Pranika Koyu
The policeman standing by the door at the departure section of the Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA) told me to show my passport and ticket, and then said that I could not go through because I did not have the supporting documents. Notably, he had not looked at my passport and ticket. He informed me that the government had forbidden women from travelling alone on tourist visas. I told him off saying that if there was such a rule, we would know about it, and that the immigration official would decide if I could go or not. When I heard “next”, I just wheeled in my trolley for the initial security check.
This policeman’s actual duty is to stand by the door and regulate people in the queue waiting for their initial security check. After some time, my cousin who had come to see me off called me up to say agitatedly that the policeman had said, “She wants to show off; I will lock her up and then she will know,” as a subtle threat to other women in the queue. And he indeed managed to stall a middle-aged lady doctor for a considerable time because she was travelling alone to attend a medical conference in Abu Dhabi. The police officials at the baggage check were told about this and there was a quick hustle to the door; but the lady made it to the terminal lounge slightly before I boarded my flight.
While waiting for the flight, I had a coincidental meeting with a senior police officer assigned to airport security management. I quickly told him what the lady at the corner and I had faced downstairs, and asked him if that was the right procedure. I also requested the officer to call up my cousin and find out exactly what the constable had said after I forced my way in. The officer did make that call and he quickly left me to talk to his colleagues downstairs. I do not know what happened afterwards. The officer to whom I had complained confirmed that the police constable at the door was there to regulate the queue for the initial security check and it was improper of him to act the way he did with me and the lady doctor.
A month ago, a woman migrant worker named Sita Nepali returned to Nepal. According to media reports, she was asked by Somnath Khanal, an immigration official, to show her passport. He then took her for further interrogation fatefully at Immigration headquarters in Kalikasthan. Allegedly, she was questioned and her hard-earned wages stolen, and then she was handed over to a police constable who took her to the Solukhumbu Guest House and eventually raped her.
Every one of us should be concerned with this case not to ask “how it could have happened” but to understand “why it happened and what should be done”. What can be the consequences for us if Sita’s case is shelved? After all, her case reflects the violation of multiple rights, especially that of the right of women against gender-based violence. It also raises questions about the freedom of mobility for women, especially safe passage on equal terms with their male counterparts. And, of course, the right to a free and fair trial. She was travelling on someone else’s passport. Denial of lawful intervention by the Immigration Department allegedly made Sita easy prey for sexual violence committed against her by Parsuram Basnet, a Nepal Police constable.
If you recall Dechen Doma Sherpa’s case in 2011, an immigration official with the surname Basnet rejected her Nepali passport, citizenship and marriage registration, all verifying her as a Nepali citizen even after authentication by the District Administration Office. He then demanded a bribe of Rs 150,000 from her. Dechen paid the money, left for the US and released the audio recording of the conversation to the media. Is there a pattern here that tells us about the Immigration Office and its work ethics? After all, in May 2012, the media reported that the Department of Immigration topped the list of the most corrupt government agencies.
Additionally, the department must answer who at the departure and arrival sections of the airport are authorised to question the individuals leaving and arriving. Is it the task of the officials who collect the disembarkation and embarkation cards to question travellers before stamping their passports? Or is every staff member at the department authorised to ask every individual’s travel details and authenticity of nationality? And where should such questioning take place? Right after we get off the plane, while we are walking down the corridor or only at the time when we present our arrival form to the official behind the desk? Who should do the random selection for security check and questioning—the department staff or the security personnel? And if something were to be amiss, who and what will decide the fate of the “suspect”? We don’t know what constitutes lawful intervention because, clearly, it was a different story for Sita.
Interestingly, many of us are silent on this issue. National human rights mechanisms and rights-based organisations, I trust, are perhaps doing the right thing by keeping a low profile on this case. But what a shame it would be if this case meets the same fate as others. I sincerely hope that the human rights community will, for once, come out of their celebrated secure domain and extend their expertise so that justice for Sita and others like her will not be left again in the grey playfield of power and fistfuls of favours and dollars.
Published on: 24 December 2012 | The Kathmandu Post
GET IN TOUCH