Listen to this article:

For the last several weeks that innocuous looking navy blue document issued by the Republic of India, emblazoned with the Ashokan lions and the words ‘Satyameva Jayete’ in gold, has been in the news for two reasons. First, on June 24, an MEA official stated (whether he was tutored to say this or not will never be known), that the Indian passport is merely a “travel document” and not conclusive proof of Indian citizenship.

Really? Does a document that has a column marked ‘Nationality’ not have the word ‘Indian’ stamped on it? Is this not the Republic’s solemn guarantee to the countries of the world that the subject bearing the document is indeed an Indian citizen? 

The second reason why the passport captured public attention was because the Indian state in its wisdom had sought to harass former editor-in-chief of the Telegraph, R. Rajagopal, over the renewal of his passport. It took over 100 days for what should have been a routine renewal to come good because the local police held up its clearance on the basis that Rajagopal’s right to vote had been withheld under the ECI’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

What should we make of all this? That the decisions taken by the Central Passport Organisation under the Passport Act now crucially impinge on the decisions taken by Election Commission of India under SIR? 

Are we to conclude that the right to vote could be seen as a more “conclusive proof” of citizenship than the possession of a mere passport?

If a passport is not conclusive proof of citizenship, then why should its issuance be tied to the right to vote?

The jalebi-like circularity of such reasoning leads to only one conclusion: the government of India is ultimately more pre-occupied in disowning, disempowering and dis-enfranchising people than in appearing logical. Here is a government intent on choosing its own electorate; one that is “seeking to redefine citizenship on the basis of politically-driven administrative arbitrariness” (‘Chronology Samajhiye: Method Behind Modi Government’s Passport Madness’, June 26). 

For this column, however, the more important aspect is why was the casual cruelty of applying “politically-driven administrative arbitrariness” extended to Rajagopal, a hugely respected, fiercely independent journalist; a man who has edited a major newspaper like the Kolkata-based Telegraph for seven years and who considered Bengal his home having lived in the state for 30 years (‘MKV’s 360 Degrees | Vote Deletion, Then Passport Denial: Ex Telegraph Editor’s Ordeal’, June 29)?  

This question may have been hanging in the air waiting for an answer were it not for two occurrences. The first was statement issued by the Editors Guild of India (ECI) which noted that “Rajagopal, despite decades of work in the public domain as a journalist and editor, today finds himself not only disenfranchised as a voter due to the deletion of his name from the electoral rolls, but also unable to renew his passport since more than 100 days, allegedly due to an ‘adverse report’ from the Kolkata Police, who must have been very familiar with Mr Rajagopal as the Editor of one of the city’s leading dailies” (The Wire, June 28). 

The fact that this statement raised the hackles of Kanchan Gupta, Senior Advisor at Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, was the second development. Gupta attacked the ECI statement in an angry post on X: “Where was @IndEditorsGuild’s ethics when day after day R. Rajagopal ran a toxic campaign against Modi Govt, not to critique it but indulge in ad homimem vitriolic abuse? Remember how @smritiirani was labelled ‘Aunty National’ in a front page banner headline? Roll your outrage and smoke it.” 

Kanchan Gupta’s rage may suggest that the treatment afforded to Rajagopal may be something more than just the confusing ways of the Indian administrative system. During his stint as its editor, Rajagopal steered the Telegraph into becoming something of a national oracle, distilling........

© The Wire