August 9 World Indigenous Peoples Day. Last week, like all over the world, in Nepal too, tribal and tribal community organizations celebrated Adivasi Day. In 1992, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to celebrate 1993 as the ‘World Indigenous Year’. On December 23, 1994, it was decided to celebrate August 9 as the International Day of Indigenous Peoples.
On Sunday, I was at a program in Biratnagar. The interest, concern and concern of an interaction program organized by the Federation of Tribal and Tribal Journalists (FONIZ) was- ‘Where did the identity movement reach after the naming of Province-1 as Koshi and the people’s resistance and what is its future path?’ And I have tried to write something about the counter statement.
Any movement has two main parts. A- Ideology, question, summary or commentary. Two-his behavior, practice, organization, movement and strategy. There are also two sides that practice both of these roles, the protesting side that builds solidarity and the power or establishment side that rejects and suppresses it.
Both of them are working from both ideological and practical side. That is, the movement itself is a process of narration and counter-narrative. Behind the fact that a particular movement is strong or weak at a particular point, the question of which side was more clever and agile in commentary and strategy also comes up.
In the midst of such a struggle, the third part is also active, that is-restatement. Sometimes the volume occupied by the participants is larger than the commentary of the movement. At this time, it seems that the movement is weak and the establishment side is strong. However, this is not permanent. Any movement being weak or appearing to be weak does not mean that the movement is dead. The movement is to wait for a new mode and opportunity.
This tribal movement of Nepal is not just a ‘ethnic liberation movement’, it is a ‘national liberation movement’. It is the movement of ‘Nation Building’. It is a movement of renaissance and enlightenment of civilizations.
It is precisely at this time that any movement needs a restatement. In my opinion, Nepal’s tribal movement needs some restatements at the moment. This is exactly where my emphasis was in the interaction program of Phonies.
It should not be a matter of surrender, deception or inferiority to reconsider whether the commentary of the movement is objective, appropriate, touching the hearts of many, encompassing many and being able to walk together. The process of retelling should be considered as natural and necessary as the process of narration and counter-narration was.
It is not that the preambles and norms of the United Nations are the same in the context of Nepal. The United Nations itself was a post-World War II reorganization of the League of Nations, which was formed after the end of World War I.
Although called world wars, both these world wars were basically European wars. It was a battle for the share of the European superpowers in the world as a whole. Later America and Asia were also added to it.
Finally, this process came to an end when the power was diverted from Europe and the United States of the American continent dropped atomic bombs on Japan in the Asian continent.
The former Soviet Union is considered the winner of the Second World War in the sense that it defeated the Nazi German army. However, the war did not stop only with the defeat of the Germans. In this sense, the real winning power of the Second World War was the US and the defeated country, Japan, both of which were not European.
Discussing this context here means that the United Nations norms operate in the context of colonialism and anti-colonialism, not decolonization. The feeling of dominance and counter-dominance comes through theoreticalization, not anti-dominance.
In this background, the term indigenous people is appropriate. Not only did European empires spread across the globe, they brought about massive demographic changes. In countries like America, Australia or Canada, English, language, culture and race expanded widely. Central and Eastern Europe was dominated by Germans and Russians. French and Portuguese civilizations and cultures became strong in Latin American countries.
It is worth noting that this process is different in South Asia. Despite the long rule of the British Empire in India, there was no decisive demographic change in South Asia, nor could he find the existence of the ethnic, language, culture and ethnic and national communities here.
With the use of the word ‘tribal’ what is its synonym? That psychology is active. In English, it is used to mean ‘settlers’ or ‘later immigrants’ or ‘a portion of the population imposed during an invading or imperial regime’.
In South Asia a
Al and Mahishpals also belonged to the Madhesi community. There is no need to raise this question about Nepal’s tribal groups.
The main counter-narrative against the tribal movement is development, good governance and prosperity. The notion that the importance of cultural and human diversity automatically weakens when Nepal is an underdeveloped, poorly governed and poor country, but developed, well-governed and prosperous, and people become educated, employed and wealthy, is completely wrong.
In ancient Kirat, in the Middle Ages Makwanpur, Chaudandi and Vijayapur, three cities in Kathmandu were Malla states and West Magarat were their former states. Prithvi Narayan Shah himself said “I am the king of Magarat”. The Khas-Arya society of Nepal is the representative or successor of the Khas Empire. If the vast territory from Trishuli west to Mahakali is in Nepal, they are not ‘settlers’ either.
Then what is the character of Nepal’s tribal problem or movement? Is this a problem of ‘stateless nations’ as some say? Not at all. This term was used for Jews at a time when Israel was not formed.
Some communities that claim to be a nation and do not have a state can say this. However, from the point of view of Nepal’s civic nationalism, there is no stateless nation. If that were the case, the social and political behavior here would be very different.
The main characteristic of Nepal’s tribal problem is that the state does not understand or reject the importance of ‘cultural nationalism’ and ‘multiculturalism’. Treating ‘Civic Nationalism’ and ‘Cultural Nationalism’ as opposite or parallel to each other is not complementary.
Not building a nation on the basis of ‘multiculturalism’. The grand project of ‘Nation Building’ is incomplete, incomplete or stalled. It is not possible to have a proper renaissance and enlightenment of the nation. The state is present as an unhelpful or hindering element for these tasks. In reality, these tasks should have become the duty of the state itself, but it stood as an obstacle.
Therefore, this tribal movement of Nepal is not only a ‘ethnic liberation movement’, it is a ‘national liberation movement’. It is the movement of ‘Nation Building’. It is a movement of renaissance and enlightenment of civilizations.
This is such a big and important movement that Nepal State has no future without its proper response. As if the country has not been formed yet.
Some have called it ‘federalism for ethnic liberation’, it may be more appropriate to call it ‘multiculturalism for national liberation’. Instead of saying that the basis of state formation is ‘ethnic identity’, it is appropriate to say that state formation is based on ‘cultural identity’, which is a mixture of ethnic, linguistic, cultural, geographical and historical.
The main counter-narrative against the tribal movement is development, good governance and prosperity. The notion that the importance of cultural and human diversity automatically weakens when Nepal is an underdeveloped, poorly governed and poor country, but developed, well-governed and prosperous, and people become educated, employed and wealthy, is completely wrong.
Identity movements are not rooted in poverty anywhere in the world. The problems of Stockland in Britain and Catalonia in Spain do not come from poverty. There are hundreds of such examples around the world. South India’s Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra, Karnataka or Telangana are richer than Bihar, Bengal or Uttar Pradesh in the north.
In particular, the identity movement is not only connected with prosperity, but also with self-respect (dignity). As a community becomes economically wealthy, the identity movement increases. Because with education and prosperity, his awareness of self-esteem also increases, as well as the ability and access to invest and work for the movement.
This does not mean that the country does not need development, good governance and prosperity. This is a complementary movement, not a different one. If we consider the movement for development, good governance and prosperity separately and the movement for self-governance, self-respect and social justice as separate, then both of them will be singular.
Even in Nepal, regional parties or pressure groups from below will do public resistance, but in order to adequately address this issue, a party with a positive national character is needed, for which the UML, Nepali Congress and Maoist Center have so far been unable and incompetent.
What was emphasized by many speakers in the interaction of Phonies was that there was a tradition of regional parties in Madhesh, which was not present in other parts of the country. Therefore, the identity movement became stronger in Madhesh than anywhere else. Somewhere in other parts of the country, the question was seriously raised that there is no need for regional parties.
It was argued that the Madhesi community has developed itself from a cultural and geographical community to a political community, but the tribal movement has been limited as a cultural community and may have lagged behind.
In order to address any question or demand politically, political power dialogue is necessary. For that, a political party is needed, no matter what, there was a concern that none of the current parties and leaders of Nepal are credible from the point of view of the tribal movement. Complaints of vote bank, exploitation and opportunism politics against the tribal community were widespread.
However, regional parties are not the only and final solution for decisively addressing the tribal movement. In the example of India, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and Telangana Rashtriya Sangharsh Samiti fought a long struggle from below. However, it was not possible for that party to get a two-thirds majority in the parliament and amend the constitution. In this sense, the then UPA alliance and Indian
nd Nepal, such settler groups are not distinguished. Because here there is no concentration of West European population like in America, Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe and Australia.
There are mainly three periods when states are built and destroyed. Ancient times, medieval times and modern times. In all these three periods, if a nation has been living within the same state, there is no conflict between the state and the nation. However, Nepal is not such a country. This is a country with a shared history.
If the former states of a modern nation are divided, there will be no ‘natives’ and no ‘helpers’. Therefore, there is no ‘settler’ in Nepal.
Like, the Madhesi community is the representative and successor of ancient Mithila, Awadh, Kapilvastu and medieval Tirhut or Cooch Behar states, not ‘settlers’. Even the Gop of Kathmandu
