Politicians always have something up their sleeves. Now, they have triggered a debate that may influence the political landscape and the future of Sonia Gandhi and the Congress, a party she rescued from virtual political wilderness. Indeed, we are a witness to a fierce power struggle and not just a struggle between impotent rivals locked in motionless and simulated combat.

At the heart of this controversy, however, is not the future of an individual or a dynasty but the new discourse of power and the rather ominous definition of citizenship and nationality that is being foisted on the nation. This attempted redefinition has far-reaching consequences for our polity and, for this reason, must command serious attention. Let us also not ignore itsprofound implications for the people of Indian origin settled the world over.

Let me draw your attention to two obvious points. First, the controversy around the foreignness of the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi must be located in the context of the Congress resurgence in certain states, including Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, and her ability to infuse some semblance of unity and cohesion in an otherwise unwieldy and moribund organisation.

Second, the loss of confidence suffered by the BJP-led coalition, coupled with the fragile nature of casteist coalitions, raised the cheerless prospect of the Congress performing well in the forthcoming general elections. This fear was shared across the board and afflicted some Congress stalwarts as well, including those who nurse prime ministerial ambitions. Is it then the case that the issue of ``foreign'' birth, having acquired salience in recent months, has been pressed into service to undermine Sonia Gandhi's growing confidence and create fissures within therank and file of the Congress party?

If so, this cynical strategy may not pay off. For one, the electorate (not the middle classes whose sensibilities might indeed set the tone of the debate but who ultimately don't matter in the political arithmetic of the nation) is unlikely to be bogged down in non-issues or get submerged in a flood of petty preoccupations. Second, much to the discomfiture of our middle classes, Sonia Gandhi wields considerable influence in the Congress, and if she relents at this juncture, she may well emerge much more stronger than before in the party hierarchy, as did her mother-in-law in 1969.

That being the case, the wily Sharad Pawar, having repeated the error he committed once before when he quit the Congress, may find himself between the devil and the deep sea. At any rate, his desire to live in 7 Race Course Road is likely to remain unfulfilled even if he has worked out a political arrangement with the remnants of the so-called Third Front or the likes of Mulayam SinghYadav.

Returning to my point on citizenship and nationality, let me quote what Sardar Patel had said in the Constituent Assembly in 1947: ``There are two ideas about nationality in the modern world, one is broad-based nationality and the other is narrow nationality. Now, in South Africa we claim for Indians born there South African nationality. It is not right for us to take a narrow view''. Remember, he continued, ``the provision about citizenship will be scrutinised all over the world. They are watching what we are doing.'' Just as everybody is watching what we are doing now.

It is important to emphasise, moreover, that the entire nationalist tradition, ranging from the Congress to the Left, articulated a pluralist and generous conception of nationality and citizenship. No wonder the pluralist vision, nurtured from the last quarter of the 19th century onwards, came into sharp conflict with the Hindu nationalists who identified ``India'' with the terms ``Hindu'' and ``Hinduism''. No wonder, it was alsoat variance with the two-nation theory. That is why the rationale of Muslim nationalism was questioned in a society anchored in cultural and religious pluralism. Nehru asked Jinnah: ``Why only two I do not know, for if nationality was based on religion, then there were many nations in India. Of two brothers one may be a Hindu, another a Muslim; they would belong to two different nations. These two nations existed in varying proportions in most of the villages in India.''

Whenever a nation is seized with peripheral rather than substantive issues of growth and progress, it is best to invoke the past for the legitimisation of a rational approach. For this reason, I once again refer to the Constituent Assembly debate in April 1947 on Clause 3 relating to citizenship. It is for you to decide whether you wish to adhere to the egalitarian norms laid down in the Constitution or get swayed by the narrow definition of citizenship being advocated in certain circles.

Krishnaswami Ayyar: In dealing withcitizenship we have to remember we are fighting against discrimination and all that against South Africa and other states. It is for you to consider whether our conception of citizenship should be racial or should be sectarian.

B.R. Ambedkar: We claim for Indians in South Africa the nationality of that country not merely by birth but by reason of settling there.

Sardar Patel: I suggest for your consideration how many foreign men and women come to India for giving birth to children to acquire Indian nationality. It is a curious idea that for that purpose you introduce racial phraseology in our Constitution ... We will always have a few foreigners coming here. This will be accidental nationality. If by the accident of birth, someone comes and stays here, subject to the proviso which we have enacted, we can control double citizenship by our legislation.

Sure enough, India belongs to each one of its citizens, regardless of birthplace, and each one has rights and obligations attached to thecitizenship. My fear is that this controversy may not end here. Tomorrow, somebody may take away my citizenship rights just because my family genealogy, perhaps fabricated, traces our ancestry to a Persian city of the 14th century.