By Henry
Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer
In the
Himalayan state of Nepal, identity issues have dominated its political
landscapes in the past decade.
There are
more than 125 ethnic communities in Nepal, and the majority of people are also
peasants.
The
dominance of Hindu groups began after the unification of various principalities
into modern-day Nepal by the Gorkha King Prithvi Narayan Shah in the 1770s,
establishing a Hindu dynasty in Nepal.
However, Nepal
witnessed a series of peasant rebellions against the state and landed
aristocrats in the 20th century, culminating in a full-fledged
Maoist revolution which overthrew the old order.
Ethnic
peasants were at the forefront, demanding autonomy, dignity, and an end to
state violence. Since then, however, the idea of indigeneity has become more
pronounced.
As identity
politics became the dominant ideological force, this has undermined the course
of radical political developments in the country.
People who
do not fall within the Hindu caste hierarchy and have their own language and
cultural identity claim themselves to be ethnic populations.
Madhesi
communities in the southern Terai area, which borders India, and who constitute
one third of Nepal’s population, consider themselves as a separate ethnic
group.
The Maoists
entered into a peace agreement in 2006 and two years later won the first
elections of the post-war period. They declared Nepal a republic.
However, in
the aftermath of the revolution the powerful ethnic and peasant movements were
gradually replaced by identity politics as a new consolidating force in Nepali
politics.
Dozens of
political groups emerged demanding political autonomy for indigenous people and
identity-based federalism in Nepal. Taking advantage of this, urban and ethnic
elites, have reconsolidated their political and economic power.
The Maoists
had effectively mobilized the idea of ethnic autonomy to enroll the rural peasantry
into the revolution, not realizing this might eventually boomerang and
reproduce, via new forms of identity-based political mobilization, a return to
upper class dominance.
By prioritizing
ethnic autonomy, the Maoists had created an opening for identity politics to
displace core concerns regarding social, cultural, and economic exploitation.
As identity
politics surpassed other political ideas, the Maoists themselves were left with
ethnic federalism as the only agenda for their political campaign.
Ethnic
identity politics became particularly strong in the Terai region, where the
Madhesi people faced the most entrenched economic inequality and caste
discrimination in the country. They have long been exposed to racial slurs and
to being framed as Indians or illegal migrants.
They had
come to champion a Madhesi state within a proposed new constitution. But the
Maoists, voted out of power in elections held in 2013, were forced to accept a
new constitution, passed in 2015, which created a geography-based federation, dividing
Nepal into seven provinces.
Madhesi
activists argued that it separated them into different jurisdictions, increasing
rather than alleviating their discrimination.
So while
many Nepalese celebrated Constitution Day this past Sept. 20, Mahanta
Thakur, leader of the
Madhesi-based Rastriya Janata Party Nepal, told protesters that the
Madhesi people “have been fighting against oppression, injustice and
discrimination for a long time.” That is why “we consider this day a black
day.”
The Nepalese
situation is another demonstration of the law of unintended consequences, as the
Maoists learned the hard way.
No comments:
Post a Comment