I know I am going to get hammered on this topic by friends and foes alike. Well it is an important topic and moreover it has been on our news quite a lot in the recent past. So here goes…
Being a national of a country means that you are an integral part of that country: the country claims you and you claim the country. When you are becoming a national of a country, you implicitly or explicitly vow to prioritise the country’s interests over that of any other. You pledge unconditional loyalty to the place that is giving you an identity as being part of it. If you break this trust, you are regarded as a ‘traitor’. I don’t really mean to be this harsh, but it adds to the drama.
There are two ways of becoming a national of most countries, either be born within the confines of the country or else migrate to it, maybe by marrying a citizen of that country. For those who are born there, it is as much an involuntary decision as being born to a specific couple. Whether later you like being part of that country or the child of those parents, you have to accept the reality; it is your home country and they are your parents.
An alternative to this system would be to just as well wipe off all the borders and leave humans to move freely all around the world. Everyone would agree that this would cause havoc in the world, leading to no control and order at all. So, to maintain order, we need to trade it with this freedom that we could otherwise have had. We then need the system of assigning people a country they could call home. Tagging them with the country they are born in seems a fair procedure.
If being born in a place helps divide you into nationalities, what is the problem? The problem lies in choice, choice of marrying outside their home country or moving in search of better opportunities, which are generally financial in nature. The thing that is problematic is that when these people are granted national status of another country, they do not give up their original nationality. This brings a conflict of interest. As hinted above, you have a pledge with the country to prioritise its interests. If there were two countries you have vowed to, who have contradicting views, whom would u support? If you select one over the other, you go against your promise to the one you fail to support. If you try to be cheeky and say you would equally support both, then you fail to stand by your word of ‘prioritising’ that country’s interests for both countries, which is even worse. Who would argue that it is morally right to dishonour a promise? I would say no one. From social norms to religion, every teaching emphasises the importance of speaking the truth and honouring your promises. I know I am being strict with words but then this is how such technical stuff is dealt with.
Some people may argue what if we don’t side any country; well then again you are not prioritising any of those countries that have given you a unique ID-card number, because you don’t do anything at all when you should have. And well there are some who will say what if the two countries do not have such opposing policies, well then you need to look at the other side of the ‘if’ for the situation where ‘IF’ they someday do. If we are discussing ‘If’ so much let us suppose another if being that what if the person has nothing to say in policies? Well most of us do not have a direct say in what policy our country adopts, but still these technical things assume what your course of action would be ‘if’ you are sitting there making a decision. This is the reason our politicians are required to just have a Pakistani nationality.
Moving away from the ‘ifs’ and technical stuff, why does dual-nationality cause problems? The reason is simple; it gives a person a way out. It is easy for a person sitting cosily in a 24-7 warmly lit lounge in London to speak of the troubles in Pakistan with load-shedding or rising fuel costs. But actions speak louder than words, and people hardly take initiatives unless they are being affected by the problem. When doing a group-task, who would want a partner who leaves at the hardest part of the task and returns when you are being awarded a prize? People who have a dual nationality have all the incentive to leave the country when times are harsh and return when they are fruitful. If they did not have an escape route, they would have stayed and maybe helped their fellow nationals in fighting against the problems to come to an effective solution. The unity of its people can only lead a nation to achieve its goal and prosper. Although there may be many who are doing loads for our country even while staying abroad, they do not feel the pain as the people on the ground do.
A sense of responsibility towards one country is therefore very important. A country provides a person an identity, a place to live, an opportunity to earn, the chance to be happy at national achievements (yes I mean cricket for us, look at Afridi’s 6’s against S.A, made me the happiest person in the world), freedom, the right to speak out and countless other things most important of which is patriotism, the pride and devotion towards your country: I am a Proud Pakistani and personally I would never wish to associate myself to any other country.