India Dual Citizenship Mega Thread (Merged)
- Thread starter columbiaman
- Start date
Thanks, mallusan. Assuming that the govt. accepts the application, then the citizen continues to be a(n Overseas) citizen with all rights of an NRI except that of govt. jobs.
If the GOI rejects... what happens? The person loses Indian citizenship? Why?
Here the law leaves the question hanging. Can the govt. remove the citizenship of an Indian citizen? On what grounds, assuming they kept their passport valid? Maybe the govt. can withdraw the PASSPORT if the person is wanted for some terrible crime, etc. But not otherwise - and even then passport withdrawal means refusal of permission to stay/travel abroad - not loss of citizenship.
Per the new law, acquiring citizenship of one of those 16 countries is not grounds for removing Indian citizenship, so what else?
This is where I hoped the procedures would clarify matters. Instead they have made them opaque as mud.
If the GOI rejects... what happens? The person loses Indian citizenship? Why?
Here the law leaves the question hanging. Can the govt. remove the citizenship of an Indian citizen? On what grounds, assuming they kept their passport valid? Maybe the govt. can withdraw the PASSPORT if the person is wanted for some terrible crime, etc. But not otherwise - and even then passport withdrawal means refusal of permission to stay/travel abroad - not loss of citizenship.
Per the new law, acquiring citizenship of one of those 16 countries is not grounds for removing Indian citizenship, so what else?
This is where I hoped the procedures would clarify matters. Instead they have made them opaque as mud.
Dual Nationality or not ?
I have read what has been discussed sofar. It is still not clear to me what this OIC means. If I get OIC status, can I say that I am an Indian national ? For example, I would like to visit Nepal and with my current nationality need a visa. With OIC status, can I get an Indian passport and travel to Nepal without a visa as is the case for "normal" Indian nationals ? Or if I would like to travel to country X for which visa regulations are less stringent, can I travel to that country with an Indian passport (based on OIC status) ?
Anshu
I have read what has been discussed sofar. It is still not clear to me what this OIC means. If I get OIC status, can I say that I am an Indian national ? For example, I would like to visit Nepal and with my current nationality need a visa. With OIC status, can I get an Indian passport and travel to Nepal without a visa as is the case for "normal" Indian nationals ? Or if I would like to travel to country X for which visa regulations are less stringent, can I travel to that country with an Indian passport (based on OIC status) ?
Anshu
Rahul Kumar
Registered Users (C)
Good Question. OIC is NOT dual nationality
The issue really is this. The constitution of India does not allow for second class citizenship. i.e. Parliament has no authority to pass a law saying that a particular group of citizens may not vote, or stand for elections.
This is the reason why GoI is jumping through all these hoops to clarify that OIC is NOT citizenship. So, what is it then, is the confusion, which GoI is not doing anything to address.
This is the reason why GoI is jumping through all these hoops to clarify that OIC is NOT citizenship. So, what is it then, is the confusion, which GoI is not doing anything to address.
Recent articles on this issue
Seen on the 'net.
Dual Citizenship or DupliCity?
Gives references to procedures of several countries. Not for the faint-hearted (bureaucrat).
Dual citizenship - Driven by pride and pragmatism
More warm& fuzzy feelings
Seen on the 'net.
Dual Citizenship or DupliCity?
Gives references to procedures of several countries. Not for the faint-hearted (bureaucrat).
Dual citizenship - Driven by pride and pragmatism
More warm& fuzzy feelings
Well... Parliament passed the law in 2003 unanimously - both houses, from what I can make out. No amendments to the submitted bill either. With over 2/3 majority, they do have the authority to change what is in the Constitution, don't they? It was passed as an Amendment to the 1955 law, from what I read above.
From above, it appears that they had the right idea. Those restrictions they placed were mostly cosmetic - i.e., the same things could have been done other ways, as the author above points out. You don't hire someone for a Defence Dept. job without a background check - and you can certainly be excluded if it turns up that you have sworn allegiance to some other country. No one has any "right" to a defense job if they fail that test.
Right to vote - I discovered, as an "NRI" myself, that I don't have a right to vote. So the "OIC" is no worse off than an NRI in that respect, and no law needed to specify that. If the person establishes residency, they SHOULD let him/her vote. So this says more about the flawed voter registration system than anything else.
Right to govt' job: Well... if one knows the right neta-goons, one can get much better jobs getting kickbacks anyway, so I don't see where this matters. An OIC writes the Public service Commission exam and sues the govt on merit basis? For a Govt. job? They'll only take 30 years to hear the case, and retirement age is 55, so its a moot point.
Besides, the law also provided a nice large loophole the size of hangar doors - Parliament could permit an OIC to be hired over these restrictions, if they so decided. I think that means a private bill, that gets passed with no one even noticing.
So those 3 "restrictions" are simply for cosmetic reasons, to get the unanimous approval. Given that approval, I'd say they had the authority to change the Constitution. I was amazed to see that such a controversial thing passed with so little fuss in a place where they can't say "kya baat?" without half the Opposition Walking Out and throwing chairs.
But now, as the above author says, I fear its all being unraveled. Question is, WHY? and how to stop them.
From above, it appears that they had the right idea. Those restrictions they placed were mostly cosmetic - i.e., the same things could have been done other ways, as the author above points out. You don't hire someone for a Defence Dept. job without a background check - and you can certainly be excluded if it turns up that you have sworn allegiance to some other country. No one has any "right" to a defense job if they fail that test.
Right to vote - I discovered, as an "NRI" myself, that I don't have a right to vote. So the "OIC" is no worse off than an NRI in that respect, and no law needed to specify that. If the person establishes residency, they SHOULD let him/her vote. So this says more about the flawed voter registration system than anything else.
Right to govt' job: Well... if one knows the right neta-goons, one can get much better jobs getting kickbacks anyway, so I don't see where this matters. An OIC writes the Public service Commission exam and sues the govt on merit basis? For a Govt. job? They'll only take 30 years to hear the case, and retirement age is 55, so its a moot point.
Besides, the law also provided a nice large loophole the size of hangar doors - Parliament could permit an OIC to be hired over these restrictions, if they so decided. I think that means a private bill, that gets passed with no one even noticing.
So those 3 "restrictions" are simply for cosmetic reasons, to get the unanimous approval. Given that approval, I'd say they had the authority to change the Constitution. I was amazed to see that such a controversial thing passed with so little fuss in a place where they can't say "kya baat?" without half the Opposition Walking Out and throwing chairs.
But now, as the above author says, I fear its all being unraveled. Question is, WHY? and how to stop them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting. Thanks. As I see it, the big changes that they appeared to make are:
1. For citizens of certain countries, waived the requirement for residency and naturalization to get Indian citizenship - considering former Indian citizenship, or descent within a few generations(? two generations?) as satisfying these requirements. These people were also allowed to do this without having to renounce their present citizenship.
2. On a reciprocal basis, allow Indian citizens to take up citizenship of those countries without losing Indian citizenship.
That seems simple enough, and a good reason to limit it to a few countries, and then extend slowly.
Then they get all muddled up in who can vote, who can get govt. jobs, etc. etc. - all of which should never have been brought into this act at all. Those follow naturally if there are good procedures for those in India. I think the trouble comes when, say, XYZ Minister can stand for election in a constituency that s(he) hasn't even seen - and they don't want to attack that abuse. They ended up abridging the rights of Indian citizens in the original Bill.
Then to cover up that blunder, they set up procedures to force Indian citizens to give up citizenship and then apply again. That's a double blunder.
"SNAFU" as we say in America.
1. For citizens of certain countries, waived the requirement for residency and naturalization to get Indian citizenship - considering former Indian citizenship, or descent within a few generations(? two generations?) as satisfying these requirements. These people were also allowed to do this without having to renounce their present citizenship.
2. On a reciprocal basis, allow Indian citizens to take up citizenship of those countries without losing Indian citizenship.
That seems simple enough, and a good reason to limit it to a few countries, and then extend slowly.
Then they get all muddled up in who can vote, who can get govt. jobs, etc. etc. - all of which should never have been brought into this act at all. Those follow naturally if there are good procedures for those in India. I think the trouble comes when, say, XYZ Minister can stand for election in a constituency that s(he) hasn't even seen - and they don't want to attack that abuse. They ended up abridging the rights of Indian citizens in the original Bill.
Then to cover up that blunder, they set up procedures to force Indian citizens to give up citizenship and then apply again. That's a double blunder.
"SNAFU" as we say in America.
Does anybody know the latest about the suspended OIC scheme. It's a bit disappointing (but I guess not entirely shocking!) that less than 3 weeks after the PM announces such a scheme it is suspended.
Also prior to to this OIC/PIO stuff, does anybody know how US citizens could return to India and live/work there while still retaining citizenship.
Thanks.
Also prior to to this OIC/PIO stuff, does anybody know how US citizens could return to India and live/work there while still retaining citizenship.
Thanks.
Rahul Kumar
Registered Users (C)
those idiots at the foreign affairs ministry have screwed things up. oic is a farse. they are going to give the ins a real run for their money!!
goingcrazy
Registered Users (C)
update about dual citizenhip in Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1033849.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1033849.cms
Bah. I was hoping to take my kid to India this summer with an Indian passport. Now because of this delay, I will be forced to use a Visa instead.
And what is this?
The secretary further said some changes were also required in the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003, following Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's decision to grant dual citizenship to anyone who has migrated from India after Jan 26, 1950.
How about implementing the present law first before talking about changing laws and stuff?
And what is this?
The secretary further said some changes were also required in the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003, following Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's decision to grant dual citizenship to anyone who has migrated from India after Jan 26, 1950.
How about implementing the present law first before talking about changing laws and stuff?
columbiaman
Registered Users (C)
Revised form
So the question is: How many IAS oficers does it take to get the form right?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1033849.cms
So the question is: How many IAS oficers does it take to get the form right?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1033849.cms
That report is a political effort by the Times of India to make the IAS goons look good. If you read it carefully you see that the quotes are from what this "Secretary" said at the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas booze party in early JANUARY!
So they haven't done anything in the 2 months since, and the TOI comes out with an article that makes it appear that they haven't been sitting on their thumbs. No wonder they say that "news" in the Times of India can be bought.
So they haven't done anything in the 2 months since, and the TOI comes out with an article that makes it appear that they haven't been sitting on their thumbs. No wonder they say that "news" in the Times of India can be bought.
Brake on dual citizenship
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
New Delhi, March 1: The government has put grant of overseas citizenship on hold.
The home ministry that drafted amendments permitting overseas citizenship — or dual citizenship, as it is euphemistically referred to — in the citizenship act says it will need to amend the law again to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s expectations. Till the process is complete, the ministry has no intention of working on applications received during the three months the scheme was on.
“Pending a review, we have issued instructions to foreign missions to stop accepting applications for overseas citizenship last month,” an official said. He explained that when the fresh review was over, overseas citizenship would be more user-friendly.
Officials suggest that the revised law might not be anywhere near getting past Parliament before the monsoon session. “The review of the law and the rules is under active consideration of the government,” the official said.
Dual citizenship was allowed in December 2003 after an amendment to the act.
In principle, the home ministry is inclined to a single application form rather than the three forms that persons of Indian origin would have to choose from, depending on their age and the clause of the law under which they are applying.
But there are no clear answers to why it took the Prime Minister’s intervention to drive home that realisation or the fact that the criteria for overseas citizenship was too restrictive to make a difference to anyone in the first place. For instance, under the existing law, only people who relinquished their Indian citizenship after the 2003 amendment were eligible to seek overseas citizenship.
Prime Minister Singh had declared at the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas this January that dual citizenship would be extended to all Indians who migrated after January 26, 1950.
In doing so, he had not only covered Indians who left before the 2003 amendment but also expanded the list of countries where people who surrendered their Indian passports lived.
Now, Indians living only in 16 countries, including the US and the Britain, are covered.
Some officials suggest that part of the problem in the restrictive regime was the confusion within the government on the status of the overseas citizens.
After the 2003 amendment, the government appears to have taken the view that overseas citizenship did not amount to a second citizenship.
******************************************************
For instance, under the existing law, only people who relinquished their Indian citizenship after the 2003 amendment were eligible to seek overseas citizenship.
That's false. What the 2003 Amendment said is that any persons of Indian origin in any of those 16 countries could apply for OIC, and those who got citizenship in any of those 16 countries after the Amendment date would not LOSE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
New Delhi, March 1: The government has put grant of overseas citizenship on hold.
The home ministry that drafted amendments permitting overseas citizenship — or dual citizenship, as it is euphemistically referred to — in the citizenship act says it will need to amend the law again to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s expectations. Till the process is complete, the ministry has no intention of working on applications received during the three months the scheme was on.
“Pending a review, we have issued instructions to foreign missions to stop accepting applications for overseas citizenship last month,” an official said. He explained that when the fresh review was over, overseas citizenship would be more user-friendly.
Officials suggest that the revised law might not be anywhere near getting past Parliament before the monsoon session. “The review of the law and the rules is under active consideration of the government,” the official said.
Dual citizenship was allowed in December 2003 after an amendment to the act.
In principle, the home ministry is inclined to a single application form rather than the three forms that persons of Indian origin would have to choose from, depending on their age and the clause of the law under which they are applying.
But there are no clear answers to why it took the Prime Minister’s intervention to drive home that realisation or the fact that the criteria for overseas citizenship was too restrictive to make a difference to anyone in the first place. For instance, under the existing law, only people who relinquished their Indian citizenship after the 2003 amendment were eligible to seek overseas citizenship.
Prime Minister Singh had declared at the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas this January that dual citizenship would be extended to all Indians who migrated after January 26, 1950.
In doing so, he had not only covered Indians who left before the 2003 amendment but also expanded the list of countries where people who surrendered their Indian passports lived.
Now, Indians living only in 16 countries, including the US and the Britain, are covered.
Some officials suggest that part of the problem in the restrictive regime was the confusion within the government on the status of the overseas citizens.
After the 2003 amendment, the government appears to have taken the view that overseas citizenship did not amount to a second citizenship.
******************************************************
For instance, under the existing law, only people who relinquished their Indian citizenship after the 2003 amendment were eligible to seek overseas citizenship.
That's false. What the 2003 Amendment said is that any persons of Indian origin in any of those 16 countries could apply for OIC, and those who got citizenship in any of those 16 countries after the Amendment date would not LOSE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP
They are just not interested.......
Hi
I've read through this group and seen the government of india is just not very interested in issuing dual citizenship.Just consider the facts:
1.The roposal was made in Jan 2003 and the law passed in Dec 2003 but there was no action till Sept 2004.
2.Except for that dude in Australia,no one has been issued dual citizenship.
3.I can personally vouch that the procedure for accepting forms didnt start at all at the NY embassy and in Mumbai and Delhi collector's offices.
4.The home affairs website announced the suspension of the scheme in January right after PBD and not recently as the sudden flurry of reports are to be believed.
5.Just 2 days before the report above was published by TOI they were carrying an interview by the NRI minister saying that the needful will be done ASAP and the process will restart soon while the secretary says they need a couple of months just 48 hours later.
Sadly,nothing in this government seems to be co-ordinated and people just shoot off their mouths without knowing the facts
Frankly if they want to amend the law to allow all countries it is very good.But why did they need to suspend the scheme ? The "authorised" 16 countries could have very well be continuing the registration process.If they were really interested they would have allowed the current procedure to continue in the 16 countries.Could have even acted as a pilot for whenthey open dual citizenship around the world.
Honestly I have given up hope.If they are running so slow (and randomly) i dont think anything will ever get finished ever.
A point for those considering OIC v/s PIO:The PIO card has a validity of some years before you have to apply again to renew it.An OIC is valid for the rest of your life.
Hi
I've read through this group and seen the government of india is just not very interested in issuing dual citizenship.Just consider the facts:
1.The roposal was made in Jan 2003 and the law passed in Dec 2003 but there was no action till Sept 2004.
2.Except for that dude in Australia,no one has been issued dual citizenship.
3.I can personally vouch that the procedure for accepting forms didnt start at all at the NY embassy and in Mumbai and Delhi collector's offices.
4.The home affairs website announced the suspension of the scheme in January right after PBD and not recently as the sudden flurry of reports are to be believed.
5.Just 2 days before the report above was published by TOI they were carrying an interview by the NRI minister saying that the needful will be done ASAP and the process will restart soon while the secretary says they need a couple of months just 48 hours later.
Sadly,nothing in this government seems to be co-ordinated and people just shoot off their mouths without knowing the facts
Frankly if they want to amend the law to allow all countries it is very good.But why did they need to suspend the scheme ? The "authorised" 16 countries could have very well be continuing the registration process.If they were really interested they would have allowed the current procedure to continue in the 16 countries.Could have even acted as a pilot for whenthey open dual citizenship around the world.
Honestly I have given up hope.If they are running so slow (and randomly) i dont think anything will ever get finished ever.
A point for those considering OIC v/s PIO:The PIO card has a validity of some years before you have to apply again to renew it.An OIC is valid for the rest of your life.
Last edited by a moderator:
Got a message from a few friends in India..seems the PM is planning to chuck out inefficient ministers from the cabinet.....and that was announced JUST before the TOI reports on dual citizenship....coincidence ? ? ?
On a personal note I've thought a lot of OIC v/s PIO and have decided to wait around for an OIC for the following reasons:
1.OIC is not a dual citizenship per se so if god forbid i do get into some kind of international trouble I can still look to the US government for help.
2.OIC is a one time permanently valid thing.
3.If i become an OIC i can buy land and stuff (except agricultural)
4.I dont need a government/defense service job
5.The fact that there is no right to vote suits me just fine- I cant come to India every year or so just to vote and if my friends in Pune registered in Mubai cant vote then what chance do i sitting in the US have? Postal ballots are relatively alien to India.
6. I can come and go to India when i please for as long as i please wherever i please( PIO's have to register at every foreigner's office they stay once the 180 days are up and they stay beyond a week).
If anyone has information other than this let me know please.
On a personal note I've thought a lot of OIC v/s PIO and have decided to wait around for an OIC for the following reasons:
1.OIC is not a dual citizenship per se so if god forbid i do get into some kind of international trouble I can still look to the US government for help.
2.OIC is a one time permanently valid thing.
3.If i become an OIC i can buy land and stuff (except agricultural)
4.I dont need a government/defense service job
5.The fact that there is no right to vote suits me just fine- I cant come to India every year or so just to vote and if my friends in Pune registered in Mubai cant vote then what chance do i sitting in the US have? Postal ballots are relatively alien to India.
6. I can come and go to India when i please for as long as i please wherever i please( PIO's have to register at every foreigner's office they stay once the 180 days are up and they stay beyond a week).
If anyone has information other than this let me know please.
mangal969 said:
You can buy agricultural land as well being an OIC. The pros of an OIC are:
1) you can buy agricultural / plantation properties
2) you do not need to register with foreigners office if your stay exceeds 180 days
3) certificate of registeration is valid indefinitely unless revoked by central government