Identity and state restructuring in Nepal:
A court order and faultlines
Jiwan Kshetry
A
Supreme court order (unsuccessfully?) staying a landmark agreement between Nepal's major
political parties has highlighted the simmering divide between those for
and against identity-based state restructuring.
"Let's
be proud as citizens of a country where politicians pass verdict and
judiciary indulges in politics." quipped an angry person in twitter
after Nepal's Supreme Court gave an interim verdict objecting to the
agreement among major political forces about the central issues in new
constitution.
Among
others, the major political parties had recently agreed to speed up the
constitution drafting process by postponing two crucial and disputed
issues: the demarcation and naming of federal units. The agreement says
that the task of demarcation will be done later by a Federal Commission
and the names will be decided by provincial assemblies.
The
court order says that the two crucial issues should be settled now when
the Constituent Assembly (CA) is still in existence and cannot be left
to be decided later.
Along
with the sense of relief that the breakthrough brought after a
year-long stalemate in the second CA in the backdrop of failure of the
first, voices of discontent have also been building up. Those who favor a
strong role for ethnic identity (mainly geographic and caste-based) in
state restructuring have felt cheated by the deal which they perceive as
the ploy to altogether jettison the role of identity in the process of
state restructuring.
As
the ruling parties (NC and UML), both vocally opposed to the central
role of identity in restructuring the state, along with the UCPN
(Maoist)—so far the largest pro-identity political party which seems to
have compromised on that stance with the agreement––enjoy
a comfortable two-third majority in the CA, the deal had all but
ensured the formulation of new constitution in near future.
The
pro-identity voices which have been opposing the deal thus risk being
increasingly pushed to the fringe. The fact that the political parties
advocating or sympathetic to the identity-centered politics, including
the Maoists, had lost much ground during second CA vis-à-vis first has
not helped the matter.
That
pro-identity camp in Nepal, formed mainly by regional parties based on
country's southern planes, and groups and parties claiming to represent
ethnic minorities throughout the country, has suddenly found a lifeline
in the SC's verdict and has caught the opportunity to ask the main
political parties to roll back the agreement.
As the polarization between forces for and against the role of identity in the state restructuring––which crescendoed before the collapse of first CA back in 2012––simmers, raw nerves are now being hit once again on both sides with the SC verdict.
That
chasm is now clearly seen in the social media with people jumping to
make sweeping arguments and counterarguments. Many are restrained in
language but others are not. Most opposing the SC verdict have pointed
to the ethnic background of the justice whose single bench passed the
verdict: he hails from the Madheshi community in the South of the
country.
The
pro-identity camp, which has felt cheated by the judiciary many times
in the past including in the 1990s when SC banned the official use of
local languages in local bodies, has come out strongly in support of the
verdict. One commentator aptly summarizes their position and criticism
of the opponents in two consecutive tweets:
"Want
to know how ethnicity/caste dominant state could be, Nepal is fine
example. SC's verdict is seen from ethnic angle and not on its merit.
This is what superiority feeling of own ethnicity/caste does to one's
psyche. Anyone else is incompetent and casteist but yourself."
As
these lines are being written, the parties are duly engaged in
preparing the draft of the constitution ignoring the SC verdict which
they say impinges upon the jurisdiction of Constituent Assembly.
Whether
the SC verdict will have lasting impact on constitution writing or it
will be simply brushed aside by the major political parties remains to
be seen. In either case, however, the verdict has profoundly impacted
the discourse around politics of identity in the country.
It
is a common perception in Nepal that, as people apparently voted mostly
based on agenda other than identity in the last polls, the parties have
incentives in sidelining the issue of identity as far as their
electoral future is concerned. This perception has also been amplified
by the dominant section of media in Kathmandu.
The
largely status quoist vocal section of Nepali society feels that the
concept itself of ethnic grievance in an era of globalization is
anachronistic. They argue that the whole issue of ethnic identity and
its incorporation in mainstream politics was the result of ill-devised
and opportunistic policies of Maoists who, after failing to draw enough
cadres and fighters on the class plank, had switched to ethnicity plank
as a desperate measure during the armed insurgency.
This
camp feels vindicated in this stance by the massive losses that the
Maoists and other pro-identity parties suffered during the second CA
polls.
The
other side in the debate thinks the opposite: a country ruled for two
and a half centuries by Shah Kings and Ranas--both caste and race
supremacists--the shadow of whose rule still looms large in the newly
republican country, Nepal has no option but to address those historical
grievances now if future conflict and strife are to be prevented. As
giving ethnic identity a central role in state restructuring is,
according to them, the only means of doing so, they fear that the major
political parties are now set to move forward without repenting for the
past crimes of the state.
For
them, the defeat of pro-identity parties in latest polls is a
aberration rather than a true reflection of the will of the people.
Paradoxically,
the two sides seem to increasingly agree about one thing: it is
impossible to logically convince the other side about the merit of one's
arguments.
That
has seen hardening of stances and radicalization on both the sides
which had peaked before the collapse of first CA nearly throwing the
country into chaos. Even though much subdued since, this radicalization
is still a major obstacle to the efforts aimed at constructively
engaging the two sides of the divide so as to find a solution acceptable
to both.
That
said, the challenges for Nepali leadership after promulgation of
constitution are immense and reconciliation with the disgruntled groups
and parties will be one of them.
While
further integration into the world system by reviving the ailing
economy and improving the abysmal track record in governance and
accountability should be the top priority of Nepal's leadership now,
amicably settling the disputed issues like role of identity in state
restructuring is no less important. The merits of the court verdict will
be debated for a long time to come but the divide it has highlighted
has to be bridged as Nepal negotiates its entry into the era of
CA-promulgated constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment