All over the world, states are gradually moving out of the phase of nationalism based on a presumption of war. If one is preparing for war, as nation states in the past did, then loyalty becomes important. Oaths of citizenship still carry a strong undertow of fear of betrayal. The US is easy on dual citizenship in practice but the laws have remained unchanged.
In some cases, the presumption of war has faded. In the UK, the state is easy on ‘foreigners’ becoming legislators. Even Lord Nazir with his bizarre loyalty — not to Pakistan but to an extremist fringe of Pakistani politics — is acceptable to it. One presumes, states wedded to multiculturalism are less likely to be finicky. The Pakistani vote in the UK is important and the Labour Party will not let it go. What damage can Lord Nazir do to the UK if he is more loyal to Pakistan?
Article 63(1/C) of the Pakistan Constitution is clear. You can’t become a legislator if you are a citizen of some other country. But you can have dual nationality and people don’t tire of referring to how this provision has benefited Pakistan: remittances from these ‘double-crossers’ net us more than all foreign aid put together in a year.
What can a ‘double-crossing’ legislator do to harm Pakistan? Can he do some hanky-panky in lawmaking to benefit his ‘master state’? In a country where the army calls all the shots, can he really influence foreign policy? (In truth, we need these double-crossing citizens in large numbers in our legislatures to weigh in against crazy ‘nationalist’ single-nationality holders pushing Pakistan into isolationism.)
The presumptions are many and they may be medieval. Our state is supposed to be going to war very soon. This happens frequently and ends in defeat, which should make the judiciary naturally alarmist about dual nationality.
After war, there is the presumption of corruption. The argument is that it would be very easy for an American Pakistani to take Pakistani wealth abroad after acquiring it unfairly as a minister. Is this presumption genuine? Will a single-nationality Pakistani somehow find himself genetically incapable of acquiring wealth through corruption and stashing it away in Switzerland and London?
If you have overheard the judges, a ‘dual’ legislator will get to hear ‘nuclear’ secrets and assist the rascally Americans to get to the bombs to ‘steal’ or ‘take them out’. But if you are a loyal Pakistani legislator with only a single nationality, you are not supposed to do this sort of thing. Abroad, the impression is that a Pakistani will sell his mother, etc …
Why should Pakistan be scared of a ‘dual’ American becoming a legislator; why shouldn’t America be scared of a secretly jihadi ‘dual’ from Pakistan? In the US today, most ‘naturalised’ Pakistani Americans are intensely anti-US despite the oath of citizenship. The Patriot Act (2001) was made for them.
We have to educate American Pakistanis to be more loyal to the US so that they can be useful to us. An American Pakistani foreign minister can negotiate with his American counterpart with greater chances of success. Diplomacy is not devoted to war but to its avoidance.
Presumptions can give rise to laws but they cannot do away with facts that tend to change the human mind in the long run. In a conservative and literalist environment, the law will not keep pace and will lag behind.
The new law should be: acquire ‘dual’ legislators because they will bring in a higher consciousness from Europe and America to balance the corruption and disloyalty of the ‘single’-citizen politicians with illicit wealth stashed abroad.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 15th, 2012.
COMMENTS (29)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713509570-0/Taylor-Swift-Album-Release-(1)1713509570-0-270x192.webp)
@Lala Gee: You cannot stand for PM position until you are elected so Sonia Ghandhi was elected before she was denied the opportunity to become PM.. dual nationals are Paksitani first and Americans after wherein case of Sonia Ghandhi she is Italian first and Indian after.. so I thing you need to see the whole picture.. how Indians are allowing a non- Indian to run thier largest party? can you answer that..
@Abid P Khan:
"Hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis labeled as Stranded, have not even been allowed to set their feet in a country for which gave their lives. Is this the sort of treatment Israelis give to any Jew of the world?"
This is very unfortunate that no government in Pakistan did anything to bring back the Pakistanis living in camps in Bangladesh. All the political parties are equally responsible for this criminal negligence. Sometime MQM half heatedly raise voice of concern, but perhaps they are the main reasons why no other political party want them back.
@Adnan Manzoor:
"@Lala Gee: Do you have the answer to the question of why Sonia Ghandhi is leading the largest party of India despite being an Italian by birth? are Indians less loyal to their country that they have allowed a lady from other nation to lead them? I am sure you must also know that Mother Teresa was not Indian and if she had ever shown the desire to be President of India, she would have been readily given that post.."
Do you remember she was denied to contest for the Indian Premiership on the same basis, although she had the Indian nationality and was mother of the Indian Prime Minister's children. Do you also know that India does not allow their dual nationals even to vote in the general elections despite the fact expat Indians send many times more money to India and are the most active community working for the promotion of Indian interests through out the world, much more better than the expat Pakistanis.
@Lala Gee:
"@Ali tanoli: “We gotta learn from american jews who carry american passports but do any thing for izrael.” You are right. But the important thing is does Israel allows American Jews the right even to vote or does USA allows Israeli citizens to become President or even a Senator." . As usual @Ali tanoli: is overlooking a little detail. Hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis labeled as Stranded, have not even been allowed to set their feet in a country for which gave their lives.
Is this the sort of treatment Israelis give to any Jew of the world?
@Lala Gee: Do you have the answer to the question of why Sonia Ghandhi is leading the largest party of India despite being an Italian by birth? are Indians less loyal to their country that they have allowed a lady from other nation to lead them? I am sure you must also know that Mother Teresa was not Indian and if she had ever shown the desire to be President of India, she would have been readily given that post..
@Adnan Manzoor:
Instead of giving an itemized answer to your long list of irrational rhetorical questions, I ask you one thing. Why it is so difficult for the dual nationality holders to forfeit the acquired second nationality before taking the oath of a Pakistani Parliamentarian, if the sole objective is to serve your country of birth. This is only what is required by the laws of Pakistan.
@Ali tanoli:
"We gotta learn from american jews who carry american passports but do any thing for izrael."
You are right. But the important thing is does Israel allows American Jews the right even to vote or does USA allows Israeli citizens to become President or even a Senator.
@Ali tanoli: Jews are Jews because of their religion not because of their nationality.. They are probably the only breed on the face of earth having no country of their own.. What America today is because of Jews... do you think they fight against America also? I don't think so even if their loyalties are with Israel..
We gotta learn from american jews who carry american passports but do any thing for izrael. period.
I present following questions and arguments regarding this:
1) does acquiring a dual nationality also takes away my rights as a Pakistani by birth? If I m born, studied and raised in Pakistan and also acquire a dual nationality, will I cease to be less loyal to a soil where I m born and where my ancestors are buried?
2) Is Sonia Ghandhi is Indian by birth ? If not, why she is heading the largest party of India? and once stood for the position of PM
3) Is Barack Obama completely American? With his father not been an American citizen by birth, why he is allowed to be President of the most powerful nation on the earth?
4) If any political government forces me out of country on political grounds and during my exile, I m naturalized in any other country, should'nt I be not allowed to contest the election knowing fully well the circumstances under which I acquired my new nationality?
5) if we are talking about the rights of us as Pakistanis, we should also give due consideration to the fact that many, despite being born in other provinces of the country, acquire domicile of other province based upon their length of stay in that province. Isn't it against the fundamental rights of the people of host provinces? We know that provinces such as Balochistan are under privileged and are given concessions in jobs and educational institutions so would'nt it be against the fundamental rights of Baloch that anyone from another province can assume thier domicile and enjoy the privileges which are otherwise available to indegenous people of that province?
This debate should not be just viewed from the perspective of executive- judiciary conflict but should be viewed from a larger perspective. Unfortunately we are passing through that unfortunate phase of our history where we are being treated as guinea pigs again in the social lab of experimentation. We have made us so famous that countries like Egypt has started taking lead from us- we both share same fundamental structure- we both are controlled by Military. We are ready to say that Mansoor Ejaz can be PM of Pakistan if dual nationals are allowed to contest the election but forget to recall how much we facilitated him and willingly became part of his game plan by even refusing to give our own amabasdor a chance to defend the way Mansoor was allowed.
Dual nationals being sons of the soil should be allowed to contest election and if people are ready to accept them by giving thier votes, we should leave it to public to decide rather than forwarding our immature arguments.
Dual nationals have helped Pakistan whereas Pakistanis have damaged this country much more!
The case for dual nationality brought up a topic that should have been discussed at the peak of migration that is the 1960-1970. The first generation immigrants and workers were the bread earners not just for the family living with them but also for the extended family left behind as earning money was the reason behind this mass migration.
The remittance has been a great issues these days across the world where the host society thinks of it as ripping the country of their wealth and now the country of origin being suspicious of their intentions.
good argument.
Well said Khalid Sb,
The madness around here is driving "spirited" the saner of the sanest. This was needed.
Well done khalid Sb.
Khalid
2 points: 1. I am pretty sure that the remittances will not stop even if the dual citizenship itself was disallowed - these are people who are sending money back to their families or for investments and both do not disappear with a new oath of citizenship. 2. The point to be made is whether giving up one's citizenship of another country is too much of a sacrifice to demand of someone who is entering legislature in Pakistan. If that is so, then maybe it has a chance to interfere with the decision making process as well - at least in terms of personal priorities and exit options.
Excellent article. The 60+ years of history of this country shows that 'single-nationals' had plundered this nation to the point of bringing this country to an almost failure. Let's try dual nationals now
Welldone Khalid sahib. Excellent article. Good aguments.
It is an excellent piece of words that hit the nail on the head of those who are against representational dualism. Thank you Mr.Khaled. Live with love-Let democracy work
Beautiful write-up, Sir. You have rightly pointed out the absurdity in judiciary's understanding that the single nationals bury the national secrets inside their chests whereas the duals share it with everyone. May one respectfully remind the TV-viewing judges how our single national parliamentarians were seen giving interviews to media persons and spitting out many 'national secrets' after attending in-camera sessions of the parliament which were supposed to be top secret? Our single nationals in the armed forces have on many occasions colluded with multiple nationality holding terrorists and have caused attacks on our national assets like Mehran Naval Base and GHQ. Is being single national gives Hafiz Saeed all the right to know all the national secrets and bring havoc to the country?
Well written and argued. Finally someone to counter the hostility against dual nationality holders. There is too much bigotry and hatred amongst the people in Pakistan for people to embrace a globalist and multicultural worldview. Violence against minorities, antagonism towards fellow overseas Pakistanis etc. these attitudes are pushing Pakistan towards global isolation. The making of a security state.
So far no Pakistani born and bred Premier or a Pakistani Parliament has been allowed to complete their term, yet these arm chair nationalists (read anything that starts with 'J') are not willing to give us the right of representation, even though hypothetically. This argument that we send money to our families back home, and not for Pakistan is as much true as that these guys (the so-called Nationalists) get paid for their work (and get perks beyond their work) that they do for their families, and surely not for Pakistan. GROW UP
@Yasir: Hussain Haqqani is not a dual citizen. He has a Pakistani Passport only. He does not even have an immigrant status (green card) for any country.
There are few things that many people fail to take into consideration. Firstly, the objective is to have skin in the game. Sending funds / voting rights / representation rights are not the same because they require varying degrees of responsibility. If an average legislator knows that his and his family's long-term prospects are not dependent on his / her decisions today, he is unlikely to give it his/her best in most of the cases (exceptions will always be there). Secondly, politically advanced countries can certainly take this risk because they have the structures and resources to contain the adverse effects of such electoral flexibility, Pakistan is not there yet. May be it would be a good idea to push out this debate by at least a decade or two and focus on more high priority items for right now.
the first generation of pakistanis settele abroad has crossed the age limit to join any army to fight against pakistan physically.the second generation born and raised abroad.has limited intrests in pakistan and are more naturalised to their respective countries.giving second generation of pakistanis the right to to be elected in pakistani parliament does not make sence.however those born and raised in pakistan can be cosidered with some restrictions.
Well imagine the case where a dual national like Hussain Haqqani becomes our Prime minster? We live in a society where secrecy and espionage is a regular practice thats why even civilized nations like america makes it mandatory to its nationals that they should get ready to raise arms for the security of America. these Utopian and idealistic approach of a broader world view does not exists in real terms.