A question of allegiance

Restriction of nationality creates national cohesion and unity and ensures free and complete loyalty to the state.

When John F Kennedy ran for president in 1960, a lot of fuss was made about him being a Catholic. In a largely Protestant country, the notion of a president also loyal to a ‘foreign pope’ was unthinkable. Kennedy allayed these fears by categorically stating that his religious loyalty will not have any adverse affect on his national loyalty, but even then a significant minority was not satisfied. Obviously, religious and moral allegiance to the Pope should not be seen as a clash with national loyalty, but what this episode underscored was the importance of exclusive and unfettered national loyalty by the executive head of the country. Kennedy did not hold a foreign passport, but even so, his moral allegiance was seen as a problem.

This emphasis on undivided allegiance is not an American phenomenon. Most nation states in the world would be perturbed by divided loyalties and several do not allow their citizens to hold dual nationality. In fact, in 1950, India became the first Commonwealth country to restrict its nationality, and Article 9 of its constitution made it clear that any Indian acquiring any other nationality would automatically lose his/her Indian citizenship.

The rationale behind this insistence on a singular nationality is obvious. When a person takes the oath to become a national of a country, he/she promises to, in the words used in the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951, bear “faithful” and “true allegiance” to the constitution of the said country. In a world where the interests of countries conflict, it is impossible for a person to swear to faithfully uphold the interests of more than one country. Furthermore, restriction of nationality creates national cohesion and unity — and this was the primary aim behind the restriction of citizenship in India. By 1947, the great Indian subcontinent had been divided into two countries, thereby questioning the ‘historical unity’ of India championed by the Congress. Also, by 1947, India had a huge diaspora spread across several continents, and ties with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries were still strong. In that environment, there was no guarantee that citizens of India would truly owe allegiance to the nascent country and work for the betterment of India alone. Therefore, the restriction of nationality clearly put the choice in front of people — India or another country. The good this prescient decision has done for India in the last six decades in terms of national cohesion and dedicated manpower is fairly obvious.

In contrast, Pakistan has always been hesitant in restricting dual nationality. The 1956 Constitution did not even mention the issue, while the 1973 Constitution only barred members of parliament from acquiring any foreign nationality (Article 63c). In a country where almost every day people wonder as to ‘who really runs the country?’ this attitude towards citizenship is untenable. Conspiracy theories aside, how can we be sure that lawmakers are putting the interest of Pakistan first in their official capacity when they have also taken an oath of allegiance to another country?

The recent bill proposed by PML-Q Member of Parliament Raza Hayat Hiraj, which has now been allowed to lapse, barred members of the federal and provincial assemblies and other senior government positions from holding any foreign nationality or residence-ship and was a laudable proposal. Pakistan is a fledgling country and for it to survive its myriad of crises it requires free and complete loyalty to the state by its functionaries. Moreover, Pakistan needs an overhaul of its citizenship laws, they need to be made more equitable, especially with regard to women. In 2008 and 2010, several women members of parliament proposed amendments to the law to give equal status to women, but both times these bills were opposed by the government on frivolous grounds.

It is certainly time that we ensure equal rights for women in citizenship and demand singular loyalty by our officials.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 29^th, 2011.