The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has suggested the Constituent Assembly (CA) allow a Nepali mother or a Nepali father to pass on citizenship to their children. The preliminary draft of the constitution has proposed that a person can be Nepali by descent only if both his/her mother and father are Nepalis. This proposal also called the “and” clause, has upset many human rights activists. They say that the “and” provision is unequal and discriminatory against women. The national rights watchdog has said that the “and” provision should be replaced by the “or” provision (mother or father), whereby a mother’s or a father’s proof of nationality will qualify a person to acquire Nepali citizenship by descent. In its suggestions submitted to Constituent Assembly Chairman Subas Nembang on Thursday, the NHRC has said that the “or” provision adheres to the principle of equality and ensures a woman’s right to lineage. “The draft of the constitution has clearly mentioned that everyone is equal. The ‘and’ provision contradicts the ethos of the constitution,” said Commissioner Govinda Sharma Paudyal. “For instance, the ‘and’ provision will make the children of divorcees stateless.” Paudyal also said that constitutional provisions should be clear so that no one has to resort to the Supreme Court (SC) for interpretation. The number of writ petitions, seeking clarity on fundamental rights provisions, is on the rise at the SC, he said. Paudyal led the committee formed by the NHRC to suggest changes in the constitution, in particular on fundamental rights, directive principles of the state, formation of NHRC, and the state of emergency. The committee held consultations at its five regional offices with civil society members, rights activists and the public. At the central office, it consulted senior advocates, former commissioners, members of Nepal Bar Association, and Federation of Nepali Journalists on the provisions regarding children, the elderly, women, and disabled persons. The NHRC has also stood against setting up separate, independent human rights commissions in federal provinces, proposing instead that the provincial offices function under the aegis of the central NHRC. It has also objected to Article 284 which allows the federal Parliament to monitor and evaluate the NHRC and other constitutional bodies. “This is objectionable. The rights commission is an autonomous body and should not be accountable to Parliament. We are the ones who make the state accountable to people, as most rights violations are committed by the state,” said Paudyal. The International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions monitors, evaluates, and grades the rights commission. The NHRC has been maintaining an ‘A’ status since 2011. ___________________ Likewise, the Commission demanded that no fundamental right should be restricted by other laws. “Fundamental rights are the rights to be effective immediately, but no legal rights,” the suggestion read, “It is against the principles of human rights and fundamental rights to mention that certain laws will be made after certain periods to implement them, in the constitution.” The Commission, hence, urged the CA to remove mentions about the formulation of laws to implement fundamental rights. It also suggested that some restrictive clauses regarding fundamental rights be removed.