What does dual citizenship mean to a state? For an individual, perhaps it is simply a matter of mobility and feeling like a citizen of the world with no restrictions or boundaries. However, it is not the same for a state. Based on identity and historical narratives, states are formed of nation(s) and the state reserves the right to act as a monopoly of legitimate force to draw policies, which is commonly accepted by the subjects of the state. This means it also reserves the right to delegate citizenship, which is nonetheless a process of gradual negotiation and redefinition.

The authority to determine citizenship rests with the state through the legal doctrines of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of the soil). In jus sanguinis, an individual derives citizenship from their parents, while in jus soli, the individual derives citizenship from their place of birth. States with jus sanguinis laws tend to view citizenship as membership in a nation, ie, a cultural community, while jus soli states tend to understand citizenship as membership in a state. This article focuses on jus soli (citizenship by soil), or say, by residence.

Globalisation erodes the autonomy of the nation-state, undermines the ideology of distinct and relatively autonomous cultures and facilitates the increasing mobility of people across borders. This is more specific to western countries, where the nation-state model has undergone great changes due to the fluid movements of peoples, cultures and identities, leading to the enshrinement of dual citizenship in a number of countries. However, a majority of undeveloped countries seem reluctant to allow dual citizenship.

The major concerns influencing decisions to allow dual citizenship are two: loyalty and geopolitical concerns.

Dual loyalty

The state is an emotional entity. It requires that its citizens appreciate its history, embrace its identity narratives, show loyalty and be ready to make sacrifices whenever necessary. Therefore, states around the world tend to glorify their history and past. Citizens commit to a state’s right to exercise its monopoly on legitimate force and to stake their lives on the battlefield to preserve the state’s integrity and sovereignty. Loyalty is central to any state system. This is why acquiring citizenship later in life requires undergoing oath-taking rituals and demonstrating knowledge of the country and its ideology. Many states that allow dual nationality, like the US and many European countries, have such rituals either as a verbal oath or as written testimonies.

So when we talk about dual nationality, it is akin to talking about dual loyalty. States that do not grant dual citizenship do so on the grounds that it is challenging to trust a citizen who professes loyalty to two different states. Nepal, like a good number of states globally, does not believe in dual citizenship. However, a majority of the European Union’s states tolerate dual citizenship, with the notable exceptions of Austria, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. However, eastern EU member states, like Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia maintain a renunciation requirement. Although statist assertions based on loyalty are slowly fading at the international level due to an ever globalising world, most noticeable in Europe, many countries are attempting to resist forces of globalisation and do not entertain the idea of dual citizenship.

Geopolitical concerns

Secondary to the centrality of the dual loyalty argument in dual citizenship is the geostrategic apprehensions of states. Unlike nationalist sentiments, geography is more or less permanent and therefore, quite relevant for states while deciding on dual citizenship. States must adjust and mold themselves according to their existing geopolitical reality. For Nepal, being primarily India-locked and surrounded by two states with the largest populations in the world, the central argument against dual citizenship is that an influx of neighbouring populations might easily dilute the Nepali identity.

The open border with India and the lack of a proper border management mechanism has already fed these fears and allowing dual citizenship, some argue, would make it easier for Indian citizens to assimilate the Nepali identity with India. Identity is fluid and India is a vast country with multiple cultures. In the preservation or dilution of any culture or identity, size and population play a forceful role. Assimilation with India has been always a great fear for Nepal, which is why, despite being very close in culture and history, Nepal tends to practice things a little differently. This is even evident in the differing celebrations of Hindu festivals like Dashain, Tihar and Holi. Similar geopolitical concerns seem to have played into the decisions of states like Denmark, the Netherlands and Japan to not allow dual nationality.

Time to reconsider

In an era of globalisation and the decline of the nation-state, it is important to devise a strategic way to allow dual citizenship. For instance, Pakistan’s example is to only allow dual citizenship to Pakistani nationals in 16 specified countries, namely the US, United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Iceland, Australia, Italy, Sweden, New Zealand, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Indian strategy of addressing the needs of its non-resident nationals has been through the introduction of Overseas Citizens of India and Persons of Indian Origin programmes. These offer some travel and residency privileges to cardholders, although not the same as dual citizenship. There are also states like Portugal, which allows mutual dual citizenship, ie, only for those states which also permit dual citizenship.

Taking consideration of its geopolitical concerns, Nepal could devise something similar to Portugal or Pakistan. Staying cautious about Nepal’s national, political and geostrategic aims, it could only grant dual nationality to states that are far off geographically. This, however, would require excluding immediate neighbours. The Portuguese policy of mutual citizenship could be an interesting strategy to follow as most of Nepal’s neighbours like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan and China do not allow dual citizenship with Nepal and would be automatically excluded from eligibility. Similarly, like Pakistan, Nepal could name a list of countries, which it finds relevant to allow dual citizenship for.

This, however, would contravene the spirit of regional cooperation that Saarc is supposed to uphold. Freedom of movement in a regional cooperation is crucial and one could argue also it is in the best interests of the state. In any case, the spirit of regional cooperation is already lacking in Saarc, as evident in its dismal performance, largely due to the unsettled and uncomfortable relations between South Asia’ major powers.

Pandey holds a Masters in International Relations and Political Science from Universid-ade Fernando Pessoa, Portugal