Nepali Congress’ whip in the House of Representatives Pushpa Bhusal had spearheaded the campaign to pass parliamentary stricture against cases of violence against women. Bhusal, also a senior advocate, has been in the forefront of the movement to empower women and ensure equality. Ram Kumar Kamat of The Himalayan Times caught up with Bhusal to know her views on the problems related to VAW and issues central to women empowerment and equality. Excerpts:

Are you satisfied with the work the budget session of the House accomplished?

This session was crucial to institutionalise political, cultural, economic and social changes. Provincial and local governments formed after three elections are entitled  to exercise their powers and authority, but they have not been able  do so due to the federal government’s unwillingness to devolve power to the lower structures of the federal units. The central government did not formulate policy and programmes and budget to aid federal system. Therefore, the chief ministers recently spoke in unison against the central government’s unwillingness to transfer power.

Similarly, the rights of women, children, elderly citizens, disadvantage groups and persons with disabilities, which are protected in the new constitution, are limited only to the pages of the statute. The government should have allocated enough budget to assist the federal units.

More than 40,000 women were elected to various posts in the local levels across the country. Most deputy chairpersons are women, who are heading judicial committees. These committees can be very useful tools to ensure women’s equality, justice and to end violence against women. However, these committees have not been effective. I think the central government failed to facilitate the process of making the role of judicial committees effective.

Central, provincial and local governments have failed to synchronise their efforts and I think the central government is largely responsible for this.

The constitution has guaranteed a large number of fundamental rights. The Parliament enacted several laws to facilitate enjoyment of these rights, but what was glaringly lacking was the time  allocated for debate on bills related to fundamental rights. The government   did not bring these bills in time.   It is yet to be seen whether the state can fulfil obligations created by these new laws that guarantee right to housing and unemployment allowance, among other things. If the government fails to ensure these rights, then that can fuel people’s anger and frustration.

The government signed a deal with Dr Govinda KC but did not fast-track the passage of the national medical education bill. This shows the government is not serious about addressing  issues raised by Dr KC.

Doctors and journalists expressed dissatisfaction against the new penal code and that should have been debated in the House.

How do you view some of the important policies of the government?

This government commands two-thirds majority in the House and thus it is a strong government. It can easily find ways to manage resources for development without taxing the poor heavily. However, the government brought the poor people under the tax net, making their lives difficult.

The Parliament passed stricture against VAW. What else should the country do to curb VAW?

VAW cases have been on the rise, particularly after formation of the new government. All groups of women, including children and elderly women are being victimised. Increased incidents of VAW indicate that perpetrators do not fear the state. The government, which has two-thirds majority in the Parliament, has failed to deter the perpetrators. What is more worrying is that the state was involved in destroying evidence in the rape and murder of 13-year-old girl Nirmala Panta. It can be said that those who destroyed evidence in Nirmala Panta’s case enjoyed political patronage. Criminals are committing VAW under political protection. We decided to move a stricture in the Parliament because we believed the government was not doing enough to provide security to women.

There are multiple factors that need to be tackled to control VAW. Patriarchy is at its root. Poor women and women from broken families are mostly targeted.  We also need to discuss about the impacts of patriarchy on women.

Are you satisfied with the Home Minister’s response to VAW cases?

No, I am not at all satisfied. He recently told a parliamentary panel that capitalism was the main reason behind increased incidents of VAW. His statement has challenged the constitution. How can the home minister, who took oath of office and secrecy under this constitution, violate constitutional provisions? Why did he make such a huge political departure by challenging the constitution? His statement will encourage perpetrators. I think all political parties should unite in the effort to tackle VAW and women lawmakers from all political parties should also intensify their efforts in this regard.

Women activists have demanded equality in transmitting nationality to their children on a par with men. What is your say?

The government registered the new citizenship bill, but it is not women-friendly. The new constitution gives women equal right in the partition of property and lineage, yet women face discrimination in matters of citizenship. For example, if a man marries a foreign woman, his children are entitled to citizenship by descent whereas the children of a woman married to a foreigner only get naturalised citizenship.  The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which Nepal is a party to, prohibits discrimination against women on grounds of marital status. If we have to end discrimination against women, we must amend our constitution first. As far as the new citizenship bill is concerned, I think, the House should revise the bill’s provisions to address women’s concerns.

Some ruling party lawmakers have threatened to impeach senior-most Justice of the Supreme Court Deepak Raj Joshee who was rejected for chief justice in August. What do you say about this?

As far as impeachment is concerned, what constitutional provisions did Joshee violate? The Parliamentary Hearing Committee rejected Joshee for chief justice without any legal grounds. The ruling party lawmakers wanted to impeach Joshee for not resigning from his post. Nowhere in the constitution it is written that once a justice is rejected for the post of CJ, he/she should resign from the post of justice. The ruling party has shown arrogance of its two-thirds majority. Why does it not use its two-thirds majority to amend the constitution to address the concerns of Madhesis as the party has pledged? If the ruling NCP (NCP) impeaches Joshee, it will be a blatant violation of the constitution.

Chief Ministers have blamed the central government for not handing over power to them. What is your take on this?

Local governments should take care of infrastructure development. The central government should have devolved powers to provinces, but it has not done so. The spirit of federalism is that provinces should be made more powerful than other units. Provinces can address the needs of their constituents if they have enough power. It seems that the centre accepts inclusion, but in reality it does not want to devolve power to the province. If the centre wants to keep all the powers, then why do we need federalism?