BERLIN: This is with reference to Ayesha Ijaz Khan’s article of July 16 titled “Dual nationality and hypocrisy”. I am surprised that most of your newspaper’s writers seem to take one side or the other on the issue of dual nationality. What would, perhaps, be better is that both sides of the debate should be mentioned and readers should be left to decide for themselves which one they prefer.
Let us talk about India. The Constitution of India does not permit dual citizenship or dual nationality, except for minors where the second nationality was involuntarily acquired. The Indian government interprets this to mean that a person cannot have another country’s passport while simultaneously holding an Indian one. And Indian courts have given the executive branch wide discretion in this matter.
In 2005, India amended the 1955 Citizenship Act to introduce a form of overseas citizenship, which stops just short of full dual citizenship and is in all aspects, like a permanent residency.
Some countries, however, consider multiple citizenships desirable as they increase opportunities for their citizens to compete globally and have taken active steps towards permitting multiple citizenship in recent years (such as Switzerland and Australia). The bottom line is that each nation decides what is best for itself and this means that the norm may vary from country to country.
This talk of Pakistanis remitting large amounts of money has different reasons. Most of the people send money to support their families back home and not to be able to participate in internal affairs of Pakistan. It would, however, be true to say that most Pakistani first-generation dual nationals are more attached to Pakistan than to their country of residence.
Sharif Lone
Published in The Express Tribune, July 17th, 2012.
