Nepal's politics has been dominated by the upper Hindu
castes from the northern hill region for centuries. A strong hill community,
which have retained total control of every apparatus of the state. This establishment
thought that after the decade-long Maoist insurgency and Madhes uprisings in
2007 it had to loosen its control over the state. But after the second constituent
assembly elections in 2013 in which ruling elite emerged victorious, it was
buoyed. This ruling community thought it was the right opportunity to take back
what has been promised in the interim constitution. The monarchy drummed up
nationalist rhetoric against all outsiders, including Madhesi. The current
ruling dispensation carried forward the same values that propagates that
"Madhesis are lesser Nepalis".
At least 50 people in Nepal have been killed in police
shootings during protests since September when Nepal passed its much-delayed
constitution. People in the southern plains bordering India took to the streets
alleging the new charter failed to address their historical marginalisation. Protests
by the people of the southern Tarai region - known as Madhesis - have been
ongoing for more than three months. The new constitution gives political power
to the hegemonic upper caste Nepali-speaking Hindu males of hill region. Madhesis
and indigenous janajatis have been denied rights. The eight years of work
during the transition period is back to square one.
The ruling coalition is dominated by ‘communist’ parties,
including the Maoists. By resisting the changes are they protecting the ruling
elite. In South Asia and not just only restricted to Nepal ‘communists’ are
dominated by the upper caste people. Maoist leaders of Nepal, most of whom are
upper caste Brahmins, when the crux came turned out to be more communalists
than communists They threw away all their agendas to embrace and maintain this
hegemony of the upper caste, Hindu, Nepali-speaking hill people. The ruling
class used natural calamity such as an earthquake as an excuse to promulgate
the constitution.
The state was envisioned to be restructured with realities
of multi-cultural, multi-religious, plural and multi-national societies that
exist in Nepal. The only inclusion have been groups which have ruled before. So
this whole idea of inclusion is defeated. They talk of federalism and
restructuring but in such a manner that they retain control of all the units.
In this way, they can claim that some restructuring has been done, but it's a
complete sham. The Maoists who fought a 10-year 'people's war' spoke for the
rights of the marginalised. But they back the new charter that is being opposed
by ethnic Madhesis. According to CK Lal, a columnist and playright, “We have
heard that power corrupts. In Nepal, we saw how badly power corrupts. Within
months of coming to power, the Maoists' whole behavior, lifestyles and everything
changed. They started aping the lifestyles of the ruling class. They forgot all
the promises they had made to the people that had supported them. People had
expected them to be different from other political groups because they had come
through struggle and armed revolution, but once they became ministers, it
became very difficult to differentiate between established political parties
and the Maoists.”
Upendra Yadav, the leader of the Sanghiya Samjawadi Forum,
has accused the ruling class, which has traditionally come from the hill areas,
of racism. Again CK Lal explains “I think Upendra Yadav's expression is a
political rhetoric not anthropological or technical word. The hill and Madhes
belong to almost the same racial groups - Indo-Burmese, Indo-Aryans,
Indo-Gangetic plains. Racial groups are the same. Where he is right is that it
is not just economic discrimination, it's a cultural civilisational
discrimination whereby almost the same caste say, for example, Brahmin of the
hill considers the Brahmins of Madhes as his social and cultural inferiority.
Even rich people from the Madhes region are looked down on by the hill poor. The
term you can use is communitarian discrimination.”
Nepali politicians accuse India of behing behind the
economic blockade but India has consistently supported hill against Madhesis
for the last 150 years. Had India been slightly sympathetic to Madhesi, the
problems would have been resolved long ago. India is not really supporting
Madhesis but trying to maintain a balance. This has given the ruling dispensation
some excuse for indulging in rhetoric. If India were to impose a blockade,
Nepal will find it difficult to stand even for a day. This blockade thing is a
complete lie. Blockade implies that even people are not allowed to move - let
alone goods. But if you read Nepali newspapers you will find out that poor
Nepalis are going to Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu for work. Every day
3,000 people are leaving for India. Blaming India is fair game; it's a game of
all seasons for hill parties. They have resorted to propaganda such as
"India is enemy, difficult to deal with India, India does not want
sovereignty of Nepal to be practiced".
World Socialism Party
(India)
Email: wspindia@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment