I am back in USA now, after a year in Nepal teaching critical care skills to nurses and doctors.
Yes, I was there for the earthquake. No, I was hundreds of miles from the epicenter, traveling in one of the non-touristy areas of Nepal where there happens to be a medical school (a good place to find students!) . Yes, there were people who'd taken my class who told me that they used the skills I'd taught, in Kathmandu, during the surge when the quake happened. No, I didn't evacuate - I stayed where I was, teaching what I teach.
The earthquake shook more than just the ground and buildings. It made the politicians jump, and we all could see the man behind the curtain - the politicians needed to scramble to re-establish the idea that they were in charge.
Weeks passed in which the focus was on the international effort for relief. And then - for a minute there we thought there was a breakthrough. After eight years of deadlock, the top four parties got together and "inked a deal" known as the 16-point agreement.
Or did they? will it happen? It has caused some long-running debates to flare up again - the structure of federalism - but also -The Love Jihad......
to learn more about equality in Nepal, jump over the orange "earthquake zone - do not cross" tape lying in a heap .......
I'm not going to recap the ins and outs of eight years of Nepali politics.
The bottom line is, the Nepali people were disappointed by the reaction of the elected officials during the crisis. The flood of foreign aid - urban rescue teams, search dog units, mobile field hospitals, helicopters - would have been difficult to coordinate under any circumstances. One mantra from the beginning was "don't let this turn out like Haiti" - and the comparisons began immediately. The government and the major NGOs became the focus of a media debate - should people give money to the Nepal government to spend? or bypass it altogether? Supporters of each side were quick to support their belief with examples of corruption and/or inefficiency.
In the meantime, eight million people are affected by the earthquake, and estimates say that 1.8 million will have "food instability" - which I assume is just one step below a famine. The country depends on tourism, and needs the tourist dollars. SO far they are staying away....
Things you don't say out loud
There came a time when the attention of the international news media shifted away from Nepal. Time to organize a conference on reconstruction of the country. That was about when the announcement of a constitutional breakthrough was made. I have the idea that somehow the politicians realized that their international image was unfavorableto enticing donor countries to pledge reconstruction money in large quantities.
16-point agreement is not settled
it turns out that the 16-point agreement was not the same as adopting a final draft of a constitution. The international donor conference came and went ( this past week, while other momentous things were happening in USA). There is deep dissatisfaction among the people of Nepal as the drafts have finally been released. The residents of the Terai are displeased that the borders of the federal states are not settled, for example.
But most of all, the draft constitution is a setback for women's rights in Nepal.
For example, at present a baby born to a Nepali woman can only become a Nepali citizen if the father is known and if the father is Nepali. If not, the baby will be "stateless" for their whole life - and four million Nepalis presently fall into this category.
Love Jihad
Prashant Jha is a Nepali journalist based in Delhi, author of the widely acclaimed "Battles of the New Republic" a book about contemporary Nepal politics. He adopted the term "Love Jihad" and he described the issue:
Here is what the constitution says.
The draft clearly states that only those whose father AND mother are Nepali citizens would be eligible to become Nepali citizens by descent. This is a reversal of the clause in Nepal’s interim constitution, promulgated in 2007, that a person whose father OR mother was Nepali could become a citizen by descent.
In formal terms, it means I cannot pass on a citizenship that I so cherish to my children.
It also means that a Nepali woman married to a foreign man cannot do so either.
Along with this, as I understand it are some other issues.
Women can not inherit property.
Women are not granted equal rights.
And in this country of arranged marriage, the laws on divorce will stay the same. ( this is not quite as clearcut an issue as it may seem. the divorce laws stringently favor the woman - this is good. They are so stringent that people don't get the official divorce even when they should, which is bad)
This is a problem, and feminists have resisted this new draft constitution because of the obvious paternalistic patriarchism that it displays.
Prashant Jha gives some of the back ground in his editorial:
At the root of these provisions is a fear of Indian men, of Indian ‘demographic aggression’. Cross-border marriages are an integral feature of the India-Nepal special relationship – this is particularly true for Indian citizens who live in Bihar and UP, and the Madhesis of Nepal who live in the plains. The draft constitution’s underlying logic is to keep out Indian men who would marry Nepali women and have children who could then become Nepalis. This, the Kathmandu establishment fears, could be a step to enhance Indian influence in Nepal.
It is a fear that reminds one of the manufactured ‘love jihad’ conspiracy theories in India where Hindutva activists have played up the threat of Muslim ‘demographic takeover’; Nepali ultra-nationalist activists have framed citizenship laws based on a similar fear of the Indian ‘takeover’.
This provision triggered a civil society movement led by feminist activists last year to push for more reasonable, fair and sensitive citizenship provisions.
The #ornotand and #citizenshipthroughmothers hashtag on social media and sustained pressure on the political class forced some leaders to concede that this was indeed a discriminatory provision.
But when the draft appeared last week, Nepal’s political class stuck to its decision. They cushioned it partly by allowing those whose parents could not be identified, or whose father could not be located, to be eligible for Nepali citizenship. But Nepal is joining 27 other countries which limit the ability of women to pass on citizenship to their children.
This will be an ongoing discussion in Nepal. As
Manjushree Thapa tweeted:
There can be no Nepali exceptionalism- if you support civil rights elsewhere you have to support civil rights in Nepal too. It's universal.
stay tuned.