Resurgence of Panchayat nationalism
Widespread criticism of identity-based federalism has been expressed through various avenues in recent days. Underlying them is a fear of disunity and division that has deep historical roots. The manner in which this fear is expressed reveals that the nationalist narratives of the Panchayat era continue to have a deep hold upon certain sections of Nepali society. At root those who fear federalism worry that Nepal is a small, powerless country that finds it difficult to maintain its sovereignty. They feel that a common culture and symbols are necessary to create a shared sense of nationhood; that allowing full expression to all of Nepal’s diverse cultures can only undermine a shared sense of belonging to the Nepali nation.
Such fears have found expression and have been responsible for shaping Nepal’s institutions in many other times during recent history as well. And as time has gone by, it has been revealed that these fears have not only been groundless, but have even exacerbated antagonisms within Nepali society. The period of the drafting of the 1990 constitution is a case in point. The drafters of that constitution were deeply in thrall to certain aspects of the conventional wisdom of the Panchayat era. Even as they tried to devise a new democratic framework, they thought it paramount to include provisions that would preserve “national unity”. So they continued to accord the institution of the monarchy a great deal of importance. The monarch, it was claimed, was necessary as a symbol of the bond that tied all of Nepal’s population together.
This was not considered to be enough. The drafters sought to impose limits on the types of political parties that could compete in the new democracy. Only parties that claimed to represent all sections of the population were allowed to exist; all parties based on “religion, community, caste, tribe or region” were banned.
And although the constitution’s drafters were aware that deep inequalities existed within Nepali society, they did not think it preferable to allow for affirmative action policies for the historically marginalised. They argued that to do so would be to encourage the consolidation of caste and ethnic identities to the detriment of the national. They took the Indian case as a negative example of what would happen. India in 1990 was in phase of acute political mobilisation along caste lines following the recommendations of the Mandal Commission to expand reservations in the state sector. This kind of political mobilisation, the drafters of the Nepali constitution thought, should not be allowed to occur in Nepal.
Every single individual who currently criticises the idea of federalism based on identity was at that time a firm believer in these arguments. Over time, their beliefs were proven wrong in each of the above cases. The king eventually misused the powers, limited as
they may have been, granted to him by the 1990 constitution and usurped entire executive power. It became necessary to overthrow his regime and strip him of all powers. Even until a year or so before the 2006 Jana Andolan those who are currently critical of federalism were arguing that although the monarch’s powers needed to be curtailed, the institution should not be abolished. For it was necessary as a symbol to bind together Nepal’s diverse people. But the republic came and the nation remained intact.
Then, it was realised that banning parties representing particular communities and not allowing for affirmative action was a futile exercise as well. It did not after all prevent the tremendous surge in ethnic and caste demands that began in the 1990s and continue to have a major impact upon Nepali society. Rather, it was those very provisions that made numerous Nepalis feel that despite its democratic promise, the parliamentary regime was as exclusionary as the Panchayat. The Maoists exploited these feelings of resentment in their own war against the state. In fact, it can be said that these provisions were in part directly responsible for the swift spread of the Maoist insurgency across the nation.
The idea that affirmative action is necessary has become so widespread in Nepali society that no political party can publicly speak against it. Those who currently oppose federalism are in reality also deeply opposed to any affirmative action or the creation of parties along ethnic, caste and regional lines. It’s just that political circumstances are such that they fear that they will be publicly condemned as reactionary if they state, for example, that all Madhesi parties be banned.
Rather, these opponents of federalism seek to spread deliberate false information regarding federalism in order to sow fear among the public. They claim that in provinces based on ethnicity dominant groups will have special rights (agradhikar) and will subjugate those of other ethnicities. They fail to reveal that no party in the Constituent Assembly is currently demanding rights for particular communities that will curtail the rights of others. Even the Maoists have largely abandoned the demand for agradhikar. All communities will have equal rights to compete in all provinces. The only demand is that the identity of particular groups be recognised and some provisions be made for them to promote their language or culture.
Then there is the argument that allowing for states based on identity will mean creating ethnic-ghettos where every individual will be forced to engage only with others from the same community. This argument too is puzzling. For nowhere in any proposal for federalism has anyone stated that only people of a particular community can live in particular provinces. Freedom of movement between regions will continue to exist in Nepal. Any Nepali citizen can reside wherever he or she wishes. Once again a glance at the Indian case is instructive. The formation of states along linguistic lines has not prevented vast numbers of Indians from migrating to other states or enjoying full citizenship rights there.
The process of creating a federal structure will be immensely complicated and all of its various aspects should be debated. But the expression of atavistic fears in false arguments will only polarise society and undermine any constructive attempts to resolve the disagreements in the Constituent Assembly.
aditya.adhikari@gmail.com
Posted on: 2012-01-03 09:14
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
All of them discussed the issue. The result was the same...and we have committed to continue discussions on the issue till midnight.
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
