Diversity Unchained
(Nation, 23 May 2004)

The 1990 Constitution was designed to perpetuate the monolithic Hindu state as a check against the competing demand of the ‘Diversity.’ In this respect, the democracy ushered in 1990 has not been democratic enough

BY UJOL SHERCHAN

The Nepal Development Forum 2004 is over. Mind if I propose a Nepal Diversity Forum in a country where the only diversity focus many Nepalis have known in the last few years is the Diversity Lottery? Here’s why.

“Unity in Diversity,” which underpinned the divide-and-conquer strategy of the past regime, is no more. The 1990 Jana Andolan undid all that. It, for instance, unchained ‘Diversity’ from the shackles of stifling ‘Unity’ by opening the floodgate of pent-up frustrations and desires of the peoples, which continue to find more visible expressions in a proliferation of civil society, media, political parties, street demonstrations, and clamors and demands for rights of all sorts.

However, the multiparty system that rode to power on the back of the democractic movement for over a decade singularly neglected the agendas of the ‘Diversity,’ or of the peoples, thereby creating an opening for the Maoists to hijack them. This partly explains the ascendancy of the Maoist movement. Not surprising, given the gross under-representation of janjatis, adivasis, dalits, women, and minority groups (who together comprise over eighty percent of the population) in the Nepali polity: the government, civil service, and civil society.

Marginalization or exclusion on this scale is nothing new. The attempts of past rulers or the emerging modern state to ‘unify’ diverse peoples of varied races and of even more ethnicities, tribes, cultures, languages, and religions under one monolithic Hindu structure under one hereditary king through conquest, the draconian Muluki Ain, and the Panchayat system had exactly the same effect.

In actuality, the 1990 movement was a power struggle between the upper-caste leadership of the political parties, and the ruling Thakuri King. A twin achievement of this movement—multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy with army on its side —has been a convenient power-sharing arrangement, a compromise. The Constitution was designed to perpetuate the monolithic Hindu state as a check against the competing demand of the ‘Diversity.’ In this respect, the 1990-ushered democracy has not been nearly democratic enough.

Against this backdrop, the multiparty system dominated by Nepali Congress and CPN (UML) could hardly be expected to function properly, much less carry out far-reaching political reforms that entail sharing or devolving of power, or modifying the power structure to be more accommodating. What it instead did while in power was replicate the structure of its predecessor—the Panchayat system—characterized by the exclusive dominance of upper-castes in the government and civil service as well as its twin culture, nepotism and corruption. Today the multiparty system is atoning for its sins on the streets, and increasingly realising that without the support of the peoples it is difficult to carry the day. Politics is unforgiving that way: what you couldn’t secure for all or denied others, you can’t keep for yourself for very long either.

Although the Nepal Development Forum is over, donors can still use their clout to push for the creation of a more inclusive and socially just Nepal. They can do this, for instance, by constantly pressuring the government to undertake reforms so that it, and the civil service increasingly reflect the sociologies and demographics—the diversity—of their beneficiaries at all levels. They can likewise pressure the civil society institutions, including the NGOs, and the grassroots organizations, that they routinely fund. Truth is: the dominant structure and the culture surrounding it—the marginalizing forces—have a tendency to replicate across the polity and at all levels, and have. The donors can check this disturbing trend by calling for diversity policy wherever possible. This can be a good first step.

Moreover, the Nepal Diversity Forum can serve as a non-partisan platform to bring the disparate disadvantaged groups or any other social group together as a unified voice to influence mainstream political debates. Truth is: the elected governments of the past didn’t address their issues, and there is little reason to expect them or the Palace-appointed all-party government to do so. And the Maoist leadership is only interested in using them as cannon fodder. Therefore, this is no time for these groups to continue to be islands onto themselves, or lone cowboys. Instead, they can come together under one umbrella to amplify their clamors and demands for what they have been denied for too long. They must come together in a show of–you guessed it–the peoples’ version of ‘Unity in Diversity.’