By Vivek Baranwal
The Birgunjiya media sphere did not even seem divided, none reported actually for well-known reasons, on the citizenship controversy that the mayor got embroiled into following a Kathmanduite media exclusive. It was only growing more dramatic each day.
Birgunj Metropolis Mayor Rajeshman Singh was apparently reaping what he sowed about a decade ago when he had made a complaint to Parsa Jilla Prashasan of a Nepali Congress leader holding dual citizenship — of Nepal and India. The leader received a clean chit and, as speculated, dug out the current controversy in revenge.
For those who can afford to take sides, let this political ruffle rest on their wisdom.
Citizenship has always been a tool of tending dominance in this country, whether a lawsuit is filed to send threatening waves or you are deprived of statehood at all in lack of laws. Apparently, no law would ever suffice in this country where citizenship is delayed because provisions are discriminatory when our father is unknown, or he is a foreigner.
Our collective temperament that seeks laxed acquisition provisions in Australia, America and Europe is an absolute hypocrisy when in Nepal citizenship debates often end up in absurd notions of Sikkimikaran and Fijikaran.
Nepali orientation on statehood has primarily been in a sorrowful state when it questions the loyalty of citizens whose grandparents or great grandparents were not Nepali, let alone those still deprived of citizenship. For instance, a Nepali-language online news portal Khabar Hub, under its desk byline, published an article following the arrest of Arun Chaudhary in the Bansbari land grab scandal. Definitely, for fraud or criminal charges, Chaudharys are as liable to the law but the article at least every two paragraphs intends to question Chaudhary family loyalty to Nepal as citizens. If I have to throw a counter, what has been the blood of centuries ago unifier or expansionist of modern Nepal been doing? Corruption runs down the blood of Nepali state and those who enjoy illegitimate privileges from it, as simple as that.
Well, it is not just any media but an average Nepali collective psychic, which is dangerous for lakhs of youths who are still deprived of their citizenship. Because neither of their parents have any citizenship, or only one parent has citizenship but the laws are insufficient or so.
The Constitution has scrapped the provision of citizenship by birth after September 20, 2015. The children of those who acquired citizenship by birth before the date are entitled to citizenship by descent given both parents are Nepali citizens. However in reality, either one of the parents does not have citizenship or died without making one, and such children have nowhere to go.
Let alone these illogical, discriminatory but complicated provisions — had Nepal not been so fond of paternal lineage, which is exclusionary in nature, but sufficed with birth on its land or soil, merely would have been any stateless here.
Marginalised communities, who were untouched by — proficiency in Nepali language and documents-requiring citizenship laws — followed by darbariya unwelcoming, insensitive bureaucracy, have still been denied citizenship for lack of documentation.
In Europe, the principles of citizenship are as diverse as the continent’s cultural landscape. Many European countries adhere to jus sanguinis, or “right of blood,” whereby citizenship is transmitted through descent, often from parent to child regardless of the place of birth. This approach, embraced by nations like Germany and Greece, emphasises ancestry and lineage as determinants of citizenship.
Conversely, other European nations, such as France and Ireland, embrace jus soli, or “right of soil,” whereby citizenship is conferred to individuals born within the country’s territory, regardless of the parents’ nationality. This principle reflects a commitment to inclusivity and integration, offering a pathway to citizenship for those born on the nation’s soil.
The concept of citizenship by birth finds its roots in antiquity, echoing through civilizations and empires. It embodies the notion that one’s citizenship is an inherent right conferred at the moment of birth, irrespective of the circumstances of parentage or place. This principle serves as a cornerstone of identity, providing individuals with a sense of belonging and entitlement to the rights and privileges of their nation.
In the United States, birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that “All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This principle, rooted in the aftermath of the Civil War, reaffirms the nation’s commitment to equality and inclusion, extending citizenship to all individuals born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ origins.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship has shaped the American identity, fostering a sense of belonging and unity among diverse communities. It serves as a testament to the nation’s enduring values of liberty and justice for all, transcending barriers of race, ethnicity, and creed.
In India, the principles of citizenship reflect the country’s rich tapestry of diversity and heritage. Governed by the Citizenship Act of 1955, India primarily follows jus sanguinis, attributing citizenship based on descent from Indian parents. This approach underscores the importance of ancestry and lineage in defining citizenship, affirming the bonds of kinship and identity that unite the nation’s people.
However, India also recognises jus soli for individuals born within its territory, albeit with certain conditions and exceptions. This dual framework reflects India’s commitment to accommodating diverse populations while safeguarding the integrity of its citizenship laws.
In the intricate mosaic of global citizenship laws, the principle of citizenship by birth remains a contentious yet enduring concept. Whether rooted in descent or acquired through birth on sovereign soil, citizenship serves as a defining aspect of identity, shaping the rights, responsibilities, and sense of belonging of individuals within a nation.
As we navigate the boundaries of citizenship, it is essential to strike a balance between tradition and progress, inclusivity and integrity. While the principles of jus sanguinis and jus soli offer distinct perspectives on citizenship acquisition, their convergence underscores the universal aspirations of humanity: to belong, to contribute, and to thrive within the diverse tapestry of our global community. In embracing these principles, we honour the legacy of citizenship as a birthright, reflecting the timeless values of justice, equality, and human dignity.
This piece is a work under the Civil Society Media (CSM) Fellowship – Madhesh Pradesh based in Janakpur.
