There is a particular cruelty in a law that asks a woman to prove where she came from, using papers that were never written with her in mind. Citizenship, in the form it takes before a tribunal, is rarely a question of where a person was born, where she has lived, whom she has loved or where she has buried her parents. It becomes a question of whether a chain of documents can be assembled, link by link, from a person alive today back to an ancestor whose name appears on a list prepared before a fixed date half a century ago. The law places the whole weight of that task on the person whose citizenship is questioned. She does not need to be shown to be a foreigner; she must show that she is not one. For a man, that chain is often difficult to assemble. For a woman, it is frequently broken at the very joint where her life changed most.
Consider how an ordinary rural woman appears in the written record of the state. As a child she is seldom recorded at all, because births in villages went unregistered for decades, schools were far away or closed to daughters, and land passed to sons. Her parents’ names may appear on an old electoral roll, but she herself does not, because she was too young to vote. By the time she is old enough, she has often been married and has moved to her husband’s village, where the next roll records her not as her father’s daughter but as her husband’s wife. In the space of one document, the one link the law demands most insistently, the one that connects her to her father, simply disappears. She did not hide it. The record-keeping of a patriarchal society erased it, because the record never imagined that she would someday need it.
Then there are the names themselves. A woman’s name passes through many hands: a village enumerator who spells by ear, a clerk who writes in a script that is not her own, a translator, a typist. The same woman becomes three slightly different women across a lifetime of papers, and the same father loses or gains a family title depending on who held the pen. Each variation is innocent on its own, yet together they can be read as doubt, and doubt, under a law that places the burden on the person proceeded against, is enough to lose. The woman did not write any of these documents and often cannot read them. Still she is held to their inconsistencies as though she authored every letter.
When she tries to fill the gap, the difficulty multiplies. Her father may come forward to say that she is his daughter, but an elderly man who misses a hearing because of illness, distance or poverty may find his testimony struck out altogether. A deed by which a father gives his daughter a small piece of land, a gesture of recognition as much as of property, may be viewed with suspicion precisely because it was made when she most needed it. A woman who does not list every brother and sister in her pleadings, perhaps because she did not know the law expected it of her, may find that omission treated as evidence against her. A system built for documents finds it hard to hear a woman’s own account of her life, and her own statement in a tribunal room, often given in fear and without understanding of what is being asked, can become the very thing used to disbelieve her.
Scholars have named this pattern clearly. Trisha Sabhapandit and Padmini Baruah, writing on women and the quest for citizenship in Assam, argue that non-male people hold citizenship on less equal terms than men. They describe statelessness as “inherently disadvantageous to women”. Kalpana Kannabiran’s work on the shifting sands of citizenship, and on the “intimate citizenship” of women whose belonging is shaped by marriage and migration, asks us to see citizenship not as a fixed status recorded on paper but as something lived through relationships, labour and community.
The principle at stake is simple. A legal process that relies on documents must account for who has historically been allowed to appear in them. Where marriage moves a woman across villages, where her name changes in the mouths of officials, and where her childhood went unrecorded because she was a girl, a rule that demands an unbroken paper chain is not neutral. It is a rule that converts a society’s historic neglect of women into a present-day finding against them. Fairness requires that the gaps the state itself created should not be counted against the person who fell into them. It also requires that the testimony of parents and siblings, and of the community that watched her grow up, be given the weight that ordinary human knowledge deserves. Belonging cannot depend only on the spelling of a name in a roll prepared by someone else. If it does, it is women who will most often be told that they never belonged at all.
Leave a Reply