[It
is in this context that the current agitation in Madhesh be best understood that some among them are talking about their nation and national identity
(which is their birth right), should not concern us as much as the fact that
they are using the logic of nationalism to fight a state that does not have an
iota of respect for them. In other words, their demand for recognition pales in
front of the problems that require immediate solution.]
By Abhinawa
Devkota
Madhesh
Aandolan seems to have come to a halt, at least for the time being, with the
arrival of winter. And although it might still be a bit premature to gauge the
success of the aandolan, it must be credited with exposing the fault lines that
divide residents of the hills from those living in the plains and starting a wider
debate on equality, political representation and Nepali nationalism.
Predictably,
the debate on nationalism and national identity of the Madheshi people provoked
much anger among the ruling class, prompting some to define the movement as a
separatists’ and forcing others to skip the issue without giving it a deeper
thought. Even among the Madheshi leadership, only few, including Mahanta
Thakur, unequivocally spoke of Madhehs as a separate nation having its own set
of languages, culture and a glorious past predating Khas rulers.
However
controversial might it sound, this demand for a Madheshi nation is not devoid
of merit. A nation simply stands for an aggregate of people sharing a common
identity, culture, and geographical territory. Going by this logic, it makes no
sense to argue against the Madheshi demand for a separate nation to safeguard
their identity, either within the boundary of Nepal
More
pressing is the reason why they have decided to call themselves one. And this
can only be understood in light of other similar movements that have taken
place the world over.
The
two World Wars that took place in the twentieth century not just reshaped the
boundaries of continental Europe , they also gave way to the espousal of
values based on equality and justice and made them universal. Soon after,
popular nationalistic struggles brought an end to the colonial rule throughout
much of the Southern hemisphere. But it did not just end there.
While
European colonialism might have ended, many people still find themselves
ostracised by their rulers at home. Be it the oppressive Indian policies in
Kashmir and the North East, the throttling of the Baloch freedom struggle in
Pakistan, the struggle of Muslim minority against majority Christians in
Nigeria, or just the opposite in Sudan, people who have felt left out or
marginalised by the system that has been manipulated to enrich and benefit the
few, have taken over the idea of nationalism to challenge the hegemony.
It
is in this context that the current agitation in Madhesh be best understood that some among them are talking about their nation and national identity
(which is their birth right), should not concern us as much as the fact that
they are using the logic of nationalism to fight a state that does not have an
iota of respect for them. In other words, their demand for recognition pales in
front of the problems that require immediate solution.
Sadly,
Madhesh Aandolan is a mere representative of the larger problem ailing the
country--that of rampant corruption, unequal distribution of resources and
flagrant nepotism. Communities like the Dalits; those belonging to different
ethnic groups like the Tamangs, Chepangs and Majhis and religious minorities
like Muslims have equally been left out by our political system. This is where
federalism comes in. By divesting power from the centre, which has
traditionally been dominated by hill-based Bahuns and Chettris, and sharing it
with constituent political units, which are meant to promote the wellbeing of
those belonging to different ethnic groups, it cannot only ensure that the
rewards of development get distributed more evenly, it can also help quell the
longing for separate nations.
Nationalism,
as the recently deceased Benedict Anderson put it, is ‘imaginary’ as much as
those living outside the boundary of one’s village or not belonging to one’s
friends-and-family circle, and hence not
participating in everyday interaction with the person, occupy an imaginary
realm in the person’s mind. But at the heart of this so-called ‘imaginary
nationalism’ are real-world concerns: identity, camaraderie, participation in
different socio-cultural activities, meaningful economic involvement and
exercise of certain rights and privileges.
The
seed of rebellion is sown when people are deprived of these opportunities. The
heavy-handedness with which the state has treated the Tarai agitation, or its
attitude when it comes to quake victims, the majority of whom are from lower
caste or different ethnic groups, does not spell well for the future of the country.
History
serves us with multiple examples of what happens when the popular will is
thwarted and people belonging to a certain race, caste, creed or ethnicity are
left behind. Despite all the efforts of General Franco to quell the Basque
rebellion, it is still going strong. South Sudan
has separated from the North. Nigeria Iraq
If
the gross neglect and intransigent attitude of the state persists, it would not
come as a surprise if one day the numerous ethnic groups populating this
country start demanding separate nations for themselves.
