But first, my own background. I was born in West Bengal in India in a Pahade Bahun family. My father, like many jobless poor Nepalis in the hills, had to leave his village in Syangja and migrated to India to support himself and his family. [break]
Had my father, a hill Bahun – oh, the sin! – been alive today, he would be aghast to learn about his present-day labeling. In contrast, you just need to see the background of half a dozen or so of those folks speaking about Pahade Bahun elitism.
Just a look at their two preceding generations would suffice to expose their hypocrisy. This is necessary to mention since there is a concerted attempt to equate the background with bias, whatever the merits of the argument.
The ‘agreement’ that happened during the meeting of three major political parties and the United Democratic Madhesi Front or Madhesi Morcha on Tuesday is flawed, in both content and procedure. This article will speak about the proposed federalism, the call for identity as a principal basis for federalizing, and the heated passions it has generated.
The first is the question of identity of ‘marginalized’ groups. According to the 2001 Census, Nepal is home to 102 ethnic groups and 92 languages.
Even if one were not to argue over who constitutes the marginalized, as some sections of the society are clearly in that category, the question is how many communities or groups can be categorized as ‘marginalized.’
If the way the debate on federalism and identity being shaped are left unchallenged, then we will be left with no choice but to accept what is being dished out.
Here is a question for those rooting for identity-based federal states. Who decides how many marginalized groups are going to have federal units named after them?
Should we have states named only after Limbuwan, Tamuwan, Mithila-Bhojpura-Kochila-Madhes, and Newa – four of the 14 states proposed by the Constituent Assembly Committee on State Restructuring and Division of State Powers in February 2010? Aren’t there other marginalized groups? According to Census 2001, there were 686,000 Gurungs or 2.39% of the then Nepal’s population of 22.7, and Muslims at 971,056, or 4.2%.
The CA Committee has proposed to carve a state in the name of the former (Tamuwan) but not for Muslims. Similarly, the Dalit population, spread throughout the country, is in a healthy double-digit percentage. They have no state but the same CA Committee named a state after Magars (7%), Tamangs (5.5%), Newars (5.4%), and Limbus (1.58%), among others. Aren’t the Dalits and Muslims marginalized in this country?
Are we going to ensure ‘dignity’ and ‘identity’ to only those who have the capacity to shout the loudest and even indulge in violence and force blockades? On what ground can we refuse the naming of states for the remaining recognized communities and ethnicities in Nepal?
Even if you leave out the ‘elite,’ ‘status quoist’ ‘Pahade Bahun and Chhetris,’ – the perennial punching bag of pundits, donors, I/NGOs, and sundry other groups – without states, we still have to think of groups not yet recognized by any committee, commission, party, or pundits.
We are asked to accept that if some communities get their identities recognized in the new federal model – whether it is 7/8 or 11/14 provinces – ‘centuries-old discrimination’ would be addressed. Access to natural resources, river water and roads do not matter, it seems.
If you oppose this line of thought, you will be labeled ‘Pahade elite,’ ‘conservative,’ and what not. Let us not get into a situation where one man’s food is another’s poison.
Arguments have become very flexible, to use a very polite term. We are told that it is okay, rather rightful and necessary, too, if Madhesi and Janajati groups organize protests, vandalize property, and even enforce bandas because they have been discriminated against for ages.
If there are groups like Akhanda Sudur Paschim doing the same, it is conspiracy. I want to state here, in no uncertain terms, that I oppose the Akhanda Sudur Paschim’s banda and their reported vandalization of BASE and other offices during their demonstrations. It is time we had laws against those forcing bandas on others.
But the point is that those who are fighting for their rights, dignity and opportunities want the same denied to others. Not so long ago, when the Tharus – who severely oppose being identified as Madhesis – protested the Madhesi dominance and naming of plains as Madhes State, they were branded by Madhesi politicians and their apologists as ‘puppets’ and out to undermine Madhesi parties’ influence.
Now, let me recount a personal incident when I was still in school in India. I saw my scared relatives seeking shelter in the early 1980s.
They had fled Assam where Bengalis – Bangladeshis were the target but West Bengalis were not spared, either – and Nepalis were forced to flee, some were even killed, under the son-of-the-soil ‘Assam for Assamese’ campaign.
Very recently, in the western Indian state of Maharashtra, the Shiv Sena and its sister organizations targeted those from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh under the banner of ‘Maharashtra only for Marathas,’ saying they have taken up most labor jobs.
What is the guarantee that such kinds of incidents won’t happen in a state named after a specific community or group in Nepal?
What is the way out, then? I really don’t know since passions are so high on all fronts. But I do believe that the top guns from the Maoist Party, the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML, and the Madhesi Morcha need to invite all those who have voiced opposition to the deal made on Tuesday and try to convince them that nothing is set in stone, and that changes and amendments in the new Constitution can still be made after the CA passes its draft so as to honor the Supreme Court’s deadline of May 28.
There is no way you can extend the deadline without dishonoring the Right Honorable Court. At this stage, we really don’t need to set bad precedents, either.
The discussions on the model of federalism can be held during the period between the passage of the statute and the general elections in a year’s time. And let’s strive to maintain social harmony at all times.
Jayshi is with Panos South Asia. The views expressed herein are personal. Jayshi can be contacted on Twitter @damakant>
Related story
Head held high
