Current Youth Bulge in Nepal: Demographic Bonus or Challenge

Abstract:

The central argument of this paper is that Youth Bulge is a transitional phenomenon that appears during the Demographic Transition of any developing country like Nepal. The Youth Bulge should be seen as the interaction of increasing/decreasing ‘fertility’ and ‘mortality’ rates. Considering it as demographic ‘bonus’ or ‘challenge’ require a broad understanding of to what extent the country is expanding its social and economic opportunities.

In doing so, the paper, at first, starts with the concept of youth and youth bulge and positions it to the demographic scenario of Nepal. Secondly, the paper draws understanding of ‘bonus’ side and ‘challenge’ side of Youth Bulge in Nepal through data of National Living Standard Survey, Census Report 2011 and National Population Report 2011 developed by National Planning Commission Secretariat, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) and Ministries. Third, it gives synthesis of both the ‘bonus’ side and ‘challenge’ side and finds out the underlying theoretical perspective playing behind the concept of ‘Youth Bulge’.

Finally, the paper concludes that Youth Bulge in Nepal can be either bonus or challenge; however, it depends upon the degree of expansion of social and economic opportunities and the interaction of ‘fertility’ and ‘mortality’ rates.

Key words: Youth, Youth Bulge, Conflict, Bonus, Challenge, Demographic Transition Model (DMT), Remittances, Fertility Rate, Mortality Rate, Social Opportunities

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?

IYD for whom?

IYD for whom?

This week was too hectic for me. I had couple of arrangements to do for International Youth Day (IYD), 2012 celebrations. My mind was about to burst, but then I succeeded to survive from its terror. The day before the actual IYD day, I finally managed to take some quality time out with my best friend.

We went to a fine restaurant and sat on its garden for tea.  I wanted to talk anything other than IYD but I couldn’t help myself from getting out of its hangover. The IYD conversation began. I attempted my level best to make him understand about the philosophy and background about the IYD. However, I failed to fully convince him about its relevance and sensibleness for common Nepalese youth.

One the other end of the garden, there were few young boys in a circle. They were smoking (if you know what I mean), drinking and, above all, having a great time. Some of them, as per their conversations, failed exams, while some got beaten by neighbor-tol gangs, etc. But there was a common thing in their lives-they were all unemployed!

The two ends of the garden had some relations if one could figure out. On our end, we were talking about IYD theme wanting to partner with youth to make this place a better world to live in. On the other end, situations of those youth were referring to an urgency to structure a practical mechanism to solve their issues. The insight can go even longer if we question ourselves about the practical ways to partner with youth. This contradiction clearly provides a good insight about what we lack in this year’s IYD too. It is sure that we again lack the answer to ‘how can we really partner with them?’

In that case, for me, this year’s IYD have many reasons to celebrate but still I am unhappy for not being able to answer to the common queries of common youth. Therefore, it is justifiable, in my belief, to tag this year’s IYD as ‘IYD for whom?’