While exclusion from citizenship is a pan Nepal phenomena, it is particularly acute in the Tarai. The idea that thousands of Indians want to migrate to Nepal and take up Nepali citizenship is absurd and it shows how entirely out of touch the political class are of the dynamics of life in the border regions. There are few incentives to migrate to Nepal under the current political and economic circumstances.

Providing citizenship through either parents is does not even need to be debated in most countries in the world it is such a fundamental human right. The fact this is differnt in Nepal either suggests that the political leaders have never even bothered to look at practices in other countries, or that in their false sense of grandeur think they can defy international norms. Either way it is astonishing.

 

The entire debate over citizenship has been driven not by common sense or on-the-ground research, but by xenophobia and pseudo-nationalism, a last ditch attempt to support as 'protectors of the nation'. 

Making it a prequisite that mother and father are Nepali citizens would have a devestating impact in the Terai. I have worked for years in the plains and there are villages where a majority of households have one Indian parent, just as there are an equal number of mixed nationality households over the border. In a generation there would be a vast population of stateless people on the Nepali side, with little access to state social services, land or skilled employment. They would essentially be a pool of cheap, exploitable labour. Perhaps that is what the political leaders want, although I sincerely hope not.

There can be no debate on this issue, as anyone who raises it is branded as a "foreigner", or "bowing down to foreign interests, NGOs etc"... This kind of discourse on citizenship is restricted to far-right in most countries, but here so called leftist and progressive parties are advocating state sanctioned exclusion based upon one's national origins. It is deeply disturbing.

#11

// econdly, nepals destruction can not until date be pointed to other nations but is the fault of its own leaders n people. but its easy to point fingers to the north or south...how many nepals don�t live in india and have been granted indian nationality? this whole issue abt foreigners/capitalists/colonizers...etc is like a ghost story...but where is the ghost...? in someones head and mass hysteria.
the world is not black or white nor is it wise to follow a blind man... //

Yes, we will give the gallows when the time comes – it's our headache. Agreed there are millions of Nepalis in India most of them became part of India when the parts of Nepal fell inside independent India. They may be Nepali origin but are Indians by the transfer of land and went with the land they live in. Unlike most of the biharis who have come inside Nepal as migrants in droves over the years, occupying lands that did not belong to them, displacing Nepalis from their own land as a result of open order with India.  Still many have travelled to india since Independence in search of better economic opportunities as economic migrants but they are not protesting for a separate state /province and in fact are politically and economically ostracised and isolated from the mainstream.  We have a Gujjar Yadav as a President in our country ( I wonder why?) – and India is yet to elect someone from the Nepali community as a MP, MLA, PM or President. Why? Becuz India is a big winner of open border with india while Nepali migrants are doing petty, degrading jobs in the streets of Delhi/Mumbai and Bangalore – Indian have done well in Nepal – in fact have become the ruling class to some extent. So, your argument of India also has Nepalis in India whodo petty jobs and mostly come back to Nepal justifies granting citizenships to illegal immigrants who are criminals, anti-national and terrorists to boot  in Nepal hold no water. They should all be deported back to Bihar or where they came from and not given citizenships – they can apply for asylum and citizenship but not issued blanket citizenships en masses.

It is saddening from reading some of the above comments, as it shows how far we still have to go to change mindsets. This idea of hoards of Indian's queing up to enter Nepal and get citizenship is totally bizarre. This is an obsolate argument from half a century ago, which has been recently been revived by a political class losing public support.

The comments also about 'illegal immigrants', 'criminals', 'deporting to Bihar' etc... and the usual, are also sad to read.  I have to thank these commentators (ironically) as they have highlighted how much we still need to do to accept the Terai people as part of this nation. Maithili and Bhojpuri speaking communities have lived on the lowlands for centuries, some since before the Gorkhali dynasty conqured the plains, yet still the people of the lowlands are automatically conflated with India.

Finally, the citizenship laws proposed in the new consitution would not only disenfranchise Terai people but the children of those across Nepal who have been deprived citizenship due to antiquated laws, loopholes and male chauvinism.

//It is saddening from reading some of the above comments, as it shows how far we still have to go to change mindsets. This idea of hoards of Indian's queing up to enter Nepal and get citizenship is totally bizarre. This is an obsolate argument from half a century ago, which has been recently been revived by a political class losing public support.  //

Saddening for you, may be. National interests are not run on emotions. Still, you have it backwards. It amazes me how can so called Nepali politicians and Nepalis sitting in the higher echelons of power continuously and ashamedly fail to act in the interests of the country and its people. The issue has been revived by those who are riding high on the suddenly found political aspirations of those who have become emboldened by the fallibility and corruptibility of our greedy and chameleon politicians who will sell their country if it made them a few pennies richer.  

Lets not forget the great BIHARI leader GPK who unilaterally without developing any consensus or popular public support pushed for the citizenship drive in terrai region to gain votes in the late 90s. Most of them crossed the borders, yes, treacherous politicians, most of them Bahuuns, have continuously supported the migration of Biharis from Bihar, India into Nepal for vote bank politics. It may not the politically correct but it is the fact.

May be you are one of the beneficiaries of the present socio economic structures beefed with feudalism and ethnic camaraderie you share with across the border needs to step outside of the "polluted well" that is Kathmandu and feel saddened easily but that does not change facts.  see how ethnic Nepalis are treated outside their own country while crossing the borders, doing petty jobs, partaking in political affairs, doing business, constantly harassed in their own country by their "own countrymen".

//The comments also about 'illegal immigrants', 'criminals', 'deporting to Bihar' etc... and the usual, are also sad to read.  I have to thank these commentators (ironically) as they have highlighted how much we still need to do to accept the Terai people as part of this nation. Maithili and Bhojpuri speaking communities have lived on the lowlands for centuries, some since before the Gorkhali dynasty conqured the plains, yet still the people of the lowlands are automatically conflated with India. //

Some of them, yes, but not all of them. Most, majority of them (migrants) have migrated over the years as a result of open porous border with India (Indians living in borer areas with the support of their security forces have deliberately supported, encouraged land grabs and removal of pillars demarcating border points between the two country). Agreed some people could be left out by errors but that is not the subject of debate, is it? Has the writer highlighted the genuine cases of people being refused citizenship, where both parents are bonafide nepali citizens, it would be fair. But the writer seems to push his/her own agenda, at the cost of the country and her interests.  There should not be any issue with course correcting and putting in place needed legislative provisions in the constitution (when and IF it even comes) to accommodate people who have been denied citizenships on genuine grounds. However, issuing citizenship to every tom, dick and harry who crosses the border (contrary to the rebuttal above in parts of bihar there is pressing and emdemic poverty and Nepal seems an attractive place to migrate, and yes, they don't need to stand in lines).There seems to be no incentive in learning Nepali language, history, customs, ethos and cultures to attain nepali citizenship. Politicians are shooting themselves at their foot and voting themselves out, without even realizing. Then, it must be something more devious to do.

//Finally, the citizenship laws proposed in the new consitution would not only disenfranchise Terai people but the children of those across Nepal who have been deprived citizenship due to antiquated laws, loopholes and male chauvinism. //

Make knowing Nepali language, history, customs, time of stay, no criminal records in any other country, and place of birth, citizenship of father and mother a criteria while granting citizenships. No person holding the citizenship of another country should be granted the nepali citizenship.  Children who have been born to non-nepali father and nepali mother should be the responsibility of the father and his country first, and only when all efforts to track and hold father responsible for the should has been exhausted or the death of father should the such cases be reviewed ob case by case basis.  But it seems most of the nepali politicians could not care a squat for such issues if it did not fill their bank accounts.

I am amazed how many commentators jump to support shocking and reactionary laws.

//"Children who have been born to non-nepali father and nepali mother should be the responsibility of the father and his country first, and only when all efforts to track and hold father responsible for the should has been exhausted or the death of father should the such cases be reviewed ob case by case basis"//. What if the father happens to live in Nepal, and the children want to stay in Nepal/identify with Nepal. This is the 21st century. IT IS THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN TO DECIDE THEIR NATIONALITY. No government has the right to impose its own patriarchial vision on families and make the younger generation suffer as a result. As commentator 18 said, this is not only about settlers from India but from most other countries.

Furthermore, there has been very little migration from Bihar or UP since the 1960s. Migration occured whent there was land to be cleared. This is no longer the case. The economic situation in Bihar is also a lot better then in parts of the Tarai. There is also a government welfare system (BPL card etc) and subsidies. The outflows of Nepalis to India has been significantly higher.  Most of those who aquired citizenship (and rightly so) in the 2007 campaign were landless dalits, Many of them were Terai janajatis indigenous to the plains with no links to Bihar. The whole debate has been framed by absurd rumours by politicians who have clearly never bothered to research the situation in the plains.

 

//What if the father happens to live in Nepal, and the children want to stay in Nepal/identify with Nepal. This is the 21st century. IT IS THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN TO DECIDE THEIR NATIONALITY. No government has the right to impose its own patriarchial vision on families and make the younger generation suffer as a result. As commentator 18 said, this is not only about settlers from India but from most other countries. //

He can't , rightly so. It's quite common that countries don't just give citizenship just bcuz of someone wants to stay in the country. One needs to qualify, justify, prove his willingness to assimilate and be good and responsible members of the society they will be joing. What have happened in Nepal is continuous infiltration of outsider, esp from India, unchecked, unabated, boundaries disappearing, loot, land grabs, criminals openly crossing the border on their whims and fancies and enjoying the benefits and protection of the Nepalese government. Basically, no law and order, and zero interests of our politicians to seal the border and put in place proper legal procedures to ensure their citizens are protected and valued, and citizenships are forced. Now, the push through the constitution to legalise all those people who have usurped the lands –most times with political patronage and in cahoots with politicians and security forces from India is the next game. Running the country has become just like running a temple – one with the most contributions get the first right of entry and worship. It's the same mentality that is at the root of mis-governance and common malaise to be seen in Nepali politics.

To your specific question of if father wants to live in Nepal.  If he is already a citizen of another country and is unwilling to renounce his existing citizenship to obtain nepali citizenship that too after checking his backgrounds, credentials, reasons of becoming nepali citizens?  - is not it true most of these "Foreigners" living in Nepal are absconding some crimes in their native countries and are not looking for permanent residency- I heard it not sure of its veracity. Most cases of Nepali mothers and foreigner fathers have missing fathers who don't know, care, or provide for their children and were never serious about committing to nepali women and their born children in the first place? Are they married? Will they depend on social welfare? etc questions need top be asked. Nepal is a poor country and need to take care of their own, first, and then be charitable. Those who are citizens of Nepal must get first priority in planning and service of the country, others must wait.  Again, the issue needs perspectives and solutions from the social awareness and not political empowerment, alienation. The worry is if Constitution provides the loopholes that might be exploited by anti national elements. A ma deshi leader who refuses to take oath in Nepali. ln any case, why would anyone want to obtain citizenship of one of the poorest countries in the world in the first place- if not for dubious reasons? Nepal must not in its constitution allow dual citizenship unless they pay taxes in both countries.

//

Furthermore, there has been very little migration from Bihar or UP since the 1960s. Migration occured whent there was land to be cleared. This is no longer the case. The economic situation in Bihar is also a lot better then in parts of the Tarai. There is also a government welfare system (BPL card etc) and subsidies. The outflows of Nepalis to India has been significantly higher.  Most of those who aquired citizenship (and rightly so) in the 2007 campaign were landless dalits, Many of them were Terai janajatis indigenous to the plains with no links to Bihar. The whole debate has been framed by absurd rumours by politicians who have clearly never bothered to research the situation in the plains.//

pramanand jha VPNepal who refused to take oath in nepali- born and brought up in Bihar - the vice president of Nepal. not a terai janjati, nor a dalit and nore a nepali. These are the anti national people who must be kept out of citizenships- genuine nepalis who act in the interests of Nepal are getting shot in the streets, jails of Kathnadu while media keeps mum - and the issue of Citizenships for people like pramanada jha gets the headlines. That is the real shame - bahuuns political class must be forcibly removed from the rule to protect Nepali pride and country.

No 26. Visa regimes are nowadays tough in many western countries but that is not the topic of this article. The citizenship process in 'western countries' is fairly straightfoward. Difficult to generalise, but on the whole citizenship is provided by following means: 1) Through naturalisation after living for certain period (usually 7-10 years); 2) Through marriage (usually given after a couple of years) regardless of gender; 3) Through descent from either parent; 4) and in some countries, through being born on their soil. Most allow dual citizenship.

 

My last entry here. There seems to be a lot of confusion in the comments above, as most of them are referring to citizenship naturalisation - i.e. foreign born citizens of another country becoming Nepali through residence/marriage (or even fraud). The process of naturalisation will always be open to debate, and it is not unreasonable for naturalised citizens to be show their loyalty to the country through knowing the language, culture etc, although I personally favour a very liberal policy. Either way it can be debated either way. 

However, what the article above is about is the concept of citizenship by decent. This is an entirely different issue. This is basically about the right of children to take on their parents nationality. This is a fundamental human right. To deny it because one parent is a non-citizen (what the new constitution was to going do) would be a gross human rights violation. Bhutan is presently the only country in the world which does this. Given the high levels of cross-border marriage in Nepal, this law could be catastrophic.  The citizenship of one's parents is not the fault of the child, and if they have lived their whole life in Nepal, and have one Nepali parent, then there is absolutely no reason why they should be denied the right to be accepted as Nepalis.

I agree that the process of rule enforcement needs to be improved to prevent mis-use. However, stopping born and bred children from becoming citizens is going to do absolutely nothing to curb citizenship fraud, illegal immigration etc. This discussion has been interesting, thanks all.