When politics is mixed with ethnic identity the outcome could be catastrophic.

Debates on state restructuring, number of federal provinces and form of governance have deservedly sharpened, as exercises to delineate the contours of new Nepal are picking up the pace. It is but natural for people at such point in time to want to   demonstrate their taste for new things and new ideas for new Nepal. As expected, some of these debates are sound, balanced and informed; the others are, sadly, characterized  by excessive emotion, sentiments and carry heavy ethnic overtones. Arguments for identity- dominant provinces, with preferential political rights, together with increased quota reservation are some of the examples. Interestingly views of prominent intellectuals, civil society members, social scientists, development experts and leaders of political parties, too, are sharply divided over these issues.

The second set of arguments may have some justifications in the context of creating a level-playing field for the ethnic minorities, dalits and other highly marginalised groups. The caste-based discrimination, denial of access to opportunities for their overall socio-economic and cultural wellbeing perpetuated against them for centuries are extremely obnoxious and need to be rectified in the new Nepal. But one fails to understand how the creation of ethnic-dominant provinces with prior political rights can eliminate those prejudices.  Rather, as has been rightly pointed out by many, such a system may alienate the majority of other ethnic and social groups within the province and prove to be a potential ingredient for ethnic conflict in the long run. Naturally, under such a system, they will feel excluded from the mainstream of political and administrative decision making processes that matter most to them.

I think, the present clamour for ethnic-based provinces, the insistent on preferential political rights, the persistent demand for increased reservation quotas in government services are largely the echoes of unfounded fear, fear of domination yet again from other groups, notably the bahaun-chhetrys. Madheshis are  fearful of the pahades ( bahun chetrys’) domination, Tharus are deeply apprehensive of the madhesis, the Rajptus, Yadavs, Kayasthas, Jhas and other ethnic groups,  and so on. Fear, as is obvious, is the worst enemy of reason. Even the wisest of peoples under grip of fear would lose their ability of   creative and rational thinking.  And when fear assumes   collective form    its outcome could be disastrous.  George Bertand Russell has so aptly epitomized the danger of collective fear when he said, “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocities toward those which are not regarded as members of the herd”. Needless to say, this collective fear mania seems to have made a deep inroad into the psyche of   our intellectuals, social scientists, political parties and their leaders. The Maoist   Party first applied with precision the instrument of fear as an ultimate means to achieve their “state capture” end.  Through intimidation, extortion and even physical elimination of those who dared to challenge them, they were successful in instilling fear and terror into the minds of people across the nook and corner of the country. As a matter of fact, If we take a close look at the periods   before, during and   after the Janaandolana-2, unfortunately,  fear seems to be the predominant factor moving the societies, politics and political parties in Nepal: Fear of the Monarchy trying to covertly subvert the CA elections, followed  then by  a morbid fear of the Nepal Army  supposedly staging a coup during CA’s  decision to abolish Monarchy.  There was hope that   the country would shake off the fear phobia, once the institution of Monarchy was consigned to the pages of history. But sorry to say, that expectation, too, proved to be illusionary.  The Nepali congress, the UML and other smaller parties began to feel mortally afraid of the Maoist, when it emerged as the largest party after the CA elections. The Maoist party similarly began to be unnerved as it thought the rest of the parties in tandem with international community were ganging up against it. This gave birth to a politics of fear, which continues to haunt the parties and deepen the fear psychology.  Inability to finish the peace and constitution writing processes has to do with the mutual distrust and fear. And these processes will never be completed until fear continues to grip the psyche of our leaders.

Danger of identity politics

The issue of identity is important, indeed. It is but natural, thus, to see various ethnic groups trying to assert their identity so as not be left out in the on-going state restructuring exercises.  It is heartening, too, to witness the growing awareness among them to want to protect and promote their identities. But when politics is mixed with ethnic identity the outcome could be catastrophic. It may bred inter-ethnic intolerance, abhorrence and ultimately may lead to ethnic conflicts. History is replete with horrendous ethnic conflicts, such as the one in Rwanda between the Tutsus and the Hutus, in Kosovo and in Sarajevo, in Sudan and elsewhere.  Adolf Hitler’s ambition for German empire was founded on the notion of ethnic superiority of Aryan race and pathological hatred against the Jewish and the gypsy communities. He was said to be under constant fear   of possible conspiracy being covertly hatched by the affluent Jewish community to unseat him from power. He saw their total elimination as a safeguard   . In our recent time, mass killings of southern ethnic Sudanese perpetrated by the northern ethnic Arabs led to the disintegration of the country.  Interestingly, the credit of sowing the seeds of ethnic politics in Nepal goes to none other than the Maoist party leaders. In an attempt to gain support of   various ethnic groups during the height of insurgency, they promised to divide the country into several ethnic provinces. Now, they are made to taste the medicine of their own making; the spectre of ethnic-based politics has begun to haunt them right under their nose. They have seen the dangers inherent in the identity politics if at all allowed to go ahead unrestrained.  The identity politics has become so pervasive that some madhesis in the tarai region are wanting one Madhesh one pradesh, the tharus, on the other hand want a separate Tharuwan province within Madhesh. The Kirants, the limbus in the east are demanding separate Kirat and Limbuwan provinces with preferential political rights, and the Newars from Kathmandu valley want a separate Newa province.  Meanwhile, the Bhahun and the Chetriys are on the streets for having sidelined them as “others” in the social groups identification and categorization processes. Worst, no dominant ethnic groups speak seriously for the right of the minorities, the dalits and other backward social groups. Nepal cannot afford and hence must guard itself seriously from   falling into the possible quagmire of ethnic conflagration. We must delink ethnicity from politics to avoid such an eventuality.

Form of governance

Many development planners, social scientists, independent thinkers and political parties have expressed their serious objection to the creation of too many federal provinces, which they contend, will not be economically sustainable and politically stable.   I think they are right in their arguments; that there shouldn’t be more than  six to seven  provinces, that the delineation  must be north-south oriented , that  people, resource and geography  must be the major consideration  and   that these three elements  be fairly matched and balanced in the ongoing  province delineation exercises. I tend to agree that the clamour for ethnic federal provinces is mere attempts at narrowing the ethnic circles at a time when the need for enlarging the circle to accommodate all ethnic and social groups in it is quite pressing. Those social groups left out of the circles may feel alienated and excluded. They may not be willing to accept ownership of, and actively participate in, the newly created province for that very reason. Once the federal provinces lose the ownership of other social groups within the provinces it may have a deleterious impact on the longetivity, integrity and cohesiveness of such provinces. It may unleash eventually ethnic hatred and violence between the resource-rich and resource-strapped provinces. I think, there is no need, similarly, to be overly concerned about, and enamoured of, any particular governance system; Presidential or Parliamentary, so long as it is embedded with the universal values of democracy. However, whatever form is agreed upon at the end of the day, the tested and failed geriatrics political leaders from the NC, the UML and the Maoist and all other political parties must yield places for the young and promising youth leaders. If that is not done, there will be no material difference whether we opt for one or the other form of governance.

Conclusion

The country is indeed   going through a critical time. There is a need for clear-headed thinking, particularly by the leaders of the major political parties. First, they should get out of the present fear mindset, through dialogues, understanding and compromise. Secondly, they should place the welfare of the country and the people above their party and their personal interests.  “To say “we’’ and mean “I” has been one of the recondite evils” of our political parties.  They should eschew that hypocrisy. They should realize that democratic values, fairness, reason and rationality, instead of fear and reprisal, must be the underpinnings of new Nepal. Indeed, dovetailing of different ethnic identities for a harmonious, tolerant and multicultural and multi-ethnic society should, therefore, be the overarching objectives of the state restructuring. The foundation of new Nepal, we must bear in mind cannot be built by annihilating all the virtues of the past. In other words, we must not shy away from owning- up and inheriting some of the best features of our societies.  There is no denying that tolerance and understanding, demonstrated by our people since time immemorial have largely kept our nation and people from falling apart and falling- out. One may like it or not, the past rulers did encourage this inter-cultural and religious harmony to perpetuate, regardless of their failure to create inclusionary societies. That was the reason why Nepal has never had to bear the brunt of communal or ethnic violence. Individual culture, religion and customs have never been the bone of contention in Nepal.  True, if the contour of new Nepal is founded on fear, if federalism is meant only to settle scores by some ethnic groups against the other, then the dream of a peaceful prosperous and democratic Nepal may have already doomed. Therefore, echoes of fear, political opportunism, score- settling and ethnic politics should in no way be allowed to prevail. These are  mere slogans pushed by a few  well -fed, well-clothed, well-educated and affluent leaders of some  ethnic groups, simply  to perpetuate themselves in power and position in the future also just in the same manner as they  have been doing now.

(Gopal Thapa is former Chief of Protocol, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it)