The government recently announced the introduction of differentiated passports for persons requiring “Emigration Checks” and the rest.
While administrative convenience was said to have drove the move, many see it as an instance of institutionalising discrimination.
What is the proposal about?
In what is a first of its kind in differentiation, new “Orange cover Passports” to citizens whose passports carry the “Emigration Check Required” stamp.
For the rest, it is proposed to retain the current dark blue passports.
ECR passport-holders are those who haven’t passed their matriculation examination and aren’t income tax assesses.
ECR stamping is done to enable better tracking in order to prevent the exploitation of such people, when they go to work abroad as labourers.
Notably, a majority in this category are likely to belong to a minority or marginalised communities.
What are the problems involved?
The move stems from the belief that different jacketing colours would enable easier recognition and improve airport efficiency.
This is but an admission to the failure to develop technology-based solutions to identify ECR passport-holders quickly.
Also, by issuing orange passports to the marginalised migrant workers, the administration would be highlighting its failure to educate people.
This will also create a citizenship document that will visibly identify some as members of economically and socially marginalised communities.
What does history tell us?
The current move has a striking parallel with the South African “Domas Stamp”, that declared its emigrants eligible for specific jobs.
It proved to be stigmatising, serves as a reminder for our government to seriously reconsider this inherently bad move.
Notably, the “Bold J” that was stamped on passports held by German Jews in the 1940s, was also another instance where differentiation was used.
