In one of the most nuanced analyses of this process of transformation, Gerrard Delanty argued some 15 years ago in his treatise Inventing Europe, that the ethnos while undergoing a convoluted process of transformation, is constantly in the lookout for the ‘others’ as a means to asserting one’s own identity. A culturally sovereign group of people, he said, is distinguished from a ‘not-like-us group’ so that its ethnic identity is recognized. It has also been the basis of indigenization of ethnicity in Nepal, contrary to the experience of the world where the ethnos transform into demos through the economic and interactive upward mobility of the ethnic populace. Such mobility is engineered by various policies of a modern state and not only by an arriviste group’s ascendance up the ladder.
Delanty says that the ethnos began normally as a ‘pre-political bond’ to a cultural community, and gradually morphed into the political element, as enunciated by the evolution of modern European Union. These bonds frequently cut across cultural-political lines but historical experience has proved that citizenship as nationality, meaning the membership of the state, has often found itself at odds with the membership of the cultural community, resulting in most ethnic conflicts around the world. Such conflict, he argues, is a fight of ethnos with the self as well as with the state values in the convoluted process of being transformed into demos. Every community undergoes this process sooner or later.
The thesis that the global challenge of rising ethnic conflicts can be coped by gradual mainstreaming of the ethnos into demos because modern democracy would only function in collective citizenship, not in segregated nationalism, is regarded as one of the most rigorous ideas to analyze Europe’s evolution. It can be as important in understanding the dynamics of Nepal’s ethno-regional aspirations. The point Delanty made was in favor of increased intercommunity partnerships, which did not mean one community taking up others’ values but rather, laying down acceptable rules of the game to move freely so that shared values would replace taboos on both sides. This is what we need to uphold in devising federalism for Nepal.
Indian experience in caste or ethnicity based equations in recent provincial elections hinted that conventional politics of appealing to the needs of certain groups would probably not work for long. In Uttar Pradesh alone, Mayawati’s Dalit-protector image or Congress’ attempts to woo Muslim minorities did not pay dividends because a better option was available to the voters in a moderate, educated and most importantly locally connected Akhilesh Yadav, whose campaign was based on more inclusive politics.
In Nepal which has comparable pluralities with India, the path to democratic citizenship must harness the ability to rise above ethno-centered judgments. As a derivative evolution from ethnos, it has to embrace multiple world views, paving the way for a cooperative democracy. Focusing only on ethnos has the danger of leading to ‘group essentialism’ and breeding extremism.
Let us try to apply this complex theory in Nepali paradigm. Our ethnic groups have been the face of Nepal for centuries. Not withstanding their dislike towards King Prithvi Narayan Shah, they have been serving in ‘Gurkha’ battalions of British and Indian armies since the time the world didn’t even know the term globalization. They were the first to carve a remittance economy in a country whose citizens didn’t know international borders could even exist. The Gurkhas were also one of the crucial factors driving Nepal’s socio-political changes since unification; they live and work in developed countries in a number comparable to that of the ‘dominant community’. Their contribution in modernizing Nepal is a well known fact, and above all, the most vocal ethnic groups today are themselves the descendants of the ‘oppressive’ kingdoms of pre-unified Nepal. It then seems incompatible that the most globalized communities of our country are pushed back to indigenize themselves, riding on the back of the oppression logic. It is similar to a demos falling in the trap of narrow ethnos interests.
The right approach to federalism then would be to map out a give and take process, instead of allowing one party to have it all. Accepting pluralities of Nepali society also means acknowledging the fact that no two individuals are identical, just as two ethnicities are similar. These individuals and ethnicities can become members of a bigger democracy that offers common ground to converging multiple interests.
Our political parties and interest groups must come forward with reconciliatory perspectives over issues that divide us. Putting a wedge between group identity and national integrity is not a solution. This is the time to analyze identity politics in detail and work out a ‘win-win’ federalism. Thankfully, stakeholders of this process now appear ready to level the playing field for all. Instead of going back in time, we must win over the divisive elements so we can stand together and move forward.
The author is a political analyst
Related story
One to Watch launches new acceleration program
