While the Joint Tharu Struggle Committee (JTSC) activists – supported by a coalition of over 27 Tharu organizations – steered the campaign to demand for incorporating Kailali and Kanchanpur districts in the larger East-West Tharuhat or Tharuwan State along with some districts in the midwestern Tarai, the Undivided Far West (UFW/Akhanda Sudur Paschim) movement – largely drawing support from the Pahadi community in the region – went against the idea of dividing the far western region into different states.[break]
In Kailali and Kanchanpur districts, growing tensions resulted in direct clashes and violence between political activists from opposing identity-based organizations. The continuous shutdowns threw normal life in the region out of gear, forcing the then government to negotiate with the agitating groups. This led to an agreement between the government and the UFW on May 16 which not only ended the lengthy banda but also decided to keep Kanchanpur and Kailali districts intact as part of the far western region in a future federal setup.
This ended the deadlock, but the demand for identity-based federal states has only grown up in the last few years.
A similar conflict was seen in Kaski District. Activists from Brahmin and Chhetri Samaj Nepal and Janajati activists clashed with the police while demonstrating for their respective causes. Pokhara is the proposed capital of the area claimed by Gurung groups for a Tamuwan Province (comprising Lamjung, Gorkha, Tanahun, Manang, Mustang, Parbat, Kaski, and Syangja districts). Although organizations like the Brahmin Samaj and the Chhetri Samaj have made no claims over the territory, they oppose “ethnic federalism,” which places them in opposition to Gurung groups in the same area. The district is an area of particular strength of the Brahmin Samaj and the Chhetri Samaj, including the site of both organizations headquarters.
More clashes erupted in Nawalparasi in May last year due to the counterclaims made by the Joint Tharu Struggle Committee and those opposing a separate Tharu state.
These are some of the examples of fallouts from identity-based politics that Nepal has now entered. Whether one likes it or not, the search for one’s identity by various traditionally marginalized communities has increased dramatically since the discussion over the modalities of federalism began after the formation of the now-dissolved Constituent Assembly.
Nearly a year after these sporadic incidents of violence occurred in different parts of the country, the Carter Center came out with a detailed report on identity-based politics. The report, entitled “Identity-based political activity and mobilizations in Nepal,” not only has highlighted the incidents mentioned above, but has also analyzed the overall identity-based activities.
In the report, the Carter Center has shed light on how identity politics has played an important role in Nepal’s national and local-level political dialogue since the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1990. Yet the term “identity politics” has proven difficult to define or explain, and it has been vigorously debated by academics, commentators, political leaders, civil society, and Nepali citizens alike.
It is informed by multiple nuances, including caste, ethnicity, gender, religion, regional affiliations, historiography, and political and social class, as is mentioned in the report. “Decades of identity-based movements focused on realms beyond politics – such as culture, linguistic rights, and education – have also shaped political identity in Nepal.
“Additionally, Nepal’s history of exclusionary practices and a highly centralized state is widely perceived as one of the main factors that fueled the decade-long armed conflict. Consequently, inclusion of historically marginalized communities was a key feature in both the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in 2006, and the Interim Constitution of 2007.”
However, adds the report, while identity politics has been, and remains, one of the most important political issues of the day, it is also one of the most contentious and misunderstood one. The report intended to explore one aspect of the contested area of Nepali politics: namely, the recent identity-based political mobilizations, particularly movements focused on federalism, and those which flared around the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in April/May 2012.
“Given the nature of the protests which occurred at the time, and that the sensitive issue of federalism is yet to be resolved adequately at the national level, a better understanding of identity-based mobilizations, the actors involved, and their demands is of urgent concern before the constitution drafting process resumes in Nepal.”
The observations in this report focus on the role that identity-based actors have played in recent debates about federalism at the local level, the perceptions of these activities amongst Nepali citizens, and their impact on communal relations. The findings are based on qualitative local level data gathered by Carter Center observers between September 2011 and December 2012; they help to explore factors that shaped the recent mobilizations, the areas where tensions ran high, and examples of positive steps taken to mediate potential conflicts.
This latest report is an outcome of the study carried out by Nepali and international observers deployed by the Carter Center which has been observing the Peace Process and Constitution drafting process in Nepal since June 2009.
The Carter Center, in its press release, has clarified that the applicability of the findings of the study to Nepal is for Nepalis to decide.
“Our findings are a snapshot of identity politics based upon local level evidence found during the period under review, and are neither definitive nor the final word on identity politics in Nepal,” it further said. “However, the context of these terms is critical to understanding the positions of all sides in the present debate on social inclusion and federalism.”
SELECTED FINDINGS
• Many of the underlying demands of identity-based organizations have not changed in the past 12 months, despite the fluctuation in levels of activity in identity-based mobilizations;
• Identity-based actors (used in this report to refer to groups organizing on behalf of – if not always explicitly for – a particular caste, ethnic, regional, or other groups), appear to be active in boosting membership and expanding their presence at the local level, but conducted few visible activities. The one notable exception to this trend is the movements around April/May 2012. Those public activities observed ranged from legal campaigning and information drives about their political demands (particularly over federalism) to the sporadic use of more aggressive tactics in local communities by a small number of groups.
• Political parties tend to remain more dominant than identity-based actors in most districts, although the latter are challenging political party dominance over the issue of federalism in some areas, especially in the Eastern and Far Western regions.
• Relations between Nepal’s three largest political parties – the Nepali Congress (NC), the Communist Party of Nepal–Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML or UML), and Unified Communist Party of Nepal–Maoist (UCPN[M]) – and Adibasi-Janajati identity-based organizations have become increasingly subject to tensions, mainly because of recent debates on federalism.
• Lower-level political party cadres, as well as members of their affiliated ethnic sister wings, have expressed frustration with their respective leadership for failing to engage in dialogue or demonstrate leadership on the issue of federalism.
• There is a widespread lack of information about different forms of federalism among citizens, primarily because the Peace Process stakeholders – such as political parties, civil society, media, and the government – appear to have not sufficiently shared information on the topic, while also representing these issues in a manner to serve their own short-term interests. This has contributed to escalating fears and tensions over federalism, despite many citizens believing the state should be decentralized in some form and that it should do more to protect cultural and linguistic traditions within their respective communities.
• Identity-based mobilizations in April/May 2012 did not spark widespread communal tensions but worsened relations in some areas of Nepal. Relations in these places improved soon after the Constituent Assembly was dissolved, although local conflict mediation efforts appeared to have helped to diffuse tension.
• Fears of communal tensions increased among citizens after May 2012, as those protests confirmed the already popular belief that disputes over federalism were one of the most likely triggers of communal tension across Nepal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Political parties, identity-based organizations, civil society, the media, and local government should do more to increase public understanding of different forms of federalism and relevant terms at the local level in order to facilitate an informed discussion and debate.
• Nepali Constitution drafters should develop, and widely publicize, a baseline of basic rights which each Nepali citizen will be guaranteed, irrespective of their ethnicity and the delineation of future federal states.
• Peace Process stakeholders and those drafting the Constitution should discuss mechanisms to ensure social inclusion within a future federal setup of all sections of society, particularly those that are not geographically concentrated in certain regions.
• Demonstration organizers and participants should respect freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest, especially around major constitutional deadlines.
• Best conflict management practices should be developed at the local level.
• Peace Process stakeholders should increase local level dialogue between police, political parties, civil society and citizens around major national-level deadlines.
------
INTERVIEW
‘Identity-based federalism is simply unstoppable in Nepal’Krishna B. Bhattachan, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at Tribhuvan University
When and how did the movement of identity politics start in Nepal?
The movement of identity politics started in Nepal right from the time when the erstwhile King Prithivi Narayan Shah started territorial integration of various independent states of the time, around 245 years ago. People from various communities, such as Limbu, Gurung and Magar, struggled against the territorial expansion of Shah’s Gorkha state. The nature of the movement, though, was different at that time. People from oppressed and marginalized communities had to fight hard for their rights for decades, as authoritarian regimes such as the Rana oligarchy and partyless autocratic Panchayat were more ruthless toward them. During the time, ethnic and indigenous communities, including Gurung, Magar, Newar, Thakali, and Tharu, focused their struggle more for their socio-cultural rights. The movement gathered momentum mainly after the restoration of democracy in 1990.
The Constitution drafted in the 1990s proved to be helpful for identity movement because the statute had declared the country a multilingual, multicultural and multi-religious. It created a wider space for the movement. Later, the then rebel Maoists raised the matter of ethnic autonomy as a political and national issue. The party formed some ethnicity-based state committees such as Limbuwan, Magarat and Tamuwan within the organization. Similarly, the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) that was established in 1990 launched various movements for socio-cultural rights.
The 20-point agreement reached between the government and the NEFIN in 2007 is a historic pact. The Madhes movement that took place just ahead of the Constituent Assembly polls in 2008 added a new dimension in identity politics. Similarly, Dalits, differently-abled communities and third gender people have also been fighting for their identity. So the issue of identity has emerged as a major issue in the society.
Why is the issue rising on such a massive scale?
The issue of collective identity is a very delicate, sensitive and grave matter everywhere in the world. It should be handled carefully by the state and establishments. It didn’t happen in the past in our country.
What’s the present state of the movement?
Nepali society has been sharply polarized over the matter. Ethnic and indigenous communities, Dalits, oppressed and marginalized communities are on one side while people from the Bahun, Chhettri communities are on the opposite side. The latter want to oppress the former’s aspiration for ethnicity-based federalism. People from Bahun-Chhettri communities are championing for integrated (Akhanda) regions that is the manifestation of their mindset against ethnicity-based federalism. Such a tendency will only invite confrontation.
What are the major achievements achieved so far to establishing identity-based issues?
Some of the works done by the dissolved CA can be taken as major achievements, such as its endorsement of the proposal that “identity will be the primary basis for state restructuring.” This is a major achievement. The 14-province model prepared and passed by a majority of the CA’s thematic committee on state restructuring is a positive development. Though it is not adequate, the model in itself is a better one. Similarly, the 11-province model passed by the majority members of state restructuring commission formed by the government has also given priority to identity-based federalism. The new CA to be formed after the forthcoming elections should work based on the aforementioned model.
What are the challenges ahead in this connection?
The situation of sharp polarization in the society over the issue is a challenge. The CA was dissolved last year following differences among the major political parties over the same agenda. Recently, key leaders from major political parties signed a political deal in which they have decided to decrease the number of lawmakers under the quota of proportional representative system. This indicates that leaders from the major political parties have already changed the rules of the game this time around. They are not mentally ready to adopt identity-based federalism. They chose to dissolve the CA because they didn’t want to adopt federalism in the real sense. They became ready to form a technocratic government in a bid to avoid identity-based federalism. However, everyone should understand that identity-based federal system is simply unstoppable.
What’s the way to bridge the polarization, and what’s the right approach to take the movement of identity politics ahead?
This issue will be settled and managed properly only by adopting identity-based federalism in the days to come. The political forces such as some sections of leaders within the NC, CPN-UML and those who are championing for integrated (Akhanda) regions need to be realistic and be ready to accept the ground reality. Otherwise, the country may plunge into confrontation. A new Constitution should be promulgated soon by ensuring delineation of provinces based on ethnic identity. Identity-based federal model is the only solution.
Related story
Identities of 10 Nepalis who died in Israeli attack revealed
