This summary is incomplete for several reasons. The first is, of course, that I did not get everything down on paper. And there was also my feeling, with all due respect, that what was being said had all been said before. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself, since there are some valuable things that can be said over and over again and will still be disregarded. These things must, indeed, be repeated. So, since a summary seems ill-advised, because I don't have all the information on my notebook in front of me, because it was not exciting or inspiring enough, because it was downright depressing... for whatever reason, a partial summary and some reflections.
The main points brought up by the panelists were as follows (at the dire risk of over-simplification): Nepal has a patriarchal society in which the social structure and laws have been defined by the Hindu religion. This has always led to oppression for women. This oppression has been twofold for ethnic minority women, and has been further exacerbated by the Maoist insurgency as well as the counter-insurgency activities of the security forces.
Shobha Gautam at the forum
The first speaker, Shobha Gautam, pointed out that the alleged involvement of Dalits in armed struggle against the state, as well as the heavy involvement of women in the Maoist insurgency (i.e. 30% of all Maoist guerrillas are women) was indicative of neglect by society and state of the needs and welfare of these groups. Women's political participation has been minimal so far so it should not be entirely surprising that any ideology that includes equality of participation as one of its tenets should be appealing to women. However, it should also be pointed out—as the speaker did point out—that in times of conflict, women are at an even greater risk of abuse, violence and neglect. Displacement of people due to the Maoist insurgency has lead to increased vulnerability to rape (by both Maoist and security forces), prostitution, trafficking, abuse of children and neglect of the few rights that women and children do have.
The next speaker, Lucky Sherpa, painted an even more depressing picture. If women in general have it bad in Nepal, indigenous women have it even worse. Sherpa minced no words in declaring that indigenous women are an "intensely oppressed" group within Nepal and that this is unfortunate for the nation because it is under-utilizing a valuable portion of the population. Indigenous women are neglected by government policies, do not have access to education in their own languages, have even less political clout than the average woman, are at risk of unemployment, trafficking and family breakdown and are, furthermore, not taken seriously by the progressive women's movement. Sherpa's assertion that the mainstream women's movement in Nepal is lead by high caste Hindu women who ignore the indigenous woman was like a gaping wound waiting to be noticed. I wondered if anyone would respond to or comment on this in any way. No one did.
The next speaker, Tulsa Lata Amatya, spoke about a particular aspect of women's rights (or lack of rights) that one does not often hear about in Nepal—rights regarding citizenship. Herself married to a Dutch citizen, Amatya's personal story was affecting indeed. Nepali mothers have no right to transfer citizenship onto their children. Therefore, if a Nepali woman marries a foreigner, the children of that marriage can only gain the citizenship of the father. If the father is absent or unknown (as is common with children of sex workers, for instance), these children are at risk of being stateless. A lack of citizenship, Amatya reminded us, is being deprived of an identity and in many cases, of human rights. This is one of the many manifestations of the inferior status of women in Nepal and, in particular, emphasizes the lack of freedom of women to determine the course of their own life—i.e. by having the freedom to choose a partner. It is also a failure to recognize the identity and the existence itself of mothers and women in general. It also makes a mockery of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to which Nepal is a party without reservation.
Sapana Pradhan-Malla at the forum
Sapana Pradhan-Malla, the next speaker, was interesting to me because I had heard of her name in relation to the abortion rights struggle in Nepal. She pointed out that due to the Maoist insurgency, the counter-insurgency and the King's takeover of power, almost all rights have been suspended. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced and killed by state as well as non-state actors, sexual abuse by both state and non-state actors are on the rise and, startlingly, approximately 40 per cent of the Maoist army consists of children under the age of 18. Despite Nepal's involvement with international conventions like CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), there are 176 legal provisions that discriminate against women. These provisions include anything from limitations on foreign employment to lack of child custody rights after the remarriage of a woman. There are, therefore, two forms of legal discrimination against women. One, through laws that are themselves discriminatory and two, through non-implementation or inadequate implementation of existing anti-discrimination laws. Pradhan-Malla then posed a couple of interesting questions—Is the inclusion of women in the Maoist ranks progress or exploitation? What is the relationship between a society and its laws—does a society create change in laws or do laws create a change in society? Pradhan-Malla's answer to the latter question was, finally, the beginning of an answer to the question posed by this panel discussion. Both, she answered, and, therefore, laws are also an indication of societal change. This is especially pertinent to one issue in Nepal—i.e. the struggle for abortion and marital rights. Pradhan-Malla recalled being accused of westernization, social destruction and of challenging the Hindu religion and the marriage institution when fighting for abortion and marital rape laws. While these successes are encouraging, Pradhan-Malla called for a more bottom up approach to law reform and more political vision. Her call for a paradigm shift in thinking of these issues, for more involvement of women, for learning not to think of women in terms of chastity, purity and impurity and duty, was one of the most interesting moments of this event. It seemed that future Nepali feminists would have something to build on.
Shanta Thapaliya spoke about violence against women, a topic that is both hidden and out in the open in Nepal. Thapaliya stated that most state parties of the UN have done more promising than delivering as far as the Beijing platform is concerned. However, improvement in education and increased political participation of women have taken place in many countries—Nepal is not one of them. Violence against women, including domestic violence, is seen all over the world in universal forms. However, there are culturally specific forms of violence—i.e. the infamous ones, for example dowry murder in South Asia and female genital mutilation in Africa—and Nepal has its share. Thapaliya emphasized, like the other speakers, that all these conditions have worsened due to the insurgency and the present security situation—especially due to the massive displacement and internal migration taking place within the country. Thapaliya ended by stressing that increased security and shelter were desperately needed at this point.
The last speaker was Indira Rana who spoke about the Human Rights Commission. She stated that even though the 1990 Constitution guarantees equal rights to women and all discriminatory laws are supposed to be voided by it, in practice, equal rights have been far from achieved. Sixteen international conventions have been ratified by Nepal but none can be said to be applied adequately.
On that note, the panel moved on to the question and answer section of the programme. In response to the question of what we can do as Nepalis living outside of Nepal, Pradhan-Malla responded that pressure for governmental accountability can be created by an international forum for peace, gender equality, etc. She added that stopping foreign funding for development was not a good method of pressurizing the government because ultimately, it is the people who suffer. An alternative method of creating pressure was to use the media and to organize campaigns. To the same question, Thapaliya replied that peace should be the main agenda at this point since fundamental rights could not be achieved in the absence of peace. This brought to mind the marginalization of gender issues that takes place during any given conflict and the lack of acknowledgment that these issues, far from being minor, deserve prioritization because of the tendency for greater abuse of rights during conflict, something the speakers had already suggested in their presentations. Gautam stated that the people were being pressured from three sides—by the king, the political parties and the Maoists—and that these parties should consider the suffering of the people instead of focussing on their own selfish agendas. Then she made the comment that people "from outside" tended to exaggerate and sensationalize the issues and that although these people (presumably the diaspora) should try to exert pressure on the the different parties involved, they should do so while avoiding the sensationalization of issues. It was somewhat unclear what was meant by this statement and, sadly, no one asked for clarification.
One of the interesting questions raised, particularly interesting in this forum as the value of a democratic system has been much debated here, was whether democracy had resulted in the forward or backward movement of women's issues. It is also pertinent because of the Maoists' claims to a progressive ideology regarding gender. Pradhan-Malla pointed out that some of the gains of the women's movement included abortion rights and a system of representation in the Parliament that ensured the inclusion of women. As pointed out before, many international conventions like CEDAW and CRC as well as conventions against torture have been ratified by the government. Also, gender sensitization—for example, changes in the content of textbooks to reflect less rigid and stereotypical male and female roles—has taken place. In addition, laws that ignored the rape of sex workers (that included a 500 Rupees fine or a one year prison sentence) and marital rape have been declared unconstitutional. Pradhan-Malla added that credit was certainly due in these cases, but in a practical sense it was not close to being good enough.
A friend of mine remarked that the panel discussion reminded her that she was a second class citizen in Nepal. Perhaps many of us would not appreciate this until we became pregnant by accident and were denied an abortion, were raped and watched our rapist go free, or even suffered something apparently mild like sexual harassment that went a little further than the usual street hassle that women in Nepal routinely face. Many of us live fairly insulated lives, and those of us in the United States or elsewhere remember even less of being "second class citizens" (even though the United States is hardly the model of gender equality that lives in popular perception, but that is another issue altogether). This is what makes the lives and work of these six women remarkable and very important. We must never forget that our rights have been fought for and won to an extent, even as we strive for a brand of feminism that is meaningful and, yes, exciting for us. Finally, a question that struck me, and that I would like to put out there: has democracy provided enough opportunity for women to achieve equality or has the Maoist movement provided a far more radical, and meaningful, version (at least ideologically speaking) of gender equality to Nepali women?
