A closer look to the
recent ethnic movement in Nepal gives us an idea about two major components in
the list of National Interest. As suggested by Dr Uddhav Pyakurel in his
dissertation about these demands, he says, first is the federal structure
government based on the principle of caste/ethnicity; and second is the social
inclusion for the marginalized communities in every sector of the country. This
shift in the ethnic movement can appear in more complicated face in the
national level, as in Pyakurel’s words, this may invite further conflict inside
Nepal. He suggests that the conflict begins at the point of territorial claims
when more than one ethnic group tries to figure out their traditional
territory. This very notion of ‘traditional territory’ in case of
multi-culture, multi-caste and multi-ethnic Nepal can be very devastating later
if not properly mitigated the possible risks now.
Identification of
traditional territory and transferring ownership among ethnic communities is
sure to become a pain in neck for the so called caretakers of the national
political and social agendas. It can get tastier until chewed because political
parties can influence their vote bank from the politics of identity, but at the
point of swallow, it is sure to cause irritation. This irritation is in no way
healthy for giving life to ‘Nation Building’ process in Nepal. One of the
tragedy of current transition of Nepal is that ‘Inclusion’ and ‘Nation Building’
have been seen through naked eyes-which gives clear picture of what is being
shown but does not portray what it might lead to, and what it took to exist at
present. On the other hand, beauty of recent transition is that there is a
revolutionary shift in the political awareness of people of every caste/ethnic
groups who have been marginalized ever since the concept of ‘Modern Nepal’
emerged after Prithivi Narayan Shah. Referral can be made to Harka Gurung’s
words, “the assertion of ethnic identities in today’s Nepal is not the
emergence of a new phenomenon but rather the expression of what was latent in
the earlier regimes.” For that reason, nation building through social inclusion
has to be dealt with more criticality through different lenses, but with an aim
to solve conflict, not lift.
Therefore, in this write
up, I have tried to bring in the cultural perspective in understanding the very
philosophy of inclusion. This cultural perspective, in this writing,
prioritizes ‘nationalism’ as the heart of ‘nation building’. While doing so,
the article develops argument that before bringing the nation building process
through inclusion in the front desk, ‘tradition’/ ‘nationalism’ has to be
looked upon more seriously because without constructing the national feeling
among people, nation building process will be a mere lip service and inclusion
will be a unimaginably distant reality. In the process, the paper will serve
sufficient examples of inventing traditions for constructing nation. In the
mean time, one may also feel that the paper has tried to sideline the relevance
of ‘Inclusion’, but again, it depends with what lenses or mind setting we read
arguments. All in all, the major attempt of this paper is to question what will
be the common source of Nationalism for the diversified population of Nepal.
Without constructing Nationalism, does mere politics of ‘Inclusion’ guarantee stabilized
peace and nation building?
