The one benefit of the wasted last four years of our constitution making process is that we at least made an important discovery. The divisions that separate us, particularly on ethnicity, caste, religion and wealth, are real. These differences are not hypothetical, not imagined, not merely perceived or politicized. They are real. [break]
Over the last few years, many of these differences have often been politicized to serve a particular agenda, or magnified to suit a specific interest. But whatever the nefarious interests in highlighting these differences, there was always a kernel of truth in those claims.
Our differences are real. The last four years have been as much about the search for our common identity as it has been about the search for a constitution.
blog.ideavibes.com
Having come up short on the constitution, perhaps we do realize now that our differences are far deeper than we imagine. Politicians found that they could play into that gap more easily. They amplified our reasons to remain divided than seek common ground. Perhaps, we ought to take our differences a bit more seriously, instead of merely wishing that they didn’t exist.
The key point of difference has been how to correct accumulated historical social-economic-political injustice against indigenous communities. Not just indigenous communities—really, it was any group that wasn’t adequately represented among the previous ruling elite. The differences between communities that previously had access to power and those that didn’t are large. Those differences are clearly visible and percolate through every aspect of the society.
Our approach has been to address these differences through constitutional arrangements. We believe that the right system—whatever that is—has the power to correct historical injustices.
So, we remain hung up on mechanisms such as ethnic-based federalism and proportional representation to ensure that those who previously had no access to power do so now. We have made the country secular to remove the historical baggage of exclusion and inequality.
While constitutional mechanisms and state symbols determine how the country will be governed, can it erase the deep social, economic and cultural divide that runs beneath? It will most likely not, at least not on its own.
One way to address these differences is to create a shared common experience for all Nepalis—an experience so compelling that it allows us to define ourselves in the context of those common experiences rather than our ethnicity, religion, caste or other social markers.
Compulsory public service could be a way to achieve this.
Consider this somewhat outlandish proposition.
Every Nepali after the completion of the 12th standard is required to serve a mandatory one-year public service in a program managed by the state. Under the program, students from villages are dispatched to work in towns and cities. Students from cities are sent to work in villages. Students are mixed across ethnicities; everyone is forced out of their environment. It is as if all the students were thrown into a giant bowl, which was stirred, and stirred, and stirred till it was all mixed up.
Students would be required to live in specified housing provided by the program during the year. Everyone then lives in similar housing, eats the same food, does similar work and follows the same routine. It is a bit like joining the army, except there are no guns or weapons. A little like conscription, except that no one is going to war.
If this program were real, approximately 200,000-250,000 Nepalis would have to enlist every year. It could cost the state Rs 20-25 billion annually, excluding the initial cost of building the infrastructure. It would easily be one of Nepal’s most expensive public policy initiatives.
The benefits from this program could be immense. By channelling all Nepalis through the program, it would be creating a shared common experience. It would require all Nepalis, rich and poor, to live and work as equals. It would force the building of infrastructure and improve connectivity across the country. It would open up connectivity and cultural links across communities. Most importantly, it would create a generation of Nepalis that share a common identify through their shared experiences.
Although not identical, Nepal does have a government sponsored volunteer program under the National Development Volunteer Service (NDVS). The agency has been in operation since 2000. Today, it works in all 75 districts and sends about 9,000 volunteers to different villages across the country.
NDVS seeks to get volunteers with specialized skills or college education to remote districts and villages where there is a need for such skills. It seeks to support implementation of the government’s poverty reduction program by making skilled personnel available to remote communities.
Although the NDVS program was initially conceived as part of a Master’s level program at Tribhuwan University, it was later subsumed within the government’s initiative on volunteerism. The program ran successfully during the insurgency, getting volunteers to communities even in the most conflict affected areas.
The NDVS program is relatively small. Its mission and objectives are vastly different than mobilizing 200,000 Nepalis. It has no infrastructure or planning capacity to mobilize that many.
Throughout history, many countries have used government sponsored volunteers and work programs to help overcome difficult challenges. In the New Deal under Franklin D Roosevelt, the United States, for example, created significant employment opportunities through the Works Progress Administration to channel work to the unemployed. This program was in response to the great depression but set the stage for a radical transformation in the US.
Closer to home, the recently implemented National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in India seeks to provide at least 100 days of employment to rural communities. The Act has been the hallmark legislation of the ruling Congress party, one that secured it victory in the last general election.
The proposed compulsory public service is different from an employment scheme or an economic stimulus package, like NREGA or the New Deal. It is designed to not just address a problem of short term economic growth, although it does plenty of that, but rather to offer a shared common experience for all Nepalis that can create a stronger foundation for a more equal, fair and just Nepal.
The proposed compulsory public service concept, clearly, is a bit preposterous in scale and somewhat frightening in terms of its political implications.
But if the act of sketching lines on the map to carve out state boundaries can supposedly repair centuries of accumulated injustice, why couldn’t 200,000 Nepalis living under a common roof for a year of compulsory public service do the same?
bishal_thapa@hotmail.com
Related story
Hollywood Celebrity Proposal Stories
