Oped»
MONDAY INTERVIEW
- State restructuring on ethnicity misunderstood
AUG 22 -
The Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) organised a banda last Sunday and unveiled month-long programmes to press for a timely constitution that is inclusive of the rights of indigenous communities. Given the timing of the new agitation, there has been some scepticism about its effectiveness, even from within the janajati quarters, including from former NEFIN General Secretary Om Gurung. Pranab Kharel and Biswas Baral caught up with Gurung, who now heads the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Tribhuvan University, about the state of the janajati movement, the latest NEFIN protest programmes and the controversial DFID funding issue.
NEFIN recently organised a banda and announced month-long programmes. How do you see this in terms of the broader janajati movement?
The janajati movement has gone off the boil of late. Their issues have been pushed into obscurity. The political parties, the state and the government have not taken up janajati issues seriously. We are afraid that janajati issues may not be included in the new constitution. Now, NEFIN has announced month-long programmes and even a banda has been organised. But I still disagree with the timing of the movement. It was not started when there was a strong government in place. By asking the makeshift government to fulfil their demands, janajatis are unnecessarily increasing the government’s importance. The movement has definitely served a propaganda purpose but it cannot deliver any substantial results.
You say janajati issues have been obscured. Why do you think this has happened?
There might be a number of reasons. The first is the politicisation of janajati issues. The janajati leadership which should have played an active role in the janajati movement are now CA members and they may not have the moral compulsion to lead the movement. They might now be more loyal to individual parties.
There has been some controversy over the Department for International Development (DFID) reportedly calling on NEFIN to withdraw the Aug. 15 banda. What have you made of it?
This kind of direct intervention on the part of donor agencies is uncalled for. Their support cannot be conditional. Yes, they can urge us not to hold bandas on the grounds that they might curtail citizens’ rights, but writing a letter to NEFIN to call off the banda is crossing a bridge too many. On one hand, DFID is helping secure the rights and strengthen the voice of the janajatis. But when the janajatis actually do something to secure their rights, DFID intervenes saying that the movement might impinge on child rights or citizens’ rights. If this kind of intervention continues, we will be able to do nothing. The donor agencies should not be allowed to dictate our agenda.
Even while you were NEFIN president, DFID reportedly provided you substantial financial help. Isn’t it natural that the donor would want something in return?
Yes, we were being provided with Rs 190 million over three years. We decided to accept the funds as no conditions were placed before us. Now, it seems stringent conditions are being placed on funding. I believe all adivasi/janajati bodies should be clear on their agenda and goals. If that happens, and the funding aligns with those goals, we should accept them. If the funding goes against the spirit of our goals, we should reject them.
Given the recent developments, how do you see janajati politics progressing?
Janajati politics is directly related to janajati rights. The concepts of inclusive democracy, proportional representation, state restructuring on ethnic lines, agradhikar (priority rights) and quotas for adivasis/janajatis which are being raised now - these are the issues which were raised by the janajati movement. We see this as a positive development. But sections of both janajatis and non-janajatis have failed to understand some of these issues. Some janajatis have lent a highly partisan and incendiary interpretation of these concepts, which has made the political parties and those in the government suspicious. But the janajatis have also not been able to convince the sceptics about the merits of their demands. There ought to be a broad national dialogue to define these concepts properly. In the context of Nepal, there is a strong need for national integration. This calls for strong sense of identity among its people and embracing of diversity. But the state wants to assimilate them all by destroying their individualities.
As you said, there is some gap in the understanding of important terms between janajatis and non-janajatis. There is a fear that some will look to exploit this and hijack the janajati movement.
NEFIN has a very important role to play in this regard. Even when we conducted the janajati movement in the past we conducted it with restraint, keeping the country’s interests and unity in mind. This is how we have brought the movement this far. NEFIN has to be careful in this regard. If NEFIN cannot take charge of the movement, chances are high that it might be hijacked by political parties or other extremist forces.
NEFIN now seems to be against the formation of the State Restru-
cturing Commission while during the signing of the 2007 20-point agreement with the government it was in favour of the idea.
The establishment of such a commission is without any rationale right now. One of the clauses of the 20-point agreement was that a State Restructuring Commission would be formed and it would recommend a map of states. Such a commission would consist of experts from every field - political, economic, geographic, sociological, among others - who would draw a blueprint for the states. But there was no exercise towards creation of the commission. Since then, a separate ministry and a separate committee in the CA has been created for the same purpose. They have now presented their blueprint for a 14-state solution which is more or less what the janajatis have been advocating for. In principal, the janajatis have embraced the blueprint, albeit with some reservations. Now, if the commission is being created to decide technical aspects of the 14-state model, we have no objection. But what we hear is that plans are afoot to scrap the 14-state model and replace it with a new one. There is no rationale for that because most of us have already accepted the 14-state model.
NEFIN has been emphasising ethnicity as the basis of state restructuring. Many fear that state restructuring on ethic lines could disturb social harmony.
When we talk of state restructuring on ethnic basis, many have understood it to mean that, since there are 102 ethnic groups in Nepal, we are trying to carve out a separate state for each. That is not the case. People also tend to understand ethnicity along the lines defined by the Hindu Varna system and question where Bahun/Chettris, Dalits, Gurungs, Newars will have their separate states. But what we are talking about are nationalities. We might as well call it state restructuring on the basis of nationalities. It means that since there are ethnic groups that are so developed so as to constitute a separate nation, there are plenty of opportunities to draw state lines on that basis. Thus we can take a few nationalities as the basis for state restructuring. But that doesn’t mean that a state named after a particular nationality will forbid other nationalities or ethnic groups. I believe the concept of state creation along ethnic lines has not been properly understood by the political parties and other stakeholders. At the same time, those advocating for such a division have also not been able to make their case clearly.
Are there misunderstandings regarding agradhikar too?
Yes, the question of agradhikar has scared many. I define agradhikar as special rights. Many countries that practice special rights, including the US and India. There are some special provisions to bring those at the
bottom of a hierarchical society further up which have been practiced, starting in the US in the form of affirmative action for the blacks. Now, it is being understood to mean that if a particular group is given special rights other groups in the same region will have no rights. But as I said, it should be understood as special opportunities for the communities at the bottom rung of the social hierarchy to bring them on a level playing field with the rest. The concept of agradhikar is not opposed to the ideals of equality and democracy, but rather strengthens them. In an unequal, hierarchical society like Nepal there should be such provisions.
It will not be wrong to understand agradhikar in terms of reservations and quotas for people of traditionally deprived communities.
Posted on: 2010-08-23 07:39
Headlines
Advertisements
