Women Reservation in Nepal: Flawed Policy Prescription

This Bill is biased towards narrow-band of urban-based women, in terms of the government jobs, and fails to address much larger and more deprived rural-based women population.

By Chattra Bahadur
An Analysis. UWB received this article in email.

Within few weeks of popular uprising, the reinstated Parliament passed the Women Reservation Bill unanimously reserving 33% of the governmental positions to the women. According to the advocates and supporters of this Bill, this will ensure equality and remove imbalance between men and women, at least in terms of job opportunities in the government, in the long run. The more appropriate term at this juncture is ‘revolutionary’ in the context of male-dominated societal structure of Nepal. Unfortunately, this Bill is flawed in variety of ways.

The initiators and proponents of the Women Reservation Bill (represented by the politicians and members of the special-interest groups), either deliberately or unintentionally, did not provide any reservation to women in the Parliamentary seats, sub-committees of the Parliament and the working committees of the political parties. After all, they had proposed the Bill to make the decision-making more broad-based and more representative. As per the Parliament declaration, the Parliament is the highest decision-making body in the country. However, there is no reservation in the highest decision-making body itself or its sub-committees. Likewise, the Bill remains silent on the highest-decision making bodies of the political parties as well. And if there is no provision of minimum representation in the Parliamentary seats and decision-making bodies of the political parties, then the Bill lacks credibility. This Bill resembles a salesperson unwilling to use/lacking faith in the products s/he is selling. It only supports the theory of populist gimmickry on part of the political parties and the special-interest groups without any significant contribution to the actual cause. To make it credible, the political parties must practice what they preach and it must begin with their own parties and the Parliament.

The motivation behind the Bill was that women were marginalized and weaker section of the society, and they should be uplifted. It is the undeniable truth in the male-dominated societal structure of Nepal. It is also true that they must be uplifted. However, there are other equally marginalized sections of the society and are represented by various powerful NGO and support groups. If it is thought that women can be uplifted solely by providing reservations in the government jobs, then why not these sections of the society be uplifted by providing them reservation as well? This compelling question is bound to arise in due course of time. Though it may look ‘revolutionary’ to provide reservation to women at present, it has in fact created potentially uncontrollable area of fracas for future.

There are other equally marginalized sections of the society and are represented by various powerful NGO and support groups. If it is thought that women can be uplifted solely by providing reservations in the government jobs, then why not these sections of the society be uplifted by providing them reservation as well?

The earlier Constitution had explicitly defined that there can be no discrimination against any caste, creed, race, sex or religion. The new Constitution will also pronounce the same in the future when it will be announced. If this is the case, then men are discriminated against because of their sex. The women have to choice to compete for 100% of the job offer– either on the reserved or unreserved category depending on their choice- whereas men have to ‘compulsorily’ compete on 67% of the unreserved quota of the job offer. Of course, many will argue that by choosing to compete in one category, competing in another category is automatically eliminated. But the truth is that the men are not given any option to choose (involuntary choice) whereas women have option to choose. And the right to choose is the foremost principle of any democracy. When any Bill proposes to limit the right to choose and forced competition in one category on the basis of sex, it violates the fundamental right as a citizen of a country.

The members of the Parliament, in the name of being progressive, have taken the easiest way to provide perception of bringing in the ‘equality’ in the society by reserving 33% of the government jobs. The safe passage of the Bill, without adequate study or discussion, may please many urban-based votaries of the Bill. However, it fails to address the needs of rural-based women. According to the 2001 census, 50.6% of total population is female and 86% of total population resides in the rural areas. From this statistics, the population of rural women works out to be approximately 10 million, which is almost 45% of the total population. The rate of secondary level school dropout in the rural area is about 49% in average and the incidence of dropout amongst female population is very alarming. Thus, the need of the rural women is to access to educational system than the job guarantee through reservation. And if they do not have even access to educational system, how will they compete for these available positions in the government even when positions are reserved? The ultimate analysis justifies the ground that this Bill is biased towards narrow-band of urban-based women, in terms of the government jobs, and fails to address much larger and more deprived rural-based women population.

Instead, the members of the Parliament could have proposed Bill, for instance, making education mandatory for women. It could have proposed that the parents, the headmaster/principal of the school, and the elected local-representatives (ward chairperson and members of the ward) from various political parties to be jointly responsible for the education of all the girls of a particular ward (it can encompass boys as well) by sending them compulsorily to the school. If the joint-custodians fail to impart this responsibility, they should be held accountable for lapses. Secondly, they could have proposed Bill to open at least two government-supported technical schools to impart relevant skills to women in each district all over the country.

However, hackneyed views of ‘equality’ espoused by some special interest groups have ended up promulgation of Bill benefiting very few and leaving glaring gap for the target-group to whom it should have actually targeted.

Published by UWB

Pioneering blog from Nepal...since 2004.

15 thoughts on “Women Reservation in Nepal: Flawed Policy Prescription

  1. This system of affirmative action will hamper the progress of talented men in the society.Thirt three% of the seats are given to women and if you give another 20 % to the Janajatis what will happen ? There should be no reservation as such. Women would be lazy and only occupy the posts and efficiency would be a big ZERO.

  2. I agree with Thuldai in that automatic reservation (in public service commissions and in the posts to be filled by competitive exams) leads to degradation of quality/efficiency and to lazyness. Moreover, this reservation will only pave the easy way to the women out of private schools and pvt universities. This will not help to millians of poor women from rural areas. I would rather allocate enough budget in public high schools and public colleges to provide freeship, free books and supplies, and scholarships for women so that they will be able to have a degree and be able to compete for various jobs and political posts.

    However, I have no problem on the reservation in political appointments, in the parliament candidacy, and party committees.

  3. What we want to see in this blog is something of national importance like the visit of PM GPK to India. Whether he is going there to have a treaty or understanding which makes Nepal a Bhutan ? Please read the following:

    ???????????????? ???? ?????

    ????????????? ???????????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??. ?????? ?????? ???????????? ???? ??????? ???????? ? ??? ????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? -??????????) ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ? ???? ??????? ???? ???????? ????????? ??? ? ???? ??????? ??????? ? ???? ???????? ??????????-

    ?. ??? ?? ??????????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ????????????? ??????????? ????????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? …?

    ?. ?????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???? ???? ? ????????? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ????????? ????? ?

    ?. ????????????? ????????? ??? ?????? ????????? ????????? ????? ????????, ??????? ????????? ?????? ????? ????? -??? ??, ??? ???????? ?? ??? ????) -????????? ???????????? ????? ?????) ????????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?

    ?. ???????? ????????????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???-??? ?????? ???? ?? ????????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?

    ?? ???????? ???? ????????? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?

    ????? ? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ?

    ?. ??? ????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ?

    ?. ????? ??????????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ??????????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ? ???? ????? ????????-

    -?) ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ? ?????? ???? ?????/??????? ?????, ?????? ?

    -?) ??????? ?? ????? ???, ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??, ???? ?

    -?) ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ????? ???????, ???????? ?

    -?) ??????? ??????? ???? ? ??????????? ?????—???? ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?

    -?) ??????????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ??????????? ???????, ???????? ?

    ???????? ????????? ??????? ???? ????? ????????? ???? ???? ? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ? ?????????? ????? ????? ???? ? ??? ????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??????? ????????? ????? ? ????????? ???????????????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?

    – ?????? ??????

    ?????-? ????

  4. one change at a time. its a good progress already. negating it is supporting status quo of women in nepal.

    perfection is the vanity of naysayers

  5. Affirmative action never works. SPA government is making the matter worse by grouping the Nepalese into Men and Women, Higher Jatis and Lower Jatis, Hindus and non Hindus, Sahariyas and Pahadis. Here is a great idea: Make them all equal in the eyes of the law. Scrap the laws by which people are treated unfairly because of who they are.
    Quota System Is A Stupid Idea.

  6. To understand the concept/requirement and requirement of reservation/affirmative action – one has to look at other countries where it’s been implemented and studies. Nepal has for many many years been forced monolinguistic, forced monoregiligous and forced monoethnic country by large. I would argue affirmative actions of such is indeed a good idea for better upliftment of a particular group. Women in Nepal are very marginalized. There is no question about that. Like mentioned in the article, this affirmative action should be based not solely on women but women of particular geographical area and or particular economic conditions. This bill is all good for the narrow band of kathmandu elites, but far worse for women peagants of rolpa. In fact, by this affirmative action, I can see that none of the public school educated middle class or rural women would have no chance. All will be taken by the city girls, who are in no way marginalized.

  7. It seems that the same people who oppose Nepal becoming secular are opposing affirmative action. I see a strong trend here. I guess some people like/support change only when it favours them!

  8. Mr. Shree,

    You can write “Quota System Is A Stupid Idea” because you are on the other side of the river where you had access to education, probably good education and so you can write this, here in this blog. Think about the millions who did not have the same opportunity, access like you did, and are currently unequivocally unequal. What’s your plan to make them “equal” so that eyes of law can see them as equal. There are no laws that differentiate people, it’s the mind set and you obviously have one.

  9. Yes, women are lazy and the poor are stupid. Upper castes deserve better education and life… that’s why the Maoists are dangerous.

    Revolution is here. Ya’ll better get with the program because from the looks of it, the people of Nepal are fed up and won’t take it any more.

    Affirmative action is far better than negative action — and more of the patriarchy and national oppression that has left Nepal among the poorest and most oppressed nations on earth. Those who beneift from this arrangement have to face the stark fact that it is ending NOW.

  10. This is a response to Rebel 101. I grew up in the system where applying for Citizenship or for Passport requires Father’s and Grand Father’s Name not Mother’s Name. When I grew up sisters were not allowed to claim on the parental property. When I grew up the people are called Hindus because they were born in the Hindu family. And Brahmins were Brahmins because they were born in the Brahmin family and they do rituals in Sanskrit which I never understood and I doubt whether they understood either. There are many things I can mention here. Mind you that they were all legal under MULUKI AIN.
    So going back to my argument laws need to be changed to make all citizens equal. Quota system will not help us. Quota system is descriminatory by design.
    For the same reason, I am against Constituent Assembly. To constitute Constituent assembly representing men, women, all jat, jatis, all religions, all political parties, all gepgraphical region is not easy task. What we need is the election for all of members of House of representative (205) and National Assembly (75) and for the Prime Minsiter.
    Once we are in Democratic Society it does not matter whether you are Male/Female, Hindu/non-Hindu,Bahun/Chhetri/Newar/Magar/Tamang/Gurung/Maithili/Bhojpuri/ and others.

  11. Hye te king may come back,if these fcking morons leaders keep on fighting

  12. “A bird caged too long may not wish to fly when released”.

    Women are lázy?! Still too many Nepali males are wankers!!

  13. nepales leaders always think about theirs chairs.
    so that they cant ‘think their women right and al
    neplese citigens forward .they only want to spant laxury life .

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: