(Courtesy: Pravin Rana)
Events in history, we have been told, repeat themselves as farce. We might look at Nepal and modify this dictum to say “events that are not quite history; even events from a nanosecond ago, repeat themselves as farce.”
Take the case of the Terai violence recently – a repeat of the April Jana-andolan.
The urban paharis or hill people (like myself) came into contact with a Madhesi probably around the age of four, in our first visit to the local barber. Two or three Madhesi’s ran the small joint-venture operation: usually a well-kempt one room rental (rented out by a pahari landlord) which also did double duty as a home.
Later, you noticed that Madhesi’s were adept in quilt-making: they carried that long harp-like contraption with the single taut string for shredding the cotton filling. You saw them as entrepreneurial door-to-door salesmen: hauling fish, fresh vegetables, and other goods right to your door.
As you got older, you also discovered they were the universal whipping boys: the term Madhesi, used in certain contexts, is also a derogative term, used fast, loose, and often by the Hill people against Madhesis for minor annoyances.
We know the paharis never felt that the Madhesi problems amounted to a hill of beans – even though the Hill people, we have observed are acutely aware of ethnic differences, class, and historical oppression. The Maoists, above all, have used class, caste, and economic differences to successfully make substantial inroads into politics.
But just as soon as they seem to have settled into an agreement that may soon give them their communist republic, along comes the pesky Madhesis with the gall to demand fair representation.
The shock extends to members of the civil society who call themselves “activists.” Any one can protest, as long as the protests center around their own group thinking.
So we’re stumbling around again, with another group (as high as six million or nearly 25 percent of Nepal’s population) claiming very strongly that they have legitimate rights and have been living in no-man’s land of citizenship status for generations.
It would be ironic that after coming to power under the slogans of “inclusive politics” and “people” that the native inhabitants of the Terai be denied citizenship by SPAM.
As we observe the events in Nepal, what can we learn from other countries that have struggled with similar issues?
First, we need to start accepting that history is tragic and “fixing” past grievances is complex; takes some time; and does not guarantee equal success for everyone. “Equality of result” is impossible.
Unfortunately, our debates lack lucidity and encompass simplistic or utopian hopes accompanied by the usual assumption that without the 237 years of Shah rule, Nepal would be a vibrant democracy.
This is not to say that the Shahs and Ranas were somehow blameless but we must recognize that the Nepal consisted of tribal kingdoms for many centuries before that competed with each other (most likely brutally); oppressed their people; were feudal and, if they were Hindus, probably practiced caste-based discrimination.
It is Black History Month in United States and we can learn from the African American experience here that there are now many African Americans in places that would be unimaginable a generation ago: a black Secretary of State; a potential black President; many, many black executives in business, government, sports, and the arts. Black culture permeates many aspects of American and International pop culture.
In a recent op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Stephanie Robinson and Cornell West point out eloquently that progress for African Americans are the result of “structural” changes as well as their assimilation into a Protestant work ethic that values hard work, education, thrift, and ambition.
Structural changes are those that attempt to “level” the playing field by offering special quotas to a marginalized group; less competitive arrangements in business (e.g., the minority business program); or other arrangements to enable others to compete more effectively with traditionally dominant groups.
They argue that structurally guaranteed opportunity does not guarantee success. We might take the case of many well-to-do upper class Nepalis who fail (but so will some Dalits despite the best structural changes).
On the other hand, if we simply ignore structural processes, talented people are barred from achieving success.
The African American experience in the United States, of course, is a work in progress. But we can get a great deal of insight simply by overlaying what is possible if leaders in Nepal begin to communicate these principles and adopt practical methods to begin to address these needs.
Second, law and order has to be restored. If Thomas Hobbes, the great English philosopher is correct, Nepalis will eventually demand a contract – a contract between the governed and the government to provide security, the most basic of needs of humans. Civilization, we have seen (observe the looting after natural disasters even in Western countries) is a thin veneer, easily shredded to expose what Hobbes observed “the condition of man…is a condition of war against everyone.”
While the Nepali media, SPAM, activists and the UN engage in heavy spin that there is now “peace”, they are contradicted every day by facts. Recently, the Industrial Security Group (ISG), a coalition of Embassies and businesses gave yet another stark warning to Maoists to stop extortion and abductions. Almost every Nepali seems to have an anecdote about a recent robbery, extortion attempt, or intimidation.
Restoring law and order, of course, will require some force and this means people will get hurt and “rights” might even be violated. In trying to set the 237-year record straight, however, we have unwittingly made ourselves believe that it is only Royalists or residual Royal reactionaries that perpetuate violence and, therefore, suffer paralysis when tough action needs to be taken against criminal behaviour – which cross all ethnic or class lines.
This only works to the Maoists advantage and, being clever, understand how to use this weakness to their advantage.
From Hobbes, one can gather that people will eventually turn to those that can offer security – even if it means compromising other values or needs. Thus, if the security situation continues to deteriorate and the seven parties are perceived to be weak by the masses, the Maoists stand to gain by stepping in as keepers of the peace – under their terms.
Third, we must learn from refined scholars and thinkers that economics play a powerful role in sustaining democracy. Countries with a per capita income like Nepal have a dismal record: fewer than ten years as a democracy. There is no certainty that Jana-andolan or even the total removal of the Monarchy will guarantee a “happily-ever-after democracy.”
Fareed Zakaria, a staunch but clear-eyed observer of democracies, has noted that one way out of feudalism in economic growth. Wealth enables one to grease the barriers to social acceptance. All of this takes time, of course.
Yet, we see very little of this thinking amongst political leaders.
Without an equal appreciation of how these concepts are part of all societies we may devolve back into the pre-Prithivi Narayan Shah Nepal of many tribal kingdoms – each seeking the promised land within their own ethnic enclaves.
And this, of course, would not be farce but rather tragic.
No comments:
Post a Comment