In the late colonial period, Indians were reminded repeatedly that their demands for citizenship were unconvincing since the country did not fulfil the primary requisite of nationhood, which is that of a shared common heritage, language, and culture. Therefore, one may argue that India is not a nation of states, but rather a state or a union of nations that derive a sense of nationhood from territorialism. Due to lack of cohesive nationhood, Indian definitions of who constitutes the ‘other’, the ‘non-Indian’, or the ‘illegal migrant’ has been largely dependent on the which party is in power and the religious identity of the individual in question. Post-Partition, the Constitutional definition of citizenship included both Hindu refugees from Pakistan (East and West) and the large number of Muslims who returned from Pakistan. The jus soli concept was adopted in the Constitution under Article 5, but the idea of who is a ‘natural’ citizen became a matter of debate in civil society as it usually began with the jus sanguinis assumption that the Hindu male was the epitome of a domiciled citizen. Despite reminders that the jus sanguinis concept is redundant in India, support for it is extremely strong, especially among right-wing Hindu groups who believe that Muslims, especially those who returned to the country, do not hold legitimate claims to citizenship. Constitutionally, however, the jus soli doctrine continues to define Indian citizenship. The justification of this doctrine lies in its “presumed enlightened modern civilized character”, in contrast to jus sanguinis which is more racial in nature.
Hana Masood, 'Whose India is it Anyway?', Young Bharatiya
