The stigmatization of menstruation as something ‘dirty’ or ‘shameful’ has had wide-ranging negative effects on the health, education, participation, and social lives of women across the world. Nepal is not an exception to this. Reportedly, over two-thirds of women do not participate in non-religious social activities, schooling, and work while menstruating due to taboos and lack of proper facilities. The socio-cultural nature of the stigma makes it a complex issue to solve. As a one-size-fits-all policy will not make a deep impact, it requires a long-term approach which views and tackles the issue from multiple lenses. An example of the immunity of such stigmas against laws and policies is Chhaupadi – a religio-cultural practice in some parts of western Nepal which involves banishing girls and women to sheds during menstruation and childbirth. This article will examine the government’s approach to the issue and highlight its shortcomings.
The Cost of Chhaupadi
According to a local Raute dialect in the far-west, the word directly translates into ‘becoming untouchable’. Because menstruating girls and women are seen as ‘impure’ and ‘untouchable’, the practice involves temporarily banishing them from their homes into make-shift huts or cowsheds, also called Chhau sheds. These huts, where the girls and women have to stay and sleep, are generally not safe and leave them exposed to animal attacks, snake bites, sexual crimes, and health risks. Many also die from suffocation, especially during winters after they light a fire in the sheds to stay warm.
Other than safety concerns, Chhaupadi also poses health risks to girls and women due to poor access to clean water and sanitation facilities, which can in turn contribute to increased probabilities of cervical cancer, and reproductive and urinary infections. Moreover, they can be deprived of much-needed nutrition since they traditionally are unable to have milk and dairy products. It makes them more susceptible to health issues. As the menstruating individual would be considered ‘untouchable’, there would also be apprehension to offer help if they suffer from poor health during their confinement. One cannot help but wonder the level of shame, guilt, and humiliation girls and women would feel due to such isolation.
Government Efforts and Gaps
The government has been trying to end Chhaupadi for a long time now. The Supreme Court had banned it in 2005, and the Ministry of Women, Children an Social Welfare had promulgated guidelines to eradicate the practice in 2008. Unfortunately, this guideline was not implemented thoroughly, with provisions going unadhered. Most notably, the Nepal criminalized the practice in 2017 through its National Penal Code. As per the law, anyone who banishes a woman to a shed during menstruation or child delivery and subjects her to discrimination and inhumane treatment is liable to a sentence of a maximum of three months or a fine not exceeding NPR 3,000. The law attempts to address the issue of Chhaupadi within two sub-sections in the Penal Code, each only around thirty words long. Needless to say, this is not enough given that the practice remains very much alive. Its weakness is highlighted by the code not being supported with an official long-term implementation plan.
An infamous measure to enforce the ban included tearing down thousands of Chhau sheds. In addition, local governments warned families who refused to get rid of their Chhau sheds or continued to practice Chhaupadi that they would be denied access to social welfare services. Some of these services are crucial to remote or struggling households, such as nutrition allowance, old age allowance, citizenship verification, and birth registrations. Moreover, some affected families are yet to receive the promised consolation for the destruction of their sheds, only furthering feelings of social discontentment among the community members.
A particularly unsavory side-effect of the campaign was how it affected the very women and girls it aimed to protect. With the designated sheds gone, many found themselves having to adapt to makeshift arrangements, animal sheds, and even the open outdoors. Reportedly, locals have started rebuilding the Chhau sheds, because they are reasonably a more favorable option for shelter. Furthermore, women and girls could also have deep-seated misconceptions surrounding menstruation. This leads fear of inviting bad omen, or being blamed for it, if they do not adhere to traditions. In some areas, women themselves try to stop the police from dismantling the huts. Is it really an empowering campaign if women and girls are not guaranteed protection, both physically and mentally, once the sheds have been dismantled?
The government’s criminalization of the practice and the subsequent tearing down of the huts attempts to provide an opportunity. On paper, victims of Chhaupadi would come forward with reports to the local police and would see great social and legal support. Reality is quite different. In 2019, a woman forced into Chhaupadi unfortunately passed away due to asphyxiation from woodfire. The individual charged with the crime, under the aforementioned Penal Code, served only 45 days in prison.
Communities are still quite attached to the custom, and will not stop overnight just because it has been declared criminal, especially since the campaigns related have attempted to strong-arm community members to concede. It is not some external institution or organized group that is forcing women and girls into Chhaupadi. It is their own family members – people who they are socially, emotionally, and even financially linked to. How realistic is it to expect a victim to come forward and report instances of Chhaupadi, shouldering the very real risk of social stigma and ostracization, if she would be hurting her family? Thus, while a law that aims to protect the victims has been formulated, it is not accessible to the marginalized girls and women of the far-west.
Centering People in Policies
Aggressive measures that center on fear and punishment are not the most sustainable solutions to societal issues. For instance, simply dismantling the huts did not ensure that the households would welcome reform with open arms. This is because the Chhau sheds, which the efforts seem to center around, is only a symptom. The cause is the societal notions surrounding menstruation, which will require a gradual process that works alongside the people involved. A design which integrates the needs, wants, and limitations of the end-users is more likely to be adopted and embraced.
Demolishing the huts did enable some women and girls to remain within their homes during menstruation, albeit in a designated room and with extra caution to not ‘contaminate’ items related to cooking and worship. However, many were still forbidden to stay in their homes, leaving them in a worse condition. Since their families have shown heavy apprehension to allowing them to stay in the house, a better approach could be ensuring that the Chhau sheds they are ultimately banished to is in a livable shape. For this, there could be measures requiring the sheds to follow certain guidelines on insulation, ventilation, protection, and hygiene facilities. Maybe such a place could be a community space or a safe shelter of sorts for menstruating girls and women so they do not have to be isolated every month. Such an approach centering the people would allow for a better-paced process of change while also ensuring safety and dignity for the time being.
In the longer-term, it is crucial that the ongoing education and awareness campaigns promoting more knowledge on sexual and reproductive health and menstrual health management continue. Over the years, they have led to positive behavioral change in families. However, even shifting individual perceptions can take a long time, and translating those changes into actions or convincing family and community members can take even longer. It makes having a proper and consistent plan even more important.
Outlook
At its core, Chhaupadi is a manifestation of the attitudes surrounding menstruation in our society. Even in the urban areas, which have higher incomes and education levels, some menstruating girls and women are restricted from entering kitchens. Such deeply-ingrained norms can take decades and generations to change. Because change is gradual, there needs to be bridges that protect people. In this, we must ensure that we do not end up alienating already vulnerable members, especially the women and girls, by centering their opinions, well-being, concerns, and choices.
Sukeerti Shrestha holds a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration (Finance) from Kathmandu University. She is passionate about development economics and sustainability, with a keen interest in community-inclusive policy making. Currently, she works as an Aspiring beed at beed Management, building on her prior experience in management consulting and social enterprises.
