People may not recall that some 40 years ago ganja (hemp) was widely grown in southern districts of the country. Unlike in the West, use of ganja in Nepal is tied to the country's religion and culture, limited to use by Hindu holy men who live a nomadic life.Without debate, the growing and trade of ganja was banned in 1974, reportedly under the US pressure as part of its worldwide crusade against illicit substance—'War on Drugs'—paralleling its 'War on Poverty'.
Domestically, when we try to find the rationale for the ganja ban, there existed none, which is to say that Nepal's ban had little to do with promoting social welfare; instead, the ban mostly reflected Americans' obsession with controlling global flow of drugs.
A similar case may be made of the recent crusade to push for making Nepal secular. In fact, this now is a fait accompli with the country's new constitution declaring the country a 'Secular State', replacing its traditional label as a Hindu State. In fact, until the de facto end of monarchy in 2006, Nepal had been known as the only Hindu State in the world. Now, with the new republican constitution in place, this distinction of Nepal has become history, which also means a step closer to global secularism.
For the Nepalis, however, there should be nothing to celebrate about their country's entry into the club of secular states. Unfortunately, the country has much to lose from choosing the secular option and little to gain.
The point is that Nepal's Hindu State label had almost nothing to do with the promotion of Hindu religion or, inversely, undermining or belittling of other religions. Nepal has always functioned as a secular state, with no evidence of religious zealotry, unlike in other countries that pride themselves as protectors of a particular faith or religion (Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia, for instance).
There is also no evidence that practitioners of other religions in Nepal had been subjected to persecution for their religious beliefs or someone's religious identity was used to disqualify that person from official positions or opportunities available to citizens of other faiths. Similarly, religious identity has seldom been used to assess a person's loyalty, patriotism, or fitness for even sensitive government positions.
If Nepal has functioned as a secular State despite its Hindu nomenclature, why should anyone worry whether it's Hindu, secular or otherwise? In fact, there is no reason for obsession with a name, much less a name intended to establish a new faith or promote old dogma. At the same time, looking at it from Nepal's point of view, its Hindu status has lots to offer in terms of public relations or, we can say, tourist attraction.
We can extend this analogy, say, to Mount Everest or Lord Buddha. We associate Nepal's name with such unique landmarks and great personalities to make our presence felt in the global arena. Generally, I perceive Nepal's Hindu State labeling as nothing more than identity of our culture and anchor of our heritage.
Pakistanis still call India Hindustan—an abode of the Hindus—instead of Bharat even though India is home to as many Muslims as Pakistan. Indian national anthem designates Sind as a part of India which, of course, isn't true. Also, we can cite the example of Fiji which has Queen Elizabeth's picture on its currency, even though the country has been made a Republic. Finally, South Carolina flew a Confederate flag on its capitol grounds until some months ago, even though the War for Confederacy was lost 150 years ago. All such historical anomalies and absurd-sounding symbolisms are taken in stride and are meant to be innocent memorabilia of history.
There is no harm then in treating our adherence to Hinduism in similar manner, as a piece of our culture that represents historical origin of our nation. We can extend this perception also with regard to monarchy, which means that there is no harm in restoring it. In fact, looking at the idiosyncrasies of our political transition and now the pressure to relinquish our religious heritage, there is no reason for us to be fixated at the evils of monarchy or be concerned about the un-modernism of Hindu State.
As a small country with little to separate us from our overpowering and overshadowing neighbors, we have few options to assert separate status and safeguard sovereignty. In fact, by keeping Hindu State and restoring monarchy, it would be much easier for us to gain respect and gain trust globally than if we were to become a country of no such distinctive backgrounds.
However, we must be careful not to let our culture and tradition prevent us from adapting to global changes. This means that we must open our society and our economy to outside influences and reduce resistance to change. The magnitude of such resistance may be large or small but all of it add to social cost, reduce flexibility, and cause inefficiencies in business with the outside world.
For example, why do we maintain our own ethnic calendar whereas much of the world has switched to the one in which global transactions are carried out, i.e., the Gregorian calendar? There is no good reason for us to continue doing this except that we somehow take it as a cultural symbol and show our distinctiveness pursuing this tradition, regardless of other considerations.
One another example is also relevant—that is, marking Saturday as a weekend holiday, while most of the world's countries except the Muslim ones observe it on Sunday. Again, we bear enormous cost following this practice, most of it ensuing from Sunday closures in India that make for two days of lost business in border areas.
Nepal looks to be one of the world's most traditional countries, stuck with archaic practices and meaningless rituals. For example, days off in official holidays need to be halved; caste practices in all forms banned; and special benefits provided to civil servants for Dashain festivities discontinued.
Despite their obvious costs and inefficiencies, we are reluctant to do away with them for the sake of culture and tradition. In contrast, keeping Hindu State and monarchy commit us to no such costs; rather, they can help us promote public welfare in a number of ways, including giving us a distinctive identity and connecting to history going back thousands of years.
sshah1983@hotmail.com
Related story
Nepal should be re-declared as Hindu state: Dr Shashank Koirala
-1776353206.webp)
