Nepal's politics has gone from serious to ridiculous to farcical. What is responsible for it? Lack of women in leadership.
We women are repositories of love and compassion and are adept in multi-tasking. Our heart bleeds for our family and for society at large.We can work our hands and brain at different things simultaneously. That makes us smarter but imposes disproportionate burden on us as well.
In a state of relative equality, women prove smarter than men. For instance, in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, female students outperform and outnumber their male counterparts in schools and universities. It is the entrenched discrimination in opportunities that puts us behind men in developing countries.
Women carry a disproportionate burden in family and society. Even when husband and wife come back home from work equally tired, husband sits in a couch and watches television, but wife goes to the kitchen and cooks for the family. It happens no matter how high women rise or how much more they earn.
For instance, when she was British prime minister, Margret Thatcher used to cook for her husband during weekends if she was at home. Indira Nooyi and Sheryl Sandberg, CEOs of Pepsi Cola and Facebook respectively, still take care of their children, more than their men.
Partly we women invite our own misery, but we also do so happily. We do this because of our love and compassion for our family and society.
Even when women are not in the frontline, they constantly inject sanity into our husbands, brothers, children and society. At the very least, they sacrifice their comfort and career for the success of their men. That is why it is often said, behind every successful man there is a woman.
Most important, even though it may sound boastful, it is true that women keep men and the world sane. We are not immune from our own absurdities and contradictions, but ours are much milder than our men's. Where women are not present, men often behave irresponsibly and insanely.
Look at Nepal's politics where women are not in leadership positions. It suffers from continuing and unrelenting incoherence, absurdity and insanity.
A few top male leaders agreed on six states, with demarcations personally convenient to them. There is no rhyme or reason in the number of states or their delineation. First, six are too many states for the country to sustain. Money will not grow in streets on the morning after the states are created. Too many states will eat up all revenue, leaving virtually nothing for developmental activities.
Second, the indicative borders are haphazard. If districts in eastern plains can constitute a separate state, why not in the western plains? The leaders ignored the identity and viability criteria endorsed by the Constituent Assembly. They should have tried to abide by as many of them as possible, but they did not.
I do not suggest that their job was easy; it was impossible to propose something that would have pleased 125 ethnic and linguistic groups from Mechi to Mahakali and from mountains to plains. However, if they had thought about the greater good, as we women do, the outcome would have been more rational and much of the trouble could have been avoided.
The incoherence, absurdity and insanity shown by the top leaders do not end there. These elements have overcome so many leaders who are making mutually contradictory demands.
Let me start with the Limbu leaders demanding Limbuwan for 14 districts in the east. Either they should have demanded Limbuwan for the Limbu-concentration districts only or should not have hit the street demanding the name for the entire province. The proposed state has only eight percent Limbus, while Rais constitute 11 percent, Madheshis 26 percent and others 55 percent.
Historically, the Limbus might have a tenuous claim on Jhapa, Morang and Sunsari, but they had none over Solukhumbu, Khotang, Bhojpur, Udaypur, etc. How can the Kirantis accept Limbuwan in their districts? Jhapa has less than four percent Limbus, Morang less than six percent and Sunsari less than three percent. How do these leaders expect these districts to accept Limbuwan?
I see no point in talking about the absurdities displayed by Upendra Yadav and Rajendra Mahato. They wanted a Madheshi-only state and they have it from Saptari to Parsa. Now they are bemoaning that the state will be weak and backward. They want Jhapa, Morang and Sunsari. In Jhapa, Madheshis are a tiny minority; in Morang, hill people outnumber Madheshis; and in Sunsari they are in almost parity. Where is the justification for their claim, particularly for Jhapa and Morang?
Besides, speaking at a recent gathering in mid-western plains, Yadav and Mahato called on the Tharus there to take up arms to chase away the hill people and, if the Pahadis do not leave, to fight for secession. Is their hidden goal communal violence to pave the way for the secession of the plains from Nepal behind the benign facade of identity?
Neither do I see any logic in the Hill leaders like Sher Bahadur Deuba, Bhim Rawal and others supporting the "Undivided Far-West," "Undivided Karnali," "Undivided Rukum or Baglung," etc. They are rooting for the status quo. If that is what they wanted, why did not they all fight for converting the existing development regions into provinces? Why the fuss now?
Even though most of the time I do not agree with Sarita Giri, this time she has shown female wisdom, though belatedly. She has said that, since the Madheshi-only province from Saptari to Parsa will be resources-poor and backward, it should preferably border China as well or at least include some resources-rich Hill districts.
Evidently, women are more rational and broader in their thinking than men. If Nepal had more women at the top, Nepali politics would have been less absurd, less contradictory, and saner. Evidence from elsewhere proves that women representatives work for the country better than male representatives and produce better results. A study found that US female Senators cooperated across the party divide better and cosponsored 150 percent more bills than their male counterparts in the last seven years.
It is a pity that in Nepal females are underrepresented in politics and none of the main parties has a female leader at the top. Male leaders are more concerned about their own short-term advantage. So if they see any such advantage, they throw the logic to the bin and make contradictory and mutually exclusive demands. More individually oriented and lacking the capacity for multi-tasking, they do not know how to attain personal objective without undermining broader social goals.
Hence the incoherence, absurdity and insanity in Nepali politics with respect to federalism and umpteen other national issues. Put women in leading positions and they will help bring sanity, salubriousness and synthesis to Nepali politics.
Related story
One in four countries reported backlash on Women’s Rights in 20...
