Constitutionally, Nepal guarantees a bundle of rights for women, from ensuring one-third representation in the legislature to providing fundamental property rights without any gender-based discrimination.
However, the state still exhibits biases toward certain segments of society. When a woman belongs to marginalized communities, such as the Madheshi or Dalit, she is not treated equally by women and men from the upper Hill castes, such as Brahmins and Kshetris. This prevailing mindset often leads individuals from marginalized backgrounds to feel inferior. In this context, George Orwell’s observation in Animal Farm resonates—”All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Such ethnic distinctions only deepen divisions and foster resentment toward the elite class, threatening the unity of the social fabric and hindering genuine progress toward equality.
Recently, Dr Sangeeta Mishra, the senior-most Gazetted First Class officer and a renowned gynecologist, was passed over for the position of Secretary in the Health Ministry. Instead, a male doctor Bikas Devkota, who was junior to her and belonged to upper Hill caste, was promoted. The question arises: Was Dr Mishra not deemed capable of holding the office of Secretary simply because she was the seniormost, or was her elevation obstructed due to her identity as a Madheshi woman?
This incident raises concerns about the deep-rooted biases that persist in the system. Despite her qualifications, experience, and seniority, Dr Mishra’s promotion was overlooked, potentially highlighting a troubling pattern where individuals from marginalized communities—especially women—are often overlooked in favor of others from more privileged backgrounds.
It forces us to question whether her ethnicity and gender played a role in the decision, further exemplifying the inequalities that still persist in many sectors of society.
Case of the US
This kind of discrimination against women in leadership positions is not unique to Nepal. It has historical parallels in other parts of the world, such as the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Several prominent legal cases from that time illustrate the deep-seated gender biases that shaped the legal and social fabric of the United States.
In Bradwell v State of Illinois (1872), Justice Bradley of the US Supreme Court argued that women’s “natural and proper timidity and delicacy” made them unfit for many occupations in civic life, especially law. He asserted that the “paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of the wife and mother,” deeming this the law of the creator. This case involved Myra Bradwell, a woman lawyer, who was denied an advocate’s license by the state of Illinois. The Supreme Court ruled that such a restriction did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Bradwell would not be admitted to the Illinois Bar until 1890, showing how entrenched societal beliefs about women’s roles delayed progress toward gender equality.
Similarly, in Hoyt v Florida (1961), the US Supreme Court upheld a law that allowed women to be placed on the jury list only if they made a special request, citing the belief that “a woman is still regarded as the centre of the home and family life.”
This view reinforced the stereotype that women’s primary role was in the domestic sphere, not in public or civic duties like jury service.
However, by 1908, the US Supreme Court’s stance shifted somewhat in Muller v Oregon. In this case, the Court acknowledged that women’s physical structure and maternal functions put them at a disadvantage in the workforce, which made it necessary for special legislation to protect women’s rights and ensure real equality. Although this ruling appeared protective, it still perpetuated the notion that women were inherently weaker or less capable in professional settings compared to men, a viewpoint that reflected the paternalistic attitudes of the time.
These historical cases highlight how institutionalized gender discrimination shaped legal interpretations and social norms, often limiting women’s opportunities based on their gender. In much the same way, incidents like Dr Sangeeta Mishra’s denial of promotion to Secretary in Nepal reflect the ongoing impact of such biases in modern society, even in the face of constitutional guarantees of equality.
Why Women’s Day?
In modern days, our women face distinctions. Is there any use of celebrating Women’s Day today? International Women’s Day (IWD) is observed globally on March 8 to recognize the social, economic, cultural and political empowerment of women. IWD was celebrated for the first time by the UN in 1975, during International Women’s Year. This year’s theme is “Accelerate Action,” emphasizing socio-political cultural achievements of women in society.
If discrimination continues to persist, then the very essence of celebrating International Women’s Day becomes hollow. The day is meant to recognize the achievements of women, but it is also a time to reflect on the ongoing struggles for equality and justice.
If governmental positions, especially in ministries, continue to be dominated by a single section of society, one that is often seen as the ‘martial race,’ then true representation and equality remain out of reach.
The fact is that women from marginalized communities are often excluded from these key positions. Women from all backgrounds, whether they are from marginalized ethnic groups, rural areas, or so called low-caste communities, deserve the same opportunities to grow and lead.
Are we truly ready to embrace equal development? Or are we simply paying lip service to the idea of equality while perpetuating systems that allow discrimination to thrive? This is not just a question for Nepal, but for every society that claims to uphold democratic values and human rights.
In the modern world of the 21st century, where progress and equality are fundamental ideals, it is deeply troubling to see such disparities persist. In a democracy, where laws and constitutions supposedly favor equality and equal representation for all, these continued practices are not only a moral failure but also an embarrassment. The world community, which watches and holds nations accountable, will rightfully question how we can claim to stand for equality if these injustices continue.
Comment