Pakistani nationals of the Hindu faith immigrate to India because of religion, caste, culture and history – and recently Indian government officials up to the prime minister have encouraged them to “return,” according to Natasha Raheja, assistant professor of anthropology at the College of Arts and Sciences (A&S).
But at the border, many hopeful migrants find that Indian citizenship is not secured.
“Pakistani Hindus may think of their migration as an exercise of their ‘right of return,’ but in fact, upon arrival, they are met with a mixed reception,” Raheja wrote in “Governing by Proximity: State Performance and Migrant Citizenship on the India-Pakistan Border,” published September 8 in Cultural Anthropology.
While living among migrants in the western Indian city of Jodhpur, Raheja found Indian officials are using physical proximity and digital connections to lure potential citizens while awaiting recognition and basic services.
For the past eight years, Raheja has worked with migrants from Pakistan awaiting Indian citizenship as part of her broader exploration of how border crossings require new ways of imagining our geopolitical nation-state order.
“I wanted to understand how migrants continue to seek recognition despite repeated rejection,” Raheja said. “During the field research, I noticed the enchantment and cynicism associated with visits by national politicians to border regions. In this article, I explain these mixed effects of government benefits through the concept of governance by proximity.”
Proximity is a governance modality that is producing mixed results, Raheja said. When politicians get close to voters, either physically or digitally, they manage expectations and offer reassurances to voters. But they also expose themselves to scrutiny, giving people a chance to see beyond performance into imperfect governance.
“Proximity is like a magnifying glass that magnifies both stature and imperfections,” Raheja said. “On the one hand, having people in positions of power around us can make us feel special and like we personally belong. On the other hand, we can observe their shortcomings and inconsistencies.”
In Jodhpur, a city with a high concentration of multi-caste Pakistani migrants, Raheja met Meera, an indigenous farm worker who hopes to obtain Indian citizenship for herself and her husband, parents and 10 children at a two-day citizenship camp.
“Meera’s meetings with senior officers and viewing digital clips of political welcome speeches in the palm of her hand made Indian citizenship seem like a near possibility,” Raheja wrote. “At the same time, she had relatives and acquaintances whose visa and citizenship applications had been delayed or denied.”
Elsewhere in the citizenship camp, a man named Pankajlal waited an hour to apply, as his mother had been born with him in the line of “undivided India” before the 1947 partition that created the separate nations of India and Pakistan. When they finally reached the desk, they were rejected because the affidavit Pankajlal received was insufficient; Instead, they needed a birth certificate.
“The burden always falls on the common people, just as the weight always falls on the wheel of a bicycle,” said Pankajlal. “There [in Pakistan], they call us infidel Hindus; here [in India]damn Pakistanis.”
But a competitor encouraged Pankajlal to speak out. Together they went to government officials to complain about birth certificate criteria.
“Their exchange conveys how this site, which focuses on a performative affirmation of their special status as desirable Indian citizens, also prompted refugee migrants to criticize the Indian government,” Raheja wrote. “A few hours later, an Home Office official came over the loudspeaker to make a special announcement: he had decided that instead of birth certificates, officials at the camp would accept applications with affidavits certifying the birth of a parent in undivided India .”
Raheja’s broader research looks at migration to understand how majority-minority politics transcends national frameworks. Her studies of the India-Pakistan border raise broader questions about state power over migration across global borders.
“Manufactured national properties and state legitimacy must be nurtured across borders,” Raheja said. “As the article carefully points out, governing by closeness enchants, but it also breeds weariness and doubt. In this gap there is the potential for migrants to refuse and to think of alternatives.”
Kate Blackwood is a writer for the College of Arts and Sciences.
Comments are closed.