Social Inclusion: A Critical Note through Cultural Perspective

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?

In present Nepalese political language, terms like ‘state’, ‘nation’, ‘nationalism’, ‘ethnicity’ and ‘inclusion’ are seen to be used frequently, but again arbitrarily. Conceptual clarity is therefore required. For instance, ‘state’ and ‘nation’ are considered synonyms until theoretically understood. There is a difference, no doubt. Since ‘State’ is a political entity which is created, but not natural. A state is formed/changed through historical and political processes. For instance, Darjeeling used to be part of Nepal but now it is not. On the other hand, ‘Nation’ is more abstract term and it demands more than what ‘state’ could possibly offer. In precise, nation can be understood as a human population sharing a historic territory, common myth, historic memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for all members. Distinction between these two terms is felt necessary in this paper because the recent ethnic movement of Nepal is demanding their own states but the source of motivation for them comes through the very idea of nation which means ‘traditional’ territory which has earlier been discussed in the beginning of the paper. This clarifies confusion: fulfilling demands (states) of ethnic communities is not as easy as cutting a birthday cake into pieces. Because in each single division of territories, ethnic communities, at least in present political context of Nepal, become a conscious identity and ‘claim’ for their territorial rights. In a country like Nepal where a single ethnic community living in a particular location is difficult to identify, validity of scientific division and justifiable distribution of states based on ethnicity to any ethnic community will be just a fantasy. In other meaning, ‘social inclusion’ cannot be completely achieved through such forceful fantasy. It would only lead to further conflict, which is undesirable.

Second of all, there is a huge debate about what comes first, ‘ethnicity’ or ‘nationalism’. The ethnic movement of Nepal has predominantly focused on ‘ethnicity’ and has out cornered ‘nationality’. The talk of ethnicity after centuries of ethnic oppression and marginalization is just, natural, relevant and valid. But, in the process of constructing ethnic ‘ism’, deconstructing the idea of ‘nationalism’ is also not pleasing. First, there are ways to look at ‘ethnicity’. Constructionists believe ‘ethnicity’ to be a product of human agency, a creative social act through which such commonalities as speech code, cultural practices, ecological adaptation, political organization become woven into a consciousness of shared identity. Until this perspective, there is no contrast. However, primordialist perspective and instrumentalist perspective showcase major contrast. Primordialist believes that ethnicity is passing of blood (ancestry), territory (soil), native language, religion from one generation to other. In contrast Instrumentalist maintains ‘ethnicity’ to be creation of elite groups for political and economic advantage. This perspective endorse the fact that ethnic difference always exists but with or without realization. Such difference becomes conscious identity and political issue when the members of the group are dissatisfied with the way others are treating them or the degree of autonomy allowed to them. The need to cover all these ethnic perspectives in relation to the idea of Nationalism is because ‘ethnicity’ in case of Nepal cannot be ignored nor the whole development of ethnic movement can be reversed. Since ‘ethnic’ issues have already got its height, now it’s time to carefully channel these interests into constructing Nepalese nationalism. It is universal that without constructing nationalism, constructing nation into something new is almost impossible. But what will be the source for nationalism in Nepal is the main concern? From where do we receive it? Can we come above our ethnic interest at all? In present time, there is no common tradition that can bind the country into single. Therefore, time has come to dwell upon the invention of tradition in the construction of Nepalese nationalism. At this point, the role of elites play an instrumental role in channel the ethnic interest and notion to politically induced new tradition which is acceptable for every citizen regardless caste, ethnicity, etc. Without achieving this, social inclusion through ethnicity based federal structure cannot be successful. The divided minds cannot think of common interest until new hope is offered in front of the desk.

Until the dawn of Constituent Assembly election in 2007/8, Constitutional Monarchy was regarded as the common source of Nationalism in Nepal. People of all castes, ethnicity, religions, backgrounds, etc had immense faith over such traditional political power. One of the reasons for the deep penetration of such traditional power into Nepalese community was the linkage of kingship into religion. Hindu religion has its strongest attachment, even others had in some or the other ways. But after the declaration of Secularism and Federal Republic of Nepal, the kingship got dissolved. With this, the country observed the cultural vacuum which means there existed nothing as such which could help the country hold into one. The vacuum existed, however, not realized mainly because the leaders and elites only prioritized the need of political transformation-and that through social inclusion. The cultural component was and still being highly ignored. Because of which source of Nationalism has failed to come in the limelight. The aftermath of such ignorance has given rise of ideological conflict; propagandized ethnic issues because of which even the constituent assembly had to die. This scenario is likely to bring in more severe conflict and ethnic disputes in days coming ahead.

Leader of Nepal, now think that political transformation is a mathematical process. But this does not give sense. How many ethnic leaders to incorporate in the government or constituent assembly has been the major political debate. Besides, all other forms of political calculations for vested party’s interest produce nothing in return. The ultimate need to unlock today’s political deadlock is the incorporation of Nationalism into people’s faith and hope for nation’s building. Only through this transforming force, we can attain actual social inclusion and reduce risks of further possible ethnic/caste based conflict. Nepal, as a country, must not take the other way when things can be worked out by nationalizing our common interest. This argument, however, does not advocate on behalf of the centuries long traditional political powers including constitutional monarchy.

Lessons can be learned from other nations as well. Nepal is not the only country which has been struggling through transitional period and politics of ethnic and all other identities. Similar instances can be found on the experiences of India. For example, during the British hegemony in India, even anti-colonial Indian nationalists/natives invented traditions that would bind the entire population into a new national community. Middle class people played a crucial role in the construction of new national culture. Even India had ethnic disturbances like Nepal now has. However, the then elites carefully helped the country survive the then political transformation. Among these elites, Gandhi’s philosophy had a deep influence. His vision of self sufficiency and attempt to bring ‘whole people’ within the political nation by denying caste division became milestone. According to Gandhi, “Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not and do not want to know…But I do know it is harmful both to the spiritual and national growth.” By such cultural philosophy, India succeeded to invent new tradition towards constructing Nationalism. This further helped to neutralize all other ethnic, cultural tensions.

Singapore has its own experiences in inventing new traditions to inculcate values and beliefs and to positively derive social inclusion. After independence from Malaysian Federation in 1965, Singapore had a tough time too. The major question for Singapore, a country of multicultural population, was how to become practical as an independent state and how to implant national identity. At that time, even globalization had its strong hold. People were likely to adopt more of western culture and values. At such a situation, Lee Kuan Yew led the way in advocating Asian Values, different from the west, and gave hope for the country. Asian values had majorly five founding principles: Ethnic and religious tolerance, commitment to consensus decision making, putting the needs of society before the needs of the individual, upholding the family as the core unit of the society and regard and community support for the individual. These ideas helped Singapore to introduce new form of Nationalism. Eventually, it led to reduce ethnic tensions and helped to stabilize the political atmosphere of the country.

Keeping all these issues in mind, it is justifiable to claim the importance of constructing new Nationalism even in case of Nepal. Social inclusion can only get its shape within unity. Divided -political situation results in further conflict. One of the severe ethnic conflicts took place in Ruwanda during 1990s. The Genocidal conflict over tradition between Hutu and Tutsi can be an eye opener. Therefore, Nepal has to rethink in its process of Social Inclusion and Ethnicity based Federal government system. Social Inclusion is a good approach to reduce the scope of marginalization. However, in the name of mainstreaming marginalized communities, leaders and elites must not manipulate people by playing power of identity. In absence of sense of Nationalism, social inclusion of ethnic/caste communities and other back warded groups will not give its fruits. All in all, the hope for new Nepal will eventually be shattered if the leaders cannot get rid of politics of identity and see actual ways of institutionalizing social exclusion.

Thank you!