by cultural, geographical and religious heterogeneity, and above all, by a long history of migrations which makes all Nepalese to be settlers in real sense. A crucial challenge for Nepal therefore consists of allowing cultural differences to persist without violating common and societally defined rights. In other words, the challenge consists in finding a viable compromise, for the state as well as the citizens (representing power and agency respectively), between equal rights and the right to be different.

This study has attempted to look at the situation of that section of people in the Tarai region of Nepal called madhesi, some of whom, because they live on the Nepal side of the border between India and Nepal, do not enjoy any citizenship rights. Presenting available numerical facts about the demographic size and geographical spread of these people, this study describes the particular situation that makes them unable to acquire the documents necessary for establishing their citizenship. It also illustrates the difficulties they face in accessing the resources of the state, and of the market, because of this particular situation. Besides, it has tried to capture the attitude of the political parties, social movements, and civil society organizations towards them.

Genesis of the Discourses of Citizenship in Nepal

Citizenship is a complex concept that can refer to all topics concerning the vertical relation between the state and the citizen and the horizontal relation between citizens within the civic community. Citizenship is used in at least three ways, to refer to a juridical status, a civic identity or a political practice. Citizenship as juridical status relates to the core responsibilities of a liberal democratic state: to guarantee equal rights and security for its citizens. Citizenship as civic identity and membership of a civic community constitutes a basis for solidarity and trust that integrates diverse social groups in a polity. The concept of citizenship as political participation and – more generally – as civic practice places the active and responsible citizen in the foreground: the citizen as member of a self-ruling democratic community of free and equal citizens.

The modern concept of citizenship was not introduced in Nepal before 1950. There were no legal provisions to distinguish citizens from non-citizens (foreigners) in Nepal prior to 1950. However, the first Civil Code 1854 distinguished a citizen from a foreigner using words like ‘rait’ and ‘raiti’ respectively for the purpose of purchasing land and other fixed properties. Besides, the words ‘muglaniya’ and ‘mlecche’ were used to denote Indian and European citizens respectively. Generally, the foreigners were restricted to purchase fixed properties, to enter government jobs and own jamindari (landlordship).

The modern concept of citizenship was introduced in 1952 by enacting the first Citizenship Act (1952), which defined citizenship in modern, constitutional terms. Like most citizenship laws, it declared as a citizen anyone who was born in Nepal, anyone permanently settled in Nepal, who had at least one parent born in Nepal, or any woman married to a citizen. Besides, it adopted very liberal provisions to acquire naturalized citizenship stating that anyone who had lived in Nepal for at least five years could acquire citizenship. This act was replaced by Citizenship Act of 1964 formed after the promulgation of 1962 Constitution, which made the procedure to acquire naturalized citizenship rigorous, though Nepal showed the highest rate of naturalization of Indians (that is, 62.8 percent) among South Asian countries as compared to 32.1 percent in Sri Lanka, 0.1 percent in Bhutan, and none for Bangladesh and Maldives. This Act has been amended five times and still acts as the main legal document to grant citizenship in the country. Similarly, citizenship received special attention in 1962 Constitution and its successive amendments including the current democratic constitution of 1990 (Annex 1). The constitutional and legal discrimination against the people of plain origin in acquiring citizenship began right from the promulgation of the 1962 constitution. It is in clause (d) of Section 2, Article 8 of the 1962 Constitution that discrimination against people of plains origin is evident, more in vagueness of wording than stated fact. It included a provision stating 12 years period of residence required for some people (those who were not of Nepalese origin) who sought citizenship, and a period of only two years for the people of Nepalese origin. The term ‘Nepalese origin’ is not defined in the 1962 Constitution or in the Citizenship Act of 1964; interpretation is left to the official granting the citizenship certificate.

Thus, in the contemporary Nepalese context, the discourse on citizenship and the application of citizens’ rights often generate political tension because it is intricately tied to the issue of ethnicity and regionalism. There are three reasons why ethnicity and regionalism are problematic in relation to the discourse on identity and citizenship in Nepal:
 
First, ethnic identity is not a fixed form of identity. Although it may appear as a natural community distinguished by a common language, ancestry and myth of origin as well as a common consciousness of being one in relation to others, it is not a static category. It is therefore, subject to frequent reconstitution and redefinition. It is interesting to note for example, that from 60 caste/ ethnic groups identified by the 1991 census, the number of caste/ethnic groups has expanded to over a 100 in 2001 census. Many groups who were grouped together during the previous census are now claiming their separate ethnic identity. As elsewhere, ethnic identity in Nepal has had a constant history of redefinition, re-composition and reconstitution.
 
Second, Nepal is characterized by a state of unequal ethnic relations reflecting an intense unequal competition for state resources. The high caste pahade Hindus are usually referred to as the dominant group in the sense that they enjoy better access to state and societal resources. Most of the ethnic groups (janajatis), dalits and the people of Tarai origin (madhesis) are treated as marginal on two major grounds: one is their disadvantaged position in national human development index and, the other, lower representation in integrated national governance index. The most important resource being state power itself, particularly its coercive and resource-allocating elements is captured by the elite high caste pahade Hindus and elite Newars of Kathmandu valley. Jointly these communities held more than 81.7 % leadership positions in important areas of governance such as judiciary, executive, legislature, and public administration etc. in 1999 in relation to the rest of the people.

Finally, there were historical processes of integration and migrations of various groups. The demographic history of Nepal was the creation of two main populations of Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman origin. Roughly speaking, the earliest inhabitants were the Tibeto-Burman speaking groups, who entered particular regions of the Himalayan range and remained distinct communities. They were followed much later by Hindu immigrants, many of them fleeing the Muslim invasions of north India. They migrated in small groups, settled in a number of principalities mainly in the hills west of Kathmandu under nominal chieftains claiming Rajput descent. Besides, the influx of many Indians into Nepal has taken place on the ground of ‘filling vacuum’ in agricultural services and skill markets such as education, health, politics, security, intelligence, industry, business or trade. Many of them were invited by the government of Nepal or its agents to move into the Tarai for settlement. Added to it, many people from the countries with whom India, not Nepal, shares common borders with also come to Nepal.

Thus, the issue of citizenship is complex and often creates many problems for a country like Nepal facing the need to create stable national politics out of a population composed of competing, occasionally hostile groups from different geographical, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds.

Madhesi People and the Issues of Citizenship Distributions

The people traditionally inhabiting the Tarai region of the Nepal have been collectively known as madhesis. The Tarai region used to be covered by thick malarial forests. Only a few ethnic groups, Tharus throughout the region and Rajbanshis, Meches, Tahpuriyas, and Gangais in the far-eastern Tarai were the permanent inhabitants of this region. Since the hill people were reluctant to settle in Tarai due to unfavourable malarial and climatic conditions, the Nepalese government between the 1860s and 1950s encouraged Indian people to settle in this region in order to increase revenue. Large amounts of lands including forest products were granted to the supporters of Rana rulers when the strategic significance of the Tarai began to decline due to changing world order. An active policy of encouraging Indian immigrants rather than Nepali hill people was adopted when it was opened as a new settlement area of the Nepali state. In other words, the Tarai land granted to the loyalists of the Rana rulers was settled and cultivated, not by Nepalese, but by Indians. Such policy clearly indicates that the Rana rulers’ intention was not to integrate but to isolate the Tarai from the hills. In addition, local administrators were encouraged to attract Indian settlers, and revenue collectors were often obligated to settle a specified numbers of immigrants every year. Over the decades this policy led to the creation of an unassimilated, Indian ethnic minority within Nepali territory, which came to be feared by the elite as a fifth column preparing the ground for India’s domination of Nepal. Until the 1950s, culturally different from the hill people and geographically isolated from Kathmandu, plains people living in the Tarai were considered to be at least ‘quasi-foreigners’.

After the establishment of democratic government in 1951 and its initiation of malaria eradication programs accompanied with land resettlement programs for diverse target groups, such as landless people mostly from the hills, political sufferers, Gurkha ex-servicemen both of Nepalese, Indian and British armies, victims of natural disaster, Nepalese refugees from Burma, Tibetan refugees, and so on, the Tarai became a new frontier and huge tracts of jungles were cleared for human settlement. This brought about a drastic change in the regional redistribution of population in Nepal. The Tarai which accounted for only 35.2 percent of the total population of Nepal in 1952-54, has today become not only a homeland for nearly half of the total population of the country, but also the breadbasket of the country. According to the 2001 census, madhesi people comprise about 32 percent of the total population of the country. The madhesi people as a whole can be broadly categorized into four distinct cultural groups:

Thus, madhesis are a complex community of Hindus, Muslims, Dalits and indigenous people having diverse livelihood occupations with different migratory and settlement history in the Tarai region. The citizenship problems for people of the plains origin must be seen within this perspective.

Nepali citizenship can be acquired either by being born in Nepal, through descent citizenship or through naturalization (see Annex 1). A person who is born after the commencement of this Constitution (1990) and whose father is a citizen of Nepal at the birth of the child shall be a citizen of Nepal by descent called bangsaj. Besides, there are provisions for granting citizenship by naturalization (one should reside in Nepal for at least 15 years) called angicrit citizen and by birth called janmasiddha. But the government, since 1980, allows only citizenship by descent to be granted. Neither has citizenship by birth nor citizenship of naturalization (except marriage naturalization for women married to Nepalese citizen) to foreigners been granted.

However, by June 2004, nearly twelve and half million citizenship certificates had been distributed (see Annex 2). In terms of region-wise distribution, 45.55 percent of those who received citizenship cards were from the Hills, 39.00 percent were from the Tarai, 9.34 percent from the inner Tarai, and 6.09 percent from the Mountains. The largest numbers of citizenship papers were distributed in Kathmandu district (547271) in the Hills, followed by Sunsari (380647) in the eastern Tarai. The five districts which gave out more than 300,000 certificates were Kathmandu in the Valley, Sunsari, Jhapa (365213), Morang (363208) from eastern Tarai and Rupandehi (333996) from the central Tarai. Similarly, the twenty-four districts which distributed more than 200,000 certificates were fifteen in Tarai region, six in Hill region and three in inner Tarai region. None of the districts in Mountain region have distributed citizenship certificates up to 200,000 so far. From this distribution pattern, one can see where there is more ‘pressure’ for citizenship (see Annex 2 for details).

Of the total 12,365,670 citizenship certificates distributed so far, 12,166,670 have received citizenship by descent, 144,731 received naturalized citizenship through matrimonial relationship (foreign women (mainly Indian) after marrying with Nepalese citizens) and 54,269 received citizenship as their birthright. The largest numbers of naturalized citizenship through matrimonial relationship were distributed in Parsa (26170) followed by Kapilbastu (26037), Sarlahi (16217) and Dhanusa (15066), all belong to the Tarai region (see Annex 2)

Blurred Border: Issues of Political Boundaries and Citizenship

The citizenship problem in Nepal is not new and has become more intractable now. The 70-point recommendations of the 1983 report on migration included 12 recommendations on citizenship alone. The report's conclusion was that the citizenship policies of the country as well as the distribution of citizenship papers were too liberal and need to reform urgently. As far as people of plains origin are concerned, with their linguistic and ethnic nearness to India, madhesis have over the years found it difficult to obtain Nepali citizenship. For India-locked Nepal, citizenship has always been a contentious issue. The Kathmandu elite has a deep fear of being overrun by Indians. Laws are strict, and their implementations even more severe when it comes to granting citizenship to those who look or sound like Indians. Due to such a deep-seated fear among mostly high-caste hill dwellers, the issue of granting citizenship to Nepali nationals of the Tarai has been becoming deep and complex day by day.

In staking the claim of Nepali citizenship, some people are more successful as some other critical collective features (e.g. language, facial structure, family link with hill people, etc,) favour them while for some groups the claim is not easily accepted. For example, the bona fides of pahade origin people as Nepali nationals are not contested though they came to the region after 1950s from Darjeeling, Assam, Kalimpung, Megahalaya, Sikkim, Kurseong, Bhutan, and Burma as immigrants. But a similar claim of the madhesi people is always suspect as really being Indian despite the fact that settlement of these people to Tarai dates many years before 1950s. Some of the Tarai villages have archaeological evidences at least a half millennium old.

Due to a lack of distinct symbols of identification with the Nepali State and the resulting suspicion of their loyalties, people of hill background hesitate to encourage participation of the plain people in national life. They fear that this will enhance Indian influence in Nepal. This not uncommon for a small county like ours and by doing so, the Nepali state wants to discourage immigrations, or at least limit the influence of the immigrants. On the other hand, many people from the Tarai may not have developed psychological identification with the territory as their homeland though they have lived in the territory of the Nepali state for the stipulated period of time and many of them have acquired citizenship. The acquisition of citizenship in such cases implies an instrumental rather than an emotional bond. If we minutely observe the daily life circumstances and some aspects of social and cultural life situations of the Tarai, we find that the sense of the larger national identity has yet to evolve, and the traditional manner of identifying with tribe, caste, family, ethnic or linguistic and regional grounds is still dominant. They simply designate ‘Nepali’ to the people from hill, as if they are not Nepali and they don’t have any right to claim as Nepali.

The political and cultural boundary between India and Nepal seems to be somewhat blurred in the sense that one can observe daily familial, cultural and commercial interactions between the people of Nepal and India taking place, as if the border does not exist. Similar cultural landscapes with an open border and the right of citizens of both countries to work in either economy have further complicated the situation to understand what Nepal is or who is a Nepali in the Tarai. In the border area in India, the madhesi people of Nepal are looked down upon, as kith and kin of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh caste group. In Delhi and other parts of India, they are looked upon as Indian Hindi speakers settled in Nepal. On the other hand, certain sections of the Nepalese population, primarily of hill and mountain backgrounds, brand the madhesi people as outsiders. These observations provide enough grounds to understand that the madhesi people have been facing an identity problem and there is no distinct boundary between the plains people of Nepal and India that is visible to all. On the contrary, as noted earlier, there is not much in the Nepali State with which the madhesi people can identify with and there exists a distinctly visible divide or a clear boundary between the peoples of pahade and madhesi origin. This is a paradox that needs to be addressed properly to enhance national integration.

Politics of Citizenship in the Tarai: Whose Account is True?

There are two contradictory accounts prevailing in Nepal regarding citizenship and people of plains origin. Political leaders associated with Nepal Sadbhavana Party (NSP) and madhesi activists claim that because the state has denied them their rights, majority of madhesis are not empowered in any of the ways, politically or socially, and deprived from acquiring citizenship. Similarly, because of the dominance of the bureaucracy in Nepal’s public life, an imitation of the colonial rule in India and its model afterward, the people at the grassroots have little say in public matters. As a result, many who deserve citizenship have been deprived of it and others who have had easy access to towns and money have obtained it. The high-level citizenship committee constituted under parliamentarian Dhanpati Upadhaya in 2052 (1995) estimated that 3.4 million Nepalis above the age of 16 were without citizenship and according to the NSP, a majority of them belong to people of plains origin.

The NSP claims that people of plains origin residing in the Tarai region and seeking citizenship certificate are harassed and they are considered to be the second-class citizens. The NSP has demanded a repeal of Article 8 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal (1990) and a promise publicly to campaign for giving citizenship certificates to all who are currently living in Nepal. Article 8 of the constitution is related to the citizenship (see Annex 1), and Nepal Sadbhavana Party has described this provision of the constitution as the main stumbling block to provide citizenship to all people in Tarai.

The madhesi activists accuse that there is strong propaganda from Hill extremists that should citizenships be granted, the ‘Indians’ (read madhesis) will swallow Nepal and they strongly opposed the liberal citizenship policy arguing that it will be sufficient to destroy the independent cultural identity of the Nepal. In this context, C. K Lal opined correctly that citizenship is a right that can’t be denied to any Nepali residing in the country. It is the moral obligation of all political parties to keep the promise they made to the electorate through their election manifestos. And it is almost impossible to address the problem of fundamental rights without rationalizing citizenship-related constitutional provisions first. But the core issue is the very concept of Nepalipan itself. It’s the definition of this term that will determine the fate of plurality and democracy in Nepal. It is noteworthy to mention here a newspaper report published in Nepali Time in May 2001 to capture the perspective of madhesi activists towards the present rules, regulations and administrative procedures in acquiring citizenship for a madhesi

Laws governing citizenship in Nepal are so inflexible and their implementation so blatantly discriminatory that if Lord Buddha were to be a commoner in contemporary Nepal, he wouldn’t succeed in getting a citizenship certificate. Being from Kapilavastu, Buddha would be a madhesi for the Nepali establishment, a person of Indian origin for the members of intelligentsia, and nobody would grant him his true status: a person of Tarai origin. Contemporary Buddha would probably speak Awadhi, and the Chief District Officer’s clerks would give him a standard application form to be filled in Nepali. He would wear a dhoti-kurta, and have to hire a bhadgaunle or dhaka topi to be photographed for the citizenship certificate. Someone in the CDO office would probably even taunt him for his gamchhi and ask him to appear in the office in labeda-suruwal, black coat and black shoes. Even after enduring all this humiliation, if his father hadn’t taken the citizenship certificate, the Buddha would be stateless.

This articulation clearly indicates that the prevailing concept of Nepalipan whether it is reflected through the constitution or through any other means is narrow and appears discriminatory to some citizens and favorable to the others and it is urgent to make a national frame inclusive enough to accommodate the aspirations of all citizens of the country.

On the other hand, scholars like Dahal (2004) and Upadhaya (1996) accuse political leaders in general and the Tarai leaders associated with Nepal Sadbhavana Party and madhesi activists in particular of initiating the politics of citizenship and claim that there is no problem of citizenship for genuine Nepali madhesi people as such. Upadhaya who was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Chair of the Constitution Drafting Committee of the 1990 Constitution claimed that there are no problems in citizenship in Nepal and alerted that we must not see citizenship as commodities for distribution like a ration card to all the eligible people living in Nepal. He clearly expressed that citizenship should not be distributed unless someone claimed it with appropriate evidence and required legal documents. He also opined that the prevailing constitutional and legal provisions are sufficient to acquire citizenship, if he/she deserves to obtain citizenship legally.

Dahal, referring to a survey carried out by the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS), Tribhuvan University in 1998-99 in 10 districts of the Tarai, noted that there was little truth in the politically rhetoric claims that 30-40 percent of the Tarai people (without defining who constitutes Tarai people) have not acquired Nepali citizenship even today. The survey revealed that many poor madhesi people, particularly the Dalit groups of Tarai do not simply apply for the citizenship certificate because it costs money and time for them. But those who do apply for citizenship with proper documents and recommendations (the applicant must be certified by the authority of the concerned VDC that the person is born and brought up there) easily obtain the citizenship certificate. The study also revealed some barriers for obtaining the citizenship certificate: one has to go to the concerned district government office which costs money for travel, food and other items like photographs, etc. Sometimes, the official simply delays the issuing of the certificate for two/three days, which costs additional money for the applicant. In some cases, the person has to bribe the concerned official for smoothing the whole process in time. Poverty also restricts the obtaining of citizenship as a person cannot make a living if they don’t work everyday. Thus, Dahal concludes that the issue of citizenship in Nepal has simply become a political tool to express discontent to the ruling government.

What are the Ground Realities?

It can be asserted from the above discussion that a large section of Nepalis of Tarai origin specifically poor and low caste people face problems getting citizenship certificates. The government officers were reluctant to grant them citizenship certificates just because of their madhesi origin, though they were living in the country for many generations. Usually, officials demanded legal documents and recommendations by gazetted officers, local elected authorities as well as police inquiry in order to prove someone’s ‘Nepalese origin’ to acquire citizenship. Since the madhesi people are physically, culturally, and linguistically similar to the people across the border, government officials always look at them with suspicious eyes as Indians rather than as Nepalis of Indian origin. By law, those who can show the citizenship certificate of their father or another close relative, or dhanipurja (land-ownership certificate), in his/her name or other similar documents of permanent residency are eligible to acquire citizenship. Most of the low caste people in the Tarai reported that they have neither of these documents to get citizenship. Landless and nomadic indigenous peoples are affected by this provision because they or their ancestors did not obtain citizenship certificates owing to their nomadic lifestyles and other reasons.

The Constitution also appeared biased in the context of citizenship acquirement. By Article 9, Section 4(a) of the current Constitution (1990), only those who know Khas-Nepali language written in Devangiri script can acquire Nepali citizenship. The same opportunity is not provided to anyone knowing any of the other 100 native languages of the country. Article 8 of the Constitution limits birthright citizenship to the year BS 2019 (1962 A.D.). Because of the latter, those who were born before that period but had not taken citizenship at that time are denied citizenship. As a result, people from Tarai region have been denied their citizenship rights to their own soil by enforcing discriminatory constitutional and legal provisions. They accused that a ‘pahadi-faced’ foreigner (for example people from Darjeeling, Assam, Meghalaya, Bhutan, Burma) is immediately considered a ‘true’ Nepali, while madhesis, no matter how many centuries they have lived in Tarai, are never taken as genuine nationals. These changing citizenship regulations reflect changes in the attitude of the Nepali state towards the plain people of the Tarai.

The indigenous people, on the other hand, get citizenship comparatively easily because they are already established as bhumiputra (son of the land) or first settlers of the region. Cultural affinity with India has created problems in acquiring citizenship for many people of plains origin. They appear physically and culturally the same as people living across the border. Language, food habits, style of wearing clothes, and other socio-cultural patterns are also similar and in many cases identical too. The problems of identifying who is Nepali and who is not have become further complicated because of the high frequency of intermarriage across the border (see Annex 2). Thus, a person who has lived for many generations may be deprived of Nepali citizenship if he/she is unable to produce official documents of his Nepali origin. Madhesis born of landless and illiterate ancestors are affected by this provision systematically. But a recently migrated Indian can acquire citizenship if he is clever enough to produce fake documents or has managed to purchase land.

On the other hand, the prevailing patriarchal social structure of Nepalese society has restricted a large number of citizens from acquiring citizenship. Legal and constitutional provisions regarding citizenship are based on patriarchy and hence they appear discriminatory against women. Article 9(2) of the current constitution (see Annex 1) allows citizenship by father’s descent only. Article 9, clauses (1), (2) and (5) concerning citizenship have directly discriminated against women as they fail to provide citizenship to children in the name of their mothers. According to sub article (1), children can get citizenship only if their father is a citizen of Nepal. Similarly, sub article (2) says that any infant found in the Kingdom will be a Nepalese citizen until his/her father is identified. These constitutional provisions refuse to recognize the existence of the mother. As a result, a large number of children having single parents are non-citizens, as they cannot get citizenship in their mother’s name. The Badis, a dalit group residing mostly in west Nepal, are probably the single largest group facing problems in acquiring citizenship certificates for their children. Since, many Badi women who reside in urban areas are traditionally involved in prostitution, their children have been deprived of citizenship certificates. ‘Around 1000 children born of Badi women are deprived of citizenship certificates which is a great injustice meted out by the state to its depressed citizens,’ expressed The Nepali.

Besides, a newspaper report published in The Raising Nepal on December 8, 2004 makes it clear how patriarchy has been a hindrance to acquiring citizenship certificates for the children of single parent. The report goes:

Awan Kumar Pudasaini of Besithok village in Nuwakot district, adjoining Kathmandu, has just learnt what problem you can land into if you are trying to get citizenship papers for your stepchild.

Pudasaini had married a woman who had a child from her previous wedlock. He brought up the child, Raju, as his own son. Raju grew up and applied for his citizenship certificate, as he wanted to go abroad for employment. He received it too. Ironically, Pudasaini was arrested along with Raju by the district administration on charges of forgery and the citizenship certificate cancelled. Pudasaini had stood as Raju’s father as the whereabouts of the biological father is not known. Pudasaini is now awaiting punitive action. If found guilty, Pudasaini can be fined up to Rs. 10,000 or imprisoned for five years.

Pudasaini’s case has unfolded one more complication in relation to the laws on citizenship based on patriarchy and it is evident that the state laws prohibit anyone from getting citizenship when the applicant cannot identify the real father. Thus, a child can obtain hereditary citizenship in Nepal only if the father has one and the mother's citizenship does not count. This gives an example of gender discrimination in acquiring citizenship certificate in Nepal.

Why Citizenship Certificate is Becoming Essential?

The citizenship certificate, in Nepal, bears symbolic meaning in addition to its legal importance in economic, social, and political activities within the countries. It provides an emotional sense of national identity to its holders and its denial in one’s own country means humiliation as one is treated as a foreigner. As a bond between the individual and the government of the country, citizenship plays a significant role in the process of national integration, and in assessing resources of the state and of market.

In Nepal, without this document, one cannot buy or sell property, get a government job or even pursue higher education. Besides, citizenship certificate is compulsory to be able to run import business, establish small-scale firms, get loan from banks, and other similar financial institutions, and to get government allowances for old and widow people. One cannot get a passport to go abroad without having citizenship certificate. It is also necessary for marriage and birth registration or even for school enrollment of children. Citizenship is required to take part in the political process like elections for political representation.

The government has adopted a policy of preferential hiring of labouring jobs in the largest industrial firms by introducing new labor and industrial Acts and regulations. Citizenship is essential to purchase and sell land and this provision has caused difficulty for many people of plain origin living in the Tarai, particularly as tenants. They must prove that they are citizens before they can buy land, or before the title to the land they work on can be registered in their names. This and other such discriminatory and exclusive policies (e.g. distribution of citizenship, lands) towards madhesi people have contributed to their further marginalization. As noted earlier, a number of madhesi people were denied citizenship certificates due to lack of concrete evidence of their ‘Nepalese origin’ and lack of landholding. As a consequence, they are prevented from HMG’s distribution of land to landless people who naturally require citizenship. Foreigners have no right to own land in Nepal. With little exception, Government did not grant land to people of plain origin. An observation made by Buggeland in Jhapa district is appropriate to mention here:

‘Visiting the Sukumbasi Aayoga (Landless Commission) in Chandragadi (District Headquarters), I was therefore not surprised to learn that according to a survey made by the previous commission, no Rajbanshis, Meche or Santals have been given land, while a thousand Brahmin/Chhetris and four hundred other Paharis have received it. The Landless Commission also stated that there are about 17,000 landless people in Jhapa.’

This is not an isolated event showing how lower caste people of Tarai were discriminated against; there are several episodes. During the so-called Land Reform Program (1964) implementation which was aimed at achieving a more equitable land ownership and tenancy system, about 27,000 hectares of land was found to be in excess and distributed among 13,000 families, but no such land was given to people in Tarai, as if they were all well off. On the contrary, a large numbers of tenants or tillers have been dispossessed from their holdings during the autocratic Panchayat system. In addition, a huge part of Tarai forest was cleared but there, too, the low caste and people of Tarai origin got nothing. Thus, the lowest caste people whether belonging to hill or the Tarai groups, who constitute nearly 15 percent of the total population are socially, economically and politically the most disadvantaged and backward groups in Nepal. And so is the case with the indigenous people of Tarai, who once regarded as ‘the sons of the soils’ are now making their life by simply working for others.

Thus, the denial of citizenship rights has contributed to landlessness, marginalization, and restricted access to many state, market and public resources.

Responses of Political Parties on Citizenship

Following the restoration of the multiparty democracy in 1990, all the governments have made attempts to address the citizenship issue by forming investigation committees, citizenship teams and by introducing new laws and amending the existing acts and regulations. Between 1975 and 1993, eight citizenship teams and three investigative committees were formed for smooth distribution of citizenship certificate. For the first time in 1990, the interim Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai tried to introduce the rule allowing all the persons who were included in the voters’ list of 1979 referendum to get citizenship. Then Girija Prasad Koirala attempted to justify Bhattarai's move in 1992. After they were nullified by the apex court, Sher Bahadur Deuba issued new rules in 1994. Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Bamdev Gautam government once again issued regulations asking for the distribution of the citizenship certificate to more than 3.7 million people based on recommendations by Dhanpati Upadhaya Commission formed by earlier Prime Minister Manmohan Adhikary.

The governments and political parties in Nepal seem eager to provide citizenship to each and every person in Nepal as they want to give citizenship to each voter listed in the voters' list of 1980 referendum. Their intention, however, appears not only instrumental to secure vote bank for coming elections but against the prevailing constitutional provisions, which demand a person's Nepali citizenship entitlement with his/her parental citizenship. It would be worthy to mention here the 5 April 2002 ruling of the Supreme Court of India on citizenship issue. In this ruling,

the Court established that a foreigner, in this case he was a Pakistani resident in India, could not claim Indian citizenship on the grounds that he was in the voters' list and has been enjoying all the state-provided facilities and services for so many years.

Besides, the political parties followed their own narrow agenda even on a subject as critical as citizenship. The 1994 Dhanapati Upadhyay Commission set up by the UML government had the Congress member boycotting and the Sadbhavana Party member dissenting, and the 1995 Mahanta Thakur Committee set up by the Congress did not have a UML member. In a multi-ethnic country like Nepal, citizenship should not be confused with nationality and therefore, any solution of the problems regarding citizenship without a broad consensus, is a challenge to the country's national consolidation. It is contextual to present what a news magazine has reported regarding response of political parties on the issues of citizenship

Thus, politicians of every persuasion have tried to use the citizenship issue to their advantage, while sabotaging any attempt by any party to resolve it and take credit from the Tarai vote bank. Besides, they are interested only in politicising the citizenship issue for easy pickings. After the restoration of democracy in 1990, almost all major political parties played politics and sought votes on the promise of resolving the citizenship issue. But they all backtracked as soon as they entered into the politics of power played in Kathmandu Valley at all times of the day, in every season of the year.

What Have the Madhesis Themselves Done so Far?

Organisations play a vital role in raising concerns, demands, and voices of the weak and poor sections of society to fight against oppression, poverty, and marginalisation. Poor and marginalised people can only break down the barriers to their progress by organising strongly. Besides, dynamic and visionary leadership is an essential condition for poor people to be able to exercise their voices. Strong and vibrant social organisations can exert pressure on governments to become more responsive towards poor and marginalised people. Madhesi people’s movement on the citizenship issue can be seen within this perspective.

Nepal Sadbhavana Council, a Tarai based social organization, was converted in to a political party named Nepal Sadbhavana Party (NSP) in 1990 to represent the interest of people of plain origin. Its declared demands include a liberal policy on citizenship for new immigrants, official status for Hindi language, employment quota for madhesis in civil service and army, and a federal system of government. Maintaining that there has been discrimination against madhesiya community since the unification of Nepal more than 200 years ago, the NSP has been demanding for the equal treatment and the inclusion of the community in the national mainstream. Among others, the party criticizes the provisions for citizenship in the present constitution. It calls for a constitutional amendment to provide citizenship to millions of Tarai people who, it claims, currently do not have citizenship.

Besides, there are several Tarai based NGOs working for the betterment of the madhesi people. Among them, Madhesi International is a platform for madhesis to fight for their due rights and dignity in Nepal. It aims for equality and dignity for madhesis in Nepal. It analyzes that the Madhesi movement is already in the offing in various forms and through various organisations. However, they are scattered and disoriented despite their same goal for the average madhesis. Madhesi International envisages aligning the movement and surging it forward with force. Besides these organizations, which fight for the rights of madhesi people in a reasonable way, there are a number of other organizations, which show greater militancy. One such organization is Madhesi Mukti Morcha already use the word Mukti (liberation) in its name thus signalling its readiness to adopt more aggressive methods.

Thus, NSP and its sister organisations and NGOs and CBOs based in the Tarai have organised madhesi people within their structures. This provides political spaces for madhesi people to raise their concerns. But these initiatives have mostly been limited to a few seminars and occasional rallies which have not been able to transform the structural relations of power. This will only succeed when madhesi people organise politically by starting their own movements based on their own real agendas.

Factionalism among the madhesi people is a major constraint for the joint articulation of their interests. They are divided into upper and lower caste, into Hindus and Muslims and the various sub-caste groupings. Many of them are also divided on class, language, and ethnic lines. This has meant that although they have common problems they have been unable to cooperate to address them jointly.

Concluding Remarks

The citizenship problem in Nepal is not new and has become more complex now. The people of plains origin specifically the poor, women and Dalits with their linguistic and ethnic nearness to India have, over the years, found it difficult to obtain Nepali citizenship. Besides, the Kathmandu elite has a deep fear of being overrun by Indians and they become strict when it comes to granting citizenship to those who look or sound like Indians.

The constitution also appears biased in the context of citizenship acquirement. By Article 9, Section 4(a) of the current constitution (1990), only those can acquire Nepali citizenship if they know Khas-Nepali language written in Devanagiri script. The same opportunity is not provided to anyone knowing any of the other 100 native languages of the country. Article 8 of the Constitution limits birthright citizenship to the year BS 2019 (1962 A.D.). Because of the latter, those who were born before that period but had not taken citizenship at that time are denied with citizenship rights. The indigenous people, on the other hands, are getting citizenship comparatively easily because they are already established as bhumiputra (son of the land) or first settlers of the region.

In addition, prevailing patriarchic social structure of Nepalese society has restricted a large number of citizens in acquiring citizenship. Legal and constitutional provisions regarding citizenship are based on patriarchy and hence they appear discriminatory against women. Article 9(2) of the current constitution allows citizenship by father’s descent only. Article 9, Clause (1), (2) and (5) concerning citizenship has directly discriminated against women as it fails to provide citizenship to children in the name of their mothers. According to sub article (1), children can get citizenship only if their father is a citizen of Nepal. Similarly, sub article (2) says that any infant found in the Kingdom will be a Nepalese citizen until his/her father is identified. These constitutional provisions refuse to recognize the existence of the mother. Many Badi children and street children who are not able to identify their biological father have been deprived from getting citizenship.

The citizenship certificate, in Nepal, bears symbolic meaning in addition to its legal importance in economic, social, and political activities within countries. In Nepal, without this document, one cannot buy or sell property, get a government job or even pursue higher education. Besides, citizenship certificate is compulsory to run import business, establish small-scale firms, to get loan from banks and other similar financial institutions, to get government allowances for the aged and widows. One cannot get a passport to go abroad without having a citizenship certificate. It is also necessary for marriage and birth registration or even for school enrollment of the children. Citizenship is required to take part in the political process like elections for political representation.

According to the Ministry of Home, HMG/N, nearly twelve and half million citizenship certificates had been distributed by June 2004. In terms of region-wise distribution, 45.55 percent of those who received citizenship cards were from the hills, 39.00 were from the Tarai, 9.34 from the inner Tarai, and 6.09 per cent from the mountains. The largest numbers of citizenship papers were distributed in Kathmandu district (547,271) in the hills, followed by Sunsari (380,647) in the eastern Tarai. The five districts that gave out more than 300,000 certificates were Kathmandu in the valley, Sunsari, Jhapa (365,213), Morang (363,208) from eastern Tarai and Rupandehi (333,996) from the central Tarai. From this distribution pattern, one can see where there is more 'pressure' for citizenship.
Of the total 12,365,670 citizenship certificates distributed so far, 12,166,670 have received certificate by descent, 144,731 received naturalized citizenship through matrimonial relationship (foreign women (mainly Indian) after marrying with Nepalese citizens) and 54.269 received citizenship as their birthright. The largest number of naturalized citizenship through matrimonial relationship were distributed in Parsa (26.170) followed by Kapilbastu (26.037), Sarlahi (16.217) and Dhanusa (15.066), all of which belong to Tarai region.

Due to the lack of data available, it is difficult to estimate the exact number of eligible Nepali nationals restricted to acquire citizenship. However, from the above discussion it can be asserted that a large section of Nepalis of Tarai origin, specifically poor and low caste people have been facing problems in getting citizenship certificates. This particular situation has been contributing to landlessness, marginalization, and restriction in access to state, market and public resources.