Imagine if you will, a house where a child is denied the same provisions as her siblings. Despite her guardians’ legal and moral authority over her, she will eventually understand her predicament and as soon as it is feasible, will leave the house and make her own home. Now consider the Supreme Court holding the decision to integrate 3, 000 Madheshis into Nepal Army. Claiming Madhesh as part of Nepal and then denying those from the region participation in one of the key arms of the state is controversial—not the debate about (ethnic-) federalism or secession.
Our decade-long insurgency raised some valid questions. In challenging the position of women, Dalits, Madheshis, non-Hindus and other disenfranchised groups, it shook our country to the core as it inadvertently also asked, who is Nepali? In attempting to answer that question, more and more Nepalis realized that the answers excluded them.
This is one of the mains reasons a federal Nepal had to be put on the table. It seems a means of appeasing the historically marginalized. Let the marginalized decide for themselves, because being decided for should be an option, not an obligation. A federal Nepal—especially a model that adopts ethnic-federalism—would go a long way towards keeping the country unified, as seems to be the concern of many.
Those vehemently against federalism chide it will split the country. And those against ethnic-federalism add it will also pit one ethnic group against another.
Regardless of the validity of these two concerns, both points are made in favor of maintaining all of what is Nepal today without losing some of it tomorrow.
It is unfortunate that sovereignty is prioritized above rights. If people of Madhesh want greater autonomy or even a separate state, they have the right to determine the course of their future.
It is unfortunate that sovereignty of land is prioritized above the rights of people. If the people of Madhesh want greater autonomy or even a separate state as advocated by Jaya Krishna Goit, then they have the right to determine the course of their future. Foucault said it best when he wrote state sovereignty is “exercised … first of all on territory, and consequently on the subject who inhabit it.” Controlling land permits control over people. However, democracy turns subjects into citizens and so control must also mean they are provided for.
A few years ago I was living in Nepalgunj. In a VDC just a two hour drive from there I was surprised to learn the villagers inserted Indian SIM cards into their cell phones more often than they did the Nepali. I was even more perplexed to learn they preferred to bike to an Indian town for most everything. Obviously confused, they explained their reasons to me. The Indian SIM worked well in the fields and forests while the Nepali only received signal upon rooftops. As for shopping, they said the Indians had built a road right to the border and so a 15-minute rickety bike ride was all it took before hitting smooth paved ground. On the other hand, Nepalgunj was good only for sorting legal matters as only four-wheelers could make that bumpy two-hour drive to the city, especially when the villagers, at most, had a bicycle.
So long as Nepal refuses to (because really, “unable” to do so is no longer a valid excuse) to provide the very basic of amenities to its citizens it is only natural to seek authority over oneself. For those of us who do not face discrimination by the state with regards to our ethnicity or socio-income strata, Kathmandu is not a problem. But for the Madhesis who have been legally (though, immorally) denied equal rights or for the Limbus who have been culturally denied the right to practice what is their own, are we really in the position to blame them for seeking greater self-autonomy?
Secession is not ideal. In fact it is not even simple. While one loses the right to govern land (and control over people), the other in encumbered with an arduous task of establishing government from the scratch. (Or have we forgotten the bitter 30 years spent by starving children and wheel-chaired veterans of Biafra, Nigeria, in limbo?) If such a secession were to occur in Nepal, Nepal would have to forgo valuable land, but if that meant the people residing in that land, who had been deprived (legally, culturally, etc) could then be granted equal rights, it seems a win-win for all involved.
Of course, critics have and will argue the masses in contentious corners of Nepal do not even seek a federal Nepal, much less an ethnic-federal Nepal, forget secession, but when you are not aware of what rights you have been denied, voices surely won’t be raised. If local leadership claims they will speak for the voiceless, then that is much more reassuring than what modern Nepal has been doing.
Every country fears a successful secession of a part of its territory. Serbia was not pleased to have the US and other Western nations acknowledge Kosovo as a sovereign state in 2009 and South Sudan was only born after decades of fierce birth pains at the hands of Sudan this year. However, as Canada demonstrated not too long ago, it is indeed possible to retain the land if you keep the people happy. (Though, I have to admit, 50.6 percent Quebecers voting in favor of staying with Canada in the 1995 referendum is not quite a thumping majority.)
Depending on which version of Nepali history you read—the one written by winners, as they mostly are, or the ones recited by the subalterns, as they rarely are—Nepal as we know it was either “unified” by Prithivi Narayan Shah or is composed of lands “invaded” by the king. Regardless of how it happened, it has happened and now the question is what to do next. If the goal is to keep Nepal as it is—without losing parts of it in the future—then forcing lands be called Nepal won’t change the hearts of those for whom Nepal has been the bane of their existence.
A federal Nepal carved along ethnic lines is one way for the country to convince those disenfranchised to consider keeping Nepal—willingly and not by force. What is a nation if those that have been forced to call it their home do not feel at home? World history shows, nations will merge and nations will separate. Suffice to say letting go is hard, but if you want to get a little, you have to give a little too. Keeping Nepal as it is means extending rights and privileges to all Nepalis, to an extent that they favor staying with Nepal, not being forced to do so.
sradda.thapa@gmail.com
Related story
Coping with anxiety disorder in children
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
