Background&nbsp;
July 2022: Both Houses of Parliament passed an amendment to Nepal’s Citizenship Act 2006. Called the Nepal Citizenship (First Amendment) Bill, it was sent to former Nepal President Bidya Devi Bhandari for formal ratification. 
 
August 2022: Bhandari sent the bill back to the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led Lower House with 15 ‘concerns and suggestions’ for review. 
 
September 2022: The bill was once more passed by both Houses of Parliament without any changes, but <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/news/president-s-precedent">Sital Niwas allowed its 20 September ratification deadline to lapse</a>. Since the ceremonial head of state did not authenticate the bill, it was rendered null and void. Many saw this deadlock as a result of the power struggle between the opposition UML, which had appointed Bhandari president, and the NC-UML coalition. 
 
September 2022: Parliament was dissolved after completing its five-year term. 
 
March 2023: President Bhandari herself completed her tenure and was succeeded by Ram Chandra Poudel. 
 
31 May 2023: President Poudel authenticated the Citizenship Amendment Bill rejected by his predecessor, following a recommendation by the Council of Ministers.
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepals-unequal-citizenship-law">Nepal's unequal Citizenship Law</a>, Ajay Pradhan
What is in it?
The amendment clears the way for children of parents who got citizenship by birth to become citizens by descent and paves the way for hundreds of thousands of Nepalis, especially in the Tarai, to finally become Nepali citizens. The bill also allows Non-Resident Nepalis (NRNs), except for those residing within South Asia, to acquire dual citizenship but without the right to vote.&nbsp;
Activists have long said the bill’s restrictions on citizenship for children born to single mothers as well as the process of obtaining naturalised citizenship were discriminatory towards women.
The bill allows foreign women married to Nepali men to immediately obtain naturalised citizenship provided the women renounce the citizenship of their country of origin. But there is no similar provision for foreign men married to Nepali women to get Nepali citizenship.&nbsp;
Meanwhile, children born to Nepali mothers born in and residing in Nepal whose fathers are not identified are eligible for Nepali citizenship by descent. However, the woman must make a self-declaration that the father cannot be identified and she can be imprisoned if the claim turns out to be false.
A Nepali man does not have to mention any details of the mother of their child to get citizenship. A child born to a Nepali man married to a foreign woman can obtain citizenship by descent, but a child born to a Nepali mother and a foreign father will only be eligible for naturalised citizenship provided the state deems it okay.&nbsp;
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/are-women-not-nepali-enough">Are women not Nepali enough?</a>, Sahina Shrestha
What now?&nbsp;
President Ram Chandra Poudel’s authentication of the Citizenship Amendment Bill on 31 May on the eve of Prime Minister Dahal’s official visit to India drew both outrage and appreciation from across the political spectrum and civil society.
While NRNs as well as hundreds of thousands of people mostly in the Tarai deprived of citizenship welcomed the move, some constitutional and political experts were critical of the process by which the president ratified the bill.&nbsp;
“In a parliamentary system, neither the President nor the government has the right or the authority to validate a dormant bill, one passed by an already lapsed House,” said constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari. “The ball was not in President Poudel’s court.”
Usha Malla Pathak, former Vice President of the Nepal Bar Association, agreed: “The move by the President to authenticate the bill, which was not passed by a new Parliament, is unconstitutional so there is no point debating its merits.”
While some parties are entirely against the bill, others seem to agree with some parts of it while disagreeing with others-- especially provision allowing foreign women married to Nepali men to obtain naturalised citizenship without any waiting period.
Read also:<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/patriarchy-in-an-oligarchy"> Patriarchy in an oligarchy</a>
Nationalist groups have said the bill would open the floodgates for Indians to marry Nepalis and settle down in the Tarai. Critics wondered if there was a connection to the timing of the ratification just before Prime Minister Dahal’s official visit to India.
Members of Dahal’s coalition, including the NC’s GaganThapa have publicly criticised the bill. Rabi Lamichhane’s RSP has called the bill anti-national.&nbsp;
On Sunday, the Supreme Court acting on a writ petition issued an interim order against the implementation of the amendment bill. Many without citizenship who had reached government offices across the country to get their certificates were once again turned back.&nbsp;
In Parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Dahal deferred decision on the bill to the apex court, whereas the opposition UML leader K P Oli called for a new bill to be tabled in the House for discussion.
The Supreme Court Bar Association on Tuesday put out a statement calling the authentication of the bill unconstitutional.
‘It is the opinion of the Bar Association that the honourable president has approved the Citizenship Bill against Nepal’s parliamentary system, the Constitution, and the principle of the separation of powers,’ wrote Bar Secretary Shyam Kumar Khatri.
Read also: <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=18401#.YuNBD-xByrc">Stateless in their motherland</a>, Kunda Dixit
<h2>Once a Nepali, always Nepali</h2>
Much of the to-and-fro about the Citizenship Amendment Bill which has been blocked by the Supreme Court after ratification by President, has centred on the fact that the president should not have approved a bill that was passed by a lapsed parliament.&nbsp;
However, many Nepalis are not worried about due process not being followed, but on the contents of the bill: specifically the provision allowing foreign women married to Nepali men to immediately obtain naturalised citizenship. The <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/news/indian-nepalis-alarmed-by-citizenship-amendment-bill">rhetoric</a> surrounding this debate has been hyper-nationalist, anti-Indian, and anti-Madhes.&nbsp;
The opposition UML has been using similar nationalist and populist talking points to criticise the bill, and the RSP, the new party of young professionals which exited the governing coalition joined the fray, calling it “anti-national”.
One notable aspect of the bill that has been overshadowed is the provision for Non-Resident Nepalis (NRNs) to finally obtain dual citizenship. NRNs will however not be allowed to vote, run for public office or hold civil service jobs, and dual citizenship applies only to overseas Nepalis and not those in South Asia.
NRNs seeking dual citizenship need to present proof that their parent or grandparent is a Nepali citizen. They must present proof of having renounced Nepali citizenship, and must have foreign citizenship.
Those who have not renounced their Nepali citizenship previously cannot use the same identification and must present their old citizenship before they obtain a new Nepali citizenship.&nbsp;
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepals-suffragette-moment/" target="_blank">Nepal's suffragette moment</a>, Om Astha Rai
NRNs can open bank accounts in Nepal, own and operate businesses and conduct trade, buy land and property, inherit assets, make investments.
The Non-Resident Nepalese Association (NRNA) promptly welcomed the bill’s authentication, saying in a statement:&nbsp;
‘The bill addresses the long-standing demand for Non-Resident Nepali Citizenship from millions of non-resident Nepalis scattered around the world since 2003. We are confident that this step by the Honourable President will soon give meaning to the NRNA mantra of Once a Nepali, always a Nepali.’
It added that this connects Nepali people worldwide to their homeland and utilise their knowledge, skills, and capital to benefit Nepal.
<div class="embed-block"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I’m so pleased to hear that Nepal’s Government have just passed a new Citizenship Bill – this is great news - why? For a number of reasons but one is that now Non-Resident Nepalis (NRNs) – including Gurkhas - can have dual citizenship. Currently around 2.17 million Nepalis live… <a href="https://t.co/HIXLJUKzgf">pic.twitter.com/HIXLJUKzgf</a>&mdash; Nirmal Purja MBE (@nimsdai) <a href="https://twitter.com/nimsdai/status/1664185815419977733?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 1, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
Although some overseas Nepalis that Nepali Times spoke to said they had no knowledge about the bill, others were overjoyed that they could now invest in Nepal and contribute to the home economy.&nbsp;
Former British Army commando and mountaineer Nimsdai Purja was among those who took to social media to express his appreciation.
‘Granting NRN this new legal citizenship…will allow NRNs to practice full economic, social and cultural rights. I believe it is a step in the right direction towards a more positive and prosperous future for the country,’ wrote Purja. ‘This makes tourism and investment easier … means that the wealth is distributed from central areas like Kathmandu to less wealthy communities in mountain areas.’&nbsp;

Shristi Karki

original

674x448

610x380

500x500

400x266

400x240

400x203

301x200

1250x600

1084x550

Nepal’s Citizenship Amendment Bill explained

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221114131144/637238d49c7e80680e0c73aajpeg.jpg" alt="" width="2048" height="1366"/><figcaption>Photo: SUMAN NEPALI</figcaption></figure>President Bidya Devi Bhandari failed to authenticate an amendment bill to Nepal’s Citizenship Act by deadline on Tuesday 20 September, rendering it null and void. The bill had passed back and forth between Parliament and President’s office, before its rejection by a ceremonial head of state. It is seen by most experts as an unconstitutional move, and retaliation for Parliament’s refusal to deliberate her 15-point request for review.It is also proof of the deep polarisation ahead of elections between President Bhandari, who is close to the opposition UML, and the government. Passage of the bill would have been popular with the Tarai vote bank for the 5-party governing coalition, while the UML will hope to cash in on the opposition to the bill among many voters in the mountains.Understandably, coalition members were unified in their denouncement of the President allowing the bill to lapse after Parliament was already dissolved ahead of elections.‘This unconstitutional move by the President is a gross insult to Nepal’s federal Parliament elected by the people,’ reads a statement co-signed by leaders of four parties in government. The fifth coalition partner, Rastriya Janamorcha, did not sign, with its chief Chitra Bahadur KC casting strong reservations.In an unprecedented move, the Maoist-appointed Vice-president Nanda Bahadur Pun also condemned President Bhandari’s failure to certify the amendment. Interestingly, Maoist leader Narayankaji Shrestha wanted to have it both ways, tweeting: ‘The president does not have the right to go against the Constitution, but we agree with a lot of the points she has raised about the bill.’Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/rule-of-the-lawless/">Rule of the lawless</a>, EditorialThe amendment would have allowed hundreds of thousands of Nepalis, especially in the Tarai, to finally obtain citizenship papers. But many activists had said the bill’s restrictions on citizenship for children born to single mothers, and the process of obtaining naturalised citizenship were discriminatory towards women.Former Law Minister Nilambar Acharya said that the Citizenship Bill was too sensitive and nuanced for knee-jerk, one-sided reaction.“The fact is that the House of Representatives passed the amendment bill without deliberating the President’s 15-point request for clarification,” Acharya said. “And should a Parliament that is about to reach its term take decisions on issues of long-term national interest? The new Parliament should have been entrusted with that.”Indeed, the bill has already become an election issue. Student wings affiliated with coalition parties took to the streets in protest (pictured) burning effigies of the President, while unions affiliated with the UML rallied with placards that read ‘salute to the President who stands up for the nation and nationalism’.With citizenship becoming a battle for populist vote-gathering, the row has over-shadowed moves by the governing coalition which also went against constitutional values. The closed list of proportional representation (PR)  candidates presented Monday included the Prime Minister’s wife, Arzoo Deuba, former NC minister Bimalendra Nidhi and Maoist former speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara.The PR system is actually meant to ensure that communities on the socio-political fringes get represented in decision-making. But the candidates on the list have perpetuated the status quoist, transactional, and nepotistic nature of Nepali politics.Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/affirmative-inaction/">Affirmative inaction</a>, Editorial

President’s precedent

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111413118/637230849c7e80680e0c256ejpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640"/><figcaption>Photo: AMIT MACHAMASI / NEPALI TIMES ARCHIVES</figcaption></figure>Last Friday, The House of Representatives, through a majority vote, endorsed the amendment to the <a href="https://moha.gov.np/en/post/citizenship-act-2063" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Citizenship Act 2063 (2006)</a>, and on Thursday the Nepal Citizenship (First Amendment) Bill, 2022 was passed by the National Assembly.Since the Citizenship Act came into effect before the promulgation of the <a href="https://lawcommission.gov.np/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Constitution-of-Nepal.pdf">Constitution of Nepal</a> in 2015, it was necessary to amend it to make it compliant with the provisions regarding citizenship in the Constitution.While a bill to amend the Act was registered in the Parliament back in 2018, it never moved ahead as the State Affairs Committee could not build a consensus among parties. The government then withdrew the amendment earlier this month, and registered a new one. The new bill clears the way for the thousands of children of parents who got citizenship by birth to become citizens by descent, and allows Non-Resident Nepalis to acquire citizenship. However, legal experts and activists say that it is blatantly discriminatory towards women.“It still pushes the notion that men are the supreme beings and women are merely second-class citizens,” says senior advocate Meera Dhungana.Nepal citizenship is based on the principles of jus sanguinis or bloodline. While there are neither clauses attached or self-declaration needed when conferring citizenship by descent to a child of a Nepali man, the same is not true in case of a child born to a Nepali woman.Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/history-of-female-immobility-in-nepal/">History of female (im)mobility in Nepal</a>, Upasana KhadkaA Nepali man does not even have to mention the name or nationality of the mother for their child to get citizenship. But the mother still needs to navigate the loops of the legal system to ensure their child can obtain Nepali citizenship.The bill does pave the way for a child born to a Nepali woman in Nepal whose father is unidentified, to get citizenship by descent. But there is a catch: the woman must make a self-declaration that the father cannot be identified and if the claim turns out to be false, she can be jailed and/or fined.“The provision itself is an insult,” says senior advocate <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWhV0U5cBMQ&amp;feature=emb_logo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Satish Krishna Kharel</a>. “In a society like ours where children whose fathers are not identified often face stigma and abuse, that requirement is demeaning.”Likewise, a foreign woman married to a Nepali man can easily obtain naturalised citizenship once she starts the process of renouncing the citizenship of her country of origin. However, there is no such provision for foreign men married to Nepali women to get Nepali citizenship.Granting naturalised citizenship to foreign women married to Nepali men has been highly politicised, with the UML along with the Maoist Centre and other fringe parties demanding an interval of a few years before foreign women married to Nepali men are eligible for naturalised citizenship. But the Maoists backtracked, and supported the Nepali Congress and Madhes-based parties to remove that interval period.Read also: <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=18401#.YuNBD-xByrc">Stateless in their motherland</a>, Kunda DixitTo be sure, ever since the first Citizenship Act in 1952 and the others that followed, foreign men married to Nepali women have not been able to obtain Nepali citizenship through their wives. The bill simply continues that tradition.“Whatever the decision, whether to have a wait-period or not, shouldn’t it be the same for the spouses of both Nepali men and women? When a Nepali man can ensure citizenship for their spouse, why can’t the same be true for Nepali women?” asks Dhungana.Moreover, a child born to a Nepali man married to a foreign woman can obtain citizenship by descent, but a child born to Nepali mother and a foreign father will only be eligible for naturalised citizenship — that too at the discretion of the state.“It is more or less like saying that only a father is a true parent, and the role of a mother does not matter,” she adds. The argument against providing naturalised citizenship to foreign men married to Nepali women has always been that if it is allowed, Indian men will flood into Nepal. But that nationalist reasoning is dismissed as absurd by most experts.Says Kharel: “Rather than evidence-based arguments, views on citizenship are based on nationalist paranoia.”Read more: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepal-waits-for-an-unequal-citizenship-law/">Nepal’s unequal Citizenship Law</a>,  Ajay Pradhan

Sahina Shrestha

Are women not Nepali enough?

<div class="embed-block"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109191120/636bef814b0ad905ca02efb0jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="355"></div>
Just as Nepal came out of its first phase of lockdown on 21 June, the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) tabled <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepals-citizenship-bill-is-a-hornets-nest/">a revised Citizenship Bill in the Federal Parliament</a>. The bill was met with sharp public outrage for its unequal treatment of women.
It granted foreign females naturalised citizenship through their Nepali husbands. But there is a catch — they need to have spent a minimum of seven years in Nepal before they become eligible.
Interestingly, the bill has no mention of the provision for foreign men marrying Nepali women, which rules out the possibility of Nepali women extending citizenships to husbands of foreign nationalities.
Nepal is a country with a long discriminatory legacy in its history, and this is nothing new to women. Until a hundred years ago, ‘Sati’ customs required widowed women in some communities and princely aristocracies to immolate themselves on the funeral pyre of the dead husband.
Often, petrified widows who were unwilling to accompany the husband in death were dragged to the pyre and burned alive, while authoritative patriarchs provided witness. Society determined that after the death of husbands, women had nothing to live for.
We have, of course, come a long way from there. Today, the mere mention of this repulsive practice &nbsp;wrenches our gut and makes us cringe. We cannot comprehend the true psychological impact of the practice on the society, particularly, on women.
The practice of Sati has long been consigned to the deep trenches of history, thanks to its ban in Nepal &nbsp;100 years ago by erstwhile Rana Prime Minister Chandra Shumsher Rana. The ban was assisted by gradual social change and the State’s proactive intervention through codified decrees.
Widow burning was an extreme form of socially-entrenched and socially-sanctioned, deep-seated prejudice against women in a patriarchal society. But a century later, gender-based discrimination continues to exist not just socially but also in the form of Nepal’s citizenship law and the Constitution. The law still treats women as second-class citizens in how nationality is conferred upon them.
Gender-based Discrimination in the Citizenship Law
The Constitution of Nepal (2015) has discrepancies between articles related to citizenship under Part 3 and those related to equality of rights under Part 3. While the Constitution guarantees equality of rights under Part 3 and Article 18 specifically prohibits gender-based discrimination, the articles related to citizenship have discriminatory provisions that <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/regular-columns/Comment/stateless-daughters-in-nepal,863">treat women differently from men</a>. Article 11(5) provides for unequal rights for Nepali men and women in conferring citizenship to their children.
Children born to a Nepali father and a foreign-born mother are eligible for citizenship by descent, while those born to a Nepal-born mother and a foreign-born father will be <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/patriarchy-in-an-oligarchy/">granted naturalized citizenship</a>, with less privileges.
Typically, constitutions of many countries have conditional proviso or ‘notwithstanding’ clauses inserted if an equality right guaranteed by one part of the constitution is to be limited in its other provisions. In the 2015 constitution, there is no such conditional proviso that limits the equality of rights in nationality. Yet, constitutional <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/stateswomanship/">provisions related to citizenship are discriminatory</a>.
Also, the provisions in the Constitution for granting citizenship to children of Nepali men and women are unequal. The 2015 constitution does allow a Nepali woman to pass on nationality by descent to her children, but only if the father is unknown. If the father of the child is a foreign-born man, the child is only eligible for naturalized citizenship, and not citizenship by descent.
The children of a Nepali man, however, are automatically eligible for citizenship by descent regardless of the nationality of the mother. There are significant differences in the privileges enjoyed by a child with citizenship by descent compared to those of a child with naturalized citizenship. Naturalized citizens are not eligible for key constitutional positions of the State.
Nepal’s Citizenship Act (2006), which is a law made under the then interim Constitution of Nepal 2006, also has a key gender-based discrimination in how nationality is conferred upon foreign-born men and women married to Nepali nationals. Nepali men have an <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/perpetuating-patriarchy-in-nepal/">edge over Nepali women</a> in how the law treats their foreign-born spouses in issuing citizenship.
Under this 2006 citizenship law, foreign women married to Nepali men are eligible to apply for Nepali citizenship automatically after marriage, but foreign men married to Nepali women have a waiting period of 15 years. This <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepals-suffragette-moment/">legislative discrepancy</a> is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal rights. It is, therefore, unconstitutional.
On 21 June, the parliamentary Committee on State Affairs and Good Governance endorsed the government’s Citizenship Amendment Bill to the Citizenship Act of 2006. It introduced additional regressive measures that immediately sparked off alarm.
Foreign-born women who were eligible under the 2006 Citizenship Act to apply for naturalised citizenship without a waiting period would now be required to linger for seven years before being eligible for citizenship under the proposed amendment bill which does not reduce the waiting period for foreign-born men from 15 years to seven years to at least make the waiting period the same for men and women.
The main opposition political parties have decried the bill’s regressive measure of seven-year waiting period, saying that the new provision unfairly targets the ethnic Madhesi communities that have cross-border matrimonial ties with border communities in India.
An assessment of citizenship law and administrative policies and practices under it shows Nepali women face legal discrimination that limits their ability to live a life of equality and dignity compared to men. Even though Nepali-born single mothers have the legal right to pass on citizenship by descent to their children, administrative hurdles have been reported in the media that make it onerous for single mothers
<div class="embed-block"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109191120/636bef814b0ad905ca02efb0jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="355"></div>
The Beijing Declaration and international policy context:
Nepal is not the only nation that has gender-based discrimination in citizenship laws. The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights reports that globally 25 countries prevent mothers from conferring their nationality on their children on an equal basis with fathers, and over 50 countries deny women equal nationality rights with men, including conferral of nationality on non-Nepali spouses.
Discriminatory laws deny equal rights to women to acquire citizenship or to confer citizenship to children or spouse. Those laws prevent children from being recognised as a citizen in their mother’s country, even when the child is born in that country. The discriminatory laws deny foreign husbands their spouses’ citizenship, while foreign wives of male citizens are eligible for naturalised citizenship, either immediately after marriage or after a waiting period.
The issue of discriminatory nationality laws unfairly impacting women is not new and has been raised at international fora, especially under the United Nations. However, it appears that discriminatory citizenship issue has yet to receive as high a global profile as other issues affecting women, such as health, education, occupation, wage and employment.
The UN, for example, has organised four World Conferences on Women to promote empowerment and gender equality around the globe (the first one in 1975 in Mexico City, in 1980 in Copenhagen, in 1980 in Nairobi, and in Beijing in 1995), but none of them highlighted the discriminatory citizenship issue.
The 1995 Beijing Conference, which was a major turning point for global agenda for gender equality, released a declaration, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which was adopted unanimously by 189 countries, including Nepal. The document emphasised the participating governments’ determination to advance the goals of equality for all women, everywhere.
The Beijing Declaration, which is considered the key global policy document on gender equality, recognised that even though the status of women has advanced in some important respects, the progress has been uneven. Inequalities between men and women continue to persist and major obstacles remain, with serious consequences for the wellbeing of all.
The Beijing Declaration also reaffirmed the participating governments’ commitment to equal rights and inherent human dignity of women and men, to the principle enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
The Beijing conference was followed by a series of five-year reviews of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration commitments, under the leadership of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).
Beijing Declaration turned 25 this year. The 25-year review and appraisal scheduled for 9-20 March had to be edited to a single day event due to concerns related to Covid-19. The UN Commission on the Status of Women convened a meeting to adopt the draft political statements and suspended the remainder of the session until further notice.
The UN Division for the Advancement of Women, merged with three other UN entities working around women’s right and empowerment in 2010 to become a new agency. The merger has added a much-needed focus on women, nationality and citizenship in the Women 2000 and Beyond report series. The report has specifically raised the issue of discriminatory citizenship laws, reporting that where parents have different nationalities, laws bestow the nationality of the father upon a child, but deny the child her mother’s nationality.
Although the laws of most countries now entitle a woman to maintain her independent nationality upon marriage, many countries still retain laws that discriminate between women and men in terms of how the nationality is passed on to their children, particularly nationality by descent. Most countries that have provision for nationality by descent confer the nationality of the father on his children, irrespective of the nationality of his spouse.
It is less common for those countries to pass on the nationality of a woman married to a foreigner on her children automatically. In many countries, nationality by descent from the mother is conferred only where she is unmarried or the father is unknown or stateless.
Way forward:
Even though much progress has been achieved internationally in empowering women in public and private life, much work still remains to be done in eliminating gender-based discrimination with regard to citizenship.
In Nepal’s case, the Citizenship Act of 2006 and the Citizenship Act &nbsp;of 2020 both are inconsistent with the Part 3 of the Constitution that guarantees equality of rights and prohibits gender-based discrimination. These laws are unconstitutional in contravention to equality of rights and, therefore, can be challenged in the country’s constitutional court of law.
In many countries including the US and Canada, unconstitutional laws often fail the constitutional test if challenged in a court, forcing the law-making authorities to replace the provisions that are unconstitutional with new provisions that are constitutionally compliant. In Nepal, it does not appear to be common for unconstitutional laws to be tested in Supreme Court, which is the constitutional court of law.
A UN Women report lays out the scenarios in which inequality in the acquisition and retention of nationality causes particular hardships for spouses of different nationalities. International human rights standards to redress these inequalities exist within the human rights treaties, article 9, in particular of the CEDAW, 1979.
Judicial decisions in a number of countries indicate how these standards can be used to challenge existing inequalities between men and women. However, there are many obstacles to the effective implementation of human rights standards.
While international law recognizes the sovereign States’ discretionary power to enact laws and devise public policies with respect to conferral of citizenship upon individuals, the UN has made recommendations for actions at both international and nation levels. At the national level, the UN recommends legal and administrative reforms in domestic law to ensure international standards that are based on the CEDAW, 1979.
This is an opportunity for Nepal to decide to stand on the right side of history. Does Nepal want to stand with the small community of discriminating countries with unequal rights for women or with the larger global community that has fair citizenship laws based on gender equality? There are adequate constitutional provisions for equality of rights in Nepal’s constitution and the broader international policy framework for eliminating discrimination as part of the Beijing Declaration for Nepal to take progressive, not regressive, legislative action.
The time to make that choice is now, as Parliament will have to decide on the fate of the citizenship amendment bill. Women’s dignity is not a choice, it is their right. There cannot be second thoughts on it.
<div class="embed-block"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109191120/636bef854b0ad905ca02efb2jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="112" height="135"></div>
Ajay Pradhan is Senior Policy Advisor, Treaty and Self-Government Agreement Negotiations, Government of Canada. He lives in Vancouver, Canada.

Nepal's unequal Citizenship Law

Just as Nepal came out of its first phase of lockdown on 21 June, the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) tabled <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepals-citizenship-bill-is-a-hornets-nest/">a revised Citizenship Bill in the Federal Parliament</a>. The bill was met with sharp public outrage for its unequal treatment of women.
It granted foreign females naturalised citizenship through their Nepali husbands. But there is a catch — they need to have spent a minimum of seven years in Nepal before they become eligible.
Interestingly, the bill has no mention of the provision for foreign men marrying Nepali women, which rules out the possibility of Nepali women extending citizenships to husbands of foreign nationalities.
Nepal is a country with a long discriminatory legacy in its history, and this is nothing new to women. Until a hundred years ago, ‘Sati’ customs required widowed women in some communities and princely aristocracies to immolate themselves on the funeral pyre of the dead husband.
Often, petrified widows who were unwilling to accompany the husband in death were dragged to the pyre and burned alive, while authoritative patriarchs provided witness. Society determined that after the death of husbands, women had nothing to live for.
We have, of course, come a long way from there. Today, the mere mention of this repulsive practice &nbsp;wrenches our gut and makes us cringe. We cannot comprehend the true psychological impact of the practice on the society, particularly, on women.
The practice of Sati has long been consigned to the deep trenches of history, thanks to its ban in Nepal &nbsp;100 years ago by erstwhile Rana Prime Minister Chandra Shumsher Rana. The ban was assisted by gradual social change and the State’s proactive intervention through codified decrees.
Widow burning was an extreme form of socially-entrenched and socially-sanctioned, deep-seated prejudice against women in a patriarchal society. But a century later, gender-based discrimination continues to exist not just socially but also in the form of Nepal’s citizenship law and the Constitution. The law still treats women as second-class citizens in how nationality is conferred upon them.
Gender-based Discrimination in the Citizenship Law
The Constitution of Nepal (2015) has discrepancies between articles related to citizenship under Part 3 and those related to equality of rights under Part 3. While the Constitution guarantees equality of rights under Part 3 and Article 18 specifically prohibits gender-based discrimination, the articles related to citizenship have discriminatory provisions that <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/regular-columns/Comment/stateless-daughters-in-nepal,863">treat women differently from men</a>. Article 11(5) provides for unequal rights for Nepali men and women in conferring citizenship to their children.
Children born to a Nepali father and a foreign-born mother are eligible for citizenship by descent, while those born to a Nepal-born mother and a foreign-born father will be <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/patriarchy-in-an-oligarchy/">granted naturalized citizenship</a>, with less privileges.
Typically, constitutions of many countries have conditional proviso or ‘notwithstanding’ clauses inserted if an equality right guaranteed by one part of the constitution is to be limited in its other provisions. In the 2015 constitution, there is no such conditional proviso that limits the equality of rights in nationality. Yet, constitutional <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/stateswomanship/">provisions related to citizenship are discriminatory</a>.
Also, the provisions in the Constitution for granting citizenship to children of Nepali men and women are unequal. The 2015 constitution does allow a Nepali woman to pass on nationality by descent to her children, but only if the father is unknown. If the father of the child is a foreign-born man, the child is only eligible for naturalized citizenship, and not citizenship by descent.
The children of a Nepali man, however, are automatically eligible for citizenship by descent regardless of the nationality of the mother. There are significant differences in the privileges enjoyed by a child with citizenship by descent compared to those of a child with naturalized citizenship. Naturalized citizens are not eligible for key constitutional positions of the State.
Nepal’s Citizenship Act (2006), which is a law made under the then interim Constitution of Nepal 2006, also has a key gender-based discrimination in how nationality is conferred upon foreign-born men and women married to Nepali nationals. Nepali men have an <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/perpetuating-patriarchy-in-nepal/">edge over Nepali women</a> in how the law treats their foreign-born spouses in issuing citizenship.
Under this 2006 citizenship law, foreign women married to Nepali men are eligible to apply for Nepali citizenship automatically after marriage, but foreign men married to Nepali women have a waiting period of 15 years. This <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepals-suffragette-moment/">legislative discrepancy</a> is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal rights. It is, therefore, unconstitutional.
On 21 June, the parliamentary Committee on State Affairs and Good Governance endorsed the government’s Citizenship Amendment Bill to the Citizenship Act of 2006. It introduced additional regressive measures that immediately sparked off alarm.
Foreign-born women who were eligible under the 2006 Citizenship Act to apply for naturalised citizenship without a waiting period would now be required to linger for seven years before being eligible for citizenship under the proposed amendment bill which does not reduce the waiting period for foreign-born men from 15 years to seven years to at least make the waiting period the same for men and women.
The main opposition political parties have decried the bill’s regressive measure of seven-year waiting period, saying that the new provision unfairly targets the ethnic Madhesi communities that have cross-border matrimonial ties with border communities in India.
An assessment of citizenship law and administrative policies and practices under it shows Nepali women face legal discrimination that limits their ability to live a life of equality and dignity compared to men. Even though Nepali-born single mothers have the legal right to pass on citizenship by descent to their children, administrative hurdles have been reported in the media that make it onerous for single mothers
<div class="embed-block"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109181148/636be88e9c7e80680e087867jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="355"></div>
The Beijing Declaration and international policy context:
Nepal is not the only nation that has gender-based discrimination in citizenship laws. The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights reports that globally 25 countries prevent mothers from conferring their nationality on their children on an equal basis with fathers, and over 50 countries deny women equal nationality rights with men, including conferral of nationality on non-Nepali spouses.
Discriminatory laws deny equal rights to women to acquire citizenship or to confer citizenship to children or spouse. Those laws prevent children from being recognised as a citizen in their mother’s country, even when the child is born in that country. The discriminatory laws deny foreign husbands their spouses’ citizenship, while foreign wives of male citizens are eligible for naturalised citizenship, either immediately after marriage or after a waiting period.
The issue of discriminatory nationality laws unfairly impacting women is not new and has been raised at international fora, especially under the United Nations. However, it appears that discriminatory citizenship issue has yet to receive as high a global profile as other issues affecting women, such as health, education, occupation, wage and employment.
The UN, for example, has organised four World Conferences on Women to promote empowerment and gender equality around the globe (the first one in 1975 in Mexico City, in 1980 in Copenhagen, in 1980 in Nairobi, and in Beijing in 1995), but none of them highlighted the discriminatory citizenship issue.
The 1995 Beijing Conference, which was a major turning point for global agenda for gender equality, released a declaration, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which was adopted unanimously by 189 countries, including Nepal. The document emphasised the participating governments’ determination to advance the goals of equality for all women, everywhere.
The Beijing Declaration, which is considered the key global policy document on gender equality, recognised that even though the status of women has advanced in some important respects, the progress has been uneven. Inequalities between men and women continue to persist and major obstacles remain, with serious consequences for the wellbeing of all.
The Beijing Declaration also reaffirmed the participating governments’ commitment to equal rights and inherent human dignity of women and men, to the principle enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
The Beijing conference was followed by a series of five-year reviews of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration commitments, under the leadership of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).
Beijing Declaration turned 25 this year. The 25-year review and appraisal scheduled for 9-20 March had to be edited to a single day event due to concerns related to Covid-19. The UN Commission on the Status of Women convened a meeting to adopt the draft political statements and suspended the remainder of the session until further notice.
The UN Division for the Advancement of Women, merged with three other UN entities working around women’s right and empowerment in 2010 to become a new agency. The merger has added a much-needed focus on women, nationality and citizenship in the Women 2000 and Beyond report series. The report has specifically raised the issue of discriminatory citizenship laws, reporting that where parents have different nationalities, laws bestow the nationality of the father upon a child, but deny the child her mother’s nationality.
Although the laws of most countries now entitle a woman to maintain her independent nationality upon marriage, many countries still retain laws that discriminate between women and men in terms of how the nationality is passed on to their children, particularly nationality by descent. Most countries that have provision for nationality by descent confer the nationality of the father on his children, irrespective of the nationality of his spouse.
It is less common for those countries to pass on the nationality of a woman married to a foreigner on her children automatically. In many countries, nationality by descent from the mother is conferred only where she is unmarried or the father is unknown or stateless.
Way forward:
Even though much progress has been achieved internationally in empowering women in public and private life, much work still remains to be done in eliminating gender-based discrimination with regard to citizenship.
In Nepal’s case, the Citizenship Act of 2006 and the Citizenship Act &nbsp;of 2020 both are inconsistent with the Part 3 of the Constitution that guarantees equality of rights and prohibits gender-based discrimination. These laws are unconstitutional in contravention to equality of rights and, therefore, can be challenged in the country’s constitutional court of law.
In many countries including the US and Canada, unconstitutional laws often fail the constitutional test if challenged in a court, forcing the law-making authorities to replace the provisions that are unconstitutional with new provisions that are constitutionally compliant. In Nepal, it does not appear to be common for unconstitutional laws to be tested in Supreme Court, which is the constitutional court of law.
A UN Women report lays out the scenarios in which inequality in the acquisition and retention of nationality causes particular hardships for spouses of different nationalities. International human rights standards to redress these inequalities exist within the human rights treaties, article 9, in particular of the CEDAW, 1979.
Judicial decisions in a number of countries indicate how these standards can be used to challenge existing inequalities between men and women. However, there are many obstacles to the effective implementation of human rights standards.
While international law recognizes the sovereign States’ discretionary power to enact laws and devise public policies with respect to conferral of citizenship upon individuals, the UN has made recommendations for actions at both international and nation levels. At the national level, the UN recommends legal and administrative reforms in domestic law to ensure international standards that are based on the CEDAW, 1979.
This is an opportunity for Nepal to decide to stand on the right side of history. Does Nepal want to stand with the small community of discriminating countries with unequal rights for women or with the larger global community that has fair citizenship laws based on gender equality? There are adequate constitutional provisions for equality of rights in Nepal’s constitution and the broader international policy framework for eliminating discrimination as part of the Beijing Declaration for Nepal to take progressive, not regressive, legislative action.
The time to make that choice is now, as Parliament will have to decide on the fate of the citizenship amendment bill. Women’s dignity is not a choice, it is their right. There cannot be second thoughts on it.
<div class="embed-block"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109181148/636be8919c7e80680e087869jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="112" height="135"></div>
Ajay Pradhan is Senior Policy Advisor, Treaty and Self-Government Agreement Negotiations, Government of Canada. He lives in Vancouver, Canada.

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108151124/636a66d39c7e80680e0599a7jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="720"/><figcaption>Photos: DARJEELINGTIMES.COM</figcaption></figure>After India recently amended its laws regarding citizenship, Nepalis living in Northeast India are terrified. Both of India’s Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/11/asia/india-citizenship-amendment-bill-intl-hnk/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill</a> (CAB) which tightens laws regarding citizenship.Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC), published on 31 August 2019, generated protests all over India because it was missing 1.9 million residents. About 100,000 Nepalis, whose ancestors have been living in the northeast Indian state for up to 200 years, were among those excluded from the list for technical reasons like marriage, migration, differences in last name, mistakes or lost documents. They are now terrified that they will not be counted as Indian citizens. They are listed as ‘D Voters’ meaning ‘Doubtful’ Voters.In November, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah declared in parliament that the list would be expanded over the entire country, and his ruling BJP appears determined to implement NRC countrywide. It has amended the constitution and got CAB passed by both Houses which will make it easier to implement the NRC, which will ultimately affect the status of <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/regular-columns/Connecting-dots/Darjeeling-and-the-idea-of-Nepal,944">Indians of Nepali origin</a> at present and future.Since 1951, Assam has been the only Indian state to have created and updated its register of citizens. The NRC is said to be an attempt to discover ‘foreigners’ residing illegally in the state. The concept of the NRC came up in 1951, after India became independent and held its first census. Its purpose later was to differentiate between Assam natives and Bangladeshi refugees.During British rule, many people from Bihar, Bengal and Nepal migrated to Assam to work on its tea estates and settle on empty land. After Partition and the breakup of Pakistan there was a large influx of as many as 1 million refugees from Bangladesh, first due to the language struggle and crackdowns by the Pakistan Army in 1971. After Bangladesh became independent some returned home, but many stayed on in Assam.<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221108151124/636a66d59c7e80680e0599a8jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="720">The Citizenship Amendment Bill makes it easier to implement the NRC across the country. Opposition parties are protesting strongly against it, and a dozen people have been killed in <a href="https://time.com/5752186/india-protests-citizenship-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">violent demonstrations across the country</a>. The Indian National Congress and the Mamata Banerjee-led All India Trinamool Congress and the Marxist Communist Party are spearheading the protests, but many of the student demonstrations in universities have been spontaneous.Protestors claim the bill undermines India’s democratic system and secularism. CAB has provisions to provide citizenship to Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Persian, Jain and Buddhist refugees who have fled persecution in the neighbouring countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, but <a href="https://time.com/5746688/india-citizenship-amendment-bill/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">denies Muslims the same facility</a>. Many also fear that the bill endangers the identity, language and culture of the natives of Assam and neighbouring state, Tripura.Mamata Banerjee, chief minister of West Bengal, has already declared that she will not let the NRC be implemented in West Bengal. People in northeast states including Assam, Tripura, Sikkim and Darjeeling, have held many protests against the bill.Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland in Northeast India are exempted from the bill because they are restricted states, where even Indian visitors need permits to enter. That ‘Innerline Permit’ will also be implemented in Manipur eventually. But Sikkim falls under the new law, which has created confusion.Sikkim was a sovereign country until 1975, becoming India’s 22nd state after annexation in 1975. Sikkim Chief Minister PS Gole has declared that the CAB and NRC will not be implemented in the state. Supported by Sikkim’s opposition parties, he has requested the Indian government to also exempt Sikkim.In Darjeeling, the Vinay Tamang and Anit Thapa-led Gorkha Janamukti Morcha (GJM), and the Dr Harkabahadur Chhetri-led Jana Andolan party have opposed the CAB, but the Gorkha Rashtriya Mukti Morcha and another faction of the GJM support both CAB and NRC.When he presented the CAB in parliament, Home Minister Shah claimed that all those who were excluded from Assam’s NRC were infiltrators, not Indian citizens. The GJM’s Tamang issued a press statement refuting that allegation, and demanded that before the NRC is implemented Indian Nepalis  should be included in the list of ‘Original Inhabitants of India’ and be a protected community.Nepalis have been <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=2053#.XfsquJMzaUl">living in Indian states like Darjeeling and Assam</a> for more than 200 years, working on tea estates and farms. In fact, Nepali speakers are better settled in northeast India than many Bengali speakers, but many of the Nepalis do not yet have land deeds and it will be even more difficult for them to get the rights if the NRC is implemented.The 1950 Nepal-India treaty gave Nepali and Indian citizens the right to freely come and go in each other’s countries, although India requires visas from Bangladeshis and Pakistanis. The issue of the identity of Indians of Nepali origin has fuelled an agitation for autonomy in the Darjeeling hills for many years. Subhas Ghising proposed that they be called ‘Gorkha’ to differentiate them from Nepali citizens. But this is not legally, or widely, accepted. There are no Nepali refugees in India.During the election campaign, Home Minister Shah assured people that the NRC would not affect ‘Gorkhas’. But they are still confused regarding citizenship bill and register. The Nepalis of Assam, where the NRC has been implemented, are especially concerned about how to be counted as Indian citizens.

Indian Nepalis alarmed by Citizenship Amendment Bill

One smoggy winter morning in February 2019, Ekta regretted coming to her sculpture class. It was the first day of her period, and the 19-year-old wished she was home, curled up in bed with a hot water bag to soothe her cramps.
Her class was at Kalapremi Ceramic Studio, a dark room on the ground floor of a house in Maharajganj, and Ekta’s teacher was the artist Gopal Das Shrestha ‘Kalapremi’, a noted sculptor.
Two other students were already there, using all their muscle strength to knead the sculpting clay. Ekta, now 24, recalls how Kalapremi asked her if she was feeling all right. She avoided him, as she did not want everyone to know she was menstruating.
Kalapremi repeatedly asked Ekta what was wrong. She finally muttered that she was having her period, after which he grabbed her hand and led her to a partitioned corner of the studio and sat her on a chair. Before she could stop him, he slid his hand under her dress, and started massaging her abdomen.
“I was horrified,” Ekta recalls. “I told him to stop, but he didn’t listen, asking me not to be shy, saying he knew how to relieve my pain. He stopped only after I protested furiously.”&nbsp;
The art tutor then said, “You’re like my daughter. I’m doing it out of love to make you feel better, but you’re so stubborn.”&nbsp;
“Instead of saying sorry he acted like I was the one having crazy thoughts,” remembers Ekta, adding that from April 2016 to August 2020 beginning the time she was 16, the artist sexually abused and harassed her on several occasions. &nbsp;
Now, Ekta and the artist’s other former students are finally sharing their experiences and some are pressing legal charges against him, hoping that others do not have to endure what they did.&nbsp;
Award-winning artist and teacher Gopal Das Shrestha ‘Kalapremi’ (the name means ‘Art Lover’) is known for his ceramic art, sculpture, and contemporary pottery. He was <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/review/the-house-of-kalapremi">profiled in Nepali Times after a collaborative exhibition</a>, ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ at the Siddhartha Art Gallery three years ago.&nbsp;
His pieces, titled Gaalis, featured sculpted female figures with the heads of dogs, sheep, and donkeys (pictured) to depict derogatory terms for women. Some critics said the collection was a satire on feminists.
Kalapremi started his artistic and teaching career in 1983 and over the years taught at Bhanubhakta School, Kathmandu University School of Arts, Lalitkala Campus and at his private Kalapremi Ceramic Studio. He has also lectured at Jeonju University in South Korea and recently at Tabor Academy in the United States.
Seven of Kalapremi’s former students were interviewed for this story. Five female students said he touched them inappropriately in his studio or at Kathmandu University. Two male students said they witnessed him abuse and harass the women. In all cases, the students struggled to recognise the abuse when it occurred, and the lack of reporting systems left them to cope on their own for years.&nbsp;
Earlier this year, students shared a social media post hinting at Kalapremi’s history of abusive behaviour following which more students of the artist reached out sharing similar experiences. Some students spoke of abuse that happened as long as 20 years ago.
Kalapremi, 60, has denied the allegations. He told Nepali Times: “Some years ago, there was a movement encouraging people to hug and kiss. I used to do it purely out of friendship and love. But after seeing posts on social media last year calling out my behaviour, I realised my actions may have hurt some people. I understand now that I should have been more mindful.”
He added: “I am also an auxiliary health worker, so I know the exact points to massage to relieve menstrual pain. It’s not just menstruation, I take anyone who is ill to the hospital.”
Sexual abuse is much more rampant than reported given how difficult it is to prove it in court. The law defines sexual abuse as occuring when someone touches another’s private parts, coerces them into touching theirs, uses vulgar language, shows degrading images, or behaves indecently towards them without consent.&nbsp;
Ekta and her fellow students are consulting lawyer Suneeta Regmi Pokhrel, who says they know that even if the court decides in their favour, it is difficult to survive after speaking up, and influential men defend themselves saying they are being framed.&nbsp;
“They are in a lot of pain and weep when recalling how he abused them,” Regmi Pokhrel told us. “They are angry and have filed a case against him, but they are also terrified. They know he is a powerful man and they have seen how our society treats women who speak up against abusers. Unless people speak up, perpetrators will be emboldened.”
Art and academia in Nepal simply reflect the power imbalances in society where people with intersecting identities experience worse forms of abuse. Theatre actors Raj Kumar Pudasaini, Rajan Khatiwada, and Sunil Pokhrel were called out during the #MeToo movement in the Nepali theatre scene in 2019. Even after the allegations Pokhrel went on to receive national awards, while others continued to work without repercussions.
“If you speak up against abusers, you gradually get sidelined from projects,” explained a theatre artist who wished anonymity fearing professional setbacks. “The theatre scene in Nepal is quite small, you just have to make peace with the perpetrators and work with them if you want to sustain yourself.”&nbsp;
In academia there is a history of faculty members sexually harassing students and getting away with it. After Tribhuvan University (TU) lecturer Krishna Bhattachan was accused of harassing women students, the university said it would follow Nepal’s sexual harassment law and set up a reporting mechanism. But nothing happened to the professor, who had already retired. Instead, he counter-accused the students of 'attacking the indigenous people’s movement with baseless allegations' as <a href="https://kathmandupost.com/letters/2019/01/29/bhattachan-responds">he told the Kathmandu Post in 2019</a>. He continues to be featured as a prominent speaker including at TU.
Other faculty members previously accused of sexual harassment include Jagadish Murti Koirala from TU, Bishnu Prasad Acharya from Ratna Rajya Campus, and Bodha Raj Tripathee from Lalitpur Madhyamik Vidhyalaya. A woman staff member from TU also filed a sexual abuse complaint against Dambar Chemjong from TU.
Prominent figures like <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/the-rise-and-fall-of-nims-purja">mountaineer Nims Purja</a> have been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/sports/mountaineering-sexual-harassment-abuse-nims-purja.html">accused of sexual assault</a>, and cricketer Sandeep Lamichhane, actor <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/celebrity-rape-case-spotlights-nepal-laws">Paul Shah</a>, and former speaker of Parliament <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/mahara-arrested">Krishna Bahadur Mahara</a> have been accused of rape, but society-at-large has let off the alleged perpetrators amdist a larger debate about justice for survivors and punishment of perpetrators.&nbsp;
‘Gaushala-26’ is the court name given to the 18-year-old who accused Sandeep Lamichhane, former captain of Nepal’s national cricket team and skipper of Biratnagar Kings in the <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/here-comes-the-nepal-premier-league">ongoing Nepal Premier League</a>, of rape. She left the country citing society questioning her character affecting her mental health while Lamichhane got an outpouring of support. In May, the Patan High Court overturned a prior verdict that found Lamichhane guilty of rape and had sentenced him to eight years in prison. During the 23-month legal battle to pursue justice, Gaushala-26 faced threats of gang rape and acid attacks.&nbsp;
Exhausted by the struggle, Gaushala-26 sought to “move to a new world” where she could live free without hiding her identity.
Actress Samragyee Rajya Laxmi Shah in an Instagram video now deleted detailed the harassment she faced from a filmmaker during a movie shoot. She did not name any name but veteran actor Bhuwan KC filed a defamation case against Rana, but the court ruled that the charge lacked sufficient evidence.&nbsp;
Former Kathmandu mayor <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/theytoo">Keshav Sthapit also mocked the #MeToo movement</a>, calling accusations against him by journalists Rashmila Prajapati and Ujjwala Maharjan “a rape of men’s rights”.
Serial Abuse
Back at the Kalapremi Ceramics studio, another former student, 24-year-old Rajiv, says he felt the need to speak out after seeing his female classmates being abused.&nbsp;
“He frequently kissed them on their cheeks,” he told Nepali Times. “Whenever they walked into the studio he flailed his arms like a child asking for a hug. They awkwardly hugged him from the side, but he pulled them closer, held their chin, and kissed their cheeks.”&nbsp;
Rajiv says he also saw Kalapremi pull the women’s bra straps, touch their breasts, and slap their buttocks. The young students would freeze, not knowing how to react, and if they protested, he would say it was “normal in art”. Rajiv, 19 at the time like his classmates, remembers thinking perhaps the well-respected artist was right after all.
Another student, Luna, who took lessons at Kalapremi’s studio from 2020 to 2022 did try to confront the tutor after he made an obscene proposal to her. She recalls: “One day when the other students had left the studio and it was just the two of us, he told me that God had given him special artistic talent and he could transfer those powers to me. But to do that both of us will have to be naked, inside a dark room, and have sex.”
Luna, who was 18 then, was livid and told him she did not want any of his powers, but she says he laughed at her as if he was joking. She did not tell her family about the incident because she thought no one would believe her.&nbsp;
“They were all in awe of this famous artist and felt I should be grateful that to be learning sculpting from him,” she says. “I was scared to be alone with him in case he talked about sex again. My coping mechanism was to be rude so he wouldn’t try to come close to me.”
Seeing how some classmates were standing up to Kalapremi, Ekta too tried to push back against his advances, but she said he found ways to coerce her. Since Ekta, Rajiv, and Luna could not afford Kalapremi’s Rs30,000 monthly fee for lessons, he had offered them all a stipend to assist him in the studio.
“He had spondylosis and took me to his therapy sessions to learn massage techniques, then he often made me and other students massage him,” says Ekta. Whenever she refused, he would feign pain to make her feel sorry for him. “He would insist that I put my hands under his shirt so that I could massage him better,” she adds.
The art tutor often tried to “seduce sympathy” from Ekta by sharing how he had never been loved as a child and was “sexually frustrated” as an adult.&nbsp;
“At 7PM, he would pour himself Signature whiskey and immediately go off again about how he was sex-starved. I didn’t know how to respond. It took me time to realise alcohol was just an excuse to talk about sex,” Ekta says.
If convicted, Kalapremi could face financial penalty and/or a prison sentence of up to three years according to Section 224 of National Penal (Code) Act 2017.&nbsp;
Data suggests that victims of child sexual abuse on average take nearly 24 years to tell someone about their trauma, and some may never disclose it at all.&nbsp;
“In our culture, children are rarely taught about boundaries. They often react, show anger when adults pinch their cheeks. But adults insist they did it out of love, and force the children to accept it,” says Sita Lama, a psychotherapist at Manka Kura. “And even when someone touches them inappropriately they struggle to identify and verbalise it.”
When perpetrators claim to be “acting out of love”, Lama says survivors are likely to perceive it as something safe, rather than recognising it as abuse.&nbsp;
“It may take years for them to realise they were abused,” she explains. "And even when they become aware, the power imbalance with the abuser and the associated shame often prevents survivors from speaking up."
Other former students from the School of Art at Kathmandu University have also come forward years later, saying Kalapremi sexually abused them. As young adults, they felt his behaviour was off but were uncertain if it was inappropriate, illegal, or they did not know how to respond. After having understood that it was indeed abuse, they say they are speaking out now to protect others.&nbsp;
Amina Singh, a visiting faculty member at Kathmandu University, says there is no clause against sexual abuse in contracts of teachers, and there is no formal grievance handling mechanism for the students.&nbsp;
“So the only way students can to deal with sexual abuse is approach someone they trust,” she says.
Eight other former art students of Lalit Kala Campus and Srijana College of Fine Arts of Tribhuvan University and other private art studios in Kathmandu say they were also sexually abused by their art teachers. Three faculty members interviewed from these institutions said they saw the abuse, but felt it was futile to report it given how powerful the teachers were.
In the absence of a formal system, some longtime women artists warned each other about “problematic” artists. They shared &nbsp;a “heads-up” to be more cautious when collaborating with them, and avoided responding to their calls and texts after work hours.
To ensure art institutions are safe for all, galleries, museums, artist studios, and smaller art spaces need to develop policies on sexual harassment. This would include a code of conduct or studio policies that hold the leadership accountable and outline the principles of professional ethics.&nbsp;
Students and employees should inquire about accountability mechanisms for raising concerns, both formally and informally, advocates say.
Three years after Ekta left the ceramics studio, she learnt that Kalapremi had harassed many other women. Still trying to get a footing in the art industry, she attended a workshop in Kathmandu where women artists discussed ways to stay safe in the art sector.&nbsp;
Since it was a close-knit group Ekta opened up about how she felt violated and realised she was not alone, he had been abusing underprivileged students for years, and this was common knowledge among artists in Nepal.
Ekta says that even after she quit, Kalapremi continued sending her text messages like ‘I am thinking of you’, ‘Why have you stopped speaking with me’, or ‘I am waiting for your call’.&nbsp;
But what really forced her to act was when Ekta found out that he was sending similar texts to her younger sister.&nbsp;
“I’ve had enough,” she told us. “He abused me all these years but I won’t let him abuse my sister.” &nbsp;
Ekta, Rajiv and Luna are not the real names of the students.&nbsp;

‘Art Lover’ accused of sexual abuse

It was 8:15 in the evening of 25 March 1968 when everyone in the village of Batulechaur near Pokhara heard a deafening sound like thunder as a bright flashing object hurtled down to land in a field.&nbsp; That field belonged to Kul Timilsina, and the next morning he retrieved a sheet of metal about 2m by 1m and carried it home with the help of a few others, thinking it would be useful for his buffalo shed.&nbsp; Before he died at age 83 three years ago, Timilsina had told photo archivist Sunil Ulak that the black metal sheet was not rectangular and had rounded corners. There are a few witnesses still alive who have a clear recollection of the object that fell from the sky that night.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/2024120707128_75cc85aac56b9cc4a77366471f058d7b3eb6868776811b0923845c2d0a61f014.jpg" data-media-id="editor_0" data-image-id="2024120707128_75cc85aac56b9cc4a77366471f058d7b3eb6868776811b0923845c2d0a61f014" data-rendition-name="original" width="1170" height="601" loading="lazy" alt="UFO over Pokhara"> <figcaption>The field in Batulechaur belonging to Kul Timilsina where fragments of a flying object fell from the sky in 1968.</figcaption> </figure>  One of them is Timilsina’s wife Gyanu, who was 22 at the time. She had been at home, and remembers hearing the big bang and the sky becoming very bright. “We saw the thing in the field in the morning,” she told us. “It looked like a lid, a covering of some sort. The way it was stuck in the ground, it must have fallen from the sky. We thought we could use it to dry clothes on, and took it home.”&nbsp; Another witness is Kul Narayan Paudel. “I was only eight then. We ran to the field to see what had fallen. It was a four-sided metal sheet. The elders took it away, and I don't know what happened to it.” &nbsp; Ram Bahadur Baniya, a teacher at the local school, says he had heard the sheet had been brought to the school, and later handed over to the Zonal Commissioner at the time, Nanda Prasad Malla. “But that is all hearsay,” he says.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/2024120707128_0bf207a12063fb8155b3c8d9a00a94887b126380c9e0627527c84cf5e1101f54.jpg" data-media-id="editor_1" data-image-id="2024120707128_0bf207a12063fb8155b3c8d9a00a94887b126380c9e0627527c84cf5e1101f54" data-rendition-name="original" width="1170" height="610" loading="lazy" alt="UFO over Pokhara"> <figcaption>Gyanu Timilsina, wife of Kul Timilsina.</figcaption> </figure>  There are two versions of what happened to Kul Timilsina’s metal sheet. One is that an American Peace Corp Volunteer teaching at the nearby Bindyabasini School took it, and another is that it was handed over to the government. Recently declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and US State Department documents from the time say that the US Embassy in Kathmandu tracked down the object two years later and had it shipped back to the US. A telegram from the Department of State and Department of Defense tagged as ‘MOON DUST / Space Fragments’ dated 1 March 1972 stated: ‘1. Restored space fragment will be on board Embassy support flight 115 arriving Kathmandu on or about March 10. Fragment is packed in shipping crate (cargo no. 72-33365) marked in care of DAO.&nbsp; 2. State and Defense representatives examined fragments prior to shipment finding restoration acceptable.’  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20241207071212_929d903ee06d41baa4f6040e981cd7c7d7bd75cc9c37c9b617d307fc8538d2df.png" data-media-id="editor_2" data-image-id="20241207071212_929d903ee06d41baa4f6040e981cd7c7d7bd75cc9c37c9b617d307fc8538d2df" data-rendition-name="original" width="856" height="568" loading="lazy" alt="UFO over Pokhara"> <figcaption>Declassified CIA documents about the investigation into the object sighted in Pokhara. </figcaption> </figure>  The documents show that the US government, military and intelligence agencies investigated this incident thoroughly when it occurred, and have continued to revisit it ever since, as recently as five years ago. What is even more intriguing is that the object that fell in Pokhara was not the only unidentified space object that fell to earth that year. There were similar sightings of objects falling from the sky in Ladakh, Sikkim and Bhutan between 19 February and 25 March 1968.&nbsp; These mysteries were the subject of a CIA investigation in 1968 titled ‘<a href="https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81R00560R000100070007-8.pdf">Sighting of Unidentified Flying Objects in Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan</a>’, and the report is part of the recent online declassification of 800,000 top-secret documents from the period.&nbsp; &nbsp;Although unidentified flying objects (UFOs) have a connotation now of being alien craft, it could be pieces of satellite, missile, rocket or even aircraft. The CIA report documents six sightings in 1968 and quotes local sources as describing all of them having similar characteristics: bright blue or red streaks in the sky accompanied by loud sounds like lightning and thunder and objects falling to the ground. Aside from the metallic object that was found in Batlechaur, there were other items also found nearby in Tallakot, Tureypasal, Armalakot and Maidan. Whatever the object was, it seems to have disintegrated even before it hit the ground.&nbsp; The CIA report records the first sighting on 19 February 1968 in various parts of Sikkim and Olangchung Gola and Ghunsa in eastern Nepal. The light was said to be ‘long and thin’ and giving out ‘green and red light’. &nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20241207071212_c3c825027d966a2aedc846970390eebe063957503c7eacc8e01e0517843f9bbb.png" data-media-id="editor_4" data-image-id="20241207071212_c3c825027d966a2aedc846970390eebe063957503c7eacc8e01e0517843f9bbb" data-rendition-name="original" width="892" height="596" loading="lazy" alt="UFO over Pokhara "> </figure>  Two days later on 21 February, a soundless blue object was seen traveling fast across the sky above Thimphu in Bhutan. Then on 4 March there were multiple daytime sightings or white streaks in the sky at Chang La Pass, Fukche and Koyul in Ladakh. There were more sightings in Ladakh on the very day fragments fell near Pokhara on 25 March 1968.&nbsp; After the sightings in Pokhara, rumours started flying in Kathmandu that these were aliens trying to land on Earth, it could be Russian or Chinese spy planes or satellites, and some even say it as a sign from heaven that the end of the world was near. This was at the height of the Cold War. The Russians and Americans were testing their thermonuclear devices as well as intercontinental ballistic missile delivery systems. The Washington-Beijing rapprochement had not yet happened, and China was making quick progress testing atomic bombs. Within two years after its first atomic test, in 1966 China exploded its first hydrogen bomb at the Lop Nur site in Xinjiang, 3,000km to the north from Nepal. After neary six decades, what is still intriguing is that all the sightings within a few months of each other in 1968 were along the Himalayan arc bordering Tibet: from Bhutan, Sikkim Nepal, to Ladakh. The US military intelligence seems to have concluded that this was not a coincidence and there were frequent research trips to the site in Pokhara by American officials in the months after the incident. With the help of the Royal Nepal Army, the region north of Pokhara was thoroughly searched.&nbsp; A confidential memo dated 25 June 1968 by Jerry C Trippy to a ‘Mr Farley’ mentions that the US Air Force’s Foreign Technology Division had decided that the debris could be important because it may be related to a Chinese missile test or a Soviet ‘Vehicle Venik’ rocket.&nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20241207071216_feb5425692dc36b20187de4e4fcc2ce9fd12b6d9e1b8724398e50bcdbf9032fe.jpg" data-media-id="editor_5" data-image-id="20241207071216_feb5425692dc36b20187de4e4fcc2ce9fd12b6d9e1b8724398e50bcdbf9032fe" data-rendition-name="original" width="1500" height="1000" loading="lazy" alt="UFO over Pokhara"> </figure>  On 28 August 1968 the US Embassy in Kathmandu sent a letter to Washington DC saying that the object could be of Soviet origin, possibly from when the rocket carrying the ‘Kosmos 208’ satellite re-entered the atmosphere. But why were the fragments falling to earth several weeks apart, and in the same region? No one knows where the metal sheet that Kul Timilsina recovered is now. It was definitely packed in a crate and taken to the US, and although it is rumoured that it was returned that is not very likely. Archivist Sunil Ulak heard from the Timilsina family that CIA officials had returned to the site five years ago. &nbsp; Interest in UFOs peaked in the US in the 1950s, with the Cold War space race and tests of atomic weapons and delivery rockets. CIA and scientists were being sent to investigate sightings, both publicly and privately. Could the Pokhara fragments as well as the sightings in Ladakh and Bhutan actually be alien craft falling to earth? The renewal in interest in space travel in large part due to Elon Musk’s SpaceX, UFOs and sightings are again subjects of public interest.&nbsp; Even 57 years later, even if there was definitive proof about whether the Batlechaur fragment was from a Chinese missile or a soviet rocket, it has not been made public in documents declassified so far. We may never know.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20241207071216_b6938795f40731e7657fd6dcbb3cf460a326186a15eb11d4f832f602201ff598.jpg" data-media-id="editor_6" data-image-id="20241207071216_b6938795f40731e7657fd6dcbb3cf460a326186a15eb11d4f832f602201ff598" data-rendition-name="original" width="642" height="320" loading="lazy" alt="UFO over Pokhara"> </figure>  Sunil Ulak speculates if the debris actually came from an American aircraft, perhaps on an intel mission upon China. “Which could explain why they were so thorough in collecting the fragments in Pokhara,” he says. But that still does not explain the multiple sightings weeks apart in 1968.&nbsp; Indeed, US military aircraft were at that time flying frequent night-time missions from air force bases in India to supply weapons to Khampa guerrilla camps in Nepal located north of Pokhara in Mustang. It could very well be that the Chinese shot down one such aircraft. The other sightings could have been contrails of US spy planes, or Chinese anti-aircraft missiles.&nbsp; There were quite a few developments regarding UFOs in 2024. In a US congressional hearing in July, former intelligence officer David Grusch claimed that the government had long been involved in a program to investigate and retrieve non-human craft crashes, and then try to reverse engineer them. However Grusch did not show any evidence.&nbsp; The UAP Disclosure Act of 2024 was signed into law by Joe Biden in December 2023. It plans to oversee the public disclosure of UFO information. However, there is a clause in it that prevents disclosure if it would cause threats to military defense, intelligence operations or foreign relations.&nbsp; It is unlikely that the declassified documents about sightings in the Himalayan will cause any real surprise about definite evidence of alien life even if it was found. It seems humanity will continue, at least for now, to wonder about curious lights in the sky and whether there is anybody out there.&nbsp;

UFO over Pokhara

When Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) president Rabi Lamichhane was arrested in October on charges of defrauding depositors of cooperatives, the party’s vice president Swarnim Wagle gifted him Fareed Zakaria’s book, Age of Revolutions.
Since then, Lamichhane has been shunted around from Kathmandu to Pokhara to Chitwan and back to Pokhara to attend police investigations and court proceedings. He was being flown to Birganj via Kathmandu on Buddha Air on Monday. There is another pending case in Janakpur.
Human rights groups and civil society have criticised the government for hounding Lamichhane with inhumane treatment that borders on physical torture. The two parties in the coalition, Nepali Congress (NC) and the UML, see Lamichhane’s RSP as a potentially formidable challenge to their power.
Even if the fraud charges against Lamichhane are true, the Nepali public is increasingly looking at the government’s actions through the police and courts as political vendetta.
Despite all the travelling, sometimes by plane and often by road at night, Lamichhane appears to be in high spirits, waving to supporters who often gather if they know he is going to be driven around. A social media video shows him giving high fives to fellow passengers on a recent flight to Pokhara.&nbsp;
In the past weeks, streets in Pokhara have erupted with parallel protests by Lamichhane’s supporters as well as depositors of cooperatives who lost their savings to the scam.&nbsp;
Although family visits are allowed, prison officials in Pokhara told Nepali Times that not many people visit Lamichhane these days. He added, “When he does get visitors, he asks them to bring him books.”
Lamichhane is currently Nepal’s most high-profile public figure in custody, and highlights the stark difference between how influential prisoners are treated compared to ordinary inmates.
There are six prison cells at Kaski District Police Office’s two-story detention centre, three on each floor. And while authorities pack prisoners into already overcrowded cells, Lamichhane has an entire room on the second floor to himself.&nbsp;
He has also been allowed to call his family every few days. Other prisoners are not permitted phone calls except for emergencies.
Meanwhile, Lamichhane’s former business partner Chhabilal Joshi, an ex-Deputy Inspector General of Police with whom he established his Gorkha Media Network, is in custody under the same charges in the prison cell next to him.
Lamichhane is accused of siphoning off depositors' money to the tv network in which he was part-owner and anchor. &nbsp;
Both Lamichhane and Joshi are able to buy food from the police canteen instead of being served the regular meal like other prisoners. Joshi has also given his statement to authorities in Rupandehi and Kathmandu for his alleged role in the scam. Lamichhane is yet to be presented in Kathmandu for questioning.
While he was in custody at the Kathmandu District Police Complex, Joshi expressed his desire to sleep in a police officer’s office, reportedly assuring authorities that he would not run away and he was entitled to certain facilities as a former officer of the law.
“He seemed to be under the impression that he is still a police officer,” says a source at the Kathmandu District Police. “We made it clear to him that as someone accused of a crime, he was not entitled to special treatment.”
Former ministers Balkrishna Khand and Top Bahadur Rayamajhi, and ex-home secretary Tek Narayan Pandey, who were arrested in connection with the fake refugee scam last year, were similarly housed in the offices of law enforcement officials instead of prison cells. Khand has since been released after six months in jail.
While there is no legal provision to keep high-ranking officials in separate detention centres when they are arrested, authorities granting them special facilities is not uncommon. Law enforcement officials say VIP detainees expect preferential treatment while in police custody.
Among those is former Kosi Province minister Lila Ballav Adhikari, who was arrested from Biratnagar on 10 November over his alleged involvement in human trafficking and brought to Kathmandu. Adhikari had flown to Japan without government approval with three individuals on 29 October to attend a cultural conference, but had been sent back to Nepal from Narita.&nbsp;
His three companions were arrested at Kathmandu airport upon their arrival, but Adhikari was able to exit unscathed from the VIP lounge. Adhikari had resigned as the Kosi Province Minister for Internal Affairs and Law when it became public that his companions had been taken into custody, and was himself arrested shortly after. He has since been cleared by the courts.
Throughout his detention, Adhikari was kept separately from other inmates. Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Basant Rajouri, head of the Bhadrakali complex, says that while there is no separate detention area for VIPs, some detainees are kept separately depending on the nature of their crime.
However, sources say that arrangements were made for retired judges and others to visit Adhikari frequently worked at the office of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) during his time in custody.&nbsp;
“He used to constantly pester the authorities to let him sit outside in the sun, and to be able to use the police officer’s shower area,” added an officer.
Adhikari was released on 25 November after the government prosecutor’s office decided not to charge him in a move that was seen to expose the government’s double standards.
Over at Kathmandu’s Dilli Bazar Prison, former Kist Bank CEO Kamal Gyawali emerges from his prison cell into the courtyard of the prison’s ‘Ka (क)’ block every morning with a thick book in his hands, ready to give his daily sermon.
With his long beard, Gyawali, who is serving a prison sentence for banking fraud, looks the part of a religious guru as he implores his rapt listeners to “walk the right path, abandon bad thoughts and turn to scripture and spirituality”.&nbsp;
Afterward, the attendees gather to discuss politics and current affairs. Inmates at his daily sermons at the prison include other high-profile detainees, including former MP Ichchha Raj Tamang, who is in jail for money laundering and cooperatives fraud, former joint secretary Chudamani Sharma, who was convicted of corruption, as well as NC leader Chandra Bahadur Lama and Krishna Bahadur Upreti of the UML both of whom are on trial for embezzling billions of rupees.
Victims of the cooperatives scam that former lawmaker Tamang was involved in have made trips to the prison and requested visits, but he has refused to meet with any of them.
“Tamang often complains that the state has prevented him from returning the money to the victims by locking him up,” says a police officer at the Dili Bazar jail.
“All you hear every day from the VIP prisoners is that they have been framed,” adds the officer. “No one admits that they were involved in misdeeds.”
But while most high-profile prisoners complain about prison conditions, one exception is former provincial lawmaker Deepak Manange, who is serving a sentence at Dilli Bazar Jail for attempted murder.
“He is the happiest prisoner here,” says a warden. “Unlike the others, he doesn’t claim to have been framed, in fact he doesn’t seem to care that he is in prison.”
Manange is detained in the ‘Kha (ख)’ block of the prison complex, which he renovated at his own expense. The block previously housed female prisoners, but Manange used his influence to transfer them elsewhere. He faces no shortage of visitors, who range from political leaders to people from the underworld.
Along with Manange, other well-known prisoners in this block include Nepal Telecom Managing Director Sunil Poudel, and former executive director of the Surakshan Printing Centre Bikal Poudel, who are serving time for corruption.
Former prisoners at Dilli Bazar prison include ex-ministers Khum Bahadur Khadka and Shyam Sundar Gupta, NC leader Ganesh Lama, Maoist MP Balkrishna Dhungel, Nagarik Unmukti Party leader Resham Chaudhary, as well as former IGs Ramesh Chand Thakuri, Om Bikram Rana, and Hem Bahadur Gurung.
Section 54 of Nepal’s Prison Act assigns each prison’s internal administration the
responsibility of governing its prisoners, which means the more favourable the jail management is, the more comfortable it is for prisoners.
Dilli Bazar prison has been the prison of choice for many high-ranking prisoners, especially those convicted of white collar crimes, due to its more accommodating administrators. The prison, which has the capacity to house 700 inmates, is also less crowded than other jails.
Anuj Bhattarai, spokesperson of the Department of Prison Management, says that there is no legal classification in Nepal for felons to be assigned prisons based on the nature of their crimes.
“That Dilli Bazar Jail has a higher number of prisoners convicted of crimes like corruption is most likely a coincidence,” says Bhattarai. “There is no provision for influential people to be able to choose where they will be incarcerated.”&nbsp;
Translated by Shristi Karki from the Nepali original published in himalkhabar.com

What Nepal’s VIP prisoners do in jail

If you were raised in Nepal, you must have picked up its unique set of vocabulary: आन्दोलन, चक्का जाम, बन्द, राँके जुलुस, आफ्नो मान्छे, हाम्रो दल, कर्फु and many more words connoting political protest.
We became familiar with the acrid smell of burning tyres, and eyes smarting from tear gas. And yet, everyone speaks of another revolution in the making. Not by desire, but by suffocation.
We heard speeches about नयाँ नेपाल, but the New Nepal never arrived. The governance system changed, but it did not reflect on people’s lives — except for those close to centres of power. The state is still unreachable and is not bothered about <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/matter-of-life-and-debt">victims of loan sharks</a>, cooperative scams and other injustices.
Politicians continue to speak in sound bites, but fail to deliver. They have mastered the game of pointing fingers towards an external enemy and convincing people that they are never at fault. The political narrative is so disconnected from the actual analysis of the problem that suffocation doesn’t go away after every revolution.
No genuine effort has been made to deliver at all, which is why there is a palpable sense of disillusionment in the air forcing us to seek another revolution, even if Nepal may not be able to afford it.
How has the current system successfully held power, even if the public is deeply frustrated? How is it that for three decades we continue to be led by the same faces, who have time and again, proved to us that they may be great politicians but not national leaders?
<a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/improving-internet-governance-in-nepal">My experience at the epicentre of politics</a> has led me to identify three cultures that have enabled political parties to keep a tight hold on power: acceptance, silence and dependency.
We accept things the way they are. We use fatalistic phrases like “नेपालमा यस्तै हो” or “नेपालको कानुन दैब जानुन”. While this resilience enables us to rise back up from devastating calamities, it is also a reason for our compliance with the status quo.
Despite so many ‘revolutions’ that have led to significant reforms, these phrases keep getting reinforced, to the point that the upcoming generations have made it their lingo.&nbsp;
This acceptance is not a symbol of law-abiding citizens, but citizens living in fear of those in power, unable to ask the whys and why-nots.
Innovation suffocates in this culture of acceptance of the status quo. This is manifested in remarks like “but we don’t have any laws for this,” or “we don’t have the capacity to implement this”. An innovator or entrepreneur therefore has to spend that energy to become a political lobbyist, often educating and convincing the bureaucracy.&nbsp;
Remember when locally assembled <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/banner/designed-and-made-in-nepal">Yatri motorbikes</a>, despite having willing customers, had to suffer to secure license numbers because of a lack of regulations? Instead of creating new laws, the government kept chanting the “We will promote Nepal-made goods” mantra, leaving entrepreneurs in a labyrinth of bureaucracy. The weight of acceptance of the law lies heavily on innovators. Fatalism is a tactic used by those in power to generate mass fear in society.
When we accept, we become silent. This is a pervasive phenomenon. We are trained to keep quiet, lest we ruffle feathers, burn bridges, or not get the help we need in future. We know, yet we don’t speak.
Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/bureaucratic-hurdles-in-researching-nepals-bureaucracy">Bureaucratic hurdles in researching Nepal's bureaucracy</a>, Daniel W Edwards
Here is one example: the 2021 census shows that the number of baby boys born for every 100 baby girls is 112. This is a clear indication of female foeticide because of boy preference in society.
Despite such horrifying realities, there is finger-pointing within the government between the Ministry of Health and Population with the Ministry of Home Affairs. At the citizen level, we know those who are involved in killing girls. Yet, we don’t speak up. The Nepal Medical Council reports state that despite this gender imbalance at birth, there is no indication of any action.
But why would anyone speak against one's own fraternity, no matter how vile the act is?
When we accept and keep quiet, we become dependent on those who yield power. From getting our government procedure completed on time to getting transfers, to accessing any of our legally protected rights as well, we are forced to depend on our networks of चिनेको मान्छे people we know by blood, village, relations, political affiliation.
The culture of dependency has been the established way in Nepal. If you drive a two-wheeler or four-wheeler, and you get into a small accident, you will be asked to sort it yourself, dialing up the most powerful person you know. It becomes a competition of who knows who.
Recently I was told that there were calls from the Ministry of Health and Population and another from the Prime Minister's Office for just one medical position in a private hospital. Each was pushing its own candidate. Guess which candidate got the position.&nbsp;
The dependency of people is not on the laws or the state, it is with people in power, a reliance on the network of somebody who knows somebody, including those not officially in power.
These cultures are deeply ingrained in our heads, and in society. Collectively they form a vicious circle that helps those in power to retain power. This is not the society we want to live in.
Then, what do we do as a collective to break away from this? How do we break away from the cultures of acceptance and silence that have created this dependency? What can we do to ensure that our children do not have to learn the jargon of आन्दोलन before they learn about the state?
These are the cultures political parties need to shed rather than use them to perpetuate their power. This is what <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/comment/an-alternative-to-alternative-politics-in-nepal">alternative politics</a> needs to be about.
Sumana Shrestha is a member of Parliament’s Education, Health and Information Technology parliamentary committee and represents the Rastriya Swatantara Party.

citizenship-amendment-bill

Nepal’s Citizenship Amendment Bill explained

President’s precedent

Are women not Nepali enough?

Nepal's unequal Citizenship Law

Nepal's unequal Citizenship Law

Indian Nepalis alarmed by Citizenship Amendment Bill

‘Art Lover’ accused of sexual abuse

UFO over Pokhara

What Nepal’s VIP prisoners do in jail

Why Nepal is stuck