In Nepal’s context, this means that Nepali bureaucracy and judiciary, especially those at the very top, represent the values of the Panchayati regime. Those that decided to work for the government, by and large, conformed to the vision of the Panchas. And those that shared the vision most fervently rose up the ladder. Today, they are the movers and shakers of Nepal. Their values matter. Their beliefs affect lives.
Sadly, their vision hurts the Madhesis. In line with values and beliefs honed over the years, these powerful men in bureaucracy and the judiciary have the Panchesque idea about who is a true Nepali. They still believe that Nepal should have one official culture, one language, one dress, and one religion. In their opinion, true Nepalis are those with ancestral homes in the Pahad, not the ones that migrated from Bihar.
In their view, Madhesis with citizenship should be tolerated, but never trusted.
The belief of the legislative body, however, is different. This is because the political landscape has been jolted by a number of “shocks”. The first came in 1990, when the aristocracy had to make room for the middle class. The second shock came in 2005 when the middle class had to make room for the underprivileged class. The third shock came in 2007 when the Pahadi middle class had to make room for the Madhesis.
Because of these shocks, and because it is possible to change lawmakers every five years, the legislative body offers a different vision for Nepal. Their vision is in sharp contrast to that of bureaucracy and the judiciary. This has created a conflict.
Even when a legitimate government passed a motion to recruit 3,000 Madhesis in the national army, the bureaucrats dragged their feet. And in less than four months, Justice Baidyanath Upadhyay of the Supreme Court made it illegal.
To those who believe that Madhesis have never been discriminated against in the first place and to those that believe that Madhesis aren’t “true” Nepalis, after all, it was a big relief. At least the Supreme Court emerged the savior in protecting the purity of the Nepali.
The powerful men in bureaucracy and judiciary have a Panchesque idea about who is a true Nepali.
But to some it was quite shocking. Criticizing this decision (and in response to CK Lal’s ‘Why this Kolaveri Di?’), one Republica reader wrote: “I´m not a Madheshi and I don´t have to be, to see that the Supreme Court holding back the decision to recruit 3,000 Madheshis is blatant racism! It´s plain ridiculous how bigotry prevails even today.”
Whether it was bigotry or the values of the bygone era that made Justice Upadhyay block Bhattarai’s modest attempt to undo the discrimination will never be clear. But what is quite clear, judging from the response to Upadhyay’s decision, is that thousands of people share his values. Many have applauded him openly. Some have chosen to applaud silently.
The fight against discrimination has never been an easy one. It can’t be easy in Nepal. But Madhesis need to realize that changing only the legislative landscape is not going to be enough. They need to advocate changing the bureaucracy and judiciary with equal zeal.
They can look to the Indian civil service for some inspiration. Indian’s bureaucrats are a lot better than ours. The top level Indian bureaucrats are selected in a fiercely transparent and meritocratic system. Because they recruit young professionals (less than 35) at top-level post directly, they attract the best and brightest of India. And yes they do have a healthy dose of reservations (22.5 percent) for the backward class.
As for the judiciary, they can draw some ideas from the American system. They could advocate for a system that does not rely on the decision of one Judge, but a group of Judges. The chances of error, by design, are lower when a group of judges deliberates, and votes.
The numbers are on the side of Madhesis, and if democracy prevails, discrimination will end. But things don’t look that promising for those Madhesis in their 20s today, unless, of course, the judiciary and bureaucracy receive some kind of shock.
The writer is an Assistant Professor of Finance at Texas A&M International University in Texas, US
680anand@gmail.com
Related story
'No Kings' rallies across US to gauge anti-Trump outrage
