Nepali nationalism is traced by cultural anxiety within the frame of which foreigners conspire to rape mother Nepal
Nepal has witnessed various forms of violence in the recent decades. These include the violence perpetrated during the decade-long people’s war, violence seen during the Madhesh Uprising of 2007 as well as recent violence that claimed lives of more than forty people in Tarai region. Violence has resulted as a consequence of both ethnic and class conflict; result of centuries of marginalization of certain strata of the population, including women and dalits as well as ethnic minorities.
In addition, the cases of domestic violence continue to rise, with increasing instances of rape as well as other examples of physical and psychological violence, being reported in the last few years. While there are multiple, rather than singular, factors determining the local manifestations of violence, it seems to me that the common thread that underlies these various manifestations of aggression, in private as well as public spheres, is the discourse of dominant masculinity.
A careful study of the texts (newspaper reports, directives, biographies and poems, among other documents) surrounding these multiple forms of conflict show that discourse of masculinity is used extensively to prompt people to violence. Both the army and the Maoists, for example, exalted the virtues of aggressive masculinity to support their military agenda, describing their opponents as namardas (not real men) while positioning themselves as brave mardas (real men) who knew how to use weapons to defeat the enemy.
CESIF hosts seminar on ‘Borderland Voices in Nepal’s Foreign Po...
Since most men internalize the idea that they need to be dominating and aggressive in order to be seen as real men, such a call for aggressive behavior functions as a crucial rhetorical strategy during times of conflict; a rhetorical strategy that has been used time and again by various groups—ranging from ultra rightists such as Taliban and Hindu fundamentalists to ultra left military outfits—in various parts of the globe.
Analysis of political discourse surrounding ethnic conflict in Nepal shows that such a discourse is traced by a perpetual “contest of masculinities.” In such contests, men belonging to various communities—from hill Brahmins and Kshatriyas to Rais, Limbus, Gurungs and men of Madheshi origin—try to prove they are more masculine then their ethnic others. While attributes such as physical strength, courage and intelligence are highlighted in some manifestations of such “masculine contests,” other attributes such as patriotism and sexual capacity are fore-grounded in other instances of the same contestation.
In the imaginations of the hill people of Nepal, for instance, Madheshi Nepalis are often described as cowards, and as dalals (pimps) of India. During the Madhesi Uprising of 2007, walls bordering the streets of Kathmandu were full of Madheshi protests saying, “we are not cowards, but dhartiputra (sons of the soil). The gendered nature of such protests shows how political contests are traced by contests of masculinities. The same motif has repeatedly surfaced in various political debates since 2006.
Thus ethnic subjects have tended to describe male Brahmins not only as cunning men with weak physique, but also as foreigners who came to Nepal from India. Brahmin and Kshatriya newspaper writers and bloggers, for their part, have often described ethnic peoples—such as Limbus and Rais, for instance—as lacking rationality and logical power; attributes that are traditionally considered as crucial markers of masculinity, especially in opposition to the so-called “feminine emotionalism.”
Similar contests of “manliness” can also be seen when we examine gender representations, including representations of masculinities and femininities in the electronic media, concerning Nepal’s international relations. In particular it is instructive to look at the political debates coalescing around two key terms—dalal (pimp) and charitraheen (characterless) —in the domain of India-Nepal foreign relations. It appears to me that representations of these two terms in blogs and e-magazines impose certain foreclosures and set certain limits beyond which meaningful political discussion becomes next to impossible.
For instance, when bloggers and e-magazine contributors describe male political leaders of Nepal as dalals, not only do they reproduce normative, dominant model of masculinities, but also foreclose meaningful discussions concerning Indo-Nepal foreign relations. This is similar to what happens when bloggers describe women leaders of Nepal as charitraheen. Such representations foreclose authentic evaluation of these women leaders, of their policies and actions.
Due to such foreclosures any attempt to think critically about Nepal’s foreign relations often generates a national paranoia, often evoked by stigmatized figures of pimps and characterless women who are described as witnessing the “rape” of mother Nepal while foreigners continue to undress her. In other words, Nepali nationalism is traced by cultural anxiety within the frame of which foreigners are rhetorically described as conspiring to rape mother Nepal (imagined as feminine) as political leaders look without shame as impotent men or characterless women.
It is necessary is to demystify such cultural anxiety and paranoia and to rethink Nepal’s nationalism in terms that are less gendered. Similarly, it is crucial to expose falsely gendered dichotomies that often trace ethnic conflicts in Nepal. Such demystifications will go a long way, not only in reducing existing social paranoia(s), but also in creating saner, healthier societies founded on the principles of social justice, including gender justice.
upretysanjeev@gmail.com
