- Immanuel Kant
The overriding motion of the current discourse on constitution making is whether to opt for a federal structure where the names of certain federal units will be derived from the names of select ethnic groups with some special prerogatives to them. The debate is a welcome occurrence. However it has also evoked the fear of state protected “select-casteism” through a virtual systematic exclusion of particular groups spread nationwide who probably number more than all ethnic groups put together. This article, in short, discusses how caste is an issue of individual recognition and where the limit of the state begins while dealing with it.
One of the major indicators of the state capacity of a modern nation-state is how well it has been able to keep itself away from being engulfed into issues that are considered purely social and apolitical. It was this realization that pushed the people of Europe about four hundred years ago to draw a distinct line between the state and the religion. They discovered through their experience that religion and politics when packaged into the basket of Church kept wiring up new blitzes causing social discords. A gradual but tumultuous reformation rescued the religion from further erosion of its original values of cultural faith; the state evolved as a newer and purer institution after both separated. The issue of religion thus has long been resolved in Western societies. As for us, we are just reaching there, after four hundred years, as Nepal too has become a secular state.
In Nepal, it was religion which created the caste-based social hierarchy in the first place. The caste system originated for social stratification as a form of theoretical arrangement of the people on the basis of what they opted to do for a living or what they had been doing during the actual time of such arrangement. Religion did not originally dictate which group of people should follow what profession. People chose their professions themselves and ended up taking a certain caste identity. The division of professions was always a social issue and was imposed by a political institution, a monarch for that matter, where the religious prerogatives also exclusively rested. Consequently a closed social system evolved in a plural cultural form which vested social- political powers in a particular group and restricted the social interaction in line with these power contours.
The historians have their own version of explanations for such social divisions. This is an open-ended question for an era that has traveled (deviated??) a lot far away from the time of actual caste creation and the debate can be never –ending of sorts. One thing is clear: Religion offered recognition to a community of people and therefore was not associated with the names of the persons where as the caste became an individual identity. Even with the people so ephemeral regarding their professions, the job change meant nothing. The caste identity was gotten by birth and would keep entangled in their names.
Hobbes called caste a source of motivation of a particular group of people towards self-preservation and violence, while behaviorism defines it as a form of reaction to an external intimidation for the protection of the group. While reflecting on caste-based upheavals of the last forty years alone, we find both the violence and tendency of preservation related with the identity of caste. Enough has been written on the destructions inflicted by Sri Lankan civil war, Rwandan or Sudanese genocide and never-ending Shiia-Sunni violence around the globe only to vindicate what Hobbes said so many years ago. On the other hand, the struggles for social justice in Nepal has distinctly been a peaceful muscle-flexing with the government for the rights and prerogatives of the select ethnic groups in the name of the under privileged. The policy of appeasement in response offered opportunities and rewards for the leadership of these ethnic movements.
They got indirect share in the council of ministers, constitutional bodies and other appointments from the political parties at different times. The question of the well-being of largely backward castes not only remained overlooked but also was overshadowed by elitism within the leadership of these select groups. Like all neo-liberal ideologues of post-colonial era, such leadership continues to launch new ploy for strengthening its bastion of those privileges even at the cost of national unity and sovereignty. Unfortunately, the state has also been pulled into the process of validating and shielding communal distinctions and thereby accepting the tribalization of Nepal’s nationalities.
The ancient and Middle Ages states enjoyed absolute power originating from the contract with their subjects. Manu, the pre-historic Hindu king who is discredited to have introduced the Hindu caste system, was an all powerful monarch and his decrees were immediately embraced. So was the case with Jayasthiti Malla, a Newar king of Kathmandu valley who actually adopted the social stratification prescribed by Manu in the context of his kingdom and which too was hailed with equal loyalty. So were the diktats of the Ranas. The only reason behind it all was an all–powerful state and the subjects’ submission to the rulers.
As soon as the written constitution came into practice and the government functions were clearly defined, the Nepali state like the others around the world, began losing its religious and social clout. Obeying the orders of the king was a sacred duty for yesterday’s subjects. Today’s individual citizen wants the state out from his private life. It is because of this development that the “Muluki Ain” which in fact came from a powerful monarch like Mahendra promised revolutionary reforms in writing but was unable to abolish the caste based discriminations in practice. With today’s states even hundreds of laws cannot regulate the relationships between individuals and the ethnic communities. Thus, the nonchalant debate on caste-based federalism has terribly overlooked the issue of the capacity of modern state to intervene the sphere of individual identity of new citizenry. Does the secular state which has already done away with the religious and social powers really possess the ability to decide on the caste issues?
As the state has been revamped to become merely the center of political power, its ability to use coercion to enforce social values has been truly demolished. Even if it feigns of having one, it’s destined to result in a fiasco. Wreaking injustice on one group of people for exterminating injustices on others is to begin another phase of apartheid under protected casteism. This is despicable, heinous and shameful.
Ours is the oldest form of discriminatory noose and has deeper roots. Then, does it mean we continue with what we have? No, not at all. We do not have too many options too. First, the state can come into play in the process of escalating the level of mobility and interaction between the communities. Second, immediate march is necessary for setting up and empowering anti-discrimination state actors and civil society organization through austerely applied laws. Third, establishing “the right of the choice of surname” as one of the human rights could be a positive beginning. The only determination the new constitution can take in this regard is to maximize opportunities and guarantee individual liberties.
tika_dhakal@att.net
Related story
Say No to Racial, Caste Discrimination
