Just finished watching a Al Jazeera u-tube video on the above subject, kindly posted on Face Book by Jan Sharma. Please watch the video on u-tube (title as above) or in his or my FB timeline.
I cannot understand how some of the Nepali panelists used "caste" and "ethnic group" synonymously. There are 4 castes, legally abolished but unfortunately socially still a work in progress. There are around 100 ethnic groups in Nepal. Fortunately, Al Jazeera showed an Ethnographic Map of Nepal to enlighten the confused. "Every major caste was promised a state" - that stung my ears loud and clear!
A major point of discussion was on the meaning of "New Nepal". One of the panelists tried to summarize it as (a) the end of monarchy; (b) secularism; and (c) centralization to Federalism (sic). Am glad that Ms. Manjushree Thapa widened the meaning to broader aspects. In any case, (a) was not a demand of the 2006 'People's Movement' which was against "ABSOLUTE" monarchy, not the institution per se.
(b) was a Maoist agenda, to which the two other major parties acceded through coercion or in the mistaken belief that secularism is a sine qua non for democracy, supported by international proselytizing interests.
(c) is the reason why Nepal is in flames now with ethnic groups demanding their own state (which was erroneously made synonymous in the programme with 'province' by some panelists). The carnage in Tikapur a week ago, a bandh in Pokhara yesterday instigated by Magars, and we have not seen the last of it. Politics 101 as well as any dictionary can confirm that the opposite of centralization is decentralization, not federalization. Federalism also arose from the Maoist insurgency where the insurgents promised ethnic groups their own state in order to garner their support for the ignominious 'people's war'. Nepal has not had local government elections for 22 years; therein lies the solution, not federalizing a unitary state, a feat never accomplished in the history of nations. The Madhesh political parties are naturally for federalism in the hope that they will get at least two or three states, if not the entire Terai, as their own. Birgunj, one of the major border cities with India is under curfew as I write. I hear rumours Nepalgunj is also in a similar fate. To add fuel to the fire, the Indian Home Minister has been quoted as proclaiming that India will safeguard its citizens in Nepal Terai, further implying, wrongly, that 30% of Nepal's population is Madhesis. Fact remains that 60% of the Madhesis are Nepalis and the remaining only are Indians, who are welcome to return to their country. Further, the Minister had better not included Nepali Madhesis as his constituency.
I cannot understand how some of the Nepali panelists used "caste" and "ethnic group" synonymously. There are 4 castes, legally abolished but unfortunately socially still a work in progress. There are around 100 ethnic groups in Nepal. Fortunately, Al Jazeera showed an Ethnographic Map of Nepal to enlighten the confused. "Every major caste was promised a state" - that stung my ears loud and clear!
A major point of discussion was on the meaning of "New Nepal". One of the panelists tried to summarize it as (a) the end of monarchy; (b) secularism; and (c) centralization to Federalism (sic). Am glad that Ms. Manjushree Thapa widened the meaning to broader aspects. In any case, (a) was not a demand of the 2006 'People's Movement' which was against "ABSOLUTE" monarchy, not the institution per se.
(b) was a Maoist agenda, to which the two other major parties acceded through coercion or in the mistaken belief that secularism is a sine qua non for democracy, supported by international proselytizing interests.
(c) is the reason why Nepal is in flames now with ethnic groups demanding their own state (which was erroneously made synonymous in the programme with 'province' by some panelists). The carnage in Tikapur a week ago, a bandh in Pokhara yesterday instigated by Magars, and we have not seen the last of it. Politics 101 as well as any dictionary can confirm that the opposite of centralization is decentralization, not federalization. Federalism also arose from the Maoist insurgency where the insurgents promised ethnic groups their own state in order to garner their support for the ignominious 'people's war'. Nepal has not had local government elections for 22 years; therein lies the solution, not federalizing a unitary state, a feat never accomplished in the history of nations. The Madhesh political parties are naturally for federalism in the hope that they will get at least two or three states, if not the entire Terai, as their own. Birgunj, one of the major border cities with India is under curfew as I write. I hear rumours Nepalgunj is also in a similar fate. To add fuel to the fire, the Indian Home Minister has been quoted as proclaiming that India will safeguard its citizens in Nepal Terai, further implying, wrongly, that 30% of Nepal's population is Madhesis. Fact remains that 60% of the Madhesis are Nepalis and the remaining only are Indians, who are welcome to return to their country. Further, the Minister had better not included Nepali Madhesis as his constituency.