[In the context of the modern state and today’s rise of corporate dominance, ethnicity is currently what “tribes” were to colonizers from the times of Ancient Rome British Empire . Encompassed in the Latin phrase divide et impera or “divide and rule,” tribal designations have been used to divide people according to language regardless of the historical circumstances of the peoples making up those groupings. While consolidating the power of local politicians, it divides and weakens communities against exterior threats such as incursion of international financial and commercial entities interested in capturing local markets and stripping away assets of land, water, minerals, forests and genetic heritage from local communities.]
By Stephen Mikesell
 |
| The red letters read (हाम्रो माग पुरा गर्न सक्कली हतियार उठाउन नपरोस) Indigenous peoples of Nepal brandishing Gurkha Knives during a Khukuri Rally in Kathmandu (Photo: Ujir Magar) |
It seems contradictory that parties associating themselves with
ideologies of class struggle and withering away of the state support
ethnic-based provinces. Although ethno-based political movements may arise from
social inequity and the erosion of people’s cultural heritage, their ties to
community and their deeply rooted basis in the land, they are not generally
revolutionary and often are downright reactionary.
They divide people vertically,
cutting across many other forms of horizontal solidarity and common interest,
such as those of class and environment, and control over land, agriculture,
watersheds, and what some agricultural scientists call “foodshed” or the local
sourcing and control of food production.
In the context of the modern
state and today’s rise of corporate dominance, ethnicity is currently what
“tribes” were to colonizers from the times of Ancient Rome British Empire . Encompassed in the Latin phrase divide et impera or “divide and rule,”
tribal designations have been used to divide people according to language
regardless of the historical circumstances of the peoples making up those
groupings. While consolidating the power of local politicians, it divides and
weakens communities against exterior threats such as incursion of international
financial and commercial entities interested in capturing local markets and
stripping away assets of land, water, minerals, forests and genetic heritage
from local communities.
Outside of language, attributes
associated with ethnic identity are largely arbitrary, selected for situational
and political advantage. Most rituals and cultural elements which have been
tied to particular ethnic groupings, such as the multi-day dance dramas of Nepal
Political leaders will subscribe
to ethnicity as an easy means to consolidate power. It aggregates bonded
laborers with landowners, debtors with moneylenders, and workers with
financiers and factory owners, while getting votes through emotional appeals
without requiring people to reflect on the underlying causes of their
inequality or ascertain whether their emotion-driven responses actually address
their problems.
By aggregating people though
emotional rhetoric rather than prolonged education, organizing and construction
of locally-based forms of solidarity and governance, ethnicity is
easily co-opted by undisclosed interests. Thus it has always provided an
artifice for ruling interests, both within and outside of ethnic groupings,
domestically and internationally, to divert popular discontent and undermine community and
class solidarity into a means for consolidating their rule.
Thereby ethnicity has served as a
primary ideology of the nation state and empire, whether classical, feudal,
capitalist, colonial or communist. In the present context of the global regime
of finance capital, increasingly pervasive governance by multinational
corporations, and the dismantling of the nation state, ethnicity is being
manipulated and twisted to break people into small groups with leaders more
easily cajoled and coerced to sign unfavorable treaties and contracts and give
up autonomy to the rule of foreign governments, international administrators,
finance banks and commerce.
The final thing is that ethnicity
does not get out of the old paradigm which caused the problem in the first
place. While it privileges a particular group, it ends up de-privileging and
discriminating against other groups, and you are back at the same place of ethnic
discrimination within a state framework. Basic inequalities, the dismantling of
community and of ties to the land, the destruction of the country’s
agricultural and cultural heritage, the stripping away of community and
national assets, and the reasons behind these are not addressed, while the
newly minted rump states and their leaders are more exposed to outside
exploitation than ever before, hurrying these processes of cultural destruction
rather than arresting them.
The writer is an anthropologist who
studies Nepali economy and politics
@Republica
Asia Report No 199
NEPAL
[Ethnic and regional demands were important parts of the Maoist agenda during the civil war; in eastern Nepal
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Federal restructuring of the state has emerged as a major demand of ethnic and regional activists in Nepal
Activists demand the introduction of reservations to guarantee proportional representation of marginalised groups in government and administration. They want provinces to be named after the most numerous ethnic and regional groups and boundaries drawn to make them dominant minorities. Some claim to be indigenous to these regions and demand preferential rights to natural resources and agradhikar – priority entitlement to political leadership positions in the future provinces.
Ethnic and regional demands were important parts of the Maoist agenda during the civil war; in easternNepal
But of the three major parties, the Maoists are the only one to give full-throated support to federalism and the establishment of ethnic provinces. Identity politics may sit uneasily with their class-based ideological framework but federalism is of great importance for them. Now that the former Hindu kingdom is a secular republic, it is the most important point left on their short-term transformative agenda. Much grassroots support, the loyalty of ethnic and regionalist activists within the party and their wider credibility as a force for change depend on them following through.
Both the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), UML, have accepted federal restructuring. They have actively participated in drafting a federal model in the Constituent Assembly. There is agreement on most institutional arrangements including the division of powers between provinces and centre. But this process has been driven by longstanding proponents of federalism within both parties, none of them very influential. It is unclear whether there is a wider consensus. Both parties have agreed to federalism in the spirit of bargaining; neither of them owns the agenda. Behind the official positions there is significant resistance to it.
Backtracking on federalism is politically impossible. Both the NC and UML are already struggling to retain cadres and leaders from minority backgrounds. But deferring crucial decisions, or stalling the constitutional process altogether, could be tempting for those opposed to change. The assumption that the Maoists have both the most to gain and the most to lose from the constitutional process could lend wider appeal to the idea.
The risks are hard to calculate. Ethnic and regionalist groups, already suspicious of the major parties’ commitment to federalism, threaten protests and ultimately violent resistance should it not come. Their eyes are on the 28 May 2011 deadline for the promulgation of the new constitution. Popular support is most widespread among Madhesis in the central and eastern Tarai and members of ethnic groups in the eastern hills. Many Madhesis are disillusioned with their leadership, but feel reforms are incomplete. The organisational landscape of ethnic activists in the eastern hills may be fragmented for now, but underneath lie strong personal and political networks. Activists are getting frustrated and the mood is becoming more militant. With an issue to rally around they are likely to coalesce; a politicised population would easily be mobilised for protest movements, should federalism not come.
Not all want federalism. Popular opposition to ethnic federalism in particular is substantial, by virtue of its association with identity politics. Many Brahmins and Chhetris, the dominant caste groups, fear they will lose out from the introduction of ethnic quotas and federal restructuring. But organised resistance is limited and fragmented. Open opposition only comes from a fringe of the political left which fears Nepal
The structure emerging from the Constituent Assembly, federal but with a strong centre, offers a feasible compromise. If the NC overcomes its aversion to provinces named after ethnic and regional groups, the new constitution will offer important symbolic recognition of Nepal
