The fact that the Indian Constitution unlike most others does not distinguish between natural born and naturalised citizens as a criterion regarding suitability for public office, even the highest, testifies to both its more modern and to its greater democratic character than other Constitutions. This is something to be applauded, praised and defended not lamented. But this is not something that can be legislated against. There has been Mrs. Bandaranaike in Sri Lanka, there is Megawati Sukarnopoutri in Indonesia, Aung Suu Kyi in Myanmar, Sheik Hasina Wajed in Bangladesh, and so on. But matters do not stop simply at a defence of Sonia Gandhi's formal right to be prime minister of India or at lamenting the continuing power of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty.
Nationalism is always both a political and cultural entity.
The ways in which the political and the cultural combine, the relative strength of either component are determined by the specific historical circumstances in which different countries become nations and nation-states, and by the ways in which the nationalist ideal is constantly shaped and reshaped over time in response to new pressures and circumstances. There is no nationalist essence. This is always a myth. Or to put it more precisely, the political essence of nationalism is citizenship which should always be understood in the most democratic and inclusivist manner. This kind of essentialism is not a problem.