Submit your Article

Before discussing the issues around fairness, let me tease out its meaning. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as ‘impartial and just treatment or behaviour without favouritism or discrimination’. The definition seems straightforward, which is about not being impartial in treating others. If ‘fairness’ is searched on Google, it will provide more than 315m hits in less than a second. The websites include meaning, definition, examples, blogs and companies that work for fairness. Additionally, the Cambridge Dictionary categorizes ‘fairness’ as a Band-5 English word. That means ‘fairness’ is repeated 1-10 times in every one million words used. What that means is—there is no shortage of knowledge about fairness.

Despite being a common word, the understanding of fairness is diverse and differs from person to person, time to time and community to community. Let me give three examples and show a diverse understanding of fairness. In 1974, we had a puja (a religious event) in our house. Upon completing the puja, my father gave tika and money to some, just tika to some and nothing to the rest. My brothers and I got the tika but not the money. All my sisters got both tika and money.

I witnessed the second case in 1992. In a family, both husband and wife used to work for a commercial bank. They used to share the transport while going to the office and coming home. Other than during office hours, the husband used to read newspapers, watch TV, call friends and relatives, meet people and attend club meetings. The wife did have a different schedule that included cooking food, cleaning the house, washing clothes, shopping for groceries and preparing their children for school. I thought it was unfair to the wife. One day, I approached her and asked how she felt about the work she was doing at home. Interestingly, she never thought about the unfairness in daily life. She said, “I treat my husband as god. How can I ask him to do the dishes? This is my duty and little service to him.”

The third case links to a community school I saw in 1996. I visited a primary school in Palpa district, where I spent a day with a teacher and students. The primary school had three classes (Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3). Due to the low number of students, one teacher had to teach all students. While passing through the school, I saw wide age-ranging students sitting in one classroom. I learned that the youngest in the class was five years old, and the eldest was 13. Was it fair for students to study in the same class despite the expectations of developing skills and knowledge of different levels? Didn't those students deserve a better education?

The analysis of the above three examples provides multiple facets of fairness. The first one demonstrates the diverse understanding of fairness between father and son. Even though the difference seemed individual, deep-rooted culture and rituals played a vital role. The puja incident hurt me badly. It was unfair treatment to me and my brothers. Why couldn’t we get money? Even though I did not know the actual value of money, I knew its importance in getting sweets. I cried for money, which I believe was the cry for fair treatment. My requests were not heard, my tears ignored, and my questions overlooked. I was discriminated against sisters. The second case is an example of ignorance of fairness. Since the actions are accepted as a duty or the best act of a human being, fairness-related issues are not realized and raised. The third case is very broad in the sense of fairness. Many people may not even realize how people were treated differently.

Given the complexity of the understanding, the meaning of fairness is relatively straightforward for those who often miss the criticality in evaluating their thoughts and ideas when making decisions and distributing resources. Only those people who realize unfair treatment may better understand the importance of fairness. From a fairness perspective, people could be divided into three broad categories—some always get the benefits and feel it is deserved, some are always treated unfairly and believe that is what they have earned, and the rest do not understand the difference or do not care about fairness. Even though fairness lies in every action and decision, deep-rooted thoughts and ignorance cover unfair incidents. As a result, people do not pay much attention to fairness.

My sticking point regarding fairness was the unfair treatment in puja. The incident was one of thousands happening in the village every day. Even after three decades, I do not think these examples have become uncommon and outdated. If you have not gone through any of the unfair situations, you might be a privileged person. That means your position may have blocked the vision for differentiating fairness from unfairness.

The issues can be viewed from three broad perspectives–moral, social and legal. I took a moral view and expected equal treatment from my father. I expected my father to be impartial while making decisions and distributing resources. But my father took a social approach while treating me and my sisters differently. The government took a legal perspective in making the decisions for teacher allocations, maintaining the student-teacher ratio in the country. From the students’ point of view, their birth was random to the place, which should not have been penalized by deputing fewer teachers.

Fairness becomes more complex when happiness and profit are involved. For example, during an ultralight flight over Pokhara about a year ago, I marveled at the breathtaking views of land, rivers, lakes and vibrant communities–Pokhara is a canvas made of nature and hands! That is what I felt on landing. While I enjoyed the experience, the company earned profit. In return, the local residents had to cope with noise and polluted air. Is it fair for them?

Whilst considering everyday actions and decisions, can anyone be fair in all situations? Perhaps the obvious answer is no. What will happen if society lacks fairness? How far can a society go with favoured decisions and partial resource allocations? If these questions point toward a dark future, this is the time to think and act for a fairer and wiser society.

The author is the subject lead for Business Management (UG) at De Montfort University, Leicester and holds a PhD in the performance of small and medium enterprises

In ‘Sex, Desire, and Taboo in South Asia: Religion, Culture of Ability, and Patriarchy,’ the author Dr Tulasi Acharya delves into the complex interplay of sexuality, societal norms, and religious doctrine that shape the sexual taboos in South Asia, especially Nepal and India. 

With a profound academic understanding, the book explores how historical shifts—particularly the rise of patriarchy and the evolution of religious perspectives—have led to a societal repression of sexuality, despite South Asia’s rich heritage of erotic art and literature.

The author offers a fascinating juxtaposition between the open depiction of sexuality in religious art—such as the vivid erotic sculptures found in temples—and the conservative societal attitudes that repress discussions of sex. This paradox, which has perplexed many scholars and travelers, is tackled with precision. The book explains that historically, South Asian societies were more open to discussions of sex and desire. However, over time, as patriarchal structures tightened their grip on women’s bodies and sexuality, these open expressions were overshadowed by moral and religious frameworks that associated sex with immorality and family dishonor.

The text emphasizes that, in contrast to European traditions where sexual taboos also exist but with a different societal framework, South Asian cultures have a more pronounced disconnect between public restraint and private religious expression. Temples, art, and ancient texts like the Kamasutra celebrate eroticism as a part of human life. But this stands in stark contrast to how sex is perceived in daily life. The author identifies this cultural schizophrenia as a product of both religious reinterpretation and patriarchal control, particularly the imposition of rigid gender roles and the regulation of women’s sexual freedom.

The book also discusses how these sexual taboos evolved. The author suggests that these shifts didn’t stem from economic or capitalist pursuits but rather from patriarchal norms that emerged and became institutionalized over centuries. This transformation is further compounded by religious interpretations that often serve to reinforce male power dynamics. As a result, sex became not a natural part of human existence to be explored and celebrated, but something to be controlled, particularly in relation to women and marginalized groups.

What makes the book particularly compelling is its exploration of the intersections of gender, religion, and power. The author provides a nuanced critique of both religious and secular texts, suggesting that while religion offers powerful narratives that could empower women (such as the reverence of goddesses like Kali and Durga), the dominant religious narratives overwhelmingly reflect male-centric values. 

By drawing on feminist scholars like Gayatri Spivak and exploring local subaltern perspectives, the author offers a refreshing and insightful critique of how patriarchal structures have influenced the perception and regulation of sexuality, despite Foucault’s sexual theory which helps understand the discourse of sex.

The book proposes that the key to breaking these taboos lies in education. A recurrent theme is the necessity for improved sexual education and awareness, especially in South Asia, where societal conditioning often stifles discussions about sex. The author argues that a better understanding of sexuality, its significance for human pleasure, and its role in society could lead to a more informed, tolerant, and accepting approach to sex, even within the religious contexts that traditionally promote its repression.

Despite these enlightening arguments, one question that lingers is whether the shift away from taboo and repression can truly happen within the religious framework itself or if it would require a broader secular movement to challenge these deeply ingrained norms. While the author doesn’t claim to have a definitive answer, he emphasizes that change will likely need to start from the grassroots—beginning with schools and educational systems that promote open discussion and understanding of sexuality. Only then, the author suggests, can South Asia move toward a future where sexual freedom and expression are no longer deemed taboo.

Sex, Desire, and Taboo in South Asia is a provocative and timely contribution to the ongoing discourse about sexuality, power, and culture in the region. It challenges readers to rethink the complex relationship between religion, culture, and patriarchal structures, offering new insights into how societal change may be achieved through education and greater awareness. 

Article 93(1) of the Constitution of Nepal, 2015 states that the interval between the two consecutive sessions of the federal parliament shall not be more than six months. The budget session was prorogued in mid-September 2024, meaning that the deadline for convening the winter session has not passed.

Notwithstanding this provision, the winter session should already have begun in accordance with a prevailing practice of convening the session within three months after the prorogation of the budget session.

With over 20 bills pending, lawmakers have their hands full. The parliament will need ample time for deliberations on each bill and for incorporation of concerns coming from lawmakers as law-making in a democracy is not done at the crack of a whip.

So, what is stopping the government from recommending the President to summon the winter session?

Some existential crisis, fear of criticism or some other factor?  

What’s exactly cooking in the corridors of power?

Media reports point out that the government has some other designs. Rather than stepping up preparations for the session, the two major ruling parties—the CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress—are in talks to introduce an ordinance that will actually ‘facilitate’ the splitting of political parties.

 These dark-room negotiations and delay in convening the session have not gone unnoticed. Speaking at a program of the Federal Parliament Secretariat recently, the Speaker of the House of Representatives expressed dissatisfaction over the delay in convening the session. Describing the government as the child of the parliament, he accused the child of sidestepping, undermining and even boycotting the mother.

Lawmakers from the opposition parties have objected to this style of functioning, accusing the government of seeking to rule through ordinances, ignoring the voices of the people and trying to avoid criticism.

On their part, some ministers and ruling party leaders have conceded that inter-party talks on whether or not to present the bill on splitting of political parties during this session are in progress, indicating that the winter session may convene in about a fortnight.

Summing up, the government should learn some bitter lessons from similar misadventures instead of trying to ‘facilitate’ the split of parties for temporary gains, rule through ordinances and undermine the concerns of the opposition and the people if it indeed wants the polity to stabilize and deliver.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Board of Directors has approved $50 million of additional funding for the Nepal Compact. This Board action underscores the shared commitment between MCC and the Government of Nepal to advancing Nepal’s development priorities through transformative, high-quality infrastructure projects.

“The additional funding reaffirms our mutual dedication to ensuring the compact’s success in strengthening Nepal’s electricity grid and supporting long-term economic growth,” said MCC Vice President of Compact Operations Cameron Alford.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation is an independent U.S. government development agency working to reduce global poverty through economic growth. Created in 2004, MCC provides time-limited grants that pair investments in infrastructure with policy and institutional reforms to countries that meet rigorous standards for good governance, fighting corruption and respecting democratic rights.