Women of Nepal

Meera Dhungana

Advocate, Forum for Women, Law and Development

Born in March 1969 in Makwanpur district

After completing a bachelor's course in Law in 1993, Meera Dhungana decided to work against the existing discriminatory laws for women in Nepal. In the course of her study she learned that most of the country's laws discriminate against women and the laws in place don't count women as human beings.

Since childhood, Dhungana was aware of the reality that women are backward in Nepali society on account of their subordination to men and a general lack of control. As a woman advocate she decided to lobby for equal property rights for women, through which she could help change the status of women in Nepal.

Dhungana was born in a middle-class family in Hetauda of Makwanpur district. As a daughter she used to help her mother in the kitchen as well as going to school with her brother. She had never seen her father working in the kitchen, which made her aware of the roles all women take. After passing her SLC (School Leaving Certificate), she was willing to study Law but her family was afraid to send her away from home.

Dhungana borrowed two thousand rupees from a friend's mother and completed entrance formalities in a college in Narayanghat without permission from her family. It was only after she was admitted to college she asked her parents to permit her to complete further studies. Her father was not happy with her decision, but she fasted for several days until she was allowed to go to the Law Campus in Narayanghat. When she went to Kathmandu to join a bachelor's course of Law her family showed no objection.

She was confident even when choosing her life partner. When Baburam Neupane, a friend of her cousin, proposed, at first she refused. But she finally accepted five years later when he proposed again. However, her family did not accept Neupane. They were unhappy with their daughter for choosing him herself. But she did not listen to others, followed her own decision and married him. Dhungana continues to be happy with her husband, who would later become her family's most liked son-in-law. 

After her 1993 graduation from the Law Campus, Dhungana worked as a payroll lawyer for six months in the Supreme Court. She started her career by challenging the discriminatory provision of the Country Code, which requires a daughter be unmarried and over 35 years old in order to receive her share of parental property. In its verdict, the Supreme Court issued a directive to the government to introduce an appropriate bill within a year.

As a result, the Nepal government introduced the eleventh amendment bill of the Country Code, which was approved on September 26, 2002. Thanks to this provision, for the first time women were legally accepted as heirs of parents, and unmarried daughter were ensured an equal property right. The newly-enacted law has also guaranteed equal rights for married women, widows or divorcees.

Dhungana and her colleague Meera Khanal were in their mid 20s when they first filed a case in the Supreme Court for equal property rights for women in 1995. Their case was ignored by the court for almost a year. Upon the advice of senior colleagues they came up with a writ. It was only after this the issue was discussed in court.

They visited each and every political party's office and requested politicians support their campaign, as well as visiting various organizations and carrying out a door-to-door campaign to make both men and women aware of it.

Dhungana struggled to bring this case to light. People warned her that if daughters began to claim parental property, the relationship among family members would grow worse. She had to face various kinds of harassment as well.

Those who opposed the idea of giving equal rights to women asserted that because of this provision poor people would try to marry their daughters off. Some came up with the idea that if women received property from their parents they would have problems returning to their parent's home. Despite strong attacks from conservative members of the society Dhungana never lost courage as she was confident with what she was doing. 

The happiest moment Dhungana remembers was the day the Supreme Court gave the directive order to the government to introduce an appropriate bill within a year to amend related family laws on property rights.

However, this amendment was unable to provide full equal rights to women, so Dhungana again challenged the provision of the Country Code on Intestate Property, by which (according to Clause 12) daughters had to return their parental property after they married. Her argument was that it was discrimination on the basis of gender and marital status. Dhungana is still struggling to amend this clause.

In 2001, Dhungana raised another controversial issue on women's rights, by challenging the definition of 'rape' in the Country Code, which does not include cases of women being raped by their own husbands. It has defined rape as the act of having sexual intercourse with a girl, widow or another person's wife, not attaining the age of sixteen years, with or without her consent, in whatsoever manner or attaining the age of sixteen years without her consent in whatsoever manner either exerting. In this case the Supreme Court gave its decision, stating "Rape is rape. No matter whoever commits it, marital rape cannot be excluded from it."

Dhungana said, "Rape is an inhuman act that violates women's human rights and directly causes a serious impact on individual liberty and the right to self-determination. It also causes an adverse impact on the physical, mental, family and spiritual life of victim women."

"Unlike consensual sexual intercourse in which both persons willingly participate in it, rape involves use of force and threat by the rapist. Therefore, in a civilized society, rape is considered as a heinous criminal offence without exception. Rape being a heinous criminal offence and since it has not been categorically immune by law, interpretation of No. 1 of the Chapter on Rape has to be reformed reflecting the international law, including international treaties, instruments, and principles of law."

While working on the case of marital rape, people would talk a lot about Dhungana, spreading rumors she was also a rape victim. This only increased her interest in such cases. In those days, what Dhungana was doing was unusual in Nepali society. She even took her husband with her to marital rape case hearings in court.

Her husband, Baburam, even spoke with the media on the matter. Through his support, Dhungana believes her husband to be her best friend. He encourages her each time she faces difficulties in her work. Dhungana received a victory in the case of a young girl who was sexually abused and raped by her own husband. She still remembers the day the girl thanked her for saving her life.

On that particular case, the Court said if a woman is human, she is entitled to all rights a human being is entitled. Marriage does not mean a woman need be a slave. To say a husband can have intercourse with his wife without her consent is the denial of an independent existence, the right to live with self-respect and the right to self-determination.

Dhungana joined the Forum for Women, Law and Development (FWLD), an NGO established on May 29, 1995, to work for the protection, promotion and enjoyment of women's human rights. In order to eliminate all forms of discrimination, the Forum uses law as an instrument and ensures women's, children's and minority's rights. Through FWLD Dhungana was able to file many cases against discriminatory laws and customs for women.

In 2005, Dhungana and her colleagues challenged the traditional notion of Chhaupadi by filing a case against it. The Supreme Court issued a directive to the government to take active intervention, including creating awareness to eliminate the Chhaupadi tradition from society in 2005. The Court simultaneously issued a directive to the government to bring in comprehensive laws to cope with customary practices such as Chhaupadi, which are detrimental to the health of women. The Court took serious concern over the government's reluctance to eliminate such inhuman traditions.

In this custom, women were forced to live separately in unhygienic places during each menstruation period, as well as during the delivery of infants. The tradition exists mostly in far western regions of Nepal, where women are placed in a dark room or cow shed for several days without hygienic foods.

The same year Dhungana filed another case on provision 1 of the Country Code, which allows a husband to divorce his wife if she is unable to conceive a child, even after 10 years of marriage. This case was challenged as a discriminatory case for women as the provision does not provide the same rights to women.

The Supreme Court made a decision to repeal this provision and directed the government to amend its law. Dhungana herself has not conceived, but has never felt such discrimination from her family. She sometimes wishes to have a child, however her husband is so supportive she is free from the pressure other women suffer.

Through FWLD Dhungana, along with her colleagues, advocate on behalf of women's rights. She has also been involved in various research works and surveys, and coordinated a study on the Women's Economic and Legal Rights and Legal Aid Cell. In this program legal counseling was provided to members of vulnerable groups discriminated against and stigmatized by society. In addition, Meera was a member of the drafting committee for the 'Domestic Violence Bill, 2003'. 

In 2005, for the first time the Supreme Court asked the government to eliminate discriminatory laws against women which ultimately resulted in the reform of abortion laws. Women now have freedom of choice to have an abortion within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

More than 90 laws and rules in Nepal are still discriminatory to women and Dhungana and her colleagues continue to fight to lower this figure. She said, "Wide disparities between men and women cannot be narrowed down only through inclusion of formal law. A long history of women's exclusion, both socially and culturally, brought a deep gender gap. So, inclusion of substantive equality in laws, policies and programs are essential."

Dhungana broke a barrier by talking openly about social taboos and working confidently on legal discrimination against women. She is happy as, at the very least, state organizations and political parties seem to now recognize the reality and appreciate that women's rights should be assured through law.

She believes her struggle has not yet come to an end as there are still so many laws considered to be discriminatory against women. If all women followed Dhungana's determination, women in Nepal could create a society free from all kinds of discrimination.

Written by Bidhya Chapagain