The ‘RSVP’, which won the majority in the election, has raised new hopes with the slogan ‘Once a Nepali, always a Nepali’ mentioned in its manifesto. But, how will Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s leadership now move the issue of non-resident Nepalis forward?

Section 10(1) of the Citizenship Act 2063: The main obstacle

The biggest legal obstacle in the path of non-resident Nepali citizenship is Section 10(1) of the Citizenship Act 2063. The said subsection states that ‘if any Nepali citizen voluntarily acquires the citizenship of any foreign country, he shall automatically lose his citizenship of Nepal.’ This provision automatically deprives Nepalis who are forced to acquire foreign citizenship of their Nepali citizenship.

International precedent: The message of ‘Afroim vs. Rusk’ (1967)

In this context, a historic decision of the US Supreme Court has highlighted the universal principle of citizenship. An example of countries with a ‘common law’ legal system adopting this principle is Australia. The parliament there amended the law in 2002 to make a provision that Australian citizenship will not be revoked even if you acquire the citizenship of another country.

In 1967, the US Supreme Court made an important decision in the case of ‘Afroim v. Rusk’. The US government tried to revoke the citizenship of an American citizen named Beis Afroim on the basis of his vote in the Israeli election. He went to court against this. The court explained, ‘The Constitution does not give Congress the power to revoke the citizenship of a person without his consent.’ In our country, the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever ties with the people by taking away their citizenship.’

According to the basic principle established by the judgment, ‘The state cannot take away citizenship unless the citizen renounces it.’ In other words, citizenship is not just a temporary document that the state can take away at any time, but an inalienable right that is inherent or acquired. The only basis for this should be the voluntary renunciation of the person.

Relevance of Afroim in the context of Nepal

Section 10(1) of the Citizenship Act of Nepal violates the same basic principle established by the Afroim case. It has provided that when a person acquires the citizenship of another country, Nepali citizenship ‘automatically’ terminates. Does the person intend to renounce Nepali citizenship or not? Does he want to continue his relationship with Nepal or not? The state takes away his citizenship without caring about it. The Afroim case shows that this practice is incompatible with internationally recognized civil rights. Just as the US Supreme Court has said that citizenship is ‘not a trivial matter,’ Nepal must also respect this invaluable asset of its citizens.

A historic opportunity with the new government

First-generation non-resident Nepalis want to connect their descendants with Nepal. However, that sentiment has not been implemented in government policies and laws. The more this opportunity is lost, the more our prospects for prosperity are lost.

The amendment to the Non-Resident Nepali Act 2064 has removed the barrier related to visa fees for non-resident Nepali citizens. However, Sections 432 and 433 of the Civil Code, 2074 BS, have made provisions for the immovable property of non-resident Nepalis in Nepal to be in accordance with the prevailing law. The provision exempts non-resident Nepalis from the controls imposed on other foreigners in relation to immovable property. However, the law is still an obstacle to implementing the issue of real estate. Non-resident Nepalis cannot transact business as envisaged in Article 14 in the Land Revenue Office.

In some countries, citizenship can be obtained only after renouncing Nepali citizenship. The provision of Article 14 of the Constitution will be beneficial for non-resident Nepalis living in such countries.

The Act of 2064 has made a provision for limited land (blue title) for housing, which is open only to non-resident Nepali citizens. That provision only means that the work done by the old non-resident Nepali identity card can also be done by the non-resident Nepali citizenship. Overall, there has been no improvement in the legal system except opening the way for visas for non-resident Nepali citizens. It is a shame that the executive and legislature have not been able to make a law as per Article 14 for a decade.

The current laws regarding non-resident Nepalis have provided more facilities to Nepalis living abroad than to Nepalis who have not gone abroad. However, non-resident Nepalis who have acquired foreign citizenship have been looked down upon. BS. The laws that were in place until now are in line with what was needed by those who were active in the Non-Resident Nepali Association in the 2060s. The situation has changed a lot in the past 22 years.

In the changed Nepali society, honest citizens are forced to violate the law. Most non-resident Nepalis are in contact with the elite class. They do business with the illusion that they are above the law. Even after acquiring foreign citizenship, it is customary to trade land in Nepal with Nepali citizenship.

In some countries, one does not have to renounce Nepali citizenship to obtain citizenship there. For non-resident Nepalis living in such countries, all problems will be solved if Sub-section 1 of Section 10 of the Citizenship Act is repealed.

The government led by Balendra Shah should first repeal Section 10(1) of the Citizenship Act 2063. This is essential to embody the spirit of ‘once a Nepali, always a Nepali’ mentioned in the manifesto of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Only after this section is repealed will Nepalis living abroad be able to maintain civil relations with Nepal. This will help them to easily invest in Nepal, take loans at low interest rates abroad and deposit them in Nepali banks, buy and sell real estate and contribute to job creation. Such capital will play an important role in creating jobs in Nepal.