As usual, the votes of the political parties were divided after the State Management Committee of the Parliament passed the Citizenship Bill on July 25. The ruling and opposition parties are divided over the provision that a woman who marries a Nepali citizen can get adopted citizenship only after seven years.
It is not difficult to understand that the politics of citizenship is more important than the legal and constitutional question behind this. Citizenship has been used as a weapon of power in Nepal since the establishment of democracy. "Citizenship has always been a vote bank," says constitutional expert Vipin Adhikari.
It seems that there is a practice in different countries to give adopted citizenship to foreigners only after a certain period of testing by the state. According to the official, the trial period has been given in those countries to prove that the married woman has a relationship not only with her husband but also with the land. Accordingly, the lawmakers have argued that a woman who marries a Nepali will get adopted citizenship only after seven years.
Another constitutionalist argues that since the purpose of adopted citizenship is only to facilitate the livelihood of the person concerned, it should not be understood as a political right. He says, "Explaining such a simple thing in many ways is just lying."
However, human rights activists who have been speaking on the issue of citizenship have objected to the implementation of citizenship based on equality, saying that it is an attempt to deprive Nepalis of their previous rights. According to him, a discriminatory system is coming to overcome the strict and unequal provisions of the Panchayat era.
Manchala Jha, a former commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, writes:
Opposition parties have stated that the government is trying to show its nationalist image by issuing maps covering the territories of Limpiyadhura, Kalapani, and Lipulek, which have been encroached on by India. Therefore, it seems certain that the ruling CPN (Maoist) will include it in its upcoming election agenda as a priority. Opposition Nepali Congress and Janata Samajwadi Party have accused the bill of being aimed at discriminating against the Madhesi community.
The people of the plains of the Far East and the Far West of Nepal have strong marital relations with India. Considering the sensitivity of the people of that region, the opposition parties have interpreted the citizenship bill. The ruling party, on the other hand, has argued that such mistakes should not be repeated in the past, saying that activities were carried out in the name of citizenship to weaken the state. Thus, once again, the issue of personal rights and privileges, such as citizenship, seems to be at stake.
Such a tendency to engage in political activities by appealing to the sentiments of the citizens is not new. From Panchayat to Republic
Controversy and debate over citizenship have been raging since it was first included in the Act in 2009. In the 2006 referendum, the then ruler had resorted to citizenship to defeat the multi-party system. It was alleged that Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa had included non-Nepalese in the voter list in collaboration with Durbar to win the election. Many non-Nepalese later got citizenship because they were registered on the voters' list. The debate on citizenship has surfaced since the formation of the Migration Working Group chaired by Hark Gurung in 1939 BS.
In a report submitted to the government by the group in 1940, the country's Terai region has a large population of Indian immigrants, most of whom have obtained Nepali citizenship, and a country with small and limited resources, such as Nepal, has suggested controlling the trend. Citizens of Madhesi origin had protested by burning the report of the commission saying that it would make millions of Nepalis non-Nepalese. As resistance to that, political groups were born in the Terai by raising regional issues.
After the multi-party system, the politics over citizenship reached its peak. As soon as the two largest parties of the time, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, came to power, there was a race to form a commission/committee on citizenship. Between 1951 and 1953, three commissions/committees were formed. It started with the formation of a commission headed by Dhanpati Upadhyaya when the UML was in power for nine months. The Dhanpati Commission pointed out that 3.4 million adults across the country are stateless and the problem is dire. The UML, which has a weak presence in the Madhes, had planned to spread its dominance over the issue of citizenship. But the government fell short of implementing the commission's recommendation. However, sitting in the Opposition, the UML continued to pressurize the implementation of the Commission's recommendation through the siege of the Parliament's rostrum, obstruction of regular sessions, and other activities.
Perhaps realizing that the UML would gain politically, the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led Congress-RPP-Sadbhavana government formed another committee in protest. Its coordinator was the then Congress MP Mahanta Thakur. In the end, both reports failed to materialize.
Home Minister Bamdev Gautam of the Lokendra Bahadur Chand government formed after the fall of the Deuba government formed another committee. A Civil Monitoring and Evaluation Committee was formed under the chairmanship of Jitendra Dev. Although the names were monitored and evaluated, it formed a team and distributed citizenship. After a case was filed in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court declared 34,090 citizenships distributed by the committee illegal.
Then, after the 2005 election, the Girija Prasad Koirala government introduced a bill on citizenship in the House of Representatives. The bill passed by the House of Representatives was not passed by the National Assembly. While Congress had a majority in the House of Representatives, the UML and Durbar formed an alliance to block the bill in the National Assembly. The root cause was political gain and loss. Even if it was not passed by the National Assembly, the Koirala government had a legal option to send it to the palace for re-approval and approval. But in the meanwhile, when the court took the opinion of the apex court, some of the provisions of the bill were against the essence of the constitution.
Then, at the same time as the republic was established, a new citizenship act was enacted, which is considered to be the most flexible legal system in history. The Citizenship Act, 063 provided that those who were born in Nepal by mid-April 1946 and settled here permanently would be granted citizenship based on birth.
After the enactment of this act, more than five hundred and fifty distribution teams were formed and arrangements were made to get citizenship on the recommendation of three locals without separating Nepalis and foreigners. Home officials claim that many non-Nepalese have taken Nepali citizenship even in this. This provision was highly controversial.
After the political change, it is estimated that geopolitical interests are linked behind Nepal's liberal policy in the distribution of citizenship. "Nepal's political parties have been raising the issue of citizenship both in terms of being close to India and in opposition," said Adhikari.
The provisions of marital adopted citizenship are also different in South Asian countries. Countries with dictatorial backgrounds have tightened the rules. Democratic countries have also made arrangements to qualify for citizenship after going through a certain process.
For example, a foreign woman who marries an Indian citizen in India has to wait 7 years to get citizenship there. The Citizenship of India Act, 1955 provides that a foreigner who marries an Indian citizen may apply for citizenship after seven years. A person who is married to a Bangladeshi citizen and has been living there for at least 5 years and knows the Bengali language is considered eligible to apply for citizenship.
Pakistan's Civil Act, 1951 stipulates that a foreign woman who marries a Pakistani citizen must wait five years to apply for Pakistani citizenship.
Bhutan's citizenship law stipulates that a foreign woman who marries a Bhutanese citizen can apply for citizenship after living there for at least 10 years. The law stipulates that the woman must take an oath of allegiance to the authorities to obtain citizenship.
Anyone who has lived in the Maldives permanently for at least 12 years and is a Muslim must obtain legal citizenship.
Similarly, Afghanistan's citizenship law states that if you marry an Afghan citizen under Islamic Sharia law, you will be eligible for citizenship immediately. According to Sharia law, a person must have lived in Afghanistan for at least five years to be eligible for citizenship, except in the case of marriage.
To obtain citizenship in the United States, a foreigner must have obtained a permanent residence permit (green card) for five years. A woman who marries a US citizen must have obtained such a green card at least three years ago to apply for citizenship.
A foreigner married to a British citizen must submit proof of permanent residence to apply for citizenship. Citizenship can be applied for only after having lived in the UK legally for at least three years, with a good knowledge of the British way of life, and passing a computerized exam called 'Life in the UK'.
It is not easy for a foreigner to get citizenship in China. According to Article 7 of the Citizenship Law, a foreigner can apply for Chinese citizenship if the Chinese citizen has close relatives, resides in China, and for any other legal reason. But before that, you have to get another identity card (Chinese green card). According to the , a woman married to a Chinese citizen must have lived in China for at least five years. Even in these five years, you have to submit proof of staying in China for at least 9 months every year. A Chinese green card can be obtained only after submitting proof of regular income and permanent residence in China.
The dubious role of the South
Nepal did not listen to the written suggestion. As a result, soon after the promulgation of the constitution, the blockade imposed by India pushed the bilateral relations towards extreme bitterness. After that, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said that the provision of Nepal's constitution on citizenship in the Indian Parliament was not satisfactory. Replying to a question raised in the Rajya Sabha on December 26, Swaraj had expressed dissatisfaction over the new constitution of Nepal ending the facility of marital adopted citizenship for Indian students.
India's interest in the promulgation of the constitution shows that it has a serious interest in Nepal's citizenship. The then Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh, who is now the Defense Minister, had reached Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh and said that 30 million Indians were living in Nepal and that the Indian government was "concerned about the safety and rights of those Indians". When Singh spoke about the political rights of Indians living in Nepal on August 29, Nepal was preparing to finalize a new constitution.
