NEPAL: Discrimination Par Excellence: No Country for Daughters

If the world's largest democracies have ensured equality since decades, can we now write a constitution which promotes discrimination? What is the point of 33% women's representation in the CA, if our voices are ignored? What is the point of a new constitution that does not guarantee equality to more than half of its population?

Women of Nepal revel in the fact that they have 33% representation in Nepal's Constituent Assembly (CA). They are hopeful that their aspirations for equality will be enshrined in the new Constittution. On becoming a member from the proportional list, I too was hopeful of a new era of empowerment of Nepali women. But, after more than two years, there are numerous questions in my mind. Has our representation been able to make a difference in the gender sensitiveness of male politicians? Can our representation change the patriarchy-based legal systems by laying a strong foundation for equality in the new constitution? Will the aspirations of women become a reality?

Though the very essence of our representation is to balance the unequal realities of the Nepali society, questions are raised about education and competence of women CA members. We are generally treated as invisible entities whose duty includes being “seen and not heard” and blindly casting votes as per dictats of party partiarchs.

The women CA members are not generally nominated to represent the parties in important meetings, forums or negotiations or given the floor to speak.

Equality is professed to be the foundation stone of this new Constitution and words to that effect will be enshrined in its Preamble. This was also the spirit of People's Movement 2, where women came out in large numbers to claim stake to equality in everything.

Two highly discriminatory provisions regarding citizenship has been accepted by the Committee comprising representatives of the 28 parties in the CA despite concerns raised by numerous women CA members. The first provision pertains to the requirement of both parents being Nepali for granting the offspring citizenship and the other highly differential provisions for granting naturalized citizenship to foreign spouses of Nepali women and men.

Despite Nepal's accession to CEDAW, and the order of the Supreme Court to grant citizenship even only on the basis of the citizenship of the mother as well as the professed commitment to equality of the sexes by all the political parties in major documents, but provisions to the contrary have been promoted by the parties. Similarly, the proposition accepted for naturalization of spouses discrminates between sons and daughters. While a daughter-in-law will be awarded a naturalised Nepali citizenship immediately on proof of having rescinded the citizenship of her birth country, a son-in-law will have to wait for 15 years.

The provision also discriminates between the citizenship rights of the offspring of Nepali daughters and sons.Gender justice and equal rights of Nepali daughters have been ignored.

If conservative “nationalism” was really the issue, why go to lengths to enshrine in the new Constitution strong politcal rights of foreign daughters-in-law. Provisions have been made to state that women bearing naturalized citizenship by marriage will be allowed to hold any public office besides that of the President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice and Head of Constitutional Bodies. Are our male politicians so naive or so confident of their patriarchal grip over women that they assume that any naturalized Nepali daughter-in-law who becomes a high level office bearer (including Defence, Home and Foreign Minister) will always be in their control?.

The provisions proposed for daughters do not allow them even the right to wholesome family life. Our aging patriarchs have not studied the growing trend to have a single child among the 26% plus middle-class in Nepal, whatever the sex of the offspring.

They also seem to forget that Nepali women do have legal freedom to select their spouse and, with the growing trend of daughters going abroad for higher education, there may be an increase in the trend for selecting spouses of different nationalities.

Should we not analyze the cost of economic and social loss to the nation of not allowing daughters to return to their native land en famille, especially now that daughters also have equal property rights?

As a feminist, I also raise the question about who will protect our daughters if their marriage fails? Is is not Nepal's duty to provide safety, refuge and identity if she is in trouble? A large number of happily married daughers may not come back at all, but should we not provide them choices if they want to come back under any cirsumstance?

Examining laws for naturalized citizenship in the biggest democarcies in the world, we find equality between the sexes. The US stipulates 3 years and India 5 years of constant stay in the country to become naturalised citizens based on marriage, irrespecitive of being a son or daughter-in-law.

If the world's largest democracies have ensured equality since decades, can we now write a constitution which promotes discrimination? What is the point of 33% women's representation in the CA, if our voices are ignored or silenced? What is the point of a new constitution that does not guarantee equality to more than half of its population?