Submit your Article

As a teacher of sociology I am often quizzed by my curious students about contempo­rary issues they encounter on social media. This week one of them showed me a photo (printed alongside) on the cover page of March 15-21 edition of The Annapurna Express.

The photo is of a young girl stand­ing alone among tall bushes. The caption reads, “Nita of Oligaun, Ach­ham in Far-western province does not want to go to the cattle shed. But if she does not go there for a month or two, her family and the villagers start asking questions: “Why aren’t you menstruating?”, “What has hap­pened?”, “Did you have physical relations with some man?”, “Are you pregnant?” These questions keep her going to the cattle shed.” The conversation with students took me into a long, reflective journey of which this article is a part.

The picture represents stories of many women and girls from mid- and far-western Nepal, where, during menstruation, they have to live in cattle sheds for three days. In many far-western districts, there are sheds especially built to keep women during their periods when they are totally secluded from day-to-day activities.

They are forbidden from enter­ing their homes, touching kitchen appliances, fetching water, visiting holy shrines or performing any reli­gious activity. Only on the fourth day the ‘pollution’ caused by menstrua­tion is believed to go away. This day is marked by purifying baths and resuming normal household and religious activities.

Some women’s rights activists have rightly criticized this tra­dition as being oppressive to women. While such opinions are gaining support from the govern­ment and the international donor community, the practice itself has not seen a significant drop. This is more so in far-western districts where, unlike in many other parts of Nepal, women are not even allowed to stay within the house throughout their periods.

Since this tradition has proven harmful to women, many have asked why it even began

The sheds where they are to stay are built quite far from the house so that there is less chance of acci­dentally polluting the kitchen or places of worship. Living in such sheds however has made women vulnerable in several ways. The cases of women being raped or sex­ually assaulted are not new, nor are the cases where they succumb to snake bites.

Since this tradition has proven harmful to women, many have asked why it even began. Although I am not aware of any studies on its origins in Nepal, studies from else­where in the subcontinent provides various justifications. According to one, this practice among the Madia Gond tribe in eastern Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh of India are based on their belief that a vagina is like a mouth and has teeth. The teeth, they believed, were removed, and the resulting wound makes it occa­sionally bleed.

Rather than going deep into myths about menstruation taboos practiced by various communities, I went to Hindu religious scriptures that are regarded as authoritative texts by large populations in the subcontinent. While going through them, I found contradictory justifi­cations. For example, the Brihada­ranyaka Upanishada argues that the menstrual taboo relieve women of domestic works and provide them free time for rest. During this time it is imperative for her to drink water from a bell metal pot and remain untouched. After spending three nights in seclusion, she should reclaim her purity by taking a bath and wearing new clothes. At the end, she should eat the thresh rice cooked for her by her husband.

This arguments makes it appear like the menstrual taboo could have first evolved to serve the interests of women, as menstruating women are not just exhausted but also prone to bacterial infections. Of course people were not aware of the organ­ism called bacteria then, but their empirical observations must have pointed that certain works or envi­ronment made women more vul­nerable. The taboo freed women of domestic chores and gave them a few days of rest.

On the other hand, Hindu treatise such as Taittiriya Samhita, Taittiriya Brahman, Jaimini Sutras, Parasara Smriti, and Vishnu Dharma Sutra discourage women from eating, rest­ing or keeping themselves clean during the periods. Taittairiya Sam­hita goes on to argue that menstru­ating women should not have inter­course or take a bath during her periods. She is also forbidden from combing her hair and maintaining her nails. Applying oil massage on her body is forbidden too.

The contradictory Hindu texts on this taboo forced me to search for other sources. The one that pro­vided an answer of a sort was the work of Beverly I. Strassmann, an anthropologist. Her ethnographic work on the Dogon tribe of the Afri­can country of Mali concludes that menstrual taboo was institution­alized among the Dogon so that they could monitor the chastity and reproductive status of the women.

According to her, the patriar­chal structure of the society made women do particular things during menstruation which they do not do normally. Visiting menstrual shed or remaining secluded from the socio-cultural life will signal their reproductive status to their husband and family members. This, she con­cludes, helps the male members and patrilineages avoid cuckoldry.

The agony of the girl captured in the photo published in The Annapurna Express hints that the study conducted by Strass­mann among the Dogon could be useful background information for researchers to explore the functions of menstrual taboos in Nepal.

Ever since the DC meeting between our foreign minis­ter and the American Sec­retary of State, Kathmandu, as news reports suggest, has had more than its fair share of sym­posiums, conferences and what not on Nepal’s foreign affairs and diplomacy. And we have had our experts suggest the same thing over and over: “It’s a delicate sce­nario and Nepal needs to cau­tiously balance its relations with all major powers.”

It makes everyone happy. The organizers keep on getting fund­ing for more such discussions and what not. The experts don’t need to think at all, and say the same thing again and again. The jour­nalists don’t even need to listen and take notes, and instead focus on lunch and drinks because they know exactly what is coming.

This is why nobody bothers to ask any of the experts what exact­ly is balance in our intent and how Nepal can balance its relations with all.

The answer to this simple ques­tion is: There is no way Nepal can balance its relations with all. It’s impossible. In fact the whole idea of balance is ridiculous. Nepal could pretend to balance if it had a strong economy and defense, but, for a poor and weak coun­try, balancing relations with the superpower and regional powers is like making a 5-year-old run a marathon with a 50-pound load. Unless the kid is a Hercules or Bhimsen or Pangu reincarnate, he will collapse in under a second.

For the record, no country has been able to balance its relations with competing and conflict­ing powers. And those who try become wrecks. Then how come our otherwise well-versed and intelligent experts are hung up on the impossible and quite laugh­able idea?

There are two major reasons. The first being the government does not fund think-tanks. So, the think-tanks, of which there are many, rely on foreign money to run their organizations and host the discussions. And they need to make everyone, most importantly their donors or the funding orga­nizations which have offices or operations in both India and Chi­na, happy by not rocking the boat.

Also, the interest of foreign intelligence agencies in organiz­ing conferences and arranging visits of our experts abroad, or of foreign experts to Nepal, through various research centers and think-tanks cannot be ruled out. It’s the best and safest way to identify experts who can be used and to put words in their mouth. Many intelligence agencies have been employing this tactic as a way to influence the popular nar­rative which directly and indirect­ly influences government deci­sions. As everywhere some smart experts in Nepal know they are being used, and they want to be used, in exchange for material benefits.

We cannot blame the intelli­gence agencies as they are doing what is expected of them. Intelli­gence operations promote your national interests and one of the most gullible targets are the experts, as highlighted in Daniel Golden’s Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit America’s Univer­sities. Suffice to say, some agen­cies have their own “national” interests in keeping us the way we are so that they can go on with whatever they have planned for us. If domestic politics is all about deception, then interna­tional relations are an even bigger deception, and journalists and experts come in handy in weaving the deception web.

Hence, the discussions end with “Nepal needs to balance” pre­scription and don’t even touch on how to achieve that balance. Because then you will need to touch on making Nepal stronger than it is today by focusing on defense modernization, strength­ening our intelligence and count­er intelligence capabilities, look­ing beyond the immediate neigh­bors, a proactive foreign policy and sensible economic planning, and many other things, even to achieve pseudo neutrality and balance.

If the government of Nepal is serious about what it needs to do in the complex regional and global scenario and wants some­thing doable and achievable than the “balance” solution, it needs to invest in think-tanks. If it has billions to spend on luxury for the VVIPs, it certainly has some millions to spare on think-tanks and intelligence. All countries have been doing it and we are late in the game already.

The ultimate buyer of knowl­edge is the government and when you find that your government has no interest in buying or valu­ing your knowledge, you have no option but to sell it to whoever wants to buy it or values it. And that has been happening in Nepal for the past 50 years.

Perhaps when our government learns to value the experts by interacting with them and buying their knowledge with money, din­ner and drinks, then they will talk the talk and we will be hearing and reading something refresh­ing. The government may start making sensible decisions too.

Barbara Kellerman, a lecturer in Public Leadership at the Har­vard Kennedy School and a famous author, recently called for a new approach to leadership studies and practices in an industry worth billions of dollars. Kellerman advocates a scientific approach and in a recent webinar for the International Leadership Association, she decries the fact that “leadership is not treated as a profession or even a vocation but merely as an occupation, taught quickly and casually”.

The industry is also expanding in emerging countries like Nepal with more leadership practitioners and an increasing number of training programs. Recently, Rice University in the US partnered with Leadership Academy Nepal to provide an execu­tive leadership training for CEOs and other senior executives.

But it is also important to think of leadership from a different perspec­tive, as a tool to develop the poten­tial of those at the bottom of society.

In Nepal, there is a small minority of students with access to elite schools who come from financially secure backgrounds, speak good English and have dreams to attend top colleges around the world.

Then there is a vast majority of youths attending public or mediocre private colleges. Among them, there are a few who are always on the lookout for opportunities for self-de­velopment. They should be praised for their effort and willpower to keep exploring. Yet most students in this category are not motivated to face challenges. Nor are they driven by a positive ambition.

And then there is another big cat­egory of youths who do not even think about going to college but rather about finding a precarious job in transport or other ill-regulated sectors. If you live in a constant state of vulnerability, for example, if you belong to a historically marginalized group, if you are a poor woman in a patriarchal society or if you live with disabilities, simply getting by every day could be a challenge. While there are exceptions, the vast major­ity of vulnerable youths are stuck, with constant pressure and fading hope for a better future. There are no easy solutions to turn the tide.

The state, with its three tiers of government, has a duty to offer better options to these youths. The private sector can also do its part by rolling out employability skills. Marginalized youths can defy odds through sheer resilience, strength­ened by their daily struggles. But we might need a different, more purpose-driven leadership, one that inspires, supports and builds the confidence of vulnerable youths.

The case of Dan Theengh, a Jawalakhel-based wheelchair basket­ball champion, is an apt example. If provided with the right tools, youths like Dan can thrive and become role models for others.

Finding a purpose in life is not easy; it might take years of hard work. It also requires consistent sup­port and a set of leadership practices that focus on the strengths rather than the weakness of youths. Lead­ership practices need to be more rig­orous and academically grounded. They should also be supportive of youths who are left behind. These youths can find exciting interests, and they can develop new skills and achieve amazing goals. More youths like Dan are needed for the develop­ment of the country.

A recalibrated mission of lead­ership practices and studies can make a difference. It can be a launch pad for higher social mobility for those youths who are otherwise con­demned to remain at the bottom.

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities

[email protected]

Chandra Kant (CK) Raut’s sudden entry into main­stream politics was as dra­matic as it gets. It also proved to be a massive public relations vic­tory for a government struggling to control the media narrative on completing its first year in office.

But even on substance, this is a solid undertaking and sends a clear message to all dissent­ing groups that the government is keen on resolving differences through dialogue.

Bringing a secessionist group into the mainstream fold from the cold requires the appearance of some serious concessions from both sides. In that spirit, the deal is intentionally ambiguous so that both parties can sign up despite continuing differences. Negotiators and diplomats rely on ambiguities all the time to advance negotiations. It is rare to have even a joint communiqué between friendly governments without varying interpretations, let alone peace agreements. All agreements between the Maoists and the State in the past, includ­ing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, are replete with ambi­guities. The 22-point agreement between Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum and the government in August 2007 followed a similar pattern.

For the Oli government, this is a first step in a peace process with a secessionist group. This was clear in Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s speech—in which he compared Raut to Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda.’

Those within the ruling party and outside who are jumping the gun on the wording of the agree­ment fail to recognize the impor­tance of this development. They also fail to see the agreement in its entirety. The first point clearly confines the agreement within the current constitutional framework. But that Raut has interpreted the agreement as a concession from the government is also logical.

Anything short of the text of the agreement—whose ambiguity has allowed Raut to claim victo­ry—would have looked like sur­render. This would have created a legitimacy crisis for Raut himself within his fold. The prospect of some other secessionist leader labeling Raut a sell-out and tak­ing on the helm of his erstwhile outfit would then be a real possi­bility. That would have defeated the whole purpose of the agree­ment: to neutralize the threat of a secessionist movement.

Prudent first step

The government needs to be congratulated for recognizing the threat CK Raut’s movement posed to the integrity of the Nepali state in the long run. This agreement is a prudent first step towards neutralizing that risk. For all the hubris the government has shown in other areas, this is one area it has acted wisely. Often, a strong majority in the parliament can delude governments into thinking that that they can bulldoze their way around. History clearly shows that dissent cannot be dealt with force and finding a democratic and constitutional framework to resolve differences is critical to the endurance of a state.

However, the success of this peace process with Raut’s outfit hinges on the sincerity of both the sides.

Raut could very well use this moratorium on state crackdown and freedom to engage in open politics to further burnish his secessionist credentials. As the Maoists did in the past, this could be a strategic retreat. During the reception gathering for Raut in Janakpur airport on March 10, his supporters carried placards calling for Free Madhes. Many in Kathmandu see this as a sign of Raut reneging on the agreement. I think it is too early to conclude anything at this stage. After taking such huge risks, both the govern­ment and Raut need to be given some breathing space.

The government also needs to go easy on its plans, if any, to bring Raut into the government, unless it wants to risk strengthen­ing the hands of hardliners within Raut’s movement. This is assum­ing that he would even accept a government offer. There are speculations that the government intends to nominate Raut to the National Assembly and make him a minister. If true, that would be premature and unwise. It may also encourage other copycats to take a similar route to power.