The past has a way of clawing back if it is not uprooted and overthrown. As Nepal struggles to find its footing in the era of democracy, potent symbols from its regressive past lurk at every nook and cranny, ready to foil its democratic experiment. Nepal’s transformation from Hindu monarchy to secular republic is far from complete. The political class may bask in the glory of overthrowing a regime, but the toxic residue of monarchy has seeped deeply into the current system.
Recently, Gyanu Adhikari, a journalist, was denied a citizenship certificate in Dang because he could not furnish a photo of him wearing a Dhaka topi. When Adhikari protested, the officials maintained that such a photograph is mandatory because it is a sign of national identity. Being an informed citizen, Adhikari filed a petition against this incident. [break]
world.edu
Whether or not he will get justice is another matter, but this incident does highlight how the symbols of our past maintain a deathly clutch on the system. It also shows why Nepal’s experiment with democracy has little chance of succeeding, with the entire institutional mechanism from the monarchy days still intact. Change cannot be accomplished simply by overthrowing a regime. The entire system needs a systematic and complete overhaul.
When the law of the land mandates such baseless criteria, it discriminates against certain communities. It is not hard to gauge why the majority of Nepalis still have scant regard for Madhesi and Muslim communities. With the law and the entire state apparatus at its disposal, it is all too easy for the majority community to claim cultural superiority.
Patriotism in Nepal is based on the concept of Gorkhali chauvinism and symbolic nationalism from our repressive past. It is based on the idea of sameness. To be a patriot means to adhere to a certain kind of dress code and to speak Nepali language. This bland idea has been clobbered into us through careful and calibrated political and social engineering. As a result, we would rather not question the status quo. Hardly any emphasis is laid on deeds for the sake of nation. When the love of the country is not accompanied by willingness to sacrifice for it, the fervor is most probably phony.
Powerful groups are beginning to see the dangers of pluralism and a boundary-less world. This is the reason narrow sectarian concepts of nationalism such as topi that appeal to orthodox upholders of status quo are being projected so widely. What happened to Adhikari is not an isolated case of officials’ whims. The roots of this hollow fundamentalism have deep roots in bureaucracy, for the simple reason that hill ethnic people continue to dominate it. A multi-lingual, multi-cultural democracy should have no space for such mono-cultural activism by the state.
Most countries with crumbling democratic edifices believe in cultural homogeneity and have little tolerance for plurality. People from different cultural backgrounds are seen as defiling the purity of homogeneous culture. A case in point is Pakistan. The root of the Pakistan’s flip-flop democracy lies in singularity. The majority Sunni Muslims, who consider themselves culturally superior, are at constant rift with other communities like Shias.
This intolerance has given rise to religious fundamentalism. This is the reason why, even after 65 years of being a free country, its democratic structure is still shaky. More recently, Egypt’s flirtation with democracy came to a grinding halt when its president Mohamed Morsi, the head of an Islamic party, tried to suppress minority communities. The Islamic world has learnt the hard way that mixing state, religion and culture is deadly.
Adolf Hitler in his heydays managed to usurp democracy with the notion of cultural superiority. It led to the massacre of millions of people. “To keep the purity of nation and its culture intact” Germany shocked the world by purging the country of Semitic people. That was national pride manifest at its worst. The history of Germany highlights how difficult it is for diverse races and cultures to assimilate into a united whole. In Sri Lanka, similar politics played a role in oppressing the minority Tamils, leading to the rise of LTTE. In India, the peddlers of Hindu identity politics rallied people around the idea, leading to horrific violence against minorities in 1992-93 and 2002.
Promoting Nepal’s image as a pure and pristine country of khukuri-wielding, daura-suruwal donning Gorkhalis is a misguided attempt to revive the past. It may stoke some egos, but does little to put the country on the path of peace and harmony. If Nepal is to be built as a vibrant nation, the platform has to be one of democracy, pluralism and secularism. Narrow concepts of regionalism and symbolic chauvinism should be avoided at all costs.
The past should be seen as a guiding light. But Nepal doesn’t seem to have learnt any lesson from its past. The burning of topis during Madhesh movement highlighted the xenophobia that imposition of mono-cultural nationalism can inspire in diverse communities. Though these incidents were uncalled for, they indicate that excessive love for such symbols may inspire a clash of cultures. Cultural activism should not be the driving force of the nation. The foundation of a progressive nation cannot be built on the plinth of hated and xenophobia.
Fortunately for Nepal, the peddlers of cultural nationalism are not supported by the younger generation. They have a narrow base in the elite sections of the society, which has grown slightly due to the political class’ failure. Despite that, it remains a marginal, albeit potent, phenomenon.
As the transition period lengthens and people grow more frustrated, there is the fear that the ideology of cultural nationalism could be exploited to sow communal hatred.
Modern nation states have diverse social groups mingling with each other. Our country has many dress codes and languages within the same political boundaries. In democratic polity, these cultures provide richness to life and ethos. In a globalized world, where the intermingling of people from diverse background is permanent, mono-culturalism is a feature of insular and ghettoized nation. What Nepal needs is a projection of cultural diversity, not a monolithic cultural identity. After all, culture is not cast permanently in stone. It is subject to evolution.
A culture that doesn’t change with time ends up degrading. Guarding culture with puritanical zeal leads to fundamentalism, which in turn creates rabid hatred for people who do not follow the same cultural norms. This hate is exploited by extraneous elements for their personal benefits. This creates distrust, which takes a long time to heal.
With 60 ethnic groups and 92 different language, Nepal has a rich cultural diversity. Nepal should follow a salad bowl concept where different cultures combine and are still able to maintain their distinct identity, as opposed to the more traditional notion of a cultural melting pot where different cultures fuse into one.
If Nepal is to see itself as modern country free of cultural, racial and religious prejudices, it has to systematically purge the vestiges of its past and overhaul the bureaucratic structure. Though it will take a long time, this is one goal worth the time and effort.
The author holds Masters degree in International Business from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
manjeet.mishra@gmail.com
Related story
Change of Guard and OBOR
