Nepal: The Citizenship Bill and its Implications
11 Aug, 2001 · 535
Chandra B Khanduri writes on the implications of the Suprteme Court's verdict.
On July 21, 2001 , the Nepalese Supreme Court issued what can easily be called a destabilising historic landmark decision in Indo-Nepalese relations. For, on this day, the Nepalese apex court declared that "no foreigner of any gender would be eligible for grant of Nepalese Citizenship, other than the Nepalese themselves". In one stroke, the Supreme Court denied interalia Nepalese citizenship to over 300,000 Indian settlers in
Nepal
.
Nepal
had the right to citizenship. After much wrangling the Bill had been passed by the Pratinidhi Sabha (Lower House) along with the Financial Bill in July last year. But the Rashtriya Sabha (Upper House) objected to it. The Bill then moved to King Birendra for his approval. Instead of affixing his royal seal, Birendra moved it to the Chief Justice for his legal opinion. The King had also sought opinion of the opposition members who unequivocally refused to support it because it would set a ‘floodgate’ of influx of Indians and even the 100,000 Bhutanese refugees of Nepalese origin languishing in Eastern Nepal in refugee camps since early 1990s, might also become eligible.
Kathmandu
from GP Koirala to Sher Bahadur Deuba. Koirala had worked sincerely on moving the Bill as a Citizenship Amendment Bill since his August 2000
Delhi
visits. But on demand from the opposition and his own NC Party detractors, the Supreme Court struck it down, asking the Govt to instead carry out amendment to the Constitution.
Nepal
’s food bowl today credit for it goes to the Indians. The Nepalese from the highlands are now moving to the Terai in large numbers causing a demographic shift.
India
for employment and about 50,000 men are in active service of the
India
’s armed forces.
India
who settled down after the Gorkha invasion of Indian states from 1790
Assam
, besides Meghalaya, have been harassed by the locals under the garb of the ‘Foreigners Act, 1987.’ The Indian Government will have to ensure that such acts of hyper-ethnicity do not affect the Indo-Nepalese relations.
Nepal
while every third Nepalese has a second ‘home and ‘work place’ in
India
.
Delhi
and
Kathmandu
. Reciprocity is essential even between friends.
Enacted as the Citizenship Bill some decades earlier, it envisaged grant of citizenship to foreigners if that individual could prove his Nepalese ancestry. Ispo-facto, it implied, anyone born in
The Supreme Court decision seemed to coincide with the change of political leadership at
Historically, Indians began to move in to the Nepal Terai from 1800. The Nepalese Prime Minister Chandra Sham Rana encouraged Indian settlers into the Terai from 1860 as Tharus as they alone were prepared to work in the malarial and unhealthy climate obtaining there. If the Terai is
Legally, the decision of the Nepalese apex court is not only controversial but challengable. Apart from the grave historic injustice, it ignores the reality of geographical, civilizational, and cultural commonality of the two peoples and their inseparable interdependence. It makes a mountain of a mole as three lakh Indian settlers are a mere 0.3%of the Nepalese population of 23 million. About 30 to 35% Nepalese are constantly moving into
Sadly, this judgement ignores the snow-balling effect its implementation would have on 15 million Nepalese Domiciled personnel in
It is plausible that the judgement of the Nepalese apex court was influenced not only by King Birendra’s opposition to the Bill or the opposition parties consisting of India Baskers but from developments in some of the Indian states. The Gorkha settlers in North-Eastern States especially in Manipur and
On the part of the Deuba’s Government, it would be naïve to assume that 0.3% of Indians would ‘flood’
Realpolitik and hard common sense are the need of hour both at
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
