E-Kantipur

While discussing inclusion, equality, and justice in the public domain in Nepal, there is frequent muddling up of the concepts of class and ethnicity. Ethnic movements and write-ups on ethnic discrimination are often criticised as being elite-led or written. What such critics forget is that not only all struggles against injustice are elite-led but that class and ethnicity are two different concepts that affect people in different ways. While being privileged in one sphere is better than being discriminated in both spheres, being well-off economically does not mean that even a rich member of culturally discriminated group does not encounter racism and prejudice. Economic and political power could blunt the cultural discrimination sometimes but the prejudice still remains and affects all members of marginalised communities, including the rich. A prime example is that many rich Madhesis are suspected of being less loyal to the Nepali state by many hill Nepalis.

The mix up often occurs because people either only prioritise one concept and/or do not recognise the other.  The muddling also takes place because ethnic groups contain members of different classes while members of different ethnic groups can share a class. The two terms should be analytically distinguished because they represent different phenomena and people can be mobilised based on their ethnic affiliation and/or class interests. Muddling up the categories will result in an inadequate and problematic understanding of  society. 

This mix up and belittling is not limited only to the popular level. Academics engaged with either class or ethnicity often ignore or undermine the other but such tendencies are more frequently found in those looking at the world from class-based perspectives. For example, Benedict Anderson and his followers have pointed out that ethnicity and nationalism are social constructs. What they do not point out is that class is even more of a social and fluid construct than ethnicity. Social scientists generally assume that it takes several decades for ethnic identities to change. But more people can change their class status in much less time, even a few years.

Class deals with economic wellbeing while ethnicity deals with cultural welfare. Material wellbeing alone does not satisfy human needs. Newars and Thakalis are materially well off but they are engaged in movements to protect their culture, religion, language and lifestyle. Likewise, many Bahun immigrants doing materially well in foreign lands carry on with their cultural practices.

Being poor may hinder people from accessing resources while culturally discriminated groups suffer from racism and prejudice. Class is a concept that makes a vertical distinction among people based on access to material resources while ethnicity is a dinstinction often based on horizontal cultural differentiations. Ethnicity can encompasses class differences within a group. Despite the class differences, the members still consider themselves as a community. In fact, it is often the elite among the ethnic group that lead the struggle for the group’s rights and protection of socio-cultural interests. When groups gain rights and recognition, all members of the community benefit, even though the benefits may not be uniform. The social justice movements led by the elites of the indigenous, Dalit, Muslim and Madhesi groups in Nepal have contributed in the socio-cultural wellbeing of poor sections of those communities as well.

The table shows how class and ethnicity affect people of a multiethnic society. While a rich CHHE member does not face negative consequences of poverty and cultural discrimination, a rich indigenous, Dalit, Madhesi and Muslim will face cultural discrimination at varying levels. While a poor Dalit, indigenous, Madhesi and Muslim will face double challenges (cultural discrimination and poverty) a poor CHHE will face poverty but not encounter cultural discrimination. A rich Madhesi Brahmin may live a better life materially than a poor hill Bahun but may suffer from racism. On the other hand, a poor Bahun has much more social mobility opportunities than a poor indigenous, Dalit, Madhesi or Muslim. For example, he may attend free residential Sanskrit school, get a job to teach in Sanskrit and Khas-Nepali in schools, is likely to perform better in public service exam conducted in his native language, and benefit from caste network in career advancement. On the other hand, it will be more challenging for poor indigenous, Dalit, Madhesi and Muslim, who face double discrimination, to overcome their vulnerable positions.

On the other hand, even a rich or capable member of the discriminated community may have to compromise his/her culture for social mobility, such as deemphasising community’s values and cultural practices. They may feel the need to pick up the dominant culture and practices, which they often do imperfectly. It may invite not only sneers but an epithet of incompetence. Thus even a rich and capable member from the culturally discriminated groups may not be able to compete with a rich CHHE.  The fact that Dalit, indigenous, Madhesi and Muslim elite have never become the effective executive head of the country makes that clear.  

People who emphasise class issues over ethnicity even when discussing ethnic inequality and injustice do so either out of ignorance or to defend their group privileges. Critics often point their finger at a few privileged people from marginalised communities to challenge claims of discriminated groups. However, pointing out exceptions does not make the general rule. It is like pointing out Chaudharys, Khetans, Golchas, Jyotis, Viadya’s etc. and claiming that Nepalis are rich. The irony is further revealed when such “advocates” of class analysis reject the name Prachanda and insist on calling the Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the name that signifies ethnicity.

The discussion is not an attempt to undermine class analysis. Nepal faces the challenge of poverty as well. Both cultural discrimination and income inequalities should be recognised as problems. Ethnic movements should also realise that members of their communities may aspire for cultural rights and dignity but may also want to uplift their material wellbeing. The need is to address both cleavages. Only then can Nepal move forward. Such an approach could be beneficial to political outfits that aspire to expand. Organisations that can simultaneously focus on two issues can grow, as the rapid rise of the Maoists has shown.

Lawoti is co-editor of the forthcoming book Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, London: Routledge

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.