This letter is concerning Ramesh Nath Pandey's critical article on the citizenship bill (Kathmandu Post, August 10, 2000). Mr Pandey does not stand alone with his arguments as other articles published in recent weeks and the Kantipur opinion poll have proved. Many of the worries brought forward by Pandey are quite understandable in face of Indian politics towards Nepal.

But all such discussions ignore the reason for the amendment of the citizenship bill. Nepal has introduced a democratic constitution in 1990 guaranteeing internationally recognized fundamental rights. Article 11 of this constitution declares that all citizens are equal before the law, and that no discrimination shall be made on grounds of religion, race, sex, etc. Thus, the current amendment is to be regarded as guaranteeing a fundamental right to Nepali women and not as a grant of any male party politicians given out of mean considerations.

Ten years have passed since the promulgation of the new constitution but little has been done so far to eliminate legal gender inequality. Corresponding legal changes are a precondition to reach social and economic equality of men and women. In western Industrial nations women, after a long fight, have got the same legal rights as men even though their implementation in society often still lags behind.

Nepal has a totally male dominated society irrespective of ethnic affiliation. It is always hard to give up privileges; men in western societies had also to learn this. But if Nepal wants to be a democratic and civilized nation and takes the fundamental rights guaranteed by her constitution seriously, then there will be no other way but to implement the fundamental rights.

It is true that no other Nepali government in the last almost 40 (not 30) years has tried to amend the citizenship law in a way to provide gender equality. This does not speak against the current amendment but, instead, it is a proof of male dominated political and social thinking. So far, Nepali citizenship law has treated only men as true Nepali citizens, not women. This thinking becomes obvious from some of Mr Pandey's own arguments, too, for example if he criticizes that someone "can apply for citzenship of Nepal even if his/her father is not a Nepali citizen." Isn't it true that so far persons could apply Nepali citzenship even if their mother was not a Nepali citizen? How can the Nepalese face the threat of falling into a minority in their own rightful land, if children of Nepali women can apply for the citizenship of their mother? Isn't Nepal the rightful land of Nepali women, too? Why has it been a legal pratice for long that the children of Nepali men could get Nepali citizenship irrespective of their mother's citizenship?

There are many laws in Nepal that have to be changed if gender equality is to be implemented, including articles of the constitution itself. Those who are interested in the corresponding long list may have a look in a summarizing article published by Sonali Regmi in the Annual Survey of Nepalese Law (vol. 1, 2000, pp. 361-385, edited by the Nepal Bar Council).

So, the amendment of the citizenship law is only a first step in this direction. Nepal must decide if the fundamental laws of the constitution are really fundamental or if the fear of Indian aggression (which, no doubt, is a fact) will continue to be taken as an argument of the country's male dominated elite to withhold fundamental rights from Nepali women. Another right currently much discussed is the property right for women. I remember well long talks I had in 1990 with late Man Mohan Adhikari. He stated that to improve the situation of women it would be fundamental to provide equal legal status, especially equal economic rights. There is nothing to add to this honest politician's statement.