Our constitution has been rewritten several times. It has made many provisions of equality more explicit. But the discriminatory mindset of the officials, staff mechanisms, and people's representatives who implement it has not been rewritten. As a result, the practice of creating obstacles, difficulties, and terror, rather than facilitating citizens, remains the same.
What you should know
Despite the long struggle for equality, discriminatory policies and practices continue to create many hardships in society. Such discrimination, conflicts, and violence are common in the process of accessing social-administrative services, facilities, or opportunities. As a result, the stories of caste, religious, and gender discrimination have not been reduced to a minimum.
While struggling to obtain citizenship, 22-year-old Anju from Bardiya and her father, a 61-year-old Kanchha Tharu, took their lives. This incident is just one example of administrative non-cooperation and discrimination. There are many characters who have gone through the administration and courts to obtain citizenship, suffered, and even lost educational and employment opportunities. Such a situation is not envisaged by the principle of equality or the Constitution of Nepal, but citizens are suffering. This shows that the struggle for equality is still necessary.
Anju from Bardiya, who became pregnant after a love affair, was married to her boyfriend Anil Tharu. On 24 Mangsir 2075, Anju gave birth to a daughter. After that, the relationship between the two deteriorated. Anju left her mother. When Anil ignored her, Anju went to the Bardiya District Court on 8 Magh 2076 demanding a share. The court did not annul the marriage, saying that even though both of them were underage and no complaint had been filed by anyone. Instead, it ordered that Anju retain the right to Anil's share.
The court decided to divide Anil's share into three parts and give Anju and her daughter Anita two parts. After the court order, Anju could not get her share. Because Anju had neither citizenship nor a marriage registration certificate. Her daughter's birth was also not registered. Anju reached the ward office with the court's decision. But despite repeated attempts, the ward did not start the process of granting citizenship, and her daughter's birth certificate was also stuck. It was against this backdrop that a tragic incident occurred.
Even based on common logic, when the court has not annulled the marriage and has decided that she will get a share, it is clear that she was married to Anil. Because, the court did not say that a share should be given to any independent and unrelated woman, nor does it say so. After the court has decided that she was married to Anil and that they had a child, the issue of Anju's citizenship, marriage registration between Anil and Anju, or the birth registration of her daughter should move forward easily. However, it seems that there has been administrative chaos from the ward to the district administration office. If the constitution provides for an easy system for anyone born in Nepal to obtain citizenship, then there is no question of a person like Anju being deprived. However, the burden of multiple interpretations has been imposed on legal provisions and administrative practices. As a result, the issue of obtaining citizenship is becoming a long-term struggle for some.
Even though there is a constitutional and legal provision that citizenship can be obtained in the mother's name, due to the patriarchal thinking of those in the administrative mechanism, there is still a tendency to search for, suspect, and impose complications on the father. This situation must end. The practice of women having to rely on men to obtain citizenship is discriminatory. This discrimination is an interference in the sovereignty of the individual. It is a denial. Such a practice is also against the principle of equality.
While the process of obtaining citizenship is as easy for men as it is for women. Why not, women are suspected. Let's look at it theoretically, there was nothing that Anju should not be able to obtain citizenship from her mother's family. Because, the state will see whether she is a Nepali citizen or not, and if so, it will issue a citizenship certificate. Anju should have been given citizenship as easily as possible. But as much as possible, obstacles were made. As a result, she was not able to get citizenship even from her family. This shows that misogynistic thinking exists as a legacy in the state structure. It also seems necessary to consult on gender equality in the administrative mechanism.
Our constitution has been rewritten several times. It has made many provisions of equality clearer. But the discriminatory mentality of the officials, employee mechanisms and people's representatives who implement it has not been rewritten. As a result, instead of facilitating citizens, the practice of creating obstacles, difficulties and terror remains the same.
The incident of Anju and her father shows the state of our mentality, mechanisms and law enforcement. Therefore, this incident should not be avoided or ignored as a matter of a certain person. Rather, it is necessary to reflect on where improvements are needed in society and the entire state system and take initiatives for that. If immediate intervention is not made for reform, it is inevitable that another episode of confusion, frustration, and tragedy will occur. The situation where citizens have to struggle, stumble, and even lose their lives just for a single piece of citizenship must end now.
