By P.R. Pradhan President Bidya Devi Bhandari has sent back the controversial Citizenship Amendment Bill to the House of Representatives for its reconsideration of the Bill by using her constitutional prerogative. Both the Houses had ratified the controversial bill through a conspiracy. It is surprising to note that when the Bill was tabled for voting at the Lower House, only 45 MPs were present and 23 MPs were in favour of the citizenship amendment bill. Later, the Bill was also ratified by the National Assembly. The Parliament tried to ratify the Bill in a hurry even not giving enough time for discussion. The government also denied developing an all-party consensus in ratifying such a sensitive bill. Moreover, the government, just to please its foreign bosses, withdrew the citizenship amendment bill registered four years ago, which was minutely discussed in the concerned parliamentarian committee and was waiting for final ratification from the House. The previous bill had rejected the provision of immediately providing a naturalized citizenship certificate to those marrying a Nepali citizen. Nowhere in South Asian countries does the provision of providing instant citizenship to a foreigner married to the country's citizen exist. Even in India, a person married to an Indian national should wait for seven years just to start the citizenship acquiring process. The provision of instantly rewarding Nepali citizenship to those foreigners married to Nepali citizens has been widely opposed by Nepali nationals except by leaders of some political parties. Remembering King Birendra: two decades ago, the Nepali Congress-led majority government attempted to amend the citizenship law. Both the Houses had ratified the Bill, however, King Birendra, after consulting with the Supreme Court, had rejected the bill in the greater interests of the nation. Now, the President, demonstrating the role of a patron, has refused to sign the bill and sent it back for reconsideration by the House of Representatives. Whatever could be the President’s role in the past, this time, she has performed the role of a responsible patron of the nation, which is highly commendable. Indian interests:  There is a vested Indian interest in the migration of its citizens to Nepal and in granting Nepali citizenship and all kinds of rights enjoyed by  Nepali nationals to those migrated Indians. The ultimate plan of Delhi is to dominate the Nepali population with those Indian migrated populations like in Fiji. India always plans to empower those migrated citizens in the government administrative and political organs so that those Nepali citizens of Indian origin could serve the Indian interests. Sarita Giri, Rajendra Mahato and many other leaders of Indian origin are examples in the present political arena. In fact, the migration trend of the Indian nationals is more harmful to the Tarai people as those migrated nationals will enjoy all the facilities provided for the Nepali Tarai people (real sons/daughters of the soil), which the Tarai people are yet to understand. Finally, this is the time to identify those political leaders who are loyal to Delhi. Those leaders and the parties opposing the President’s decision are solely India’s men, without a doubt. It is unfortunate to state that the national traitors have again decided to send the Bill to the President through fast-track for a compulsory seal on it without discussing minutely the consequences and making necessary change on the Bill in Parliament.