Need your valuable and unbiased feedback.

On the topic of the Nepali state and Nepali identity and what the future holds for it, I have, keeping in mind some of the key determinants of a nation state e.g. historical, socio-cultural, ethnic and geopolitical, tried to analyze how such factors have affected the daily discourse in our country.

I am neither affiliated to any political party nor aligned with any ideology but have tried my best to come to fair and unbiased conclusions myself.

Historical perspective and the DNA of the Nepali State

Let’s go back to history to the times and circumstances when our nation was born, because it is in the DNA where it is determined the life and sustainability of any entity. Unlike nation building of the modern times like India, USA, Switzerland, Netherlands etc where all peoples of varied socio cultures, ethnic backgrounds etc came together and decided to build a nation on an equal platform, our nation was built by PN Shah by sheer brute force. It was a Darwinian relationship between the victor and the vanquished and rather that beginning of a nation on a healthy, progressive note, a strict structure was imposed based on “garden of 4 castes and 36 sub castes”. The pecking order comprised the ruling Chettris, some Newars and Brahmins who helped institutionalize the monarchies in return for patronage of the highest order.

However that was then and so was the norm when Kings and Princes had ambitions to conquer and create empires. I am sorry to all PN fans, but I think he did a terrible job of integrating the society and of social engineering. I mean even if it was in the 18^th century, human perspective of self respect and equality and how they relate with each other is unchanged, i.e. nobody likes to be subjugated before another man whether it is on the basis of caste or religion.

Or perhaps he was ill advised and must have debated on what basis Nepal’s varied races can be taken into fold. Should I promote and egalitarian society or should I divide and rule on the premise of “4 castes and 36 subcastes”? The realpolitik of the time and his own compulsions and calculations must have led him to make the decisions he went on to make. Further continuity of such attitude was given by the Ranas when they deprived people of education with the exception of the high-elite class, and practiced a highly “closed” policy toward the rapid socio-political changes that was happening all around the world at the time.

The Result

Unfortunately, the result was devastating to the morale and personal development of rest of the population onto whom an alien language, alien culture and an inaccessible state structure was imposed thus pushing them into disadvantage, as succinctly described by father of Nepal’s anthropology Late Mr. Dor Bahadur Bista in his book “Fatalism and Development”.  Because lets face it, Nepal is and will always be a composition of different races and ethnicity which determines the way we relate to each other rather than the state sponsored superficial assimilation programs while brushing under the carpet the real issue for fear of getting themselves exposed. This will of course only exacerbate the situation as longer the system is in existence, longer the disenchantment and hence resulting assertion of ones identity.

With an absence in the sense of equal stakeholdership stemming from unequal structure spanning centuries, perhaps explains why we as Nepalese don’t easily trust each other, like to destroy public properties, rake in as much as possible where there is opportunity with scant regard for others. Overall we have failed to have a collective sense of ownership and identity which we can be collectively proud of, simply because we have not felt equal under the umbrella of the nation state that was imposed on us.

Some will argue for the sake of it irrespectively that PN Shah gave birth to Nepal or else we would have been a part of India or China. This argument hardly deserves merit because in the business of statecraft nationalism is nothing but a tool to consolidate power and it only benefits the ruling class. Nationalism like religion is opium of the unsuspecting masses. That is how rulers continue to rule, and the anti-India rhetoric (irrespective of the highly oppressive relationship with our neighbor) is the single biggest tool in the hands of rulers today to evoke nationalism while they sell our lands and rivers under the table to none other than India. Moreover if one looks at things detached from nationalistic emotions for a moment, one realizes that a territory has always belonged to different rulers, subjected to different religions, customs and different forms of nationalistic symbolisms all along different times in the history of the world. Hence nationalism is nothing but an agenda in its true sense. Perhaps that is what separatist movements all across the world want to underscore “Why should we be part of a state that refuses to create an equal platform for us?” 

In-Built Never ending Struggle

As in any nation state where there is constant struggle for power, Nepal has faced a churn with the Brahmins finally arriving in the open as opposed to ruling by proxy in the past. And the so called “Maoist revolution” has proved an elaborate and an effective way to rally people against incumbent monarchy. I mean why the ethnic stirring if Nepal was a feudalistic state in which case Marxist ideology alone would have sufficed. The truth is because communist ideology would never be sufficient to rally people simply because of the nature and composition of the Nepali state which is comprised of many ethnicities. People would not be able relate to the Marxist ideology alone because the problems they have faced is different from what Marxist espouse in a uniform society which Nepal is not. Marxist only describes class struggle, problems between the producers and workers, between landlord and peasants but not ethnicity and race which is dates back thousands of years of history and stands test of time.

However by stirring ethnic passions and cloaking it with Marxist front, they mobilize ethnic people against incumbent yet remain in control of the movement and the population. Sure one can argue that Nepal’s problem is a mix of feudalistic and ethnic issues, however it is pretentious because the people who lead the Maoist’s have always been at top of the food chain and doesn’t make sense that they are revolting against themselves. The only reason is more and more power, which is natural irrespective of Bahuns or any race for that matter.

Unfortunately, the pecking order of the Nepali society has such constant power struggles built in. When something is based on a premise like that, there will always be some group with a grudge and will come at it with full gusto whenever there is opportunity. Yesterday it was Shahs/ Chettris, today it is Bahuns, tomorrow it will be somebody else. The chain effect goes on.

Now what?

Nepal is at cross roads and debating the future of federal structure. It is not surprising how academics and intellectuals are clearly aligned with their own ethnic bias. While ruling groups espouse five development zones on the basis of economic planning and avoiding potential national disintegration along ethnic lines apart from unsustainability of so many federal states, on the other hand Janjati and Madhesi intellectuals point out how the ruling class curiously omit the ethnic composition of such proposed zones which would actually make them most populous including at the center and thus continue their hegemony. They then have equally compelling reasons why federal structures based on ethnicity is a better option and that it would only foster more unity and economic competition apart from peace and closure.

However, no model is perfect and easy but if we really want Nepal to remain as a functioning state and a country with a future which we can be collectively proud of, we need to come together and honestly reconcile as a society. I am sure we can leverage each others strengths and competencies and finally create that society which PN Shah failed to do 250 years ago.