This week one of many such foreigners who reside in Kathmandu put up a bulletin. The notice about subletting her apartment in the city really was nothing out of the ordinary, except she had inserted a disclaimer at the very top of that read, “Attn: Foreigners ONLY” (caps lock as is).
Irritated that a foreigner would try and be exclusive to foreigners in a place where they themselves are foreign I uploaded my status to express my annoyance on a social network site, but I didn’t care to respond directly to the googlegroup.
The next day the group’s daily feed read one sarcastic or humorous comment after another challenging the unintended but blatant discrimination. While I was tempted to write a cheeky sentence or two, I realized I didn´t really have the license to.
I am possibly not the only Nepali to say I have experienced more discrimination from Nepalis than from foreigners in town.
After all I am possibly not the only Nepali to say I have experienced more discrimination from Nepalis than from foreigners in town.
Whether it is in being less of a priority at Roadhouse Café or banned from taking my bag up Dharara while expats seem to be getting great service at the restaurant and foreigners ushered up the winding stairs with their backpacks on their back after purchasing “tourist” tickets and not in a locker as with my “Nepali” ticket, it has been Nepalis discriminating against Nepalis.
My experience at the eatery may be mine alone. Or, the incident at Dharara a one-off. It may well indeed be phrased “courteous” to offer a seat to the lone Caucasian on the packed bus (and not the mother with a toddler in her arms?!), as a mark of our hospitality for our guests. But, what is with some Nepalis renting their apartments to “foreigners ONLY”?
A friend of mine last year, with her American accent and impeccable English, spoke with a potential landlord on the phone. The location, rent and contract detail appeared agreeable to both until her Nepali nationality came up. She was told he only rented the space to foreigners and denied a visit. Perhaps she could have convinced him she was indeed a wage earning financially capable and a socially reliable individual despite, dare I say, being Nepali. But, he repeated, foreigners only. As it so happens, there is no law against such forms of discrimination and making a legal case of it to probe the issue fizzled out.
Bottom line, if we Nepalis discriminate against us Nepalis, what have we demonstrated to the foreigners?
It’s doubtful the lady who put up the announcement was being racist. Many Nepalis seek exclusively Nepali roommates and housemates when they go overseas themselves.
Perhaps it’s simply more affordable for the thousands of college students on a budget, but also for the convenience of a shared language (for communication purposes) meals (that probably consist of more rice than pasta) and general culture. Mind you, not every single Nepali, but you yourself can probably think of a friend living in Wisconsin who seems to cohabitate residences with Nepalis “only”.
I suspect the attention to “foreigners ONLY” on the ktmktm googlegroup was for a similar sort of reason or maybe it was to ensure that while she was back in her home country a local in Nepal didn’t trash her apartment or steal her belongings. Or, maybe it was to avoid certain stereotypical Nepali nature. Like things we are notorious for, from listening to music with our cell phones set to the loud speaker while in public spaces to hyak thuk-ing, (or “hawking” as I am told the term is in English). Or perhaps she just meant to attract the attention of those able to afford the $300 a month rent. In any case, she struck a sensitive issue, that too quite unintentionally because there is nothing to say (except discrimination) that foreigners would be more honest or reliable than a Nepali.
However, it’s a good issue insofar as it’s something worth pondering. Not just because I would not like the staff at Dharara to think that suggesting I purchase a “tourist” ticket is enough for me to be permitted to take my bag with me (because I would still be a Nepali even if I paid Rs 20 more). If it’s a pricing issue – so be it, all they have to do is list the facilities available according to tickets priced differently. Of course, it’s not all that fair to discriminate on one’s socioeconomic standards (thereby, limitations), but it is more logical than to tag what is and is not to be for customers, clients and googlegroup members based on nationality.
Though, in the spirit of Visit Nepal 2011, I also have to wonder how much of a disservice we may be doing ourselves in allocating ticket prices based on the color of one’s passport – or is it the skin color?
A blue-passport American with a Nepali heritage can meander into Patan Square for free, but a Caucasian long-term expat more familiar with Nepal must either retrieve pages of official documents or procure the “foreigner (only)” fee to enter. The fee exists or is significantly higher for plane tickets, temple entrances and more. Then again, asking foreigners to pay some $5 to visit a UNESCO World Heritage Sites will hardly dent most of their bank accounts as it would the average Nepali. And, so the logic flows and the fees and services stated, that is until we become conscious of our actions and our personal policies.
Nepalis pay less, foreigners pay more. Nepalis get less, foreigners get more? Do we get what we pay for or do you get what we are?
Writer admits that she likes the Nepali prices but complains about the Nepali services
Related story
Russia-Ukraine Conflict: 302 Nepalis reach safe destinations
