Bibek Debroy: Being Indian

OFF THE RECORD

Who is an Indian? When can I call myself an Indian? Thanks to the Constitution, and the Citizenship Act of 1955, most people will give a simple and correct answer. I can be a citizen by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation. And most people will be vaguely aware that I can cease to be an Indian if I acquire the citizenship of another country. However, Section 10 of the Citizenship Act also lists other scenarios for deprivation of citizenship. For instance, Section 10(2)(b) states, citizenship can be deprived if "that citizen has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Constitution of India as by law established". Although Section 10(3) has the caveat, "The Central Government shall not deprive a person of citizenship under this section unless it is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that person should continue to be a citizen of India". Indeed, under Section 13, the central government will give me a certificate if there is doubt about my citizenship. Assuming my citizenship has not been deprived, can I call myself an Indian? More pertinently, can I call myself Indian without taking explicit permission from the government?

This bizarre question hasn't come up so far and no one seems to have objected to people calling themselves Indian without taking explicit permission. But just because a question hasn't come up in the past, there is no guarantee that it won't come up in the future. We do need to realise that Indian has a control mindset. Behind every reformer, there is a control freak, as long as he/she does the controlling. Stated thus, it is not surprising that reforms, which involve discarding controls, don't happen. What is surprising is that limited reforms have happened. Do remember we also have the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act of 1950. Let me quote Section 3 of this statute: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no person shall, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government use, or continue to use, for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession, or in the title of any patent, or in any trade mark or design, any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or, any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government."

Hence, we should now look up the schedule. Among other things, the schedule mentions the Indian national flag. So I have no right to use the flag, unless someone like Naveen Jindal makes an issue out of it and forces courts to adjudicate. Before that, the flag belonged to the government and the bureaucracy. The flag issue may have been sorted out. But the schedule also lists "[a]ny name, which may suggest or be calculated to suggest--The patronage of the Government of India or the Government of a State". Isn't my use of the adjective "Indian" by virtue of the patronage of the government? Of course it is, until courts rule otherwise. This bizarre interpretation isn't a concocted one, because that is precisely what is happening with the Indian School of Business. The HRD ministry, the UGC and the AICTE have reportedly decreed that no private institution can call itself Indian without explicit government permission. Whether the three organisations really further the cause of education, or whether they should be wound up, is a moot point. But assuming they exist, they must find something to do. And typically, they control input prices (salaries) and output prices (fees). This may have been discarded for manufacturing, but it continues for education. And one shouldn't forget that the AICTE has tried to control the Indian School of Business earlier.

Thus, the control on usage of the adjective "Indian" also follows and the question is whether "Indian" is an "emblem" or "name". In law, a distinction is drawn between natural or physical persons (individuals, say) and juridical persons (aggregates of physical persons, corporations are an example). But that's not relevant for present purposes. Neither can be Indian without government permission. I can't call myself Indian. Amartya Sen can't write a book titled The Argumentative Indian. Without government permission, unless government equity is more than 50 per cent, you can't have Indian companies. Newspapers can't describe Ranbaxy as an Indian pharmaceutical company. There can't be an Indian small car. Examples can be multiplied. Instead of reducing government equity in public sector enterprises to below 50 per cent, there is therefore a case for nationalisation of private enterprises by increasing government equity in them to above 50 per cent. Because Section 4 of the Emblems and Names Act states, "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no competent authority shall,""(a) register any company, firm or other body of persons which bears any name, or (b) register a trade mark or design which bears any emblem or name". You can't be Indian without the government saying that you can.