-Yam Bahadur Dura
The
most visible timeline of Nepal's democratic movements can be traced back to
1950's democratic movement against Rana Regime. It was followed by two major
political uprisings - People's Movement of 1990 and 2006 - which largely
changed Nepal's socio-political landscape.
Along
with this, Maoists-led Armed Conflict (1996-2006), Madesh Movement, and some
other social movements helped Nepal turn itself into a secular state. Almost
seven decades have been passed, and Nepal's journey toward an ideal democracy
continues further and further.
Secularism has
become one of the major issues in this journey. Political opinions remain divided
over the issue of secularism. The political elites are saying that once the new
constitution is promulgated, the agenda of secularism has come to an end, and it
is time to move ahead with the agenda of socio-economic development.
Conversely, the ethnic/indigenous
communities are expressing their resentments in the political elites'
statements. Their version is that the agenda of secularism is yet to be
addressed along with the agenda of socio-economic agenda.
This is what has
become the point of debate in the present day Nepal. However, the issue of
secularism is nothing new in Nepal, and is a long-standing issue. There is a
long history of discrimination and repression. The modern history of
caste-based discrimination begins with the introduction of the Muluki Ain
(Civil Code) in 1854 Civil Code, which created a strong ground for caste-based
discrimination underestimating Nepal's cultural diversity and people's
dignities.
More than a century
long oligarchic rule of Ranas (1846- 1951) propelled caste-based
discrimination in the country. In 1951, 'Rana rule' was toppled. After short
period of democratic atmosphere, King Mahedra introduced the party-less
autocratic political system, called Panchayat system, in 1960.
Panchayat continued nurturing the legacy of
Rana rulers by suppressing the sentiments of cultural diverse communities. It
tried to homogenize cultural diversity in the name of ‘national unity’. Ethic/indigenous
communities were expected to assimilate into the socio-political mainstream.
They were also expected to internalize the culture, religion, language and values
of dominant Hindu groups in order to become real Nepalis.
After the fall of Panchayat system in 1990, a new
constitution was introduced portraying Nepal as a multiethnic, multilingual,
democratic, independent, indivisible, sovereign, Hindu and constitutional
monarchical kingdom. It was a progressive constitution compared to the previous
ones. But, it gave prime importance to the dominant Hindu culture, which was
the point of displeasure for ethnic/indigenous communities. They had already complaining
about negative influences of Hinduization.
Even after the restoration of democracy in 1990, the state
blatantly violated the values of cultural diversity. In 1997, Kathmandu
Metropolitan City, Dhanusha District Development Committee, and Rajbiraj
Municipality decided to use Nepal Bhasa, and Maithili as their official
languages respectively in addition to Nepali. These decisions were challenged at
the Supreme Court, and the Court prohibited implementing the decisions.
In this way, the ethnic/indigenous
communities were systematically ignored and discriminated by the state mechanisms
depriving them of their cultural practices over the years.
Now, the legal and
political environments have changed a lot. Nepal has turned into federal system
from unitary system of governance. The Constitution of Nepal 2015 has come into
existence, which is, seemingly, more progressive and democratic. It has largely
respected cultural diversity at least in words.
In addition, Nepal
has also signed various international legal instruments viz. the ILO Convention
on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989 (ILO 169), the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (CEDAW), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR). All these instruments intend to end all sorts of discrimination
and promote multiculturalism.
Legally speaking, the
situation seems to be improved tremendously. Even so, there are conflicts
between theory and practice. Many questions related to cultural diversity,
especially Maoists-induced ones, remain sorrowfully unanswered.
Before the Maoists
entered the armed conflict, they had submitted a memorandum to then-Prime
Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. One of the points of
the memorandum was that autonomy should be given to those ethnic groups who
have majority in their respective areas. Based on this idea of ethnicity based
federalism, Maoists formed what they call 'People Governments' in the name of indigenous
people like Tamuwan, Magarat, Tharuwan, and so on during the armed conflict
period.
On contrary to this, Maoists left
this agenda unaddressed once they rose to power. They came to power from time
to time after 2006. This time too, ex-Maoists affiliated majority government is
in power. But, they are mysteriously silent on their own agenda without any
clarifications.
There are a series of developments
which have been hampering Nepal's cultural diversity. Indigenous people are
feeling cheated and insulted for many reasons. The miscarriage of a long
cherished dream of ethnicity based federalism was major shock for them.
This unpleasant situation continues
even further. The present communist government cut down public holidays by 22
days in March 2018. Most of the holidays were the major festival of indigenous
communities, which was insured by the interim constitution issued after 2006
spring movement.
Nepal's Constitution has made
provision of 'special protected regions' or 'autonomous regions' for the
overall development of minority groups. But, the government seems to be utterly
unwilling to materialize this constitutional provision.
All these sad
chapters remind us of the story of 'overpromise and under-delivery'. Power-holders
and policymakers need to remember that Nepal is a mosaic of different ethnic/indigenous
communities. They need to paint rosy picture of the country respecting cultural
diversity, which is the corner stone of national unity and multiculturalism.
