Democracy and ethnic dissent

The predicted future of the so-called "New Nepal", in terms of peace, stability, democracy, and political liberalization, has been far from realized. The current political mess raises fundamental questions about the role and the ability of the current generation of politicians at the helm of affairs to provide the structures and institutions which are required for sustaining the drive for much needed social, economic, political reform and democratic consolidation.

In Nepal, where meaningful employment and professional development opportunities are scarce, politics has become a very useful means of conversion of political power and position into economic wealth for the benefit of the few at the expense of many. The politics has degraded to such a level that, it is all about regime survival rather than addressing the broader needs of the nation. Nepal's malaise, thus, is a reflection of endemic political problems.

What the current generation of politicians fails to understand is that democracy is simply the means, it is not an end in itself. The presence of democracy (debatable in the case of Nepal) neither guarantees peace, stability, nor prosperity. Political sincerity and selfless desire to serve the nation is needed to ensure peace, stability, and prosperity. Mere lip-service of democracy is not worth a penny.

With the passing of each day, the situation is getting even more complicated. Exit of Mahantha Thakur and other members of parliament representing constituencies in the tarai will harden the lines of ethnic division and further alter the already bitterly fragmented political landscape in the future. However, it is both a crisis and an opportunity.

One may question the timing of their quitting the party. Obviously, there is a political space available in the tarai, which they know, is up for a grab. There is nothing wrong with that. Politics is all about competition. As long as politicians follow the rules of engagement and remain loyal to the constituents and the nation, formation of new political parties will not hamper democratic consolidation. It will rather enhance the process.

Mahanta Thakur and others that reigned from the parliament to start a new party have done what most politicians shy away from doing. This is not the first time politicians have deserted their party with a perception of better political future. But the purpose of deserting the parental party is quite different this time around. Unlike Sher Bahadur Deuba and Bam Dev Gautam, who led the dissident factions of the NC and the UML solely for the purpose of remaining in the corridor of the power, Mahantha Thakur has taken a plunge to empower fellow Madhesis from the tarai. He says so and there is no evidence at this point in time to discredit his intentions as a flat lie. Politicians within the NC may choose to disagree, but there are not enough grounds to question his integrity, at least not for now. Although he did not do a good job at explaining the vision and long-term goals of his yet to be named party in his recent interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the recent interview alone does not provide sufficient grounds for political pundits to write his political obituary and brand him a traitor.

Thakur did not have tons of cash at his disposal like Deuba and Gautam, which they used for horse-trading in the parliament. If Thakur had money like them when they broke away from the NC and the UML respectively, there would be at least a dozen more parliamentarians from the tarai behind him. What is exemplary here is, unlike Deuba and Gautam, who masterminded virtual split of their parental party for the sole purpose of remaining in the corridor of power, Thakur has deserted his parental party, which is already in power to start a new party, for which, it may take years to come to the power. He could have remained in the NC and enjoyed power, but he has chosen not to do so. Actually, he is a rare species among the Nepali politicians.

The tendency among the politicians is to raise their voice when they are out of the power. But by dissenting when in power and quitting ministry and the parliament, he has to some extent proved that he has set a positive precedence. The days ahead will prove whether he did so to vent anger against his Pahadi masters within the NC or to empower fellow Madhesis.

When the major political parties are on decline, ethnic politicking moves from the margins of political arena to fight for center stage. This is what happened in India and this is what is happening in Nepal as well. Regional parties got stronger with decline of Congress Party in India. To some extent, it is a natural process. With time, ethnic groups get educated and become aware of their rights. Unlike in India, where it took nearly half a decade for ethnic forces to understand their rights and solidify their bases to challenge the monopoly of the Congress Party, in Nepal, it was rather quick. One of the main factors that propelled the rapid surge in demand for ethnic rights was the division of nation state along the ethnic lines by the Maoists. Needless to say, they had done it to buy unequivocal and everlasting support of ethnic groups. The recent dissolution of the sister organizations formed on ethnic and regional basis proves that the Maoists are getting increasingly nervous about the increasing dominance of ethnic politics in Nepal.

What does the exit of Mahantha Thakur and other MPs from their respective parties mean for the functioning of Nepali democracy? If viewed from the standpoint of ethnic interest, the exodus of MPs from major political parties should be seen as a healthy development. Of late, it has become clear that getting ahead in Nepal depends to a large extent on obtaining at least a partial stake in the state for your own ethnic group. It has given ethnic groups a form of psychic emancipation that NC, UML, RPP, and RJP, were not capable of conferring.

Although the line of difference between the major political parties and genuine ethnic political outfits such as MJF in the tarai is getting hardened, the political necessity of alliance building in future will prevent the hardening of identity from being translated into conflict. As the tarai also has big percentage of people that have migrated from hills, the moderating constrains exerted by ethnically heterogeneous constituencies will make it impossible for one narrow ethnic party to win elections without the help of another.

Although the new political party floated by Thakur will result in renegotiation of power relations, it can help resolve the problems in the tarai. The major political parties instead of snubbing and discrediting Thakur and his colleagues should try to reach out to them and forge an alliance to stabilize the tarai. They are the best bet available. As most of them are staunch believer (at least were so till a while ago) of liberal parliamentary democracy, they can negate the secessionist effects exerted by the groups led by Jay Krishna Goit and Nagendra Paswan. Thus, the new party floated by Thakur should be seen as an opportunity rather than a crisis. It can act as a buffer between the state and the secessionists and help pacify the dissent.

The future steps taken by the government with regard to addressing the legitimate demands of the people of the tarai will determine whether the government is for national consolidation or disintegration. The current Seven Party Alliance government should stop viewing the problem in the tarai from the Maoists' lenses and immediately start negotiating with this new front. The need of the hour is a unified state with unified economy. By denying the rights of people, forget about building a "New Nepal," the current political leadership will not be able to maintain even the status quo.

New Beginning or Dead End?

After a year of political marathon, the Eight Party Alliance's (EPA) government has reached a dead end. With the CA elections in limbo, the EPA government is rapidly losing its legitimacy to govern and the notion of "New Nepal" is losing its appeal. The inability on the part of the EPA government to announce fresh poll dates has raised a question of legitimacy on part of EPA to govern.

The unmatched enthusiasm pumped among the citizens by the people's revolution-II is being deflated at an unprecedented rate. Due to the mishandling of the opportunity by EPA, the Nepali people have started concluding that nothing has changed except the names at the top. Things have changed both for the rank and files of the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) that were on the run during King Gyanendra's regime and the Maoists that took cover of the nature-forests - to keep their lives and dreams afloat. The biggest beneficiary, however, has been CPN (Maoist) who got a safe landing and leapfrogging opportunity from the darkness of jungles to the corridor of the Singha Durbar.

Needless to say, EPA has tremendously benefited from the people's trust and willingness to rally behind them, but what have people gained? It is high time to balance the book. With the increase in violence, insecurity, and the government's inability to conduct CA elections, the Nepali people who have become consumers of false dreams sold by politicians have started asking themselves: Was people's evolution-II for us or for the politicians whose political careers have been choked by King Gyanendra?

While the hand-picked parliamentarians are drawing fat checks for raising hands to consent on the decisions made by the top leaders of their respective parties, the transition period meant to secure peace and ensure the long-term prosperity of the Nepali people, the populace is laden with violence, chaos, and insecurity. This further complicates the minimum conditions required for conducting CA elections. The question that arises now is how long the interim parliament and the EPA government should be in place before it is deemed that they have lost the consent of the governed? What can they do to buy the required legitimacy to govern, if anything?

Be it before the start of the Maoist insurgency, during the insurgency, or after the safe landing of the Maoists, things are same for the rich and famous and their kids. They had everything to lead a comfortable life and buy their safety. The Maoists did not inflict a scratch on the rich and famous because of their symbiotic relationship that was largely based on the money that they could extract from the privileged class.

As usual, things are normal for the privileged class now. While the sons and daughters of the rich and famous frivolously spend money to sweat themselves out in discos in the capital, the children of poor in the far-flung villages are sweating out of nervousness of not being able to keep their dreams afloat.

Thus, the biggest losers of the ongoing violence, insecurity, and the inability on the part of the government to navigate the nation towards political stability have been the poor and downtrodden populace. The sons and daughters of rich politicians and businessmen can buy one-way ticket to Western countries but what about the children of poor that are forced to waste their precious human life due to the inability of politicians to provide required opportunity to lead a meaningful life?

One of the many reasons why the plight of the indigents is not taken seriously is because most of the politicians have no clue about what it means to be a poor. While some were well off to begin with and are not in a position to understand how debilitating poverty is, others have amassed enough wealth (which would have been impossible if pursued through legal means) and have forgotten those old days whereby they had a hard time meeting basic necessities. Like the majority of politicians, the new entrants in Nepali politics (the Maoists) who successfully sold the dreams of prosperity to the largely illiterate and economically deprived populace, are not doing enough to fulfill peoples' aspirations.

They seem to not realize that their propagandist politics alone will not be of any help when it comes to building an egalitarian nation. They have no well-tested developmental model, no proven strategy to spur economic growth, no clue about how to properly redistribute wealth other than redistributing land, and no desire to secure peace which is a prerequisite to prosperity.

For development to take place there should be peace in the nation. Prachanda's dismissal of existence of other forces such as MPRF and NIFIN and his social workers turned militias are the main obstacles towards securing peace in the nation. Thus, Prachanda's claim that he would turn this largely hungry nation into a prosperous and well-functioning democracy like Switzerland is simply ludicrous. Who in the world would like to invest in a nation where shutdowns of industries by cadres of political parties happen on a mere whim, with intimidation and extortion rampant?

It did not take very long for the gain of mass movement of 1990 to dissipate. Fifteen years and we are back to square one. Hard-earned democracy did not last long because the rent-seeking coalition between business and politics served to fuel corruption and violence in the body politic of Nepal. Easy money earned through illegal means was used to sustain a new class of political elites who remained immune from the forces of law enforcement because of their political status and connection.

Like in the past, the politicians do not appear to be driven by a sense of mission to transform the society in a particular direction this time around too. If not corrected, the lack of developmental vision and the ability to secure peace amongst the current leadership, who do not seem to have learnt lessons from the past, will be compounded by their weak commitment to realize the importance of such a vision. Popular disillusionment is sure to occur like in the past which the Maoists cashed pretty smartly in their favor, mainly due to the failure of the state to deliver expected democratization of local social relations and political authority, continuing poverty and a widening gap between the haves and have-nots.

The only question that kept on lingering in people's mind after the fall of King Gyanendra's regime was, "What would our leaders do differently than they did after the fall of Panchayat regime in 1990 that would strengthen democracy and make Nepal prosperous?" And, our leaders are not doing anything differently even though the political and social landscape is not the same as it was during the early 1990s.

The time is running out for the EPA government. All the constituents of EPA should realize their mistakes and pledge a non confrontational style of politics. For any meaningful change to materialize, the centrist forces should correct their laid-back attitude, understand the need for a changed political landscape, and realize the urgency to work towards fulfilling people's aspirations. As far as the political left is concerned, it should pledge non rhetorical style of politics and stop abusing parliament as an arena for rhetorical exchanges.

It should be rather used as a vehicle for political consensus building. Furthermore, it should find ways to keep its unruly cadres within its grip. It somehow got to teach its cadres rational and civilized ways of protesting. Indulging in immoral acts of burning and destroying public property that we built through the tax payers' money is mockery of our own achievement.

If political leaders fail to understand the gravity of the situation and continued with their old habits, coming generations too will have to fight for democracy again. Failure to deliver development benefits and meet people's aspirations shall invite February 1st over and again in some form or another.

Insurgencies will easily flourish as impoverished societies are hot beds for such movements. The Maoist insurgency by no means is an end to rebellion. The desire to rebel shall stay put until the Eight Party Alliance (EPA) and the subsequent governments in the future are able to ensure peace, prosperity, and pursuit of happiness.

Madhesi Movement:Blessing in disguise?

The violent protests in terai, which started on January 19, claimed over one and a half dozens of innocent lives. Public property worth millions of rupees has been destroyed. The lives of the poor, who work daily to make their ends, have been seriously jeopardized. While the government is hesitatingly signaling its willingness to have a dialogue, the damage
might have already been done. The social harmony has been seriously disturbed.

The current violence shows the level of anger in Nepali society, which can vent at any time. The challenge ahead in addition to establishing peace, security, and democracy, is to reconcile ethnic and cultural diversity with the concept of a mature and cohesive nationhood. However, it is not an easy task to construct political and economic institutions that will enable the existing ethnic diversity to be readily compatible with the perception of belonging to a single country.

Bismarck famously noted politics as the art of the possible. Jean Monnet, a century later, updated this notion and made it even more appealing. According to Monnet, politics is the art of making possible what is necessary. At this point in time, it is necessary to address the grievances of Madhesis, Dalits, women and the people from the mountains. They do not have enough say in the process of nation-building, and the government should leave no stone unturned to change this.

Irrespective of who was raising the issue, the grievances of Madhesis to a large extent were valid to be addressed. The Madhesi youth, like youth of any other ethnicity that are largely unemployed, may get trapped into the game plan of Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM) and get swayed with the idea of the armed separatist movement.

It is not possible to establish a new Nepal when approximately 40 percent of people from terai, women, Dalits, and marginalized people from hills and mountains, feel alienated and have grievances that need to be addressed.

So the grievances of Madhesis were genuine but the tone of Madhesi leaders and intellectuals show that they are more troubled by the ethnic slurs they encounter in their day-to-day lives than the real empowerment that has eluded them so far. The missing link in this debate is that it is not only Pahades that are discriminating Madhesis, but also the upper caste Madhesis, such as Jha, Mishra, and Bhumiyars that discriminate against Dalit Madhesis such as Dom and Chamars. A change of heart is necessary among upper caste Madhesis too.

Trying to bring down Pahades onto their knees by burning down their property will not result in a change of hearts and attitudes among Pahades. Old habits die hard. The malaise of discrimination and ill-treatment will die a natural death with an increase in the level of education both among Pahades and Madhesis and modernization of society. Eventually, it will be a thing of our past. It will not happen overnight; perhaps not even in our lifetime, but it will definitely happen if we construct an adequate political and economic institution that enables ethnic diversity now.

Although the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the United States in 1865, blacks and other minorities are still discriminated against, and still have to encounter racial slurs. Nobody likes to talk about it or acknowledge it, but it is there.

Former Senator George Allen of Virginia used the term Macaca—a monkey native to Asia—to insult a volunteer of Indian descent working for his opponent. Although that very racial slur proved to be exceptionally expensive to his race for the United States senate, it shows how deep racial discrimination is ingrained in American society.

Recently, Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, called fellow Senator Barrack Obama, "a fellow democrat and presidential hopeful for 2008 as the only African-American who is articulate, bright, clean and nice-looking" in his article published in The New York Observer.

Such racial slurs which are neither politically nor socially correct are still not uncommon even in the Western democracies, and they often come from people who are supposed to push for ethnic and racial equity. Consequently, instead of laying too much emphasis on ethnic slurs that Pahades use and venting anger to settle vendetta, Madhesis should make sure that the government builds institutions that are necessary to ensure their empowerment.

The window of opportunity is now open, and the Madhesi leaders should do their best to grab it. They should push for a system that works on the basis of recognition of separate identities born out of ethnicity, and demonstrate the potential to accommodate, reconcile, and manage social diversities within an overarching polity. Institutional safeguards should be in place to ensure that no group feels privileged or discriminated in the process, or else the actual empowerment will never happen.

The ongoing violent protests have provided Madhesis with tremendous bargaining power, and opportunity to regain political landscape that has been lost to the Maoists. The ongoing protests have put Maoists on a back foot; they are scrambling hard to reorganize their agenda and devise their future strategy with regard to Madhes and Madhesis. It has made Maoists more politically insecure than ever, at least in terai. In order to maintain their political stature and fiefdom, they will covertly store more weapons than they had planned to. Thus, we will not have absolute peace any time soon.

However, at this point in time if Madhesis are somehow able to unite and establish a democratic front, they can seriously challenge Maoists' fiefdom in terai, annulling Maoists' aspiration of establishing a proletarian communist state; this will be a great achievement in itself.
In addition to many things, the ongoing political protests have proved that it does not take a lot of time for people to unite and there is a potential for a serious political force to develop in Nepal. It also has proven that the fear psychosis that Maoists have been able to instill in Nepali society can be evaporated with a strong slogan and comprehensive mass mobilization. Thus, Madhesis should use the existing inertia to establish a meaningful democratic political force that can challenge Maoists' terror reign and bring them into a democratic framework so that they do not indulge in politics of violence and embrace modern politics based on human values.

The only way to bring Maoists into the mainstream is by mass mobilization, and challenging their fiefdom. Maoists will remain faithful to their commitment towards democracy only when they realize that they cannot rule Nepal by resorting to guns and terrorizing people. Other methods, including endlessly conceding to Maoist demands, are politically suicidal for Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and are doomed to fail in the long run.

The Madhesi movement should be seen as an opportunity by SPA to institutionalize democracy and ensure their survival. SPA and the international community should try helping Madhesis—even if it requires a covert operation—to establish a democratic front. As several senior Maoist leaders have already made it clear that they will not settle for anything less than a proletarian communist state, the only force that can checkmate them is Madhesi in terai. Maoists in terai are running for their lives now. The ongoing violent protests in terai have clearly demonstrated that Madhesis can reverse the trend of Maoist run over the democratic forces.

As far as Madhesis are concerned, the time is ripe for them to organize and establish themselves as a democratic force. All Madhesis need now is charismatic leaders that can see things beyond race, ethnicity, and political vendetta. Madhesis can seriously help establish inclusive democracy where different ethnic groups can coexist and realize their dreams.

Nepal - Inclusion With Vision

Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala's commitment that “All marginalized groups would be included in all the organs of state machinery on a proportional basis.” However, translating a political speech into viable affirmative action programs that will ensure the actual empowerment of marginalized groups through proper representation may not be as easy as it seems.
The challenge ahead is to construct just affirmative action policies that can adequately and efficiently administer compensatory and distributive justice, but at the same time have very little room for abuse by free. One of the most important roles of a state that strives towards inclusive democracy is to reach out to marginalized groups that have been bypassed either by choice or by default. This will ensure that public service system is inclusive and representative. We, as a nation, will be better off by ensuring inclusion of marginalized groups rather than exclusion, which in itself is undemocratic. Thus, inclusion of all marginalized groups bypassed so far, in all of the organs of state machinery on a proportional basis, is necessary to inculcate a feeling of belonging and to make state machineries more responsive to the needs of everyone's need.


One of the ways adopted to correct past mistakes is through affirmative action policies to ensure empowerment of the marginalized groups. However, there is a fine line between effective administration of compensatory and distributive justice through affirmative action policies that ensures empowerment of marginalized groups and the reverse discrimination. In South Africa, after the African National Congress took power in the early 1990s, they tried correcting past indecencies by offering a severance package to white civil servants did not serve as a good omen as a majority of the experienced white civil servants left government service. This had a tremendous negative affect on bureaucracy and the overall development of the nation.

Thus, the burden lies on the government to ensure that the group that was privileged in the past does not become a victim of reverse discrimination and withdraw its contribution to the society। An abrupt withdrawal and flight of this section of society that is well-educated, relatively wealthy, and politically enlightened could prove to be disastrous for development of the nation. For empowerment of members of a marginalized group to take place, it is important to identify the individuals within the marginalized groups that are actually deprived and in need of the state’s intervention. Thus, preference should be given to only those castes within the officially declared marginalized groups for their upliftment, enhancement, and subsequently empowerment. For example, the members of backward caste Madhesis and Madhesi Dalits such as Lohar, Sonar, Dom, Chamars, Musahars and others who actually face discrimination on a daily basis, are at the bottom of the economic ladder and do not have access to social goods and opportunity should be the ones to benefit from the affirmative action policies, but not to the whole “Madhesi group” which they are part of. This is mainly so because some members of the “Madhesi group” such as those belonging to upper castes- Brahmins, Rajputs, and Bhumiyars- are actually more successful and financially well off than the lower caste Madhesis, Dalit Madhesis and even lower caste and Dalit Pahades. If they, along with lower caste and Dalit Madhesis, are made entitled to affirmative actions, the well-educated upper caste Madhesis that are better educated and financially well-off will quickly learn to hop opportunities and reduce affirmative action policies to “affirmative auction.”

So, instead of blindly allocating opportunities to the people within the certain group, a combination of factors like wealth, education level, income, occupation, and geographical disparities should be used to identify truly needy people among the officially classified marginalized groups. The resources and opportunities thus saved can be distributed among those who are that are needy but are born in the upper castes by default, not by choice.
The government should learn from the Indian experience। Despite having the public policy of affirmative action in India in some form or the other for more than five decades now, approximately 25 percent of total population is still languishing below the poverty line. The people that make up this 25 percent are mostly backward castes and Dalits. So, merely having policies in place does not ensure empowerment and emancipation. For real empowerment and emancipation to occur, policies should be able to deliver to those who need the most. In addition, affirmative action policies should be auditable. It should be audited from time to time to see if it is really addressing the issue that it is suppose to address or just enhancing dependency and the sense of entitlement among the recipients.

Our success lies in devising affirmative action policies that are unique, workable in the sociocultural context of Nepal and which reach those who deserve it the most। The policies should be time-bound rather than open ended. Failure to do so would result in a situation like in India, whereby the hope that reservation would be abolished after the catching-up by the marginalized groups, has not yet been realised. In the absence of a strict time frame, the very notion of catch-up will be defined to suit the political needs and will be subjected to political manipulation. As in India, there will be a consistent and concerted effort to extend reservation to cover more and more groups. It will be impossible to get rid of politically expedient policies of reservation in the absence of a time frame, even if it is a generation or two later. Thus, having a timeline in place is extremely important to prevent preference from turning out to be an entitlement. Failure to do so will eventually constrict opportunities for upper castes and ignite social tension. The formation of upper-class militia such as Ranvir Sena in Bihar in future cannot be ruled out altogether.

The overall goal of affirmative action policies that are to be implemented in Nepal should be to make discriminated and bypassed members of marginalized group become more competent and help them to emerge as natural competitors rather than enhance intergenerational dependency.