Lalitpur, Aama ko naam bata nagrita. Article 8 (2) (b) of the Interim Constitution states, in no uncertain terms, that “any person whose father or mother is a citizen of Nepal at the birth of such person” shall be deemed a citizen of Nepal by descent. The Interim Constitution is simply reiterating what the Citizenship Act 2006 provides, in the same exact words. When instituted, these provisions were hailed as a progressive step forward, but, as is often the case, the clauses remained unimplemented. Hamstrung by a deeply conservative bureaucracy and an almost jingoistic political class, the provision of citizenship through the father ‘or’ the mother has remained limited to paper. The attitude of the bureaucracy was exemplified by a recent opinion shared by the Lalitpur Chief District Officer Yadav Koirala, the official mandated with issuing citizenship cards in the district. “A provision like that would allow every foreigner to be a Nepali. This is not about gender equality, but about nationalism and national security,” Koirala said. The mentality behind Koirala’s statement seems to be the driving force behind the Constituent Assembly’s (CA) recent attempts to replace the ‘or’ clause in new constitution and replace it with an ‘and’, requiring both fathers and mothers to acquiesce in providing citizenship to their children. CA members in support of this change hold up the bogey of inundation by foreign nationals through the porous border as justification, claiming that ‘nationalism’ is at risk. A draft citizenship clause with the offending ‘and’ clause is already doing the rounds in the CA, sparking a furore among the public. A change.org petition asking CA members to reconsider the regressive provision has been circulating on social media but has so far managed to gain only around 1,500 signatures. A mass rally has also been planned for tomorrow at the Maitighar Mandala to ply pressure. Within the CA, a few members from Madhesi parties and some women members from the ruling parties have spoken out against the ‘and’ provision, but sadly, they claim, they are being overruled by leaders of the larger parties, namely the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML, the UCPN (Maoist), and Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal. The current CA cannot allow such a blatantly discriminatory provision to be enshrined in the new constitution. Including the ‘and’ provision in the new constitution, which is supposed to be inclusive and broadbased, would be tantamount to sending an indisputable message that women are not equal to men. After all, children always receive citizenship even if only their father’s citizenship is available; it is just mothers who are barred from doing so independently. Civil society, therefore, will need to keep up the pressure; although, the movement would benefit from a broad coalition of civil society, women CA members, Madhesis, and Dalits. So far, all top political lead ers have remained silent; perhaps it is also time for them to take up the torch and speak out in favour of equal rights for all, whether man or woman.