EQUAL INHERITANCE RIGHTS FOR WOMEN

Activities Carried Under NGO Small Grants Program

Economic justice is an important goal for women because when they have an economic base they have more autonomy and do not have to endure abusive conditions and have more choices and opportunities. Equality in the right to inheritance in property is one of the tools available to achieve economic equality and justice.

The legal status of Nepalese women to inherit property is based on their marital or sexual status and the right to ancestral property is fragile, temporary and imperfect.

There are many pre-conditions attached for woman to get a share in parental as well as her husband’s property. Even when they do receive their share, women do not have a full and complete ownership. This disparity has lead to the secondary status of women in the society, deprived them of the access to resources, made women economically dependent on others and undermines the recognition of the individual existence of women. Women lag far behind men in social, economic, political and legal aspects thus, restricting them from leading a complete and dignified life. This leads not only a violation of women’s rights but as gross violation of human rights.

Despites the constitutional guarantee of right to equality, many provisions of the existing legal provisions of the Country Code are discriminatory against women. Even after the ratification of CEDAW Convention, the discriminatory laws have not been amended.

Equal property rights have been both a sensitive and burning issue in Nepal. Even though there have always been many activities designed to acheive women’s rights, the legal and strategic movement for equal property rights began in 1993 when Advocate Meera Dhungana filed a writ petition challenging the discriminatory provision that requires a daughter to be unmarried and to be 35 years of age to receive her share of parental property. 

The Supreme Court declared the provision a problem to the extent that a son gets right to property as a birthright whereas in case of an unmarried daughter she can get it upon her completing the age of 35. The court issued a directive order to the Parliament to introduce an appropriate Bill within a year for the consideration of the family laws relating to property.

Why Grassroots Advocacy?

After the court’s verdict various women’s group began doing advocacy and lobbying to government agencies to initiate the process of introducing the Bill guaranteeing equal property rights for women. An Active Group for Women’s Rights was also formed under the coordination of FWLD to follow-up the process of advocacy and lobbying. In 1997, FWLD filed a case on contempt of court against HMG/Nepal for not introducing the Equal Inheritance Rights Bill within the time specified in the directive order of the Supreme Court. FWLD has conducted a Baseline Study on Inheritance Rights of Women and on the basis of the recommendations of the study, also submitted the Alternate Bill on Country Code (Eleventh Amendment) Bill.  However, after so much efforts of civil societies and women’s groups no notable achievement was recorded, except the submission of the Bill in the Parliament. As the key players for passing the Bill were parliamentarians and political parties, the civil societies including LACC and

FWLD, are more focused on advocacy and lobbying to the law and policy makers. These decision-makers were very rigid and during the process it was realized that though the parliamentarians have the key role in passing the law, the people of the nation were the de facto key players and political parties cannot overlook the voice of the mass. Realizing the need of raising awareness at the grassroots level, few organizations took up the initiative to carry out grassroots programs. These efforts were not comprehensive and thus insufficient.

Therefore, it was crucial to make everyone realize that there is discrimination against women and it not only has a negative impact on women’s life but it is hindering the overall development of the country. There was a clear need to make the law-makers and the policy makers realize their liability towards the people and to make them accountable for the international human rights instruments that assure equal rights to women.

The lack of voice of grassroots people was one of the grounds the law and policy makers were using once and again to dismiss the demand of women activists for equal inheritance rights. The issue was more perceived as a elite women demand.

A comprehensive awareness raising program was required to create the common consensus all over the country and to link the issue from the grassroots to the central level and viceversa so that the demand for equal property rights would come from every part of the country.

Grassroots advocacy was intended to educate about discriminatory laws relating to women’s inheritance rights and to discuss socio-cultural values. The aim was to change social attitude and beliefs by making people aware about the impacts of these discriminatory property laws on women and nation as a whole.

Training of Change Advocates for Grassroots Advocacy on Equal Property Rights was organized for one and half day in August 27- 28, 2001. A Training Manual was prepared especially for the change advocates to carry out the grassroots advocacy using different methodologies.

• On first day there was a briefing about the organization, the objectives of training and the objectives and process of grassroots advocacy. In the later half of the day, there was a planning and presentation session in which the change advocates presented tentative planning which they have prepared with their partner. There was an orientation on the formatting of the report of the meetings and briefing on the expenditure and allowances.

• On second day, the training was organized in collaboration with Legal Aid and Consultancy Center (LACC). There was an orientation on presentation skills, conceptual clarity on gender and advocacy package. On that occassion Prof. Jane Aiken, Washington School of Law presented on feminist jurisprudence.

Ten districts, two from each developmental regions of the country, were selected for grass-roots advocacy by FWLD. At the same time Legal Aid and Consultancy Center (LACC) carried out grassroots advocacy in ten other districts of the country. As a result overall 20 districts all over the country were covered by the NGO Small Grants Program.

Seven grassroots meetings comprising local leaders, social workers, teachers, farmers etc. were conducted in each district. In this manner FWLD reached up to 3214 peoples (male: female :: 1203:2011) all over the country.

During the district level advocacy, a district network committee was established in each district to do advocacy for raising awareness among the grassroots community. While conducting seven meetings in a district, one person was selected as a member from each meeting. These seven members chose their network coordinator from themselves to facilitate linkage between central and grassroots level. 

This committee has taken up the responsibility to work on the issue continuously even after the completion of advocacy programs. Later on this committee conducted district conferences in their respective districts and are still working on the issue.

Along with the grassroots advocacy, FWLD and various other organizations were simultaneously following-up and lobbying continuously with the Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Committee at the central level to send the Country Code (Eleventh Amendment) Bill to the Parliament ensuring equal property rights of women. As a result, the Committee on the basis of public opinion collected by them repealed various discriminatory provisions of the Bill ensuring equal inheritance rights for women. However, on October 5, 2001 the Committee recommended to pass the Country Code (Eleventh Amendment) Bill with a discriminatory provision that a daughter must return her share of property once she gets married.

On October 8, 2001 FWLD participated in the joint Rally organized by the Women’s Pressure Group demanding the removal of the discriminatory provision.

On the same day, FWLD also issued a press release protesting against the Law, Justice and Parliamentary Committee’s recommendation and passing the Bill with the discriminatory inheritance rights provision.  On October 9, 2001, the Country Code (Eleventh Amendment) Bill was passed by the House of Representatives incorporating the discriminatory inheritance rights provision. On October 10, 2001,  the FWLD participated in two dharnas protesting against the provision which stated that a daughter must return her share of parental property after marriage.

On October 11, 2001 FWLD issued a joint press statement from all the change advocates of both LACC and FWLD welcoming the government initiatives for passing the Bill as it ensured the right to property throughout the life of woman, legalized abortion, criminalized child pedophilia, increased the age of marriage with severe punishment in child marriage and bigamy, increased punishment in rape and amended some discrimination with regard to marriage and divorce. However, it also appealed to the government to revise the discriminatory inheritance rights provision that requires daughter to return her share after marriage. 

The passage of the Bill by the House of Representatives and rejection by the National Assembly reasoning that it was not comprehensive enough in protecting women’s right lead women’s group with different stands on the issue of whether to support the Bill or to reject it. 

The Bill needed to be passed by the House of Representatives once again. However, at that time women’s groups themselves were protesting against the passage of the Bill. They were against the provision that requires a daughter to return her share of property after getting married. This increased the chances that the Bill would lapse in that session as well.

Realizing the political apathy towards women’s rights and the technical need of the Bill to be passed by the House of Representatives once again, FWLD took the stand to do advocacy and lobbying for passing the Bill and continue the movement against the remaining discriminatory laws. The reason behind for this position was that the Bill provided many positive aspects which guaranteed equal rights for married woman, divorced woman and widow, it also accepted the daughter as a heir of the family. The only provision which was complicated is after marriage daughter has to return parental property and her right has been created on husband’s property.

However, it was impossible unless the whole women’s groups raised their voice together. At that juncture to convince the women groups was one of the major challenges.

FWLD and LACC met under the facilitation of representative of NGO Small Grants Program Ms. Meloney Lindberg to build a strategy to bring all the women groups into a common consensus on the Bill.

The advocacy program throughout the country has built a positive opinion of people towards equal property rights for women. The advocacy program was effective because it has not only convinced the people who have attended the program about the importance of women’s rights, but the process followed during the advocacy has made the participants themselves capable of convincing other people.

The advocacy programs all over the country mainstreamed the issue of equal property rights for women at the national level. As a result, a voice for equal property rights was raised from all over the country and has not been deemed merely a demand of elite urban women.

The association of grassroots peoples in the movement and their demand to make their voice reached to the central level gave a moral boost for FWLD to conduct the National Event for Gender Equality even at the time of the declaration of emergency in the country.

The Event was held a day before the 21st session of the Parliament began. All the three organs of the government; Executive, Legislative and Judiciary participated in the Event. The Event consisted of a national conference and rally, which was attended by more than 1,500 participants from all over the country. The conference adopted a memorandum which has been submitted to all the three organs of the government. The Event created remarkable pressure to pass the Country Code (Eleventh Amendment) Bill.  After the national conference and national rally, the members of the district network committees coordinated and conducted District Conferences and District Rallies in their respective districts to exert grassroot’s pressure to pass the Bill. Therefore, the movement linked the central and grassroots level.

The passage of the Bill was the greatest accomplishment and achievement for the women’s movement in Nepal. Though the Country Code (Eleventh Amendment) Bill is not comprehensive in protecting all the rights of women, it is one step forward and, if implemented effectively, will protect the right to property for Nepalese women throughout their life.

Ultimately, on March 14, 2002 the Country Code (Eleventh Amendment) Bill was passed once again by the House of Representatives securing various rights of Nepali woman including the right to property through out her life.

The reformation made by the Country Code (Eleventh Amendment) Bill with regard to property rights are (See Country Code (Eleventh Amendment) Bill and Women’s Rights, FWLD, 2001 for details):

• Daughters are accepted as heir of the family from birth

• Parents are made liable to maintain daughter as they would a son

• Right of wife in husband’s property is assured right after the marriage. A wife’s share must be provided to her before the decree of divorce.

• Full right to widow in inheritance

• Daughter has to return her share after marriage and it has also retain the discrimination among the daughters on the basis of marital status

• Daughter has to return her share of intestate property as well after her marriage

At present the Bill is under consideration of the His Majesty’s King for the Royal Seal. Once the Bill gets the Royal Assent, it will be enacted as a law.

In organizing for the Bill, various obstacles has been encountered during the process of linking central and grassroots levels, these includes:

• Lack of common understanding among the civil societies and women’s rights activists

• Lack of monitoring indicators

• Non-realization of the State Obligation

• Disagreement by other HR activists and organizations about strategic intervention on the Country Code (Eleventh Amendment) Bill

• Declaration of emergency in the country due to Maoist problem

• Limited copies of advocacy materials

• Limited ability to conduct advocacy in all of the districts of the country

• Lack of follow-up programs

• Gaining Royal Assent by the Country Code (Eleventh Amendment) Bill

• Remaining Discriminatory laws

  • In the Country Code Bill

  • Discriminatory laws that were not addressed by the Country Code Bill

• Lack of information dissemination and limited advocacy on the issue

• Execution and enforcement of the reformed laws

• Coping with a deep rooted gender discriminatory value system

• Lack of monitoring indicators

• Access to Justice

HOME