On November 19, 2003, the daily newspaper 'Kantipur' published a news item titled 'Citizenship Discrimination Against Women: State Did Not Provide Justice, Father and Daughter Gave Their Lives'. The publication of another news item titled 'Prime Minister's Concern in Case of Father and Daughter Taking Their Lives Due to Citizenship Discrimination, Investigation Team Headed to Bardiya' in 'Kantipur' on November 24 indicates that the state is sensitive and positive towards women's rights to citizenship.

The discrimination in the distribution of citizenship in Nepal and its negative impact on people's lives are not just a few incidents as reported in the news. This is a serious issue related to the systemic (systemic) discrimination based on social and cultural values ​​and the structural discrimination created by it.

First, the prevailing patriarchal ideology that puts men at the center in every field and level and holds the belief that men are superior exists from home to state power. These values, established as ideas and systems, are being expressed in the form of exploitation, oppression, control and discrimination in the daily lives of women. The sacrifices of fathers and daughters are its extreme expression. During the writing of the constitution in Nepal, a male-controlled discriminatory citizenship system was institutionalized under the guise of open borders, nationality, etc. Systemic discrimination was activated through the constitution, law, political, social and family structures and proved to be justified. Despite the call for human rights and equality, such systemic discrimination is institutionalized in the name of the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution in a modern state. The constitutional provisions on citizenship and the Citizenship Act, 2062 (First and Second Amendment) are a vivid example of this.

All three constitutions (2047, 2063 and the current one) issued after the 2046 movement changed the system of governance and established a republican democracy, but they could never ensure the status of equal citizens for Nepali women. The current constitution of Nepal gave women equal rights to ancestral property. And, it provided for equal hereditary rights like men as a fundamental right. However, the citizenship provisions of the same constitution also institutionalized discrimination. To the extent that it was tolerated, in the previous article, it was provided that if one of the mother or father is Nepali, such a person will be a descendant citizen of Nepal. However, by including restrictive clauses, the discrimination was institutionalized in the constitution by providing for the granting of citizenship to descendants in the mother's name only when the father is not identified and for granting naturalized citizenship to children born to Nepali women married to foreign citizens with conditions. This has sent a harsh message that women are not full citizens in themselves and has established women as innocent characters dependent on the identity of men, not as independent citizens.

The first amendment to the Citizenship Act of Nepal, 2063 not only provided that 'in the case of children born to a Nepali citizen mother in the absence of the identity of the father, a self-declaration must be made to obtain citizenship of descendants', but also provided that 'if the said self-declaration is found to be false, the punishment shall be imprisonment for one year to three years or a fine of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rupees or both, and if a punishment is given for obtaining citizenship by false self-declaration, the citizenship thus obtained shall be automatically revoked' (Section 21 (3c)). In addition, ‘Children born to a Nepali woman married to a foreign citizen must declare that they have not acquired the citizenship of their father’s country, and if such declaration is found to be false, the person making the declaration shall be punished with imprisonment for 6 months to 1 year or a fine of 50,000 to 100,000 rupees, or both’ (Article 21(3a)) and ‘citizenship shall also be cancelled’. Self-declaration of the father without identification to grant citizenship to a child is in itself unlimited, unacceptable to the independent existence of women, and the height of discrimination. The legal system that requires both the mother and the child to always carry the sword of punishment over their heads when granting citizenship is troubling the republic.

Second, since the impact of systemic and structural discrimination is in the constitution and law, it is not surprising that the spread of discrimination is expressed in the behavior of the administrative machinery that provides daily services and its leadership. So much so that the stories of administrative bodies not complying with orders issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court to grant citizenship are limited to a few incidents. No. For years, dozens of people have filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court and High Courts, accusing the District Administration Office, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Prime Minister's Office of not receiving assistance from the administrative bodies to obtain citizenship in their mother's name.

When this author studied about 30 orders/decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding citizenship, it was found that in most of the writ petitions, the concerned ministries and agencies gave formal responses like, 'Our office/ministry did not say that citizenship would not be granted, we were not involved, we did not do it, so the writ petition should be dismissed.' Of course, the District Administration Office is the body that grants citizenship, and the ward office of the local government, etc., makes recommendations for it. However, when dozens of citizens go to the Supreme Court with a writ petition stating that 'citizenship was not granted' based on the Constitution, laws, and the decisions and judgments given by the Supreme Court, these are not just isolated incidents. Can the Council of Ministers and the concerned ministries evade their responsibility and accountability by giving a formal written response saying, 'We are not involved in that, we did not do it'? However, the government's response has been limited to formalities. What happened in the incident? On what basis did the subordinate bodies not grant citizenship? Why could they not obtain citizenship? Factual accountability, legal justification, and corrective responsibility (accountability with assurance that if someone's rights have been violated or the process is flawed, admitting the error, suggesting ways to improve, and committing to improve) are not found in the written responses. In this way, it seems that the executive administrative mechanisms have not fulfilled their constitutional duties and public accountability in ensuring the right to citizenship.

Third, Nepal has been linking citizenship with service delivery. Recently, after the issuance of the National Identity Card and Registration Act, 2076, the Government of Nepal has made a provision to submit a national identity card to receive various services provided by the Government of Nepal. The chain effect of having to open a bank account to receive social security allowance, requiring a national identity card to open a bank account, and not receiving allowances without a bank account has caused senior citizens, people with disabilities Individuals, single women seem to be affected . There is a system that requires a national identity card to obtain a passport, while a Nepali citizenship is required to obtain a national identity card .