Whether due to political reasons or otherwise, recent events have seen not only feminists but also some men raise their voices regarding ‘women’s appointments’. As leaders of the women’s movement increasingly focus only on themselves and their inner circles, voices opposing feminism have intensified. On Asar 22, 2004 BS (mid-July 1947) in Kathmandu’s Mhaipi area, a women’s gathering established the Nepal Women’s Association, which played a crucial role in organizing women and ending the Rana regime. However, even within our own society, some people today believe feminism is unnecessary, a notion that does not bode well for women’s rights. There is a growing perception that those claiming to have fought for women’s rights have turned the women’s movement into a ladder for their personal gain, prioritizing their own and their affiliates’ interests.
Despite centuries of struggle around feminism and women’s rights, and progress achieved in voting rights and educational equality, challenges such as violence against women and discrimination remain unresolved. Simultaneously, opposition voices to the women’s movement are emerging. Studies worldwide indicate that the first collective author on women’s solidarity was Italian Christine de Pizan, who wrote about women’s social status in 1405. Later, French revolution saw significant participation by women workers. History shows that for the development of society and nation, not only women, but sometimes men have also contributed significantly. Yet in Nepal, certain people tend to regard their contributions in major social movements as solitary efforts rather than collective work.
Historical memoirs and writings reveal that the early women’s movement advanced through collective leadership. A notable example is the women’s meeting held on Asar 22, 2004 BS in Kathmandu’s Mhaipi, which led to the foundation of Nepal Women’s Association and helped organize women. Canadian trainer John Whitehead identifies three leadership theories: the Great Man Theory, Trait Theory, and Transformational Leadership. Nepal’s women’s movement fits under Transformational Leadership, where female leaders consulted and coordinated with one another. During the Panchayat era, women staged sit-ins at the palace to demand their rights, which contributed to the establishment of Padmakanya Vidyashram school for girls.
The first local elections allowing general voting occurred in 2004 BS, but women had to wait until 2010 BS to exercise voting rights, marking a major activism milestone for women’s rights. While the women’s rights movement has impacted society at large, the emergence of self-interest among leaders is seen negatively as it weakens the movement. This was evident in the recent appointment process for the Chief Justice, where women failed to unite. Sushila Karki, Nepal’s first female Chief Justice and Prime Minister, criticized the current appointment as a step shrinking the judiciary. She described the sidelining of Chief Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla as a ‘kick to 15 million women’. However, her comments received limited support or response in public forums, highlighting that personal interest interwoven with movements, even among women, and partisan leadership cannot sustain momentum on their own.
Political interests influence women’s appointment processes, with reports of longstanding arrangements in Supreme Court appointments for over 20 years. This has increased public dissatisfaction nationwide toward the judiciary, and the future impact remains to be seen. However, there is hope that, as the Nepal Bar Association suggests, people will no longer be required to “hold a lantern” to seek justice. Senior advocate Dr. Shankarkumar Shrestha has emphasized that appointing a Chief Justice alone does not restore judicial independence; rather, restructuring the judiciary is necessary.
