An open letter to Constituent Assembly members by Britain’s Ambassador to Nepal, Andrew Sparkes, has set off an intense debate in the public sphere both in favour and against, but more of the latter.
The letter published in the op-ed page of Republica on the occasion of the International Human Rights Day on 10 December spoke about the need to safeguard a plethora of rights in the new constitution.
Among the rights that Ambassador Sparkes wrote about were ‘advocat(ing) citizenship provisions which treat men and women equally, allowing children born in Nepal to acquire citizenship from either parent.’ He went on: ‘We hope that the constitution will enshrine equality for all without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, caste, ethnicity, religion or language, with a particular focus on ensuring enjoyment of those rights by the most marginalised in society such as Dalits.’
All fine so far. But some individuals and political parties focused exclusively on this part of his write up: ‘We encourage you to ensure that the right to change religion is protected, and that the right to hold opinions and to express them freely will remain strong.’
Whether or not an ambassador of a foreign country should be speaking about this issue is actually moot. The more relevant question is to ask why we left it to a foreign envoy to bring this up. Since when did talking about right to change religion become a taboo? Why do we keep entangling ourselves in matters that are an individual’s choice and basic right?
Moral policing on an individual’s right is not uncommon in the overgrown village that is Kathmandu. Be it sermonising in Reporters’ Club Nepal a few years ago on barring Nepali women from participating in Miss Nepal contest, preventing youth from going to disco or arresting students from cinema halls – we have seen it all.
Prime Minister Sushil Koirala reportedly told a RPP-Nepal delegation that he would summon Sparkes over his remarks. The British Embassy overdid its damage control by issuing a ‘clarification’ about ‘unintended misunderstanding’ and so forth. Very similar to the capitulation by the Norwegian Embassy when UCPN (Maoist) members and a section of media made such hue and cry over its grant to Southasia Trust, which was always in the public domain and open to all to see. (Full Disclosure: I am a member of the Board of Southasia Trust).