Scene two: I happen to see one of the accomplished political figures from Madhesh, and present to him the work I’m doing up in the Himalayas to help the mountain people who’re severely suffering from the impacts of Climate Change. There’re a lot of other people around including some foreign development workers while I give my little talk standing next to the leader. The leader tells me in full public view, “Why don’t you rather focus on the problems of Madhesh. Work for the problems in the Churia (that falls at the fringe of Tarai) rather than the Himalayas.” For beginners, he says so, as I come from Madhesh, and by his way of thinking I should rather help people in my immediate neighborhood. I see the same smile with pride on the face of this distinguished gentleman who searches for some other faces around the table from his community for their acknowledgement of this act. He gets his endorsement and feels elated.
Scene three: I along with three of my other colleagues, all of them from ethnic mountain communities finish the interview for a rather senior post for one of my ex-employers. It’s time to put our ‘scores’ on a white board and then figure out which candidate got what rating. I do it in earnest until I gather that my rating is looking totally stupid going by the ratings of the others. The candidate I give highest marks is a Cambridge (England) graduate who has tremendous experience in the related field, is widely known, and has articulation skills better than all of us sitting on the interview panel. I look shell-shocked. Have I made a mistake? I fight back professionally. No one budges. End Result – no one gets selected at that interview. Later, in private, I confront the panel head. He says, “She would not have fit in our culture, that’s it”. I see a tinge of the same familiar smile once again.
I don’t see these three incidents much different from one another. The fact that all kinds of ethnicities were involved in these incidents that shaped my thoughts, had given me a belief that such demeanor and attitude are not limited to any particular ethnicity in Nepal – it’s all over. It’s just that some of them have been practicing it forever supported by the state machinery, some, sadly, have jumped on to the bandwagon relatively recently. In each case people involved were distinguished personalities. The incidents and their narration by me may have projected them in a bad light, yet looking at their overall contribution to the society, their professionalism and sense of discipline – all three of these gentlemen, largely, deserved the honor they received. Yet, sadly all these three gentlemen, despite being recognized by an entire multi ethnic nation-state, could not in their own minds, consider themselves to be the leaders of them all. They, in their private spaces, still considered themselves to be representing the ethnicity that they were born into. And, accidently, as it always happens, such private thoughts and beliefs got articulated and exhibited rather openly in the above incidents. These distinct yet connected events go on to prove that despite the external façade many of our country’s elite are still stuck with the parochial and medieval thoughts of ‘my ethnicity is superior than yours’ mentality. It’s this streak of thought that, at every occasion, when Nepal is presented with a historical opportunity to move on, quietly and repeatedly robs our country off the chance to be a thriving pluralistic state. And it’s this streak of thought that must be confronted and conquered by us through self-admissions and changed-beliefs if we are ever to become a successful polity.
The great George Orwell says it so aptly, “Nationalism isn’t to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in such vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By “patriotism” I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.” By Orwell’s definition these three gentlemen were, at least when they were enacting the above scenes, were Nationalist and not Patriots. And the times that Nepal is passing through, we better practice Patriotism than Nationalism going by Orwell’s interpretation. Racism is worse – it’s no patriotism.
The other confusion that I find behind the millions of mindless racial debates going on in the social media is rooted in the lack of common definition of the word ‘Nation’ among the debaters. In modern days usage, the term NATION is used in two seemingly opposite sense. Many understand a ‘nation’ to be a synonym of a ‘country’ (or a Nation-state). And that’s why they think Nepal to be one Nation. But then there are people with knowledge of political science and its terminologies, or those who have been taught by such practitioners who understand a ‘nation’ to be a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. And given Nepal’s diverse ethnicities the second group of interpreters claims the country to be a multi-national state. Both of these interpretations are considered theoretically correct. But to get anything concrete out of those debates the debaters must have a common definition of the constructs they are debating on.
There’s a very thin line between being a patriot and a nationalist. There’s an equally thin line in being a debater and being a rabble-rouser. Let us debate our heart out – that’s healthy. Let’s not keep any venom locked inside us – they’ve been there for a terribly long time. My personal belief based on hundreds of experiences is that in nine out of ten cases civilized people see the pain on the other side and empathize with that when properly approached. And for heaven’s sake let’s not debate whether or not we’re a civilized society. The modern human cultural ethos touched us no later than the earliest civilizations in the world. Our land has been a cradle of co-existence at societal level while the kings and regents kept fighting for their estates and egos since time immemorial. Let’s not consider the history of royal battles as the battle among the communities. These kings and regents, for their vested interests, threw the concepts of racial superiority during their reins. Let’s not start believing in all those falsehoods. We’re all equally good and equally bad. It’s the first time in our history when we the commoners in the societies and not the kings and regents are entrusted with designing our future. Let’s unite. Let’s not let go of this opportunity. Our children will not forgive us if we fail. If some of us want to call it a ‘Nation-State’ rather than ‘Nation’, it’s all right. But let’s all agree that Nation comes first!
prashaantsingh.wordpress.com
Related story
Good and bad nationalism
