FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM 311
made to define the status of a person in a Federal State, therefore, not one question, but several must be answered : What is the relation of this person to the Federal State, as against any and all foreign States ? What is the relation of this person to the State in which he resides ? Further is it possible to be a citizen of one State and not a citizen of Federal State ?
Such questions did not arise in Canada and Australia when they became federations. The reason was that persons residing in their respective units were natural born British subjects—a status which remained with them when the Federation came. After the Federation the powers of naturalization was given to the Federation and consequently every one who is naturalized by the Federation is a citizen of the Federation and therefore of every unit in it.
Such questions however did arise in the U.S.A., Switzerland and Germany, because before the Federation their units were all foreign States and their subjects were foreign subjects. But it is noteworthy that in all these cases a common citizenship was established as a part of the federation. A rule was established whereby it was accepted that a citizenship of one unit carried with it a citizenship of the Federation.
The case of the Indian Federation is similar to that of the U.S.A., Germany and Switzerland. The subject of an Indian State is a foreigner in British India as well as in another Indian State. The subject of a British Indian Province is a foreigner in every Indian State.
What does the Indian Federation do with regard to this matter ? Does it forge a common Citizenship for all Units which become members of the Federation ? The answer is no. A British Indian will continue to be a foreigner in every Indian State even though it is a Federal State after the Federation, as he was before the Federation. Similarly a subject of a Federated Indian State will be a foreigner in every British Indian Province after the Federation as he was before Federation. There is no common nationality. The whole principle of the Federation is that the ruler of a Federated State shall remain the ruler of the State and his subjects shall remain his subjects and the Crown as the ruler of the Federated Provinces shall remain the ruler of the Provinces and his subjects shall remain his subjects.
This difference in citizenship manifests itself in two specific ways.
Firstly, it manifests itself in the matter of right to serve. Federation being established under the Crown, only persons who are subjects of the Crown are entitled to serve under it. This is recognized by Section 262. This of course is an injustice to the subjects of the States. To prevent this injustice which of course is a logical consequence of difference of citizenship, power is given to the Secretary of State to declare the subjects of the Indian States eligible for service under the Federation. This is an anomalous state of affairs and although the injustice to Indian State subjects is mitigated, the injustice