KEYWORDS citizenship, identity documents, refugee, Tibetan INTRODUCTION In 2010, Namgyal Dolkar Lhagyari, a 24-year-old Tibetan activist, initiated a legal dispute not with China—whose rule she opposes in favor of Tibet’s independence—but with India, the country of her birth. Three years prior, she was denied an Indian passport because she identified as a Tibetan national. Lhagyari challenged the Ministry of External Affairs’ (MEA) decision at the Delhi High Court. The MEA, in turn, argued that Indian nationality was a prerequisite for citizenship. “It is stated that in an application made by the Petitioner under the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 she indicated her present nationality as ‘Tibetan.’ It is submitted that since on her own understanding, the Petitioner did not consider herself to be an Indian citizen, she could not be granted an Indian passport.”1 Until 2010, most Tibetan refugees in India were governed by the Foreigners Act of 1946, regardless of their birthplace.2 Like them, Lhagyari was designated a Tibetan national because she held a Registration Certificate (RC)— an identity document provided by the Indian state. However, born in India in 1986, she qualified for Indian citizenship, which was granted by jus soli (right of the soil) until 1987. “Nationality” was absent from the Citizenship Act. Thus, despite the MEA’s exclusionary nationalist discourse of Indian citizenship, the Delhi High Court ruled that Lhagyari’s claim of citizenship was valid: The impugned communication dated 1st September 2009 states that the passport has been refused on the ground that the Petitioner is not an Indian national under Section 3(1)(a) CA. At the outset it must be observed that the concept of an Indian “national” is not recognized by the CA (Citizenship Act). The fact that in the application form for an identity certificate the Petitioner described herself as a Tibetan national will make no difference to this legal position. There cannot be waiver of the right to be recognized as an Indian citizen by birth, a right that is expressly conferred by Section 3 (1) CA.3 By asserting her right to Indian citizenship while maintaining her Tibetan nationality, Lhagyari had disaggregated what Niraja Jayal (2013) identifies as the three dimensions of Indian citizenship—legal status, bundle of rights and entitlements, and identity. These three dimensions have been increasingly “intertwined” by the Indian state, especially with amendments to citizenship law, from birth-based citizenship (jus soli) to descent-based citizenship (jus sanguinis). This was done to exclude undocumented migrants from access to citizenship (Jayal, 2013). Challenging this national orthodoxy, Lhagyari disaggregated national identity from legal status. Her success inaugurated new possibilities for second-generation Tibetans born before 1987, providing them and their descendants an avenue for citizenship.4 The Indian state machinery concerned with citizenship—including the Ministry of External Affairs, the Home Ministry, and regional passport offices—soon realized that Lhagyari was not the sole challenger. The Tibet Justice Center (2015) noted how, after her case, Tibetans claimed and were repeatedly being denied passports by Indian officials. In the face of these denials, Tibetan nationals filed appeals in states, including Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttaranchal, Meghalaya, Sikkim, and the capital, Delhi, in 2013–17 (see Tenzin Choephag Ling Rinpoche v. Union of India, High Court of Karnataka. W. P. No. 15437/2013; Karma Hozer Rabten v. Union of India, High Court of Sikkim, W. P. (C) No. 47/2015; Lobsang Wangyal v. Union of India, High Court of New Delhi, W. P. (C) 3539/2016; Tenzin Tselha v. Union of India, High Court of Delhi. W. P. (C) 7035/2015; Tenzing Choden Sherpa Alias v. Union of India, High Court of Meghalaya, W. P. (C) No. 206/2015; Doma Tsering v. Union of India, High Court of Meghalaya, W. P. (C) No. 206/2015; Jampa Chomphel v. Union of India, High Court of Uttarakhand, W.P. No. 2032/2015; Karma Gyalsten Neyratsang v. Union of India, High Court of New Delhi, W.P. No. 6074/2014; Namgyal Dolkar v. Government of India Ministry of External Affairs, High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 12179/2009). 15552934, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/plar.12580 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [07/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 177 DISAGGREGATING CITIZENSHIP