What intellectual bankruptcy! These people are misinformed, misguided and stuck in the cast-in-stone mentality of feudal times.
What those who accuse green card holders of being disloyal to Nepal need to know is that US green card holders from Nepal are in fact Nepali citizens. Since they travel on a Nepali passport and do not have the rights of citizens in their host country, it is hurtful to hear that some at home call them disloyal. To refuse their desire to serve their country is a double standard. To such people, NRNs are good only for one thing: making money and sending remittances home.
Such people need to understand that a green card is viewed by the US State Department as the equivalent of a long-term visa. Simply living abroad does not make them non-Nepali citizens any more than it would disqualify the Koirala family, who lived in India for many years.
Those who perceive a green card as citizenship or a step to citizenship are making their opinions on the basis of their own baseless and irrational assumptions. Like other legal visas, it can be a step toward ultimately obtaining citizenship, but it doesn’t mean someone is “in process” toward obtaining citizenship.
We now live in the globalized world of the 21st century where physical boundaries are being broken and people move with relative freedom to be educated, work and live in countries where they were not born. The more we globalize, the more this trend will continue, and Nepal is not going to be able to stop that. To voluntarily refuse the skills of NRNs would be as foolish as voluntarily refusing the money they send.
Parents in Kathmandu routinely recognize the globalized future when they invest money to send their children to English schools. We all know that they hope their children would be able to study in the US, Britain, Australia or some other Western countries, and many will urge their children to stay in the West if they can earn a good living, and use their talents to the best of their ability. While it may not be true that the best and brightest invariably get a chance to go to the West, it is certainly true that a percentage of them will. That’s what these parents are bargaining on, because their interest is focused on their children’s future. They are better adept at understanding reality than those who are making mean-spirited and short-sighted arguments against NRNs serving their country.
The reality is that Nepal exports people. When we export highly-skilled people, they create better lives for themselves and their families back home. There are millions of Nepalis in the Gulf States, Southeast Asia, South Korea, Europe, Australia and the US. Many of these people have skills and abilities that have been recognized by developed countries.
Does the fact that they’re working elsewhere mean they have lost all feeling for their nation and that they should be punished for making a choice that the culture in fact encourages? When it comes to serving the nation and when there is an opportunity to do that, should they be told not to come back? Should they be told they have been disloyal all these years?
This is very narrow-minded and a residue of feudal thinking, in which people who have ability and knowledge are not respected because the slots are reserved by others who claim the right to the position. You’re there, therefore you qualify.
This resembles the deep-rooted thought transferred to us by the caste system, where if you’re “inside” you count, and if you’re “outside” you don’t. Essentially, NRNs are “outsiders,” not part of the inner circles. Accusations of disloyalty are equivalent to accusations of untouchability, trying to create an artificial other-ness. In the past, going to the West was considered being polluted. In 21st century Nepal, this kind of thinking is coming back.
Obviously each case of a diplomatic nomination has to be looked at individually. But NRNs with appropriate skills and experiences also have the capacity to hit the ground running from Day One. They can bring a level of cultural familiarity, communication skills, experience and knowledge to the job that could help them negotiate and engage meaningfully and competently with the international community without the need for a potentially deep learning curve, which should be perceived as an asset. Finding people who already understand the landscape saves resources and time for the government and is an effective utilization of manpower.
As for whether they can “represent Nepal,” what does that mean? Does a person who spent all his or her life in Kathmandu represent most of Nepal? Can a diplomat who spent most of his/her career abroad represent Nepal, since they’re by definition leading a different life? If an NRN is too out of touch to represent Nepal, then so are the intelligentsia of Kathmandu, the diplomatic corps, anyone working in an international NGO, and most high-level government officials. I don’t notice anyone making these arguments. Why is it only NRNs whose skills are liabilities instead of assets?
When leaders come to the West, they always tell us, “You are the unofficial ambassadors of your country. You represent Nepal and Nepali culture. You mingle with the people here. You know their ways. We recognize and appreciate that and hope you will contribute.”
How is it that when an NRN is nominated as an official ambassador, some in Nepal would make claims that are precisely the opposite of all those words? The words are good ones. It’s encouraging that the government, with this nomination, has recognized the will and ability of NRNs to serve their country while, at the same time, it’s disheartening to learn that some of our fellow compatriots are still stuck in the past.
(Homraj Acharya is a government policy analyst based in Washington, DC.)
Related story
Gov't, private sector and NRN must bring economic prosperity- P...
-1782782519.webp)
