Background&nbsp;
July 2022: Both Houses of Parliament passed an amendment to Nepal’s Citizenship Act 2006. Called the Nepal Citizenship (First Amendment) Bill, it was sent to former Nepal President Bidya Devi Bhandari for formal ratification. 
 
August 2022: Bhandari sent the bill back to the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led Lower House with 15 ‘concerns and suggestions’ for review. 
 
September 2022: The bill was once more passed by both Houses of Parliament without any changes, but <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/news/president-s-precedent">Sital Niwas allowed its 20 September ratification deadline to lapse</a>. Since the ceremonial head of state did not authenticate the bill, it was rendered null and void. Many saw this deadlock as a result of the power struggle between the opposition UML, which had appointed Bhandari president, and the NC-UML coalition. 
 
September 2022: Parliament was dissolved after completing its five-year term. 
 
March 2023: President Bhandari herself completed her tenure and was succeeded by Ram Chandra Poudel. 
 
31 May 2023: President Poudel authenticated the Citizenship Amendment Bill rejected by his predecessor, following a recommendation by the Council of Ministers.
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepals-unequal-citizenship-law">Nepal's unequal Citizenship Law</a>, Ajay Pradhan
What is in it?
The amendment clears the way for children of parents who got citizenship by birth to become citizens by descent and paves the way for hundreds of thousands of Nepalis, especially in the Tarai, to finally become Nepali citizens. The bill also allows Non-Resident Nepalis (NRNs), except for those residing within South Asia, to acquire dual citizenship but without the right to vote.&nbsp;
Activists have long said the bill’s restrictions on citizenship for children born to single mothers as well as the process of obtaining naturalised citizenship were discriminatory towards women.
The bill allows foreign women married to Nepali men to immediately obtain naturalised citizenship provided the women renounce the citizenship of their country of origin. But there is no similar provision for foreign men married to Nepali women to get Nepali citizenship.&nbsp;
Meanwhile, children born to Nepali mothers born in and residing in Nepal whose fathers are not identified are eligible for Nepali citizenship by descent. However, the woman must make a self-declaration that the father cannot be identified and she can be imprisoned if the claim turns out to be false.
A Nepali man does not have to mention any details of the mother of their child to get citizenship. A child born to a Nepali man married to a foreign woman can obtain citizenship by descent, but a child born to a Nepali mother and a foreign father will only be eligible for naturalised citizenship provided the state deems it okay.&nbsp;
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/are-women-not-nepali-enough">Are women not Nepali enough?</a>, Sahina Shrestha
What now?&nbsp;
President Ram Chandra Poudel’s authentication of the Citizenship Amendment Bill on 31 May on the eve of Prime Minister Dahal’s official visit to India drew both outrage and appreciation from across the political spectrum and civil society.
While NRNs as well as hundreds of thousands of people mostly in the Tarai deprived of citizenship welcomed the move, some constitutional and political experts were critical of the process by which the president ratified the bill.&nbsp;
“In a parliamentary system, neither the President nor the government has the right or the authority to validate a dormant bill, one passed by an already lapsed House,” said constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari. “The ball was not in President Poudel’s court.”
Usha Malla Pathak, former Vice President of the Nepal Bar Association, agreed: “The move by the President to authenticate the bill, which was not passed by a new Parliament, is unconstitutional so there is no point debating its merits.”
While some parties are entirely against the bill, others seem to agree with some parts of it while disagreeing with others-- especially provision allowing foreign women married to Nepali men to obtain naturalised citizenship without any waiting period.
Read also:<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/patriarchy-in-an-oligarchy"> Patriarchy in an oligarchy</a>
Nationalist groups have said the bill would open the floodgates for Indians to marry Nepalis and settle down in the Tarai. Critics wondered if there was a connection to the timing of the ratification just before Prime Minister Dahal’s official visit to India.
Members of Dahal’s coalition, including the NC’s GaganThapa have publicly criticised the bill. Rabi Lamichhane’s RSP has called the bill anti-national.&nbsp;
On Sunday, the Supreme Court acting on a writ petition issued an interim order against the implementation of the amendment bill. Many without citizenship who had reached government offices across the country to get their certificates were once again turned back.&nbsp;
In Parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Dahal deferred decision on the bill to the apex court, whereas the opposition UML leader K P Oli called for a new bill to be tabled in the House for discussion.
The Supreme Court Bar Association on Tuesday put out a statement calling the authentication of the bill unconstitutional.
‘It is the opinion of the Bar Association that the honourable president has approved the Citizenship Bill against Nepal’s parliamentary system, the Constitution, and the principle of the separation of powers,’ wrote Bar Secretary Shyam Kumar Khatri.
Read also: <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=18401#.YuNBD-xByrc">Stateless in their motherland</a>, Kunda Dixit
<h2>Once a Nepali, always Nepali</h2>
Much of the to-and-fro about the Citizenship Amendment Bill which has been blocked by the Supreme Court after ratification by President, has centred on the fact that the president should not have approved a bill that was passed by a lapsed parliament.&nbsp;
However, many Nepalis are not worried about due process not being followed, but on the contents of the bill: specifically the provision allowing foreign women married to Nepali men to immediately obtain naturalised citizenship. The <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/news/indian-nepalis-alarmed-by-citizenship-amendment-bill">rhetoric</a> surrounding this debate has been hyper-nationalist, anti-Indian, and anti-Madhes.&nbsp;
The opposition UML has been using similar nationalist and populist talking points to criticise the bill, and the RSP, the new party of young professionals which exited the governing coalition joined the fray, calling it “anti-national”.
One notable aspect of the bill that has been overshadowed is the provision for Non-Resident Nepalis (NRNs) to finally obtain dual citizenship. NRNs will however not be allowed to vote, run for public office or hold civil service jobs, and dual citizenship applies only to overseas Nepalis and not those in South Asia.
NRNs seeking dual citizenship need to present proof that their parent or grandparent is a Nepali citizen. They must present proof of having renounced Nepali citizenship, and must have foreign citizenship.
Those who have not renounced their Nepali citizenship previously cannot use the same identification and must present their old citizenship before they obtain a new Nepali citizenship.&nbsp;
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepals-suffragette-moment/" target="_blank">Nepal's suffragette moment</a>, Om Astha Rai
NRNs can open bank accounts in Nepal, own and operate businesses and conduct trade, buy land and property, inherit assets, make investments.
The Non-Resident Nepalese Association (NRNA) promptly welcomed the bill’s authentication, saying in a statement:&nbsp;
‘The bill addresses the long-standing demand for Non-Resident Nepali Citizenship from millions of non-resident Nepalis scattered around the world since 2003. We are confident that this step by the Honourable President will soon give meaning to the NRNA mantra of Once a Nepali, always a Nepali.’
It added that this connects Nepali people worldwide to their homeland and utilise their knowledge, skills, and capital to benefit Nepal.
<div class="embed-block"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I’m so pleased to hear that Nepal’s Government have just passed a new Citizenship Bill – this is great news - why? For a number of reasons but one is that now Non-Resident Nepalis (NRNs) – including Gurkhas - can have dual citizenship. Currently around 2.17 million Nepalis live… <a href="https://t.co/HIXLJUKzgf">pic.twitter.com/HIXLJUKzgf</a>&mdash; Nirmal Purja MBE (@nimsdai) <a href="https://twitter.com/nimsdai/status/1664185815419977733?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 1, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
Although some overseas Nepalis that Nepali Times spoke to said they had no knowledge about the bill, others were overjoyed that they could now invest in Nepal and contribute to the home economy.&nbsp;
Former British Army commando and mountaineer Nimsdai Purja was among those who took to social media to express his appreciation.
‘Granting NRN this new legal citizenship…will allow NRNs to practice full economic, social and cultural rights. I believe it is a step in the right direction towards a more positive and prosperous future for the country,’ wrote Purja. ‘This makes tourism and investment easier … means that the wealth is distributed from central areas like Kathmandu to less wealthy communities in mountain areas.’&nbsp;

Shristi Karki

original

674x448

610x380

500x500

400x266

400x240

400x203

301x200

1250x600

1084x550

Nepal’s Citizenship Amendment Bill explained

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221114131144/637238d49c7e80680e0c73aajpeg.jpg" alt="" width="2048" height="1366"/><figcaption>Photo: SUMAN NEPALI</figcaption></figure>President Bidya Devi Bhandari failed to authenticate an amendment bill to Nepal’s Citizenship Act by deadline on Tuesday 20 September, rendering it null and void. The bill had passed back and forth between Parliament and President’s office, before its rejection by a ceremonial head of state. It is seen by most experts as an unconstitutional move, and retaliation for Parliament’s refusal to deliberate her 15-point request for review.It is also proof of the deep polarisation ahead of elections between President Bhandari, who is close to the opposition UML, and the government. Passage of the bill would have been popular with the Tarai vote bank for the 5-party governing coalition, while the UML will hope to cash in on the opposition to the bill among many voters in the mountains.Understandably, coalition members were unified in their denouncement of the President allowing the bill to lapse after Parliament was already dissolved ahead of elections.‘This unconstitutional move by the President is a gross insult to Nepal’s federal Parliament elected by the people,’ reads a statement co-signed by leaders of four parties in government. The fifth coalition partner, Rastriya Janamorcha, did not sign, with its chief Chitra Bahadur KC casting strong reservations.In an unprecedented move, the Maoist-appointed Vice-president Nanda Bahadur Pun also condemned President Bhandari’s failure to certify the amendment. Interestingly, Maoist leader Narayankaji Shrestha wanted to have it both ways, tweeting: ‘The president does not have the right to go against the Constitution, but we agree with a lot of the points she has raised about the bill.’Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/rule-of-the-lawless/">Rule of the lawless</a>, EditorialThe amendment would have allowed hundreds of thousands of Nepalis, especially in the Tarai, to finally obtain citizenship papers. But many activists had said the bill’s restrictions on citizenship for children born to single mothers, and the process of obtaining naturalised citizenship were discriminatory towards women.Former Law Minister Nilambar Acharya said that the Citizenship Bill was too sensitive and nuanced for knee-jerk, one-sided reaction.“The fact is that the House of Representatives passed the amendment bill without deliberating the President’s 15-point request for clarification,” Acharya said. “And should a Parliament that is about to reach its term take decisions on issues of long-term national interest? The new Parliament should have been entrusted with that.”Indeed, the bill has already become an election issue. Student wings affiliated with coalition parties took to the streets in protest (pictured) burning effigies of the President, while unions affiliated with the UML rallied with placards that read ‘salute to the President who stands up for the nation and nationalism’.With citizenship becoming a battle for populist vote-gathering, the row has over-shadowed moves by the governing coalition which also went against constitutional values. The closed list of proportional representation (PR)  candidates presented Monday included the Prime Minister’s wife, Arzoo Deuba, former NC minister Bimalendra Nidhi and Maoist former speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara.The PR system is actually meant to ensure that communities on the socio-political fringes get represented in decision-making. But the candidates on the list have perpetuated the status quoist, transactional, and nepotistic nature of Nepali politics.Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/affirmative-inaction/">Affirmative inaction</a>, Editorial

President’s precedent

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111413118/637230849c7e80680e0c256ejpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640"/><figcaption>Photo: AMIT MACHAMASI / NEPALI TIMES ARCHIVES</figcaption></figure>Last Friday, The House of Representatives, through a majority vote, endorsed the amendment to the <a href="https://moha.gov.np/en/post/citizenship-act-2063" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Citizenship Act 2063 (2006)</a>, and on Thursday the Nepal Citizenship (First Amendment) Bill, 2022 was passed by the National Assembly.Since the Citizenship Act came into effect before the promulgation of the <a href="https://lawcommission.gov.np/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Constitution-of-Nepal.pdf">Constitution of Nepal</a> in 2015, it was necessary to amend it to make it compliant with the provisions regarding citizenship in the Constitution.While a bill to amend the Act was registered in the Parliament back in 2018, it never moved ahead as the State Affairs Committee could not build a consensus among parties. The government then withdrew the amendment earlier this month, and registered a new one. The new bill clears the way for the thousands of children of parents who got citizenship by birth to become citizens by descent, and allows Non-Resident Nepalis to acquire citizenship. However, legal experts and activists say that it is blatantly discriminatory towards women.“It still pushes the notion that men are the supreme beings and women are merely second-class citizens,” says senior advocate Meera Dhungana.Nepal citizenship is based on the principles of jus sanguinis or bloodline. While there are neither clauses attached or self-declaration needed when conferring citizenship by descent to a child of a Nepali man, the same is not true in case of a child born to a Nepali woman.Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/history-of-female-immobility-in-nepal/">History of female (im)mobility in Nepal</a>, Upasana KhadkaA Nepali man does not even have to mention the name or nationality of the mother for their child to get citizenship. But the mother still needs to navigate the loops of the legal system to ensure their child can obtain Nepali citizenship.The bill does pave the way for a child born to a Nepali woman in Nepal whose father is unidentified, to get citizenship by descent. But there is a catch: the woman must make a self-declaration that the father cannot be identified and if the claim turns out to be false, she can be jailed and/or fined.“The provision itself is an insult,” says senior advocate <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWhV0U5cBMQ&amp;feature=emb_logo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Satish Krishna Kharel</a>. “In a society like ours where children whose fathers are not identified often face stigma and abuse, that requirement is demeaning.”Likewise, a foreign woman married to a Nepali man can easily obtain naturalised citizenship once she starts the process of renouncing the citizenship of her country of origin. However, there is no such provision for foreign men married to Nepali women to get Nepali citizenship.Granting naturalised citizenship to foreign women married to Nepali men has been highly politicised, with the UML along with the Maoist Centre and other fringe parties demanding an interval of a few years before foreign women married to Nepali men are eligible for naturalised citizenship. But the Maoists backtracked, and supported the Nepali Congress and Madhes-based parties to remove that interval period.Read also: <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=18401#.YuNBD-xByrc">Stateless in their motherland</a>, Kunda DixitTo be sure, ever since the first Citizenship Act in 1952 and the others that followed, foreign men married to Nepali women have not been able to obtain Nepali citizenship through their wives. The bill simply continues that tradition.“Whatever the decision, whether to have a wait-period or not, shouldn’t it be the same for the spouses of both Nepali men and women? When a Nepali man can ensure citizenship for their spouse, why can’t the same be true for Nepali women?” asks Dhungana.Moreover, a child born to a Nepali man married to a foreign woman can obtain citizenship by descent, but a child born to Nepali mother and a foreign father will only be eligible for naturalised citizenship — that too at the discretion of the state.“It is more or less like saying that only a father is a true parent, and the role of a mother does not matter,” she adds. The argument against providing naturalised citizenship to foreign men married to Nepali women has always been that if it is allowed, Indian men will flood into Nepal. But that nationalist reasoning is dismissed as absurd by most experts.Says Kharel: “Rather than evidence-based arguments, views on citizenship are based on nationalist paranoia.”Read more: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepal-waits-for-an-unequal-citizenship-law/">Nepal’s unequal Citizenship Law</a>,  Ajay Pradhan

Sahina Shrestha

Are women not Nepali enough?

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109191120/636bef7e4b0ad905ca02efafjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1400" height="1120"/><figcaption>Illustration: DIWAKAR CHETTRI</figcaption></figure>Just as Nepal came out of its first phase of lockdown on 21 June, the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) tabled <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepals-citizenship-bill-is-a-hornets-nest/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepals-citizenship-bill-is-a-hornets-nest/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089266000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGd1kute95BX34N0KAoImNx762EHA">a revised Citizenship Bill in the Federal Parliament</a>. The bill was met with sharp public outrage for its unequal treatment of women.It granted foreign females naturalised citizenship through their Nepali husbands. But there is a catch — they need to have spent a minimum of seven years in Nepal before they become eligible.Interestingly, the bill has no mention of the provision for foreign men marrying Nepali women, which rules out the possibility of Nepali women extending citizenships to husbands of foreign nationalities.Nepal is a country with a long discriminatory legacy in its history, and this is nothing new to women. Until a hundred years ago, ‘Sati’ customs required widowed women in some communities and princely aristocracies to immolate themselves on the funeral pyre of the dead husband.Often, petrified widows who were unwilling to accompany the husband in death were dragged to the pyre and burned alive, while authoritative patriarchs provided witness. Society determined that after the death of husbands, women had nothing to live for.We have, of course, come a long way from there. Today, the mere mention of this repulsive practice  wrenches our gut and makes us cringe. We cannot comprehend the true psychological impact of the practice on the society, particularly, on women.The practice of Sati has long been consigned to the deep trenches of history, thanks to its ban in Nepal  100 years ago by erstwhile Rana Prime Minister Chandra Shumsher Rana. The ban was assisted by gradual social change and the State’s proactive intervention through codified decrees.Widow burning was an extreme form of socially-entrenched and socially-sanctioned, deep-seated prejudice against women in a patriarchal society. But a century later, gender-based discrimination continues to exist not just socially but also in the form of Nepal’s citizenship law and the Constitution. The law still treats women as second-class citizens in how nationality is conferred upon them.Gender-based Discrimination in the Citizenship LawThe Constitution of Nepal (2015) has discrepancies between articles related to citizenship under Part 3 and those related to equality of rights under Part 3. While the Constitution guarantees equality of rights under Part 3 and Article 18 specifically prohibits gender-based discrimination, the articles related to citizenship have discriminatory provisions that <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/regular-columns/Comment/stateless-daughters-in-nepal,863" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://archive.nepalitimes.com/regular-columns/Comment/stateless-daughters-in-nepal,863&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089266000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEii2ReSnBVuN3v0_06DrwiOBAxkQ">treat women differently from men</a>. Article 11(5) provides for unequal rights for Nepali men and women in conferring citizenship to their children.Children born to a Nepali father and a foreign-born mother are eligible for citizenship by descent, while those born to a Nepal-born mother and a foreign-born father will be <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/patriarchy-in-an-oligarchy/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/patriarchy-in-an-oligarchy/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089266000&amp;usg=AFQjCNERtiRVW5i7jJg4GQtlxQXm-vm0yg">granted naturalized citizenship</a>, with less privileges.Typically, constitutions of many countries have conditional proviso or ‘notwithstanding’ clauses inserted if an equality right guaranteed by one part of the constitution is to be limited in its other provisions. In the 2015 constitution, there is no such conditional proviso that limits the equality of rights in nationality. Yet, constitutional <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/stateswomanship/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/stateswomanship/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089266000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF4QjFK0DjE-d2XapsUl-L3y43NqQ">provisions related to citizenship are discriminatory</a>.Also, the provisions in the Constitution for granting citizenship to children of Nepali men and women are unequal. The 2015 constitution does allow a Nepali woman to pass on nationality by descent to her children, but only if the father is unknown. If the father of the child is a foreign-born man, the child is only eligible for naturalized citizenship, and not citizenship by descent.The children of a Nepali man, however, are automatically eligible for citizenship by descent regardless of the nationality of the mother. There are significant differences in the privileges enjoyed by a child with citizenship by descent compared to those of a child with naturalized citizenship. Naturalized citizens are not eligible for key constitutional positions of the State.Nepal’s Citizenship Act (2006), which is a law made under the then interim Constitution of Nepal 2006, also has a key gender-based discrimination in how nationality is conferred upon foreign-born men and women married to Nepali nationals. Nepali men have an <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/perpetuating-patriarchy-in-nepal/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/perpetuating-patriarchy-in-nepal/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089266000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF6FzXlVaxBQEuBOtfCi3cTLEjUkg">edge over Nepali women</a> in how the law treats their foreign-born spouses in issuing citizenship.Under this 2006 citizenship law, foreign women married to Nepali men are eligible to apply for Nepali citizenship automatically after marriage, but foreign men married to Nepali women have a waiting period of 15 years. This <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepals-suffragette-moment/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepals-suffragette-moment/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089267000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHyZ4WckrEYI-DuoYAOjUFJPGDXeA">legislative discrepancy</a> is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal rights. It is, therefore, unconstitutional.On 21 June, the parliamentary Committee on State Affairs and Good Governance endorsed the government’s Citizenship Amendment Bill to the Citizenship Act of 2006. It introduced additional regressive measures that immediately sparked off alarm.Foreign-born women who were eligible under the 2006 Citizenship Act to apply for naturalised citizenship without a waiting period would now be required to linger for seven years before being eligible for citizenship under the proposed amendment bill which does not reduce the waiting period for foreign-born men from 15 years to seven years to at least make the waiting period the same for men and women.The main opposition political parties have decried the bill’s regressive measure of seven-year waiting period, saying that the new provision unfairly targets the ethnic Madhesi communities that have cross-border matrimonial ties with border communities in India.An assessment of citizenship law and administrative policies and practices under it shows Nepali women face legal discrimination that limits their ability to live a life of equality and dignity compared to men. Even though Nepali-born single mothers have the legal right to pass on citizenship by descent to their children, administrative hurdles have been reported in the media that make it onerous for single mothers<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109191120/636bef814b0ad905ca02efb0jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="355">The Beijing Declaration and international policy context:Nepal is not the only nation that has gender-based discrimination in citizenship laws. The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights reports that globally 25 countries prevent mothers from conferring their nationality on their children on an equal basis with fathers, and over 50 countries deny women equal nationality rights with men, including conferral of nationality on non-Nepali spouses.Discriminatory laws deny equal rights to women to acquire citizenship or to confer citizenship to children or spouse. Those laws prevent children from being recognised as a citizen in their mother’s country, even when the child is born in that country. The discriminatory laws deny foreign husbands their spouses’ citizenship, while foreign wives of male citizens are eligible for naturalised citizenship, either immediately after marriage or after a waiting period.The issue of discriminatory nationality laws unfairly impacting women is not new and has been raised at international fora, especially under the United Nations. However, it appears that discriminatory citizenship issue has yet to receive as high a global profile as other issues affecting women, such as health, education, occupation, wage and employment.The UN, for example, has organised four World Conferences on Women to promote empowerment and gender equality around the globe (the first one in 1975 in Mexico City, in 1980 in Copenhagen, in 1980 in Nairobi, and in Beijing in 1995), but none of them highlighted the discriminatory citizenship issue.The 1995 Beijing Conference, which was a major turning point for global agenda for gender equality, released a declaration, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which was adopted unanimously by 189 countries, including Nepal. The document emphasised the participating governments’ determination to advance the goals of equality for all women, everywhere.The Beijing Declaration, which is considered the key global policy document on gender equality, recognised that even though the status of women has advanced in some important respects, the progress has been uneven. Inequalities between men and women continue to persist and major obstacles remain, with serious consequences for the wellbeing of all.The Beijing Declaration also reaffirmed the participating governments’ commitment to equal rights and inherent human dignity of women and men, to the principle enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).The Beijing conference was followed by a series of five-year reviews of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration commitments, under the leadership of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).Beijing Declaration turned 25 this year. The 25-year review and appraisal scheduled for 9-20 March had to be edited to a single day event due to concerns related to Covid-19. The UN Commission on the Status of Women convened a meeting to adopt the draft political statements and suspended the remainder of the session until further notice.The UN Division for the Advancement of Women, merged with three other UN entities working around women’s right and empowerment in 2010 to become a new agency. The merger has added a much-needed focus on women, nationality and citizenship in the Women 2000 and Beyond report series. The report has specifically raised the issue of discriminatory citizenship laws, reporting that where parents have different nationalities, laws bestow the nationality of the father upon a child, but deny the child her mother’s nationality.Although the laws of most countries now entitle a woman to maintain her independent nationality upon marriage, many countries still retain laws that discriminate between women and men in terms of how the nationality is passed on to their children, particularly nationality by descent. Most countries that have provision for nationality by descent confer the nationality of the father on his children, irrespective of the nationality of his spouse.It is less common for those countries to pass on the nationality of a woman married to a foreigner on her children automatically. In many countries, nationality by descent from the mother is conferred only where she is unmarried or the father is unknown or stateless.<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109191120/636bef834b0ad905ca02efb1jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="422"></figure>Way forward:Even though much progress has been achieved internationally in empowering women in public and private life, much work still remains to be done in eliminating gender-based discrimination with regard to citizenship.In Nepal’s case, the Citizenship Act of 2006 and the Citizenship Act  of 2020 both are inconsistent with the Part 3 of the Constitution that guarantees equality of rights and prohibits gender-based discrimination. These laws are unconstitutional in contravention to equality of rights and, therefore, can be challenged in the country’s constitutional court of law.In many countries including the US and Canada, unconstitutional laws often fail the constitutional test if challenged in a court, forcing the law-making authorities to replace the provisions that are unconstitutional with new provisions that are constitutionally compliant. In Nepal, it does not appear to be common for unconstitutional laws to be tested in Supreme Court, which is the constitutional court of law.A UN Women report lays out the scenarios in which inequality in the acquisition and retention of nationality causes particular hardships for spouses of different nationalities. International human rights standards to redress these inequalities exist within the human rights treaties, article 9, in particular of the CEDAW, 1979.Judicial decisions in a number of countries indicate how these standards can be used to challenge existing inequalities between men and women. However, there are many obstacles to the effective implementation of human rights standards.While international law recognizes the sovereign States’ discretionary power to enact laws and devise public policies with respect to conferral of citizenship upon individuals, the UN has made recommendations for actions at both international and nation levels. At the national level, the UN recommends legal and administrative reforms in domestic law to ensure international standards that are based on the CEDAW, 1979.This is an opportunity for Nepal to decide to stand on the right side of history. Does Nepal want to stand with the small community of discriminating countries with unequal rights for women or with the larger global community that has fair citizenship laws based on gender equality? There are adequate constitutional provisions for equality of rights in Nepal’s constitution and the broader international policy framework for eliminating discrimination as part of the Beijing Declaration for Nepal to take progressive, not regressive, legislative action.The time to make that choice is now, as Parliament will have to decide on the fate of the citizenship amendment bill. Women’s dignity is not a choice, it is their right. There cannot be second thoughts on it.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109191120/636bef854b0ad905ca02efb2jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="112" height="135">Ajay Pradhan is Senior Policy Advisor, Treaty and Self-Government Agreement Negotiations, Government of Canada. He lives in Vancouver, Canada.

Nepal's unequal Citizenship Law

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109181148/636be88b9c7e80680e087866jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1400" height="1120"/><figcaption>Illustration: DIWAKAR CHETTRI</figcaption></figure>Just as Nepal came out of its first phase of lockdown on 21 June, the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) tabled <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepals-citizenship-bill-is-a-hornets-nest/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepals-citizenship-bill-is-a-hornets-nest/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089266000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGd1kute95BX34N0KAoImNx762EHA">a revised Citizenship Bill in the Federal Parliament</a>. The bill was met with sharp public outrage for its unequal treatment of women.It granted foreign females naturalised citizenship through their Nepali husbands. But there is a catch — they need to have spent a minimum of seven years in Nepal before they become eligible.Interestingly, the bill has no mention of the provision for foreign men marrying Nepali women, which rules out the possibility of Nepali women extending citizenships to husbands of foreign nationalities.Nepal is a country with a long discriminatory legacy in its history, and this is nothing new to women. Until a hundred years ago, ‘Sati’ customs required widowed women in some communities and princely aristocracies to immolate themselves on the funeral pyre of the dead husband.Often, petrified widows who were unwilling to accompany the husband in death were dragged to the pyre and burned alive, while authoritative patriarchs provided witness. Society determined that after the death of husbands, women had nothing to live for.We have, of course, come a long way from there. Today, the mere mention of this repulsive practice  wrenches our gut and makes us cringe. We cannot comprehend the true psychological impact of the practice on the society, particularly, on women.The practice of Sati has long been consigned to the deep trenches of history, thanks to its ban in Nepal  100 years ago by erstwhile Rana Prime Minister Chandra Shumsher Rana. The ban was assisted by gradual social change and the State’s proactive intervention through codified decrees.Widow burning was an extreme form of socially-entrenched and socially-sanctioned, deep-seated prejudice against women in a patriarchal society. But a century later, gender-based discrimination continues to exist not just socially but also in the form of Nepal’s citizenship law and the Constitution. The law still treats women as second-class citizens in how nationality is conferred upon them.Gender-based Discrimination in the Citizenship LawThe Constitution of Nepal (2015) has discrepancies between articles related to citizenship under Part 3 and those related to equality of rights under Part 3. While the Constitution guarantees equality of rights under Part 3 and Article 18 specifically prohibits gender-based discrimination, the articles related to citizenship have discriminatory provisions that <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/regular-columns/Comment/stateless-daughters-in-nepal,863" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://archive.nepalitimes.com/regular-columns/Comment/stateless-daughters-in-nepal,863&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089266000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEii2ReSnBVuN3v0_06DrwiOBAxkQ">treat women differently from men</a>. Article 11(5) provides for unequal rights for Nepali men and women in conferring citizenship to their children.Children born to a Nepali father and a foreign-born mother are eligible for citizenship by descent, while those born to a Nepal-born mother and a foreign-born father will be <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/patriarchy-in-an-oligarchy/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/patriarchy-in-an-oligarchy/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089266000&amp;usg=AFQjCNERtiRVW5i7jJg4GQtlxQXm-vm0yg">granted naturalized citizenship</a>, with less privileges.Typically, constitutions of many countries have conditional proviso or ‘notwithstanding’ clauses inserted if an equality right guaranteed by one part of the constitution is to be limited in its other provisions. In the 2015 constitution, there is no such conditional proviso that limits the equality of rights in nationality. Yet, constitutional <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/stateswomanship/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/stateswomanship/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089266000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF4QjFK0DjE-d2XapsUl-L3y43NqQ">provisions related to citizenship are discriminatory</a>.Also, the provisions in the Constitution for granting citizenship to children of Nepali men and women are unequal. The 2015 constitution does allow a Nepali woman to pass on nationality by descent to her children, but only if the father is unknown. If the father of the child is a foreign-born man, the child is only eligible for naturalized citizenship, and not citizenship by descent.The children of a Nepali man, however, are automatically eligible for citizenship by descent regardless of the nationality of the mother. There are significant differences in the privileges enjoyed by a child with citizenship by descent compared to those of a child with naturalized citizenship. Naturalized citizens are not eligible for key constitutional positions of the State.Nepal’s Citizenship Act (2006), which is a law made under the then interim Constitution of Nepal 2006, also has a key gender-based discrimination in how nationality is conferred upon foreign-born men and women married to Nepali nationals. Nepali men have an <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/perpetuating-patriarchy-in-nepal/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/perpetuating-patriarchy-in-nepal/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089266000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF6FzXlVaxBQEuBOtfCi3cTLEjUkg">edge over Nepali women</a> in how the law treats their foreign-born spouses in issuing citizenship.Under this 2006 citizenship law, foreign women married to Nepali men are eligible to apply for Nepali citizenship automatically after marriage, but foreign men married to Nepali women have a waiting period of 15 years. This <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepals-suffragette-moment/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepals-suffragette-moment/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1608370089267000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHyZ4WckrEYI-DuoYAOjUFJPGDXeA">legislative discrepancy</a> is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal rights. It is, therefore, unconstitutional.On 21 June, the parliamentary Committee on State Affairs and Good Governance endorsed the government’s Citizenship Amendment Bill to the Citizenship Act of 2006. It introduced additional regressive measures that immediately sparked off alarm.Foreign-born women who were eligible under the 2006 Citizenship Act to apply for naturalised citizenship without a waiting period would now be required to linger for seven years before being eligible for citizenship under the proposed amendment bill which does not reduce the waiting period for foreign-born men from 15 years to seven years to at least make the waiting period the same for men and women.The main opposition political parties have decried the bill’s regressive measure of seven-year waiting period, saying that the new provision unfairly targets the ethnic Madhesi communities that have cross-border matrimonial ties with border communities in India.An assessment of citizenship law and administrative policies and practices under it shows Nepali women face legal discrimination that limits their ability to live a life of equality and dignity compared to men. Even though Nepali-born single mothers have the legal right to pass on citizenship by descent to their children, administrative hurdles have been reported in the media that make it onerous for single mothers<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109181148/636be88e9c7e80680e087867jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="355">The Beijing Declaration and international policy context:Nepal is not the only nation that has gender-based discrimination in citizenship laws. The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights reports that globally 25 countries prevent mothers from conferring their nationality on their children on an equal basis with fathers, and over 50 countries deny women equal nationality rights with men, including conferral of nationality on non-Nepali spouses.Discriminatory laws deny equal rights to women to acquire citizenship or to confer citizenship to children or spouse. Those laws prevent children from being recognised as a citizen in their mother’s country, even when the child is born in that country. The discriminatory laws deny foreign husbands their spouses’ citizenship, while foreign wives of male citizens are eligible for naturalised citizenship, either immediately after marriage or after a waiting period.The issue of discriminatory nationality laws unfairly impacting women is not new and has been raised at international fora, especially under the United Nations. However, it appears that discriminatory citizenship issue has yet to receive as high a global profile as other issues affecting women, such as health, education, occupation, wage and employment.The UN, for example, has organised four World Conferences on Women to promote empowerment and gender equality around the globe (the first one in 1975 in Mexico City, in 1980 in Copenhagen, in 1980 in Nairobi, and in Beijing in 1995), but none of them highlighted the discriminatory citizenship issue.The 1995 Beijing Conference, which was a major turning point for global agenda for gender equality, released a declaration, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which was adopted unanimously by 189 countries, including Nepal. The document emphasised the participating governments’ determination to advance the goals of equality for all women, everywhere.The Beijing Declaration, which is considered the key global policy document on gender equality, recognised that even though the status of women has advanced in some important respects, the progress has been uneven. Inequalities between men and women continue to persist and major obstacles remain, with serious consequences for the wellbeing of all.The Beijing Declaration also reaffirmed the participating governments’ commitment to equal rights and inherent human dignity of women and men, to the principle enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).The Beijing conference was followed by a series of five-year reviews of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration commitments, under the leadership of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).Beijing Declaration turned 25 this year. The 25-year review and appraisal scheduled for 9-20 March had to be edited to a single day event due to concerns related to Covid-19. The UN Commission on the Status of Women convened a meeting to adopt the draft political statements and suspended the remainder of the session until further notice.The UN Division for the Advancement of Women, merged with three other UN entities working around women’s right and empowerment in 2010 to become a new agency. The merger has added a much-needed focus on women, nationality and citizenship in the Women 2000 and Beyond report series. The report has specifically raised the issue of discriminatory citizenship laws, reporting that where parents have different nationalities, laws bestow the nationality of the father upon a child, but deny the child her mother’s nationality.Although the laws of most countries now entitle a woman to maintain her independent nationality upon marriage, many countries still retain laws that discriminate between women and men in terms of how the nationality is passed on to their children, particularly nationality by descent. Most countries that have provision for nationality by descent confer the nationality of the father on his children, irrespective of the nationality of his spouse.It is less common for those countries to pass on the nationality of a woman married to a foreigner on her children automatically. In many countries, nationality by descent from the mother is conferred only where she is unmarried or the father is unknown or stateless.<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109181148/636be88f9c7e80680e087868jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="422"></figure>Way forward:Even though much progress has been achieved internationally in empowering women in public and private life, much work still remains to be done in eliminating gender-based discrimination with regard to citizenship.In Nepal’s case, the Citizenship Act of 2006 and the Citizenship Act  of 2020 both are inconsistent with the Part 3 of the Constitution that guarantees equality of rights and prohibits gender-based discrimination. These laws are unconstitutional in contravention to equality of rights and, therefore, can be challenged in the country’s constitutional court of law.In many countries including the US and Canada, unconstitutional laws often fail the constitutional test if challenged in a court, forcing the law-making authorities to replace the provisions that are unconstitutional with new provisions that are constitutionally compliant. In Nepal, it does not appear to be common for unconstitutional laws to be tested in Supreme Court, which is the constitutional court of law.A UN Women report lays out the scenarios in which inequality in the acquisition and retention of nationality causes particular hardships for spouses of different nationalities. International human rights standards to redress these inequalities exist within the human rights treaties, article 9, in particular of the CEDAW, 1979.Judicial decisions in a number of countries indicate how these standards can be used to challenge existing inequalities between men and women. However, there are many obstacles to the effective implementation of human rights standards.While international law recognizes the sovereign States’ discretionary power to enact laws and devise public policies with respect to conferral of citizenship upon individuals, the UN has made recommendations for actions at both international and nation levels. At the national level, the UN recommends legal and administrative reforms in domestic law to ensure international standards that are based on the CEDAW, 1979.This is an opportunity for Nepal to decide to stand on the right side of history. Does Nepal want to stand with the small community of discriminating countries with unequal rights for women or with the larger global community that has fair citizenship laws based on gender equality? There are adequate constitutional provisions for equality of rights in Nepal’s constitution and the broader international policy framework for eliminating discrimination as part of the Beijing Declaration for Nepal to take progressive, not regressive, legislative action.The time to make that choice is now, as Parliament will have to decide on the fate of the citizenship amendment bill. Women’s dignity is not a choice, it is their right. There cannot be second thoughts on it.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109181148/636be8919c7e80680e087869jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="112" height="135">Ajay Pradhan is Senior Policy Advisor, Treaty and Self-Government Agreement Negotiations, Government of Canada. He lives in Vancouver, Canada.

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108151124/636a66d39c7e80680e0599a7jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="720"/><figcaption>Photos: DARJEELINGTIMES.COM</figcaption></figure>After India recently amended its laws regarding citizenship, Nepalis living in Northeast India are terrified. Both of India’s Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/11/asia/india-citizenship-amendment-bill-intl-hnk/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill</a> (CAB) which tightens laws regarding citizenship.Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC), published on 31 August 2019, generated protests all over India because it was missing 1.9 million residents. About 100,000 Nepalis, whose ancestors have been living in the northeast Indian state for up to 200 years, were among those excluded from the list for technical reasons like marriage, migration, differences in last name, mistakes or lost documents. They are now terrified that they will not be counted as Indian citizens. They are listed as ‘D Voters’ meaning ‘Doubtful’ Voters.In November, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah declared in parliament that the list would be expanded over the entire country, and his ruling BJP appears determined to implement NRC countrywide. It has amended the constitution and got CAB passed by both Houses which will make it easier to implement the NRC, which will ultimately affect the status of <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/regular-columns/Connecting-dots/Darjeeling-and-the-idea-of-Nepal,944">Indians of Nepali origin</a> at present and future.Since 1951, Assam has been the only Indian state to have created and updated its register of citizens. The NRC is said to be an attempt to discover ‘foreigners’ residing illegally in the state. The concept of the NRC came up in 1951, after India became independent and held its first census. Its purpose later was to differentiate between Assam natives and Bangladeshi refugees.During British rule, many people from Bihar, Bengal and Nepal migrated to Assam to work on its tea estates and settle on empty land. After Partition and the breakup of Pakistan there was a large influx of as many as 1 million refugees from Bangladesh, first due to the language struggle and crackdowns by the Pakistan Army in 1971. After Bangladesh became independent some returned home, but many stayed on in Assam.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108151124/636a66d59c7e80680e0599a8jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="720">The Citizenship Amendment Bill makes it easier to implement the NRC across the country. Opposition parties are protesting strongly against it, and a dozen people have been killed in <a href="https://time.com/5752186/india-protests-citizenship-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">violent demonstrations across the country</a>. The Indian National Congress and the Mamata Banerjee-led All India Trinamool Congress and the Marxist Communist Party are spearheading the protests, but many of the student demonstrations in universities have been spontaneous.Protestors claim the bill undermines India’s democratic system and secularism. CAB has provisions to provide citizenship to Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Persian, Jain and Buddhist refugees who have fled persecution in the neighbouring countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, but <a href="https://time.com/5746688/india-citizenship-amendment-bill/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">denies Muslims the same facility</a>. Many also fear that the bill endangers the identity, language and culture of the natives of Assam and neighbouring state, Tripura.Mamata Banerjee, chief minister of West Bengal, has already declared that she will not let the NRC be implemented in West Bengal. People in northeast states including Assam, Tripura, Sikkim and Darjeeling, have held many protests against the bill.Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland in Northeast India are exempted from the bill because they are restricted states, where even Indian visitors need permits to enter. That ‘Innerline Permit’ will also be implemented in Manipur eventually. But Sikkim falls under the new law, which has created confusion.Sikkim was a sovereign country until 1975, becoming India’s 22nd state after annexation in 1975. Sikkim Chief Minister PS Gole has declared that the CAB and NRC will not be implemented in the state. Supported by Sikkim’s opposition parties, he has requested the Indian government to also exempt Sikkim.In Darjeeling, the Vinay Tamang and Anit Thapa-led Gorkha Janamukti Morcha (GJM), and the Dr Harkabahadur Chhetri-led Jana Andolan party have opposed the CAB, but the Gorkha Rashtriya Mukti Morcha and another faction of the GJM support both CAB and NRC.When he presented the CAB in parliament, Home Minister Shah claimed that all those who were excluded from Assam’s NRC were infiltrators, not Indian citizens. The GJM’s Tamang issued a press statement refuting that allegation, and demanded that before the NRC is implemented Indian Nepalis  should be included in the list of ‘Original Inhabitants of India’ and be a protected community.Nepalis have been <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=2053#.XfsquJMzaUl">living in Indian states like Darjeeling and Assam</a> for more than 200 years, working on tea estates and farms. In fact, Nepali speakers are better settled in northeast India than many Bengali speakers, but many of the Nepalis do not yet have land deeds and it will be even more difficult for them to get the rights if the NRC is implemented.The 1950 Nepal-India treaty gave Nepali and Indian citizens the right to freely come and go in each other’s countries, although India requires visas from Bangladeshis and Pakistanis. The issue of the identity of Indians of Nepali origin has fuelled an agitation for autonomy in the Darjeeling hills for many years. Subhas Ghising proposed that they be called ‘Gorkha’ to differentiate them from Nepali citizens. But this is not legally, or widely, accepted. There are no Nepali refugees in India.During the election campaign, Home Minister Shah assured people that the NRC would not affect ‘Gorkhas’. But they are still confused regarding citizenship bill and register. The Nepalis of Assam, where the NRC has been implemented, are especially concerned about how to be counted as Indian citizens.

citizenship-amendment-bill

Nepal’s Citizenship Amendment Bill explained

President’s precedent

Are women not Nepali enough?

Nepal's unequal Citizenship Law

Nepal's unequal Citizenship Law

Indian Nepalis alarmed by Citizenship Amendment Bill