Leaving the Passport Behind: Why We Should Leave the Politics Too

A recent Instagram reel caught my attention. In it, a man, moments away from receiving his New Zealand citizenship, removes his old country's t-shirt and replaces it with his new one. The clip, though brief, triggered a flood of reactions. Some applauded the gesture, seeing it as symbolic of a new beginning. Others criticized it as disrespectful, accusing the man of mocking his former nation. This act—and the polarizing debate it sparked—raises a broader question: when you exchange one national identity for another, what, if anything, do you owe to the place you leave behind?

But this article isn’t about that man, nor about the symbolism of his actions. While opinions on these matters vary widely, I find myself leaning towards the argument: once we renounce our citizenship, we should also relinquish our role in shaping or critiquing Nepal’s political discourse. I recognize that I stand in the middle of this broader debate, and perhaps that’s exactly where this conversation belongs—not at one extreme or the other, but somewhere in between. However, in this write-up, I focus on one side of this debate: that former citizens should keep their political views to themselves.

Citizenship Is a Contract of Rights and Responsibilities

Citizenship is more than a legal status—it’s a contract that binds an individual to a nation through rights and responsibilities. As Nepali citizens, we had the right to vote, to critique policies, and to shape the nation’s future. In return, we accepted obligations such as obeying laws, paying taxes, and contributing to society.

Renouncing Nepali citizenship breaks this contract. While emotional ties to Nepal may remain strong, we are no longer formal stakeholders. We are not affected by the laws passed in Nepal, nor do we bear the consequences of political decisions. Without that direct connection or accountability, it becomes ethically questionable to claim a political voice over decisions that now impact others more than ourselves.

Influence Without Accountability Risks Harm

In a healthy democracy, political participation ideally belongs to those who live under its laws and experience the direct outcomes of governance. As former citizens living abroad under different political systems, we are often insulated from Nepal’s day-to-day challenges. Yet many in the diaspora continue to influence debates, advocate for policy changes, or criticize Nepal’s leaders.

The problem is not the expression of concern, but the lack of accountability. It’s easier to promote bold reforms or idealistic agendas from a distance when one doesn’t have to live with the consequences. Those who remain in Nepal must grapple with the complexities of governance, resource constraints, and political compromise—realities often overlooked by those observing from afar.

Emotional Ties Don’t Grant Political Rights

Many in the diaspora argue that their love for Nepal justifies continued engagement in its politics. They point to their emotional bonds, family connections, and childhood memories as reasons for staying involved. But emotional attachment is not the same as political entitlement.

For example: Imagine selling your family home and moving away. You may still feel affection for the house and the memories it holds, but do you retain the right to decide how it’s renovated or who lives there? Similarly, once we renounce our citizenship, we step away from the process of nation-building in Nepal. Nostalgia, while powerful, doesn’t entitle us to shape a country’s political destiny from afar.

Freedom of Speech Isn’t Always a Free Pass

Yes, freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Legally, no one can stop you from commenting on Nepal’s politics, whether you are a citizen or not. But freedom of speech isn’t the same as freedom from responsibility. Just because we can say something doesn’t always mean we should.

Responsible speech involves understanding the context and recognizing when our voices might overshadow those who are more directly affected. Stepping back from public political discourse doesn’t mean we care less—it shows respect for the boundaries of citizenship and deference to those who live within Nepal’s political system.

Let the Voices Within Nepal Speak Louder

At the heart of democracy lies the principle that people who live under a government should be the ones to shape its policies. Former citizens should honour this principle by creating space for Nepal’s current citizens to engage in robust political discourse without outside interference.

By stepping back from political commentary, we allow those who vote, who pay taxes, and who live through the country’s political realities to have a more decisive voice in shaping Nepal’s future. Our opinions can still hold value in personal conversations or private discussions, but they shouldn’t dominate public debates about a country we have chosen, legally and formally, to leave behind.

A Trade-Off Worth Acknowledging

Renouncing citizenship is a personal choice, often made for the sake of opportunity, security, or a better life abroad. But it comes with trade-offs. One of those trade-offs, in my view, is stepping back from active participation in the politics of the country you have left behind.

Freedom of speech allows you to speak. But wisdom—and respect—may sometimes call for silence.