Among communist parties, Rastriya Jana Morcha Nepal and Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party have always stood against ethnic federalism. Nepali Congress too is not in favor of the notion. CPN-UML, as on every issue, seems confused and even divided. Regional/ethno-lingual parties and pressure groups, worried by the growing awareness and polarization among people with regard to the subject, have stepped-up their pressure to create ethnic states with provisions of agradhikar (right to rule and exclusive rights over natural resources).
Last week, two news items made headlines. While the first that shook the nation came from north-eastern India, the other one emanating from the eastern hills of the country was even more disturbing. Both were about the forced displacement of communities from their native homelands. Across in Meghalaya, migrant laborers from Nepal as well as Indian nationals of Nepali ancestry were forced to flee the state. On this side of Mechi, non-Limbus – especially Chhetris and Bahuns – living in the hills of the proposed state of Limbuwan since time immemorial had been under pressure to migrate elsewhere (see Republica, May 29, June 5 & 7).
In some rural areas of Meghalaya, particularly the village of Langpih that borders with Assam, members of Khasi community who believe the land don’t belong to non-indigenous or immigrant communities are using violence and threat to drive Nepali-speaking people out.
At the onset, the Indian states were founded mostly on the basis of concentration of linguistic communities. Later, more states were created or fragmented to accommodate various demands of different religious, indigenous and tribal communities. Meghalaya – one of such states – was carved and separated from the state of Assam in 1972.
The population of this country is a mosaic of different ethnic groups where no single community enjoys majority in any given area. As such, either one minority or, at most, the single-largest ethnic group of the territory will be ruling over the majority should ethnic states be formed.
Countries like former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia or Sudan and Nigeria may be too far away for our leaders to see for themselves the horrific outcomes of ethnic federalism, but Indian federations are not. That one community can render the state helpless and force out others – not only ‘foreigner’ Nepalis but also Biharis and Bengalis from Meghalaya or Hindus from Kashmir – should be an eye-opener in itself. Far from that, our leaders are not drawing lessons from the involuntary migration of fellow citizens from various parts of their own country even before the nation is federalized.
Maoists’ recent declaration will only add to the misery and disappointment of those compatriots of ours as well as our brethren from Meghalaya. Could Dr Baburam Bhattarai, Marxist ideologist and ethnic apologist (he interprets ethnicity as nationalities!) who made his party’s federal roadmap public, tell people how he plans to check the plight and sufferings of one community at the hands of others? Dismissing his unconvincing explanations, ethnic outfits and fanatics have already spread menace in different parts of the country. Their modus operandi is to first launch hate campaigns against targeted communities to be followed by intimidation and then physical attacks or lootings. The result: With each successive stage of the sequence, more and more families are selling their properties at throwaway prices to fly to safety.
Make no mistake, parties won’t get a second chance; once enshrined in the constitution, ethnic states and ethnic agradhikar can’t be rectified or reversed without inviting communal backlash. They won’t be able to create new states for the fleeing communities either, even if they want. First, it will be physically impossible from the cluster of smaller provinces to carve a state big enough for large communities like Khas. Second, Khas population is too scattered around the country to demarcate a separate state for it. Third, there will be too many demands for too many states from too many communities to meet.
The population of this country is a mosaic of different ethnic groups where no single community enjoys majority in any given area. As such, either one minority or, at most, the single-largest ethnic group of the territory will be ruling over the majority should ethnic states be formed. In such circumstances, can UCPN (Maoist) guarantee that the ruled won’t revolt? Or that they won’t meet the fate of Nepali-speaking Indian citizens of Meghalaya, Bahun-Chhetris of “Limbuwan”, Pahade communities of Madhes and so on?
We know that vocal and powerful ethnic groups are pressurizing the politicians; they are also trying to convince the latter that they have ‘historical roots’ in the proposed territories. However, national parties should attach priority to prudence over populism, especially when most such claims are subjective, unsubstantiated or one-sided and thus disputed and refuted by other communities. Leaders must understand that in modern and civilized nations, communities can’t be graded into super citizens and sub-citizens on the basis of their ethnicity or the history of their settlement/arrivals in the territory.
Ethnic federalism is unviable and undesirable as much as agradhikar is unjust and undemocratic. The latter is, both by definition and practice, neo-apartheid where about 10 to 12 ethnic communities will be enjoying supremacy over more than 100 others, both big and small. Moreover, all those 10 to 12 communities are not weak enough to deserve agradhikar; on the contrary, some of them figure very high in development indicators such as human development, wealth, employment, education, etc – much higher than the so-called privileged Khas. Hypocritically, Maoist blueprint has offered no state and no status for poor Dalits, the weakest and the most oppressed of all castes and communities.
The most prosperous, inclusive and successful federal democracies of the world – USA, Canada and Australia – do not have states named after Red Indians/Aboriginals or agradhikar for them. Even Meghalaya is named after the famous rainy hills of north-eastern India and not after indigenous tribes like Khasi or Garo. India has no agradhikar either, although they have reservations for marginalized and deprived communities. In our country too, we must have an effective system of affirmative actions in place to ensure and enhance those communities’ reach to employment, education and other opportunities. Nonetheless, the arrangement should be need-based and not ethnicity-based; it should benefit weaker, poorer and socially-backward groups/people, not otherwise.
State restructuring is not an Ian Fleming fiction. It is a real job where the result of mistakes will be real, maybe even fatal and irreversible unlike in the shooting of a James Bond movie shot inside artificially-created sets. Here, retakes of the scene won’t be possible. The job requires great vision and statesmanship, not stuntmanship like in “From Russia with Love” or like the one Maoists performed in Tundikhel on May 29. Its impact – positive or negative depending on how it is done – will be tremendous on the life and future of the whole nation and successive generations. Dr Saab, recent incidents that took place in Limbuwan and Langpih are there for you to see. Please wake-up now; divisions and hatred among communities (and classes too) won’t make a New Nepal.
jeevan1952@hotmail.com
Related story
Legal response to age of hate
