Often the political elite try to convince people suffering from discrimination that the new constitution and federalism will remove all discriminations the morning after it is promulgated. Are they right? Can and will the new Constitution (if written) and federalism end all discriminations? Can and will the Constitution and federalism abolish our woes in the blink of an eye?
Discrimination prevails in our society, implicitly as well as explicitly. “People being discriminated for decades are frustrated,” I hear elites say, but from what I see ‘frustration’ is an understatement. It goes deeper than that; it is bottomless.
An elderly person not getting to sit on the ‘reserved’ seats in public buses, or a pregnant woman not getting fast access to public services may be frustrated. But being exiled in your own land is not frustration. Being publicly stripped and fed feces in accusation of being a witch is not frustration. Being denied primary education because you weren’t born with a silver spoon in your mouth is not frustration. Being left with no choice but to drop out of school at an early age because it lacks women-friendly toilets is not frustration. Being told that you can never enter the temple of your God because you were born among the ‘untouchables’ is not frustration. Frustration it would be if the impact was ephemeral, but the impact of such discrimination lasts much longer than a mundane frustration would. It lasts till the day you stop breathing.
tribune.com.pk
Would the new constitution or federalism ward off such social evils in an instant? The simple answer is—No. Those extant wounds are too big to heal, and the Constitution and federalism are not even enough to stop new ones from forming. I am not trying to plant despair, and I am not against federalism. But the rhetoric used in political conversation often misrepresents federalism and the new constitution.
Let’s start with the constitution. The Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal 1990 stated: “All citizens shall be equal before the law… The State shall not discriminate among citizens on the grounds of religion, race, sex, caste, tribe or ideological convictions or any of these… Any contravention of this provision shall be punishable by law.” This was the law of our land for 16 years. Then came the Interim Constitution which was one step ahead of the previous constitution. The Interim Constitution also clearly stated that discrimination on any ground is punishable, but it added a clause to explicitly address untouchability and racial discrimination. It has been six years since the Constitution has been in place, adding more than 22 years of so-called ‘democracy’ with two Constitutions that manifest discrimination as a punishable offense. But stories of discrimination are still making the front page.
Our biggest problem to this date has been poor implementation. But even if it were implemented efficiently, I doubt the constitution would eradicate all discrimination. I believe the prevalence of the existing social discrimination demands more action than well-crafted legal words, because poor law, or even poor implementation, is not why discrimination still prevails. Instead, there are two major causes of discrimination—economic and psychological/social.
A vast majority of economically underprivileged people (even within the same sex, caste or ethnicity) are more vulnerable to discrimination. In all probability, a Pariyar behind the steering wheel of a luxurious car will face less discrimination than a Pariyar working on the hand-wheel of a rusty sewing machine. A BK who manages to throw his hat and tassel up in the air to celebrate his graduation on a scorching day would face less discrimination than a parched BK spending long hours in front of his ‘aaran’. It would be no surprise to me if someone bowing before President Ram Baran Yadav disrespected a Madhesi pedaling his bike to sell pani-puri. Why? Discriminations depend on economic and social stature of person being discriminated against. The constitution cannot end such discrimination fueled by economic reasons.
Also, there exists a visceral sense of superiority among the discriminators, mainly because of coercive social principles. There are ‘Brahmins’ who feel superior to ‘Dalits’, there are men who feel superior to women. The constitution can’t possibly say ‘Brahmins’ aren’t allowed to hate ‘Dalits’ or that ‘Brahmins’ should allow ‘Dalits’ into their kitchen. The constitution cannot force men to respect women. Although it can say that men cannot abuse women, disrespect transcends physical, verbal or psychological abuse. Well crafted and implemented law can make these discriminations less explicit, but it can’t eradicate them. The only solution is awareness among both discriminators and those who are being discriminated.
Then why do we need a new constitution? One might ask. The simple answer would be to increase the scope of the definition used to describe ‘discrimination’ and to address specific discriminations (not addressed before) in a more concrete way. But to put it plainly, any one statement in the constitution will come short of addressing all forms of discriminations. Some might argue that federalism will fill in all the loopholes of the constitution. But just delineating our federal map is nowhere near enough to end discriminations.
It is important to know what federalism will do. I see federalism as short term economic loss and social chaos, but long term economic and social gain. Short term economic loss because federalism requires adding human infrastructure and a mechanism to operate the states. Not to mention it also increases the vulnerability towards corruption in the short run. Short term social chaos because everybody will want a share of the pie instantaneously, but that is not possible. The idea of ‘me’ vs. ‘you’, ‘my ethnicity’ vs. ‘your ethnicity’ has already sprouted, and the odds are that it will burgeon. Long term economic gain because people will have more power over their resources, which is likely to increase overall economic output in long run. Long term social gain because it increases the likelihood of the public’s voice (especially voice of minorities and socially marginalized) getting the executive branch’s ear, which might mitigate the short term social chaos.
I’m not sure if politicians are merely fooling us, or they are themselves baffled, but the means to ending discrimination in our society is neither federalism, nor the constitution. They are just foundations for building the means. The means to remove discrimination are economic empowerment and social awareness. We should not take the constitution and federalism as genies that will grant all our wishes. We cannot end discrimination until and unless everyone harbors the idea that it is in the best interest of humanity to create a society where deep-rooted aspirations of equality and freedom are fulfilled, a society where everyone would be on a level playing field where every person has respect and tolerance for another. And that takes more than a new constitution; it takes more than delineating our map. It needs a true transformation in our social and economic paradigm.
The author has a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering
ganes.bhattarai@gmail.com
Related story
Black Veil Brides to re-record debut album ‘We Stitch These Wou...
