• By Ram Prasad Khanal
  Millions of Nepali citizens have gone abroad not simply by choice, but because of compulsion, hardship, lack of employment, education, better opportunities, and the desire to secure a better future for themselves and their families. From young people in rural villages to highly educated and skilled professionals, migration has become one of the harsh realities of modern Nepal.

A significant share of the money earned abroad by Nepalis through hard work and sacrifice ultimately returns to Nepal. It circulates through the country’s economy in the form of household expenses, children’s education, medical treatment, home construction, land purchases, bank deposits, businesses, social services, and investment.

The role of remittances in Nepal’s economy is far from ordinary. According to World Bank data, personal remittances received by Nepal in 2025 were equivalent to approximately 26 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. This demonstrates just how deep the economic relationship is between Nepalis living abroad and their homeland.

Nepalis working overseas have not only supported their own families. They have also made a major contribution to Nepal’s foreign currency reserves, consumption, banking activity, and the wider economy. In such circumstances, treating Nepalis abroad simply as people who happen to live in foreign countries ignores an important part of the national reality.

After moving abroad, some Nepalis obtain permanent residency, green cards, or foreign citizenship because of local laws, employment, business opportunities, social security, and the future of their families. That decision should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that their love for their birthplace has disappeared.

A passport may change. Legal status may change. The country of residence may change. But a person’s history, family, language, culture, memories, and emotional connection with the land of birth do not disappear merely because a legal document changes.

Most Nepalis living abroad still have parents, brothers, sisters, relatives, ancestral property, and social relationships in Nepal. They remain connected with Nepal through Dashain, Tihar, weddings, funeral rites, charitable work, schools, temples, monasteries, hospitals, development projects, and disaster relief.

Many are also bringing knowledge, skills, technology, networks, and capital earned abroad back to Nepal. Therefore, the question of Non-Resident Nepalis is not merely about a citizenship certificate. It is a long-term national question about what kind of relationship Nepal wants to maintain with its global human resources and emotional capital.

Nepal’s current Constitution provides for Non-Resident Nepali citizenship for certain persons of Nepali origin who have acquired citizenship of countries outside the SAARC region, allowing them to exercise economic, social, and cultural rights. However, this is not a continuation of their original Nepali citizenship with full political rights.

Under the existing citizenship law, Nepali citizenship does not remain valid when a Nepali citizen voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country. Therefore, it is natural to ask how wide the gap remains between the popular principle of “Once a Nepali, Always a Nepali” and the country’s present legal framework.

Questions of national security, political rights, voting, public office, constitutional responsibility, and dual allegiance are also raised in this debate. These concerns should not be dismissed lightly. Different countries follow different policies on dual citizenship, and Nepal must also design its policy according to its national interest, security requirements, and constitutional framework.

But imposing certain restrictions on political rights or constitutional positions is one issue. Weakening a person’s legal relationship with the country of his or her birth is another. The two do not necessarily have to be treated in the same way.

There is another serious question. If a foreign citizen who marries a Nepali is provided a legal path toward naturalized citizenship after fulfilling the required procedures, then how should Nepal define its relationship with a person who was born in Nepal and whose parents, grandparents, and generations of ancestors are connected with Nepal, but who later acquired another country’s citizenship while living abroad?

Citizenship acquired through marriage and an ancestral relationship through descent are not identical legal issues. However, comparing the two raises an important question about the philosophy the state should adopt toward citizenship.

For any country, having its citizens and descendants spread across the world is not only a challenge. It can also be a tremendous opportunity. Many countries today use their diaspora as a source of trade, investment, technology, diplomatic connections, education, tourism, and national influence.

Nepal too must decide whether it wants to treat Nepalis abroad as outsiders or recognize them as a globally dispersed extension of its own human resources.

Nepalis living overseas often still have property in Nepal, family in Nepal, emotional ties to Nepal, cultural roots in Nepal, and a significant share of their earnings continues to reach Nepal.

If their children can also remain connected with Nepal through language, culture, property, tourism, investment, and family relationships, Nepal itself will benefit. If Nepal gradually weakens its legal and emotional relationship with the second and third generations, their attachment to Nepal, investment in Nepal, and frequency of visits may also decline over time. That risk should not be ignored.

Therefore, the citizenship debate should not be reduced to a passport debate. It is a debate about identity, ancestry, history, the economy, national interest, and the country’s future.

Instead of viewing Nepalis abroad with suspicion, the important question should be how Nepal can keep them more strongly connected with the nation. Necessary legal safeguards can be maintained regarding political rights, constitutional positions, and national security, while still creating a clear, fair, and long-term policy to protect economic, social, cultural, property, and ancestral ties.

We must not forget one fundamental reality. A person may leave the country because of circumstances. He or she may acquire another country’s citizenship in pursuit of opportunity. A person may live in any corner of the world. But the birthplace does not change. History does not change. Ancestry does not change.

Therefore, whether Nepal gradually pushes its people abroad further away or keeps their knowledge, capital, experience, descendants, and emotional attachment connected to Nepal for generations is not merely a question for today. It is directly connected with the shape of tomorrow’s Nepal.

In this context, I have a serious question for the current government.

The Rastriya Swatantra Party, which received a powerful public mandate with nearly a two-thirds majority, had made a clear commitment to Nepalis living abroad during the election campaign. It promised to respect the principle of “Once a Nepali, Always a Nepali,” provide voting rights to Nepalis abroad, and, with certain specific exceptions, support dual citizenship in principle.

That commitment created new hope among Nepalis across the world. Now that the same party is leading the government, it is entirely legitimate to ask how much of that promise will be translated into reality.

Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal himself is a Central Secretariat member of the Rastriya Swatantra Party and heads its Department of International Affairs. He has publicly stated that the government is working to make Non-Resident Nepali citizenship practically usable.

He has acknowledged that the current NRN citizenship provision, as provided by the Constitution, grants economic, social, and cultural rights excluding political rights, but that significant practical problems remain in its implementation.

However, the government must clearly explain whether its pre-election commitment was limited only to making the existing restricted NRN citizenship functional, or whether it represented a broader political commitment toward the genuine continuity of Nepali citizenship.

My personal concern is that the Rastriya Swatantra Party must not repeat the old political culture of speaking one language before an election and gradually adopting another after coming to power.

There has long been a widespread complaint among Nepalis abroad that traditional parties such as the Nepali Congress, UML, Maoist Centre, and others repeatedly created hope and made promises regarding Non-Resident Nepalis, only to leave those issues unresolved for years once they reached power and the lawmaking stage.

If the Rastriya Swatantra Party ultimately follows the same path, it will seriously damage public faith in a political force that presented itself as an alternative.

If we continue creating a separate category called “NRN” and gradually begin treating people born in Nepal as if they were foreigners in their own birthplace, that will not serve Nepal’s long-term national interest.

Living abroad does not change a Nepali person’s ancestry. Acquiring another nationality does not change the place of birth. It does not erase parents, grandparents, ancestors, language, culture, or historical ties with Nepal.

Therefore, developing a mentality that says, “He or she is now a foreigner,” simply because a Nepali lives overseas or has acquired foreign citizenship is not merely a legal matter. It may become a process through which the nation weakens its own human resources, capital, knowledge, experience, and emotional connections.

The state may impose necessary restrictions on national security, constitutional positions, voting rights, or sensitive public responsibilities. Those issues can and should be debated nationally.

But there is no need, in the name of those concerns, to weaken the birth-based and ancestral relationship of people of Nepali origin with Nepal.

Parliament, the government, and constitutional experts should seriously examine the possibility of continuing Nepali citizenship while establishing certain exceptions regarding political rights.

Many countries around the world use their diaspora as a source of national strength. If Nepal continues creating legal distance from its own people abroad, the long-term cost could be extremely high.

Nepalis overseas have not merely sent remittances to Nepal.

They have built homes, purchased land, deposited money in Nepali banks, supported schools and hospitals, provided disaster relief, invested in industries and businesses, promoted Nepal’s tourism, and carried Nepal’s identity throughout the world.

They are also trying to keep their second and third-generation children connected with Nepal.

Should the nation strengthen its ties with such people, or gradually push them away on the basis of technical legal definitions?

Let us ask an even tougher question.

What happens if Nepalis living abroad stop coming to Nepal?

What happens if they stop buying property, stop investing in businesses, stop sending their hard-earned money home, and stop encouraging their children to maintain a relationship with Nepal?

The consequences would not affect overseas Nepalis alone. They would affect Nepal’s foreign currency reserves, banking system, consumption, real estate market, commerce, tourism, and the entire economy.

At a time when remittances have become one of the most important pillars of Nepal’s economy, the state cannot afford to treat its relationship with overseas Nepalis casually.

Therefore, I appeal to the current government, the Prime Minister, ministers, and all political parties represented in Parliament: do not see Nepalis abroad as a problem. See them as an extension of Nepal.

Do not speak about the continuity of their citizenship only during election campaigns. Put it into law.

Let the slogan “Once a Nepali, Always a Nepali” not become merely a tool for collecting votes. Let it become a national policy.

Maintain the continuity of Nepali citizenship.

Do not separate your own people from Nepal.

Protect Nepalis, and protect Nepal.

Otherwise, think today about what will happen tomorrow if Nepalis abroad stop visiting Nepal, stop investing in Nepal, stop sending their earnings to Nepal, and stop connecting their children with Nepal.

Leaders, ministers, and Prime Minister, do not repeat the old disease of forgetting promises after elections are over.

The slogan with which you asked for votes yesterday must now be translated into action.

Do not turn Nepalis by descent into foreigners. Build policies that connect them even more strongly with Nepal.

History will not remember only the speeches of a government. It will remember how that government treated its own people.

Let there be wisdom.

(The author, Ram Prasad Khanal, is a senior folk singer and journalist and also serves as President of the Federation of International Journalist, America – FIJA. – AmericaandWorld.com)