Every year, on March 9, two contrasting news stories are featured in almost all national dailies and the electronic media. The first is usually an image of a rural woman carrying a heavy doko along with a child, implying the hardship she is suffering while other more ‘empowered women’ are busy talking about women’s rights. Next to this image appears a news story that provides details about the celebration of Women’s Day, showing some popular faces of women rights activists associated with various NGOs/INGOs.

The juxtaposition of these images is very problematic. First, the photo belittles the experience and agency of rural women, implying that somehow women rights activists are responsible for such a plight. Second, the news has become so commonplace that we never question the hidden implication of the news itself. These repeated images are establishing a very narrow notion of the nature of a women’s movement and the activists associated with it. Half-baked opinions are gradually taking hold, that the women’s movement is led by a pocketful of NGOs/INGOs. And that women rights activists are the ones who work in and for these NGOs/INGOs. I want to point out the need to understand the broader meaning of a women’s movement and the activists associated with it.  

The women’s rights movement in Nepal has been criticised as a Brahmin-Chhetri women-led, NGO /INGO-led, Kathmandu-centric and dollar-driven movement. Some of these critiques are true to a certain extent. However, one cannot disregard the contributions of NGO/INGOs in mainstreaming the agendas of women’s movement in state mechanisms. Their tireless efforts need to be applauded as the concept and strategies for women’s rights are no longer alien to Nepali society. The problem lies with limiting the meaning of the women’s movement to NGO/INGOs alone. For me, the women’s movement is a spontaneous one led by a plethora of individuals and institutions, both formal and informal. But how successful have we been in documenting and acknowledging these miniscule contributions and achievements happening in different parts of Nepal? I would like to discuss some of these disregarded movements.

From the grassroots

Aama samuhas, through the agency of motherhood, have been able to act as a moral police to challenge predominant notions of masculinity: lazy men spending their days playing cards and getting drunk while their wives slave away day and night. The declaration of one village after another as ‘alcohol free’ was a large feat in itself. These groups became agents of development as they contributed to building schools, libraries and built both a physical and emotional bridge between villages and communities.

The Raato Lagaune Abhiyan (Red colour movement), though initiated and supported by some NGOs working for single women, did not remain an NGO-led initiative for long. The acquisition of red clothes, tika and chura established the claim for a new identity for widowed women. The earlier practice of the desexualisation of widowhood was questioned and challenged. Similarly, a ripple effect of the Maoist-led ‘people’s war’ also needs to be taken into account. The engagement of Maoist women in the armed conflict created a new image of Nepali women. Though it is debatable whether engagement in an armed conflict truly empowers women, some of its positive effects on the movements of Dalit women, disabled women, lesbians, Kamlaris and Baadi women need to be acknowledged. Some of these movements have now been institutionalised through the formation of NGOs. And the activism on some of these issues has been stalled as focus has shifted to the ritualistic activities of NGOs, such as trainings and seminars which are attended by the same handful of faces year after year.

In the cities

Similarly, the least acknowledged movement is an initiative run by a group of underground feminists who call themselves Charitrahin Chelis. NGO women rights activists and old-generation academics dismissed it as an urban-centric and elitist movement. They had serious problems with Charitrahin Cheli’s modus operandi. For me, the self-declaration of women associated with the movement as being charitrahin and kharab mahila is highly political. It is the most effective attack on the sexist Nepali society where double standards on honour exist for women and men. The easiest way to bring down a woman who is successful or on her way to become successful, is to accuse her of being honourless. Men’s honour, particularly associated with virginity and promiscuity, is rarely questioned and probed.

Similarly, the Occupy Baluwatar movement introduced a new generation of feminists in Nepal. These new feminist faces, both young men and women, are ones who were educated in English-medium boarding schools, who wear jeans and T-shirts and carry backpacks with laptops. I am particular about their physical description because these faces were remote to earlier women’s movements in Nepal. Similarly, the veins of the women’s movement can be traced in the voices raised in literature, art, politics, business and academia.

Beyond NGOs

So when we say there are diversified forms of women’s movement, why do we necessarily label women/men working in NGOs/INGOs alone as activists? My interest lies in broadening the understanding of activism rather than questioning the activism of people associated with NGOs/INGOs. Activ-ism cannot be limited to marching in protests, carrying placards, chanting slogans, working on donor-funded projects and giving passionate speeches. Activism is about questioning inequality, challenging norms by setting oneself as an example and inspiring others to do the same. When we broaden the meaning of activism in this way, we realise the existence of a multitude of women rights activists who do not always work for NGOs/INGOs.

Writers like Parijat, Krishna Dharabasi and Indira Prasai are activists for enabling women characters to have a voice in literature. Academics and researchers who introduce a new domain of knowledge to understand women’s experiences are activists. Artists like Ashmina Ranjit are activists, who through their performances are bringing least discussed issues of sexuality and women’s bodies to the forefront. Let us recognise these people whose full time job is not activism and neither are they paid for it. To them, activism is about bringing women’s rights and dignity to the centre of whatever they are doing:

writing, research, medical practice, engineering, political engagement or entrepreneurship. The true essence of Women’s Day will be respected only when these diverse forms of activism are acknowledged and discussed. Doing so will strengthen and diversify the women’s movement. I hope this is what activists working in NGOs/INGOs are also aiming for.

Khanal is a lecturer at Central Department of Sociology, Tribhuvan University