On Monday, the party leadership had caused a furore after first agreeing to change the current draft provision, which requires both the parents to be Nepalis before their child can be (the “and” clause), and then blocking the Political Dialogue Consensus Committee (PDCC) from doing so.

Rejecting the allegation that the UML was against the amended proposal, party spokesperson Pradeep Gyawali said his party just did not want to amend the citizenship laws piecemeal. “We did not backtrack on our words. We wanted to deal with the citizenship issue in its entirety, not by going through one clause at a time. There are issues of national security to address as well,” Gyawali said.

The amended provision that the PDCC had proposed on Monday read: an individual would be eligible for Nepali citizenship if either of that person’s parents were Nepali at the time of his/her birth, if that person resides in Nepal permanently and if that person has not received a foreign citizenship through either of his/her parents.

UML senior leader Madhav Kumar Nepal was reported to have voiced his concerns against this proposal.

On Thursday, the delegation of campaigners for the “or” clause, who had previously met the top leaders of the major parties on Monday and exacted commitment to change the “and” provision, met Nepal and sought clarifications.

“Nepal told us that he was under the impression that the drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly (CA) was already working on the “or” clause and hence thought that there was no need for the PDCC to put forth a new proposal. He said he was not against the “or” proposal but that the state should make sure that the provision would not be misused, compromising national security,” said Bhojraj Pokharel, former chief election commissioner and one of the delegates who met leaders on Monday.

Nepal could not be reached for verification.

Sapana Pradhan Malla, a former CA member and also one of the delegates on Monday, said after the conversation with Nepal, she was hopeful that the “and” clause would be removed.

“We heard his concerns and made our proposal clear to him. We will continue meeting with leaders who need to be convinced. Concerns about national security can be dealt separately without violating gender equality in citizenship laws,” Malla said.