A chance for personal growth and redemption would better serve Ashika Tamang and the society at large than convicting her
Article 18 of the Constitution of Nepal guarantees that all citizens are equal before the law and that no person shall be denied equal protection under the law. In principle, the right to equality is a fundamental pillar of a welfare society, ensuring justice, fairness and non-discrimination for all. However, in reality, this constitutional provision seems to be blatantly disregarded in Nepal. Political influence, corruption, socio-economic disparities and systemic inefficiencies are frequently known to determine how laws are applied. While the privileged individuals enjoy impunity, marginalised communities face discrimination with harsh and delayed justice. The failure to uphold this fundamental right is weakening public trust in the legal system and undermining the very foundation of democracy and social justice in Nepal.
A striking example of disparity in law enforcement is the recent arrest of self-proclaimed activist Ashika Tamang on charges of indecent behaviour and criminal disturbance in public places. For the past few years, Tamang, through her foundation, has been advocating for cleanliness and fair trade among small-scale businesses that directly influence the general public. However, in recent times, her approach appears to have shifted-seemingly driven by a desire for rapid popularity and viral attention. This strategic shift has undeniably worked in her favour, propelling her into the national spotlight and making her a household name.
Most of the issues raised by Tamang are relevant and important. However, her aggressive and animated confrontations with street vendors, small-scale business owners and government officials have often come across as excessive. While the issues raised by her required proper policy implementation by the government, rather than an individual activism, her approach drew significant public attention. Although the charges against Tamang may be legally justified, the severity of her post-arrest treatment appears disproportionate.
She has been held in investigative custody for nearly two weeks, with charges filed against her in multiple districts. To make the matter worse, she has been publicly transported in handcuffs, a treatment rarely seen even in more serious criminal cases. This harsh handling raises concerns about the disproportionate nature of her punishment and the broader issue of selective law enforcement in Nepal.
The disparity in law enforcement becomes evident when comparing the arrest of Tamang with other high-profile cases in recent times. One of the most talked-about issues is the arrest of former home minister and deputy prime minister Rabi Lamichhane for his alleged involvement in the fraudulent misappropriation of cooperative funds. While the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty applies, the sub judice status of his case does not negate the severity of the allegations. The substantial bail amount imposed by three different district courts highlights the gravity of the charges against him. Despite this, Lamichhane received preferential treatment in the custody and was never handcuffed.
A similar pattern was observed in the arrests of Balkrishna Khand and Top Bahadur Rayamajhi, both accused in fake Bhutanese citizenship scam.
Beyond preferential treatment, law enforcement authorities frequently turn a blind eye to crimes committed by those with high-level connections. Recently, a criminal-turned-provincial minister was reported to have physically assaulted a government officer within his own ministry, yet no legal action was initiated against him. In another instance, a provincial minister accused of facilitating illegal migration to Japan was given impunity by the respected court, despite apparent evidences.
Coming back to the Ashika Tamang case, while she faces charges of indecent behaviour, the gravity of the case appears to be relatively weak. Despite that, she has been subjected to far stricter measures, including prolonged custody, multiple charges and public transportation in handcuffs. This clear inconsistency in law enforcement raises serious concerns about the unequal application of the law in Nepal. Moreover, the harsh response to Tamang has raised concerns about selective law enforcement, especially when individuals with political or financial influence often evade similar scrutiny. This disparity underscores the broader issue of imbalanced justice in our legal system. Evidently, such cases expose the deep-rooted inequalities in Nepal's justice system, where power and influence determine the course of legal action, rather than the principle of equal justice for all.
The government serves as the guardian of its citizens, and as such, authorities should treat everyone fairly, regardless of their social, professional or financial status. In the case of Tamang, while her behaviour may have been inappropriate, the severity of her post-arrest response seems excessive. She should have been given a stern warning for her inappropriate actions, and by now, she may have realised her mistakes.
Rather than continuing to impose harsh measures, authorities should consider her background, including her social and educational standing, as part of a more humane approach. Given that she is a mother of two young children, her family should not suffer for her misdeeds. Punishing her innocent children by detaching them from maternal bliss would only deepen the injustice. In this case, forgiveness could be more powerful and transformative than continued punishment.
The state should show compassion and understanding towards Tamang, who, like countless other citizens, is disillusioned with the partisan system. A chance for personal growth and redemption would better serve her and the society at large than convicting her.
Dr Joshi is a senior scientist and independent opinion maker based in Germany,
pushpa.joshi@gmail.com