This omission has created confusion among women rights activists, who have been demanding that the ‘and’ provision be replaced by ‘or’ so that an individual could apply for Nepali citizenship if they provide the evidence that one of their parents is of Nepali nationality. The activists strongly believe that individuals should be allowed to become a Nepali national on the basis of their mothers’ citizenship, without having to furnish the proofs of nationality of both parents.

“On one hand, it is a good thing that the questionnaire committee left out the provision. Voices against the ‘or’ provision are loud and numerous within the CA. If put to vote, our agenda for change could be immediately voted down. On the other hand, the exclusion of the provision from the questionnaire could mean that the CA and the political parties do not consider the ‘and’ provision debatable,” said Sapana Pradhan Malla, former CA member and women rights activist.

Most political leaders and CA members are against the ‘or’ provision. They fear that allowing a mother to grant citizenship to her child could invite foreigners to be Nepalis.

In May last year, the Constitution Records Study and Determination Committee, authorised to identify agreements and disagreements of the first CA, had forwarded the ‘and’ clause on citizenship to the Constitution Drafting Committee as a settled issue. The provision was sent back for discussion to the Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee after the Drafting Committee caught the error.  

To avoid both these pitfalls, Malla said that those against the ‘and’ provision need to think strategically to ensure its amendment.