By Elinor George, MA in International Development, University of East Anglia
At this point in Nepal’s development, the issue of national identity is of particular importance. Having become a secular, federal republic in 2007, Nepal’s democratic experience is at a relatively infant stage, and the divisions within its society continue to be reflected in its politics. Since Nepal’s conception in 1768, the Hill Hindu high caste groups have been dominant within the society, and have focused national identity around their fundamental characteristics. As such, one of the most repressed groups, both historically and contemporaneously, are the Madhesis, who mainly live in the lowland area close to the Indian border. They have frequently protested for the recognition of their rights by the state, most notably in their 2015 blockade of the Indian border, which nearly brought the country to an economic and political standstill. Given this major division in society, which threatens the stability, and potentially, unity of the country, this blog asks the question – to what extent is it possible to create a truly inclusive, national identity in a multi-ethnic society like Nepal?
National Identity
Historically, national identity has been a social construction, created through space (Isin, 2002) or territory (Habermas, 1999), as well as through a shared culture and behaviours (Smith, 1986). Within the boundaries of a particular nation, assimilation into the dominant group culture was the norm and frequently resulted in the repression of minority cultures. In the twenty-first century, where globalisation has increased the movement of peoples, and societies have become more multicultural, new methods for constructing a national identity are required.
Kymlicka (1995) and Modood (2013) both examine how a multicultural national identity is able to be constructed in a modern context. Multiculturalism is primarily based on the idea of equality, of recognising differences between societal groups, but also respecting them (Modood, 2005). I wish to examine the degree to which Modood’s theories around Multiculturalism are able to be applied to a multi-ethnic society like Nepal.
Ethnic and cultural identity has been thought of as a fixed part of an individual’s identity, but as Modood (2013) suggests, it is an entirely flexible entity, with some people identifying more with one aspect of their identity than another. In 2010, Martinez-Herrera and Miley analysed the relationships between the Spanish state and the Basque and Catalonian peoples. Whilst only low numbers of respondents said that they saw Spain as a ‘nation they were a member of’, 17% (Basque) and 18.3% (Catalonians) saw Spain as ‘the state I am a citizen of’ (p. 21). In this way, we can see that for some respondents, they saw themselves as both members of the Catalonian or Basque ethnic groups, as well as Spanish citizens. This demonstrates that individuals can have multiple identities which can reconcile an ethnicity and a nationality.
Nepal: A divided nation
Nepal is a country characterised by ethnic, linguistic and geographic divisions. The National Population and Housing Census (2011) has identified approximately 126 different ethnicities and castes, including Hindus and Muslims. But even amongst castes, there is a gradation of superiority. For example, the dominant Hill high castes are divided into the Brahmins (13%), Thakuris (1.6%) and Chhetris (16%). There are also three ecological regions (Mountains, Hills, Tarai), and most groups have remained predominately in the areas where they are in the majority (Whelpton 2005). Language in Nepal is another point of division, with 123 languages registered as ‘mother tongue’ and Nepali only being spoken by 55.6% of the population (Survey of the Nepali People, 2017). This multi-ethnic context means that trying to create a national identity in the ‘traditional’ way, of assimilating everyone into one dominant group, is nearly impossible as even the group with the highest proportion of the population (the Hill high castes) are not a single homogenous group.
Nepal: A shared identity
In the process of creating a multicultural national identity, Modood (2013) suggests that a sharing of feelings and thoughts between groups, can lead to an acceptance of each other’s differences. I have examined the results from the Survey of the Nepali People (2017) to see if there does exist similar feelings within different groups, and if there is, therefore, potential for future acceptance. In answer to the question, ‘do you think things in Nepal are going in the right direction, or…in the wrong direction’ (p. 8), 52.9% of the population thought that the country was going in ‘the right direction’. Whilst there is no definition as to what was the ‘right direction’, the fact that only a slim majority agreed with the statement suggests that there is a degree of dissatisfaction with the way the country is being currently run. However, what is most interesting about this question is the sharing of the dissatisfaction between groups across the caste, ethnic and geographic divide.
56% of Hill high castes and 45% of Madhesi Dalits agreed that the country was going in the ‘right direction’. The percentage difference between these two groups is surprising, given that they are predominantly from two different ecological regions (Hills and Tarai). Further to this, Dalits are the lowest caste of the Hindu system, and as such, being both Dalit and Madhesi have experienced state discrimination for decades. Yet, the fact that there is only 11% difference between them shows that there is not a stark disagreement in their outlook for the country. In fact, the percentages of those who believed the country was going in the ‘wrong direction’ were even more similar, with Hill high castes at 36% and Madhesi Dalits at 34%. In fact, the biggest differentiation in views on this issue between these two groups is ‘don’t know’ which had 8% of Hill high caste and 22% of Madhesi Dalits agreeing. This could be a direct result of lack of political awareness, as 31% of Madhesi Dalits didn’t know any of the changes brought about by the 2015 constitution. Although the answers to this question do not suggest overwhelming support for the current situation in Nepal, the views expressed illustrate that Modood’s (2013) theory of sharing views is possible in a multi-ethnic context. Indeed, Modood (ibid) also states that public debate and contestation between groups is as equally important to creating national identity, as is agreement.
Conclusion
For every country in the world, the creation of a national identity to which majority and minority groups can subscribe is a complex and evolutionary process. For Nepal, the process is even more complex, given their recent democratic transition and their historic inequality. Yet, the existence of shared, and divergent, opinions on crucial issues to the country’s future, such as its current trajectory, demonstrates that there is potential for a multicultural national identity.
References
Habermas, J., (1999). The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Isin, E. F., (2002). Being Political: Genealogies of Citizenship. London: University of Minnesota Press.
Kymlicka, W., (1995). Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Martinez-Herrera, E., and Miley, T. J., (2010). ‘The constitution and the politics of national identity in Spain’, Nations and Nationalism, 16 (1), p. 6-30.
Modood, T., (2005). ‘A Defence of Multiculturalism’, Soundings: A Journal of Politics and Culture,p.62-71.
Modood, T., (2008). ‘Multiculturalism and Groups’, Social and Legal Studies, 17 (4), p. 549-553.
Modood,T., (2013). Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
National Planning Commission Secretariat, (2012). ‘National Population and Housing Census 2011’. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics.
Smith, A. D., (1986). The Ethnic Origins of Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
The Asia Foundation, (2017). ‘A Survey of the Nepali People in 2017’. San Francisco.
Whelpton, J., (2005). A History of Nepal. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.