Submit your Article

Nepal has made significant strides in enshrining women’s rights within its constitution, yet the real-life implementation of these rights remains far from ideal. While legal frameworks and policies exist to promote gender equality, the deeply ingrained societal mentality, particularly in rural areas, continues to act as a barrier to true empowerment. Even in modern urban spaces, although progress is evident, patriarchal norms still dictate many aspects of women's lives.

The Constitution of Nepal guarantees gender equality and explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender. Laws have been enacted to ensure equal property rights, access to education and protection against domestic violence. In 2015, Nepal’s new constitution was hailed as one of the most progressive in South Asia regarding women’s rights. It mandates equal pay for equal work, sets a minimum quota for women’s representation in government and criminalizes discrimination based on gender.

However, merely having rights in the constitution does not equate to their full exercise. Many women, especially in rural areas, still struggle to claim their rights due to cultural and social constraints. The gap between legal provisions and their implementation remains significant. While some progress has been made in legal awareness and advocacy, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

Mentality in rural areas

Nepal remains a country where a significant portion of the population resides in rural areas. In these regions, women’s roles are still largely confined to household duties, and their opportunities for education and economic independence are severely restricted. Child marriage, though illegal, remains a common practice. According to a UNICEF report, about 40 percent of Nepali girls are married before the age of 18, with many of them forced into these marriages due to economic hardships or traditional beliefs. This not only deprives them of education but also exposes them to domestic violence and health risks associated with early pregnancy.

In many villages, women are still discouraged from seeking higher education or employment, reinforcing their financial dependency on male family members. Parents often prioritize their sons’ education over their daughters’, believing that investing in a girl’s future is unnecessary because she will eventually marry and move into her husband’s household. This outdated mindset prevents many women from attaining financial independence and self-sufficiency.

Additionally, the harmful practice of Chhaupadi, where menstruating women are isolated from their homes, persists despite being outlawed. Women are forced to live in small, unhygienic huts during their periods, facing harsh weather conditions and health hazards. Several deaths have been reported due to suffocation, animal attacks and exposure to extreme cold. Despite government intervention, the practice continues in many remote areas because of deep-rooted superstition and lack of education.

Domestic violence remains a significant issue, with many women suffering from physical, emotional and psychological abuse. Although laws exist to punish perpetrators, societal stigma prevents victims from coming forward. Many fear ostracization from their communities or worry about the lack of support from law enforcement agencies.

Urban spaces: Progress and challenges

In cities like Kathmandu and Pokhara, women’s participation in the workforce and politics has increased. Women now hold key positions in various sectors and activism for gender rights is more vocal. However, deep-seated biases still exist. Workplace harassment, wage gaps and societal expectations that women must prioritize family over careers continue to hinder genuine equality.

Despite constitutional provisions mandating at least 33 percent female representation in government, women in politics still struggle with gender discrimination. They often face character assassination and are expected to conform to patriarchal standards. Even when they attain leadership positions, they are frequently sidelined in decision-making processes.

Sexual harassment in public spaces remains another pressing issue. Women commuting via public transportation or walking alone at night frequently report cases of harassment, yet law enforcement often fails to take these complaints seriously. The normalization of such behavior discourages victims from seeking justice and reinforces a culture of silence.

Moreover, while legal protection against domestic violence exists, enforcement remains weak. Many cases go unreported due to victim-blaming culture and inefficient law enforcement mechanisms. Women who challenge traditional gender roles are often labeled as “too modern” or “rebellious”, indicating that even in urban areas, societal perception still limits their freedom.

Intersection of caste and gender discrimination

Women from marginalized castes, particularly Dalits, face even greater challenges. Dalit women are subjected to both gender and caste-based discrimination, making it even harder for them to access education, healthcare and employment opportunities. They are more likely to be victims of violence and have less access to legal recourse.

In rural areas, Dalit women are often forced into exploitative labor conditions and suffer from untouchability practices, which persist despite being legally abolished. Many are denied entry into temples and public places and are socially ostracized if they attempt to challenge these norms.

One of the most effective ways to improve women’s rights in Nepal is through education and economic empowerment. Girls’ education must be prioritized, and incentives should be provided to families to keep their daughters in school. Scholarship programs and awareness campaigns can help shift the mindset that prioritizes boys’ education over girls'.

Vocational training programs can also help women gain financial independence. Access to microfinance and small business loans can enable women, particularly in rural areas, to start their own businesses and become self-reliant. Economic independence is a crucial factor in breaking the cycle of oppression and domestic violence.

The rise of social media and activism has played a significant role in highlighting gender-based discrimination and injustices faced by women in Nepal. Movements such as #RageAgainstRape and #WomenMarch have brought attention to issues like sexual violence, gender pay gaps and reproductive rights. The media has also helped expose cases of abuse and discrimination, pressuring the government to take action.

However, media portrayals of women can still be problematic. Many television shows, advertisements and films continue to reinforce gender stereotypes, depicting women as submissive and dependent. Challenging these narratives and promoting positive representations of women in media is crucial for changing societal attitudes.

Government role

The government must also strengthen law enforcement mechanisms to ensure that women’s rights are not just written in the constitution but actively protected and practiced. Many women hesitate to seek justice due to inefficient legal procedures, corruption and the fear of retaliation from perpetrators. Establishing more women-friendly police stations and fast-track courts for gender-based violence cases could help address this issue.

Moreover, policymakers must focus on closing the loopholes in existing laws and ensuring their effective implementation. For example, while laws against child marriage exist, they are often not enforced strictly. A stronger judicial system, along with grassroots awareness campaigns, can help in eradicating these issues.

Legislative changes alone cannot bring about real equality. A fundamental shift in mindset is required, starting from families and educational institutions. Schools should integrate gender sensitivity training, and families should encourage equal opportunities for both sons and daughters. Additionally, community-driven awareness programs can play a crucial role in dismantling outdated patriarchal beliefs.

It is also crucial for men to be actively involved in the fight for gender equality. The movement should not be seen as a “women’s issue” alone but as a societal issue that affects everyone. Encouraging men to challenge toxic masculinity and support gender-equal policies will create a more inclusive society.

Women’s rights in Nepal remain a paradox—legally recognized but socially restricted. The constitution provides a strong foundation, but societal mentality, particularly in rural areas, continues to hinder progress. Even in urban settings, gender biases persist. True change will only come when laws are not just written but actively enforced, and when society fully embraces the idea that women deserve equal rights in every aspect of life. Until then, the struggle for genuine gender equality continues.

Have you ever imagined a scenario where the National Police issue search warrants or execute arrests with the assistance of AI tools?

Would any type of ethical safeguards be respected in such a process? 

Would human control over the final decision of taking action, in the pursuit of justice, against an alleged perpetrator of a crime, be assured? 

In the EU AI Act, the first ever legislation governing the use of artificial intelligence entered into force in August 2024 and in the process of phase-wise implementation, there are clear provisions on when and in which circumstances, and under which type of oversight, the law enforcement agencies can make use of AI-enhanced tools. For example, AI-powered real-time facial recognition in public places is prohibited but there are exceptions for law enforcement agencies of the member-states. 

Indeed, the Act has come under fire for allowing too many loopholes for police use. But, in a trailblazing move, it has also put in place a risk-based approach with four levels of risks, including AI deployments with unacceptable risks that are forbidden. It is to be updated and revisited to ensure it will remain a “fit for purpose” instrument for a technology with apparently unlimited potential. 

This example of emerging AI regulations in the EU proves the complexities in finding a right balance not only on how to make the most effective use of the AI. It also shows the challenges of ensuring that ethical guardrails are in place before the deployment of new AI instruments whose full potential and capacities are still not fully comprehended. That’s why the recent news that the Nepal Police has not only acquired some AI software from India but also trained some of its staff on its use should be taken as very alarming. 

In a fast-evolving scenario of AI development where there have been a lot of talks about regulations but much less action, the recent government act of issuing a draft AI Policy is a positive step. The draft lists out several worthwhile policy objectives and it correctly highlights how any development and use of artificial intelligence in the country should always be focused on the creation of positive impacts for the wider society. Yet there are concerns about the lack of specificities and technicalities in relation to the implementation of any future AI regulations. At the same time, it is vital to contextualize any AI Policy with the urgent need for the country to have in place strong data protection and privacy laws, cybersecurity and digital infrastructure that Nepal still lacks.

Finalizing the AI Policy, therefore, would require, as suggested by the Digital Rights Nepal and AI Association Nepal, establishing a robust framework to ensure proper conduct in the way data protection and privacy rights are ensured by AI developers and their users. These represent major conundrums not only for Nepal but for the international community as a whole and are crucial themes widely underlined by the UN High Level Advisory Body on AI through its Governing AI for Humanity report.

One of the major deficiencies of the draft is its “generalized and listing all” approach without any timeline. For example, legislating a data protection framework would be itself a gigantic effort with a high degree of complexity. Addressing it head-on alone would, as a consequence, demand a strong sense of urgency on the part of the legislator and executive powers. But lack of specificities is not the only problem of the draft. 

A concerning aspect is also the system of governance that is envisioned to govern AI in the country. First of all, the document foresees the creation of an AI Regulatory Council whose chairperson would be the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. Together with other very high-ranking officials, including the Governor, this mechanism would, among others, issue ethical AI guidelines and standards.

The draft also envisions a National AI Center that, among other things, will be in charge of regulating the development and use of AI at the national level and overall coordination and evaluation of AI development.

It is crucial to reassess the purpose of establishing a high-level body like the AI Regulatory Council, as their effectiveness is often questionable, with many of such high-level bodies struggling to even meet the quorum for meetings. Instead, the focus should shift toward empowering an institution like the National AI Center, which could serve as the "guardian" of future AI legislation and ensure its proper implementation.

For example, the EU AI Act established a powerful European AI Office within the European Commission, giving it wide-ranging powers, including enforcement and implementation. But this is not the only mechanism created through European legislation. There are also a Scientific Panel, composed of independent experts in the field of AI and the Advisory Forum, representing a diverse selection of stakeholders. There is also a European Artificial Intelligence Board comprising representatives of member-states. This open, inclusive approach to governing AI development where together with policymakers, experts and members of the civil society have a seat on the table, is innovative.

At RightsCon 2025, held in Taiwan on 24-27 Feb 2025, AI discussions emphasized inclusivity, ethics and accountability in AI governance and development. Key sessions explored civil society’s role in AI policymaking, particularly in Asia and Latin America, and the integration of global perspectives for responsible generative AI. Topics like multilingual AI, neurotechnology governance and feminist AI highlighted the need for diverse voices in shaping equitable AI systems. Further, sessions on AI for climate action, healthcare and natural resource governance underscored its potential to address global challenges while ensuring rights-respecting approaches. The conference also discussed AI bias, fairness and the democratization of AI infrastructure, advocating for transparency and public participation. It is important for Nepal to consider these issues while finalizing the AI draft policy and legislating AI regulation. 

Moreover, recently, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has developed a new report, “How Leaders in the Global South Can Devise AI Regulations that Devise Innovation”, that should be thoroughly taken into consideration. 

If Nepal wants to really become an emerging IT hub as envisioned by the government, then it needs to step up its tempo on AI regulation. The country should have a holistic AI framework in place founded on strong data and privacy rights pillars. Together with strong ethical guardrails, Nepal can design an agile system that, while not over cumbersome, can ensure safety and AI alignment with human rights. 

By studying global practices and adapting them to local context, Nepal can have an ethically solid and innovation-promoting AI framework in place.

Any use of AI tools by state agencies, including law enforcement, should be stopped before any such a framework is established.

When we talk about technology in the context of development, we often treat it as a tool that simply exists to make life more efficient. But I see technology as something that shapes our identities, influences our sense of agency and carries ethical responsibilities across generations. This is why we need to reframe ICT4D (Information and Communication Technology for Development) through an ethics-based lens—one that doesn’t just ask what technology can do, but who it serves, how it  empowers and whether it respects the people and cultures it touches. 

Technology isn’t something that arrives in a vacuum, rather it enters communities endowed with their own ways of understanding the world, their own traditions, identities and their own ethical frameworks. If we introduce technology without considering these dimensions, we risk erasing identities rather than strengthening them. According to Martin Heidegger, the essence of technology is not just about tools or instruments; it’s about how technology shapes the way we see and interact with the world. When technology is introduced into a community without awareness of this shift in perception, it can transform local cultures and identities into mere resources to be exploited rather than ways of life that deserve  respect and preservation. For ICT4D to be responsible, it must integrate into the ways of  communities, aligning with their values rather than imposing external ones. 

I have seen  instances where digital tools were designed with good intentions but ended up disrupting  local practices because they failed to acknowledge the social and ethical realities of the  people using them. 

Agency is at the heart of ethical technology use. People should not just be passive  recipients of digital solutions; they should have the power to shape, adapt and use  technology in ways that enhance their lives. Too often, ICT4D projects are rolled out with a top-down approach, where decisions are made by outsiders who assume they know what’s best for the rest. But when people are involved in designing and implementing technology—when they  have ownership over it—it transforms from an external intervention into a meaningful part  of their lives. This isn’t just about usability; it’s about empowerment. It’s about ensuring that communities are not just given tools but also the knowledge, skills and autonomy to decide how those tools should work for them. This perspective aligns with Amartya Sen’s emphasis on agency in development. 

Intergenerational justice, a concept explored by Hans Jonas, is another crucial dimension  that is often overlooked in ICT4D. When we introduce technology, we aren’t just shaping the present; we are making choices that will impact future generations. If we don’t think carefully about the ethical implications of technology, we risk creating dependencies, eroding cultural knowledge or deepening inequalities. Sustainable technology isn’t just about function or economic efficiency; it’s about ensuring that the benefits of today’s  innovations don’t come at the cost of future resilience. 

Environmental sustainability must also be central to ethical ICT4D. As Fritjof Capra  emphasizes in his work on systems thinking, nature operates through interconnected and  self-sustaining networks. Technology should follow these principles, supporting rather than disrupting ecological balance. Too often, technological advancements come at the cost of  ecological health, depleting natural resources and contributing to environmental degradation. If we are to create truly sustainable solutions, we must embrace a philosophy  that respects and aligns with the natural world rather than exploiting it. This means developing digital infrastructures that minimize environmental impact, encouraging circular economies in technology use and integrating local ecological knowledge into digital innovations. Ethical ICT4D must recognize that the well-being of communities is inseparable from the health of the environment that sustains them. 

An ethical ICT4D means recognizing that technology is never just a tool; it is always part of a larger social and ethical system. If we want it to truly serve communities, we need to ask deeper questions: Does this technology respect local identities? Does it enhance people’s agency rather than diminish it? Does it uphold justice not just for this generation, but for the ones that will follow? And does it honor the ecological systems that sustain life? These are the questions that should guide our approach. If we fail to ask them, we risk using technology as a force of disruption rather than as a means of meaningful progress.

The longer you walk through life’s winding paths, the clearer it becomes: life’s not fair. Not just for you, if you look closely at the lives of others, and you'll find that fairness is a myth we all wrestle with. Life’s more complicated than the mathematical equation that we’ve encountered during our education years. And most of our thought/emotional process, action, decision and the coincidences we face lies beyond the rule of cause and effect. Life doesn’t ask what we’d like on our plate—it simply serves. The only real choice we have isn’t whether to eat it or not rather it is how we eat and digest. There are countless things beyond our control. No bargaining is heard and acknowledged—just acceptance of what life hands us. Looking at the fragility of life, even a slight, accidental cut to a nerve, just deep enough can lead to irreversible consequences. 

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 1.19m people die in road accidents every year—that’s over 3,200 deaths per day, 133 people in an hour and two every single minute. Each of these individuals was on a journey, with their futures ahead of them. Weren’t they planning what they would do the next day? Yet, how can we justify their untimely deaths? While some religions attempt to justify it through the karma of past lives, others attribute it to destiny, believing it’s all written. And nobody knows how true this justification is and nobody will probably know. Although if we get the justification, will it bypass our emotional reaction and responses generated by the event and coincidences. I don’t think so, because rationalization lacks the power to regulate the emotion that we experience. It’s often said that everything is fair in love and war, but one thing is certain—everything is fair in life. Anything can happen, we can’t deny this fact. 

Human nature is quite opposite of the nature of life. We are drawn to certainty and it comforts us. If we closely invigilate our plan and action, we can sense that they are steps taken to make our lives more secure. Our natural tendency is to seek certainty and control, but with surprises—whether good or bad—we feel discomfort, which is why we attempt to structure our environments and lives in predictable ways. 

When human nature, which seeks control, meets the unpredictability of life, it results in friction. And how this friction manifests, we attempt to challenge the nature of unpredictability of life and try immensely to make it more secure and predictable. We often seek answers that lie beyond our capacity to understand. We are inclined to seek the deeper reasons behind the unwanted experiences that life presents to us. Although nobody has found and nobody probably ever will, the mysteries behind the cause of any events. This mystery creates a deep sense of uncertainty and instability within us. And Sigmund Freud argues that in order to cope with this anxiety of uncertainty, and to create a false sense of control over future events, humans tend to believe in and worship God. To mitigate this, humans invented narratives of control, with God serving as the ultimate answer to chaos. Freud argues in his books titled ‘The future of an illusion’’ (1927) and ‘Civilization and its discontent’ (1930) that if we tend to believe that there is someone in the sky who controls everything, who justifies every sin, we feel we have a shoulder to lean on. Now, let’s explore why we have this tendency to search for such a figure.

Central to Freud’s idea is the notion that children feel very secure being within the arms of parents. In those arms, one experiences the protective figure, feelings of security and are completely able to rely on their parents. Child gets an opportunity to explore life without taking any responsibility for his action and is ensured that it’s taken care of by their parents. The child often develops the belief that their parents are like superheroes, capable of solving any problem they face. This belief is why the child feels more carefree and lively, experiencing a sense of joy and security. And in the process of growing up, he slowly understands that there are a lot of things that their parents cannot control, in fact, many things that no human being can control. One understands that there’s chaos, a mystery that no one knows the formula for. No equation fits in justifying the cause-and-effect rule. As the child matures into adulthood, their cognitive development allows them to analyze and become more aware of the chaos, uncertainty and unpredictability of life. This awareness then gives rise to a profound sense of helplessness and powerlessness, as the illusion of control fades. Now I invite you, dear reader, to contemplate how one might confront this uncertainty that springs from feelings of powerlessness and helplessness.

This is where Freud’s central idea revolves around. In order to address this uncertainty, humans often turn to believe in God—a higher power who is sitting in the sky assessing and evaluating every thought, deeds and action. You can think about it. If you are powerful enough you can repay the injustice given by another human fellow. But how does one seek justice for the suffering inflicted by life itself? Although we can question the unwanted events and experiences that we go through in life, is there anyone who answers that question? Of course there’s no one—no entity to respond to our grievances. This profound imbalance, this need for meaning and resolution demands equilibrium. Here, belief in God serves as a psychological anchor. By surrendering to a divine order, we find solace, attempting to bring emotional closure to our unresolved turmoil allowing us to find comfort in the face of the unknown. Belief in God offers a reassuring shoulder to lean on. 

Following Freud’s theory multiple scholars have conducted the research on our tendency to believe in and worship God. Existential security theory (Norris & Inglehart, 2011) suggests that people turn to religion more in uncertain or economically unstable environments. Research suggests that in more secure and stable environments, where there is less insecurity, the tendency to believe in God may decrease. A study by Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan (2012) found that encouraging analytical thinking reduced religious belief. This implies that in environments where individuals feel more secure and are encouraged to engage in analytical thinking, the reliance on religious beliefs may diminish. Reflecting on these studies, can we infer that our inclination to seek support and believe in God stems from the uncertainty born of helplessness and powerlessness?

Probably we’ll never know the exact answer and the formula that guides our lives. From another perspective, could it be that we are merely puppets in a grand simulation—acting as if we have free will, while every event is already predetermined? There may be a higher power, something beyond our understanding, hidden from our awareness. 

In many of the texts that Freud wrote he never argued about the existence of God. Neither he nor this article directly questions the existence of God. We both are questioning the tendency to seek solace by believing in God.