NRC. Oxford University Press.

49.

Roy

A. K.

(2003). Jharkhand: Internal colonialism. In Munda

R. D.

& Mullick

S. B.

(Eds), Jharkhand Movement: The indigenous peoples’ struggle for autonomy in India (pp. 78–85). International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.

50.

Saikia

, & Chowdhary

(2023). Indigene, outsider and the citizen: Politics of migration in Assam. In Kumar

& Bhagat

R. B

(Eds), Migrants, mobility and citizenship in India (pp. 97–109). Routledge.

51.

Saxena

(2012). Is India a case of asymmetrical federalism? Economic and Political Weekly, 47(2), 70–75.

52.

Sen

A. K.

(2017). Indigeneity, landscape and history: Adivasi self-fashioning in India. Routledge.

53.

Sengupta

(2014). Through the looking glass: The domicile debate of Jharkhand. Economic & Political Weekly, 49(45), 23–26.

54.

Sengupta

(Ed.). (1982). Background of the Jharkhand question. In Fourth world dynamics: Jharkhand (pp. 3–39). Authors Guild Publication.

55.

Sharma

(2024). ‘Paused citizens’: Waiting and negotiating liminality in Assam, India. Citizenship Studies, 28(3), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2024.2384374

56.

Shukla

, & Ghazali

(2021, April 21). Battle over oxygen as Haryana alleges ‘loot’ by Delhi, UP dials centre. NDTV. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/up-facing-oxygen-shortage-as-delhi-overdrew-say-sources-2418576

57.

Sinha

S. C.

, Sen

, & Panchbhai

(1969). The concept of diku among the tribes of Chhotanagpur. Man in India, 49(2), 119–138.

58.

Sundar

(2020, April 28). Why India needs Scheduled Tribes to educate its future judges. The Wire. https://thewire.in/rights/why-india-needs-scheduled-tribes-to-educate-future-judges

59.

The Hindu (2021, September 15). Row over Hemant Soren’s remarks on Bhojpuri, Magahi. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/jharkhand-cm-sorens-comments-on-bhojpuri-magahi-languages-creates-controversy/article36467422.ece

60.

The Hindu. (2022, September 16). No separate domicile for a State: Supreme Court. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/no-separate-domicile-for-a-state-supremecourt/article65895567.ece

61.

Trepanier

, & Habib

K. M.

(2011). Cosmopolitanism in the age of globalization: Citizens without states. University Press of Kentucky.

62.

Weekly Notes. (1957). Exit for domicile rules. Economic & Political Weekly, 9(37), 1175.

63.

Weiner

(1978). Sons of the soil: Migration and ethnic conflict in India. Princeton University Press.

64.

Xaxa

(1999). Tribes as indigenous people of India. Economic & Political Weekly, 34(51), 3589–3595. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4408738

65.

Young

I. M.

(1989). Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. Ethics, 99(2), 250–274. https://doi.org/10.1086/293065

66.

Yuval-Davis

(1999). The ‘multi-layered citizen’. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1(1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/146167499bhatua360068

67.

Yuval-Davis

(2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313220600769331

Provincial Citizenship: Jharkhand Domicile,Migration and Politics of Scale

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References