Apropos of the news story “Women deprived of opportunities: Yami” (THT, December 20, Page 2), after almost subverting the great Miss Nepal pageant, a vehicle for women emancipation, confidence building and opportunities galore beyond the barren Himalayas, during the start of their destructive activities over 15 years ago, Yami now has the compunction to talk about deprivation of opportunities for the matriarchs.

Miss Nepal is the biggest social revolution to happen in Nepal that not only brought the women from the dark and dingy Nepali hearths but also catapulted them into the corridors of fashion, music, education, politics, business etc.

Miss Nepal achieved for women pride, equality, honour and opportunities without killing a single male, female or LGBT. It has also helped Nepali women in exploring and being proud of their sexuality.

These days we read many articles from young Nepali females asking as to why women cannot bare their breasts and butts in public just as men walk around with bare chest. Isn’t this the sign of equality, empowerment and opportunities?

While talking about opportunities, one needs to look into the specific people like Badis and Kamlahari. They should be given direct access, not just opportunities, to state apparatus. For example, what can stop us from electing Badis to high political office?

But, while talking of women empowerment and opportunities, women Mandarins should not forget that even upper caste Bahun males like Dahals, Bhattarais, Bhandaris in and around Melamchi do not have any opportunities other than smashing stones or tending to a few goats.

They are light years away from places like Singh Durbar.

Manohar Shrestha, Kathmandu

Best option

According to Shambhu Deo, a fully operationalised decentralization can be more effective than identity-based federalism for inclusive democracy, development, equality and to fulfil the state’s responsibility of efficient and effective service delivery to the citizens (“Identity-based federalism: Decentralisation is a better option”, THT, December 21, Page 8).

I do not agree with Deo. The very concept of federalism is to ensure government’s service delivery to the people at their doorsteps and provide all communities, castes and regions an equal opportunity to grow and take part in the state affairs.

These days the identity-based politics have taken root even in the developed societies like the USA where Republican candidate Donald Trump won the presidential election in the name of nationalism or protectionism.

A similar trend has also taken place in Europe where the people have raised voices against immigration. Deo is trying to equate decentralisation with federalism.

Federalism is a bigger issue than decentralisation which does not have any political space for self-governance.

Ravi Manandhar, Kathmandu