Ethnic identity politics in Nepal: liberation from, or restoration of, elite interest?

Abstract

The ethnic issue has dominated Nepal’s political landscapes since the birth of the Republic of Nepal in 2007. For decades, Nepal witnessed a series of peasant rebellions against the state and landed aristocrats. Ethnic peasants were at the forefront, demanding autonomy, dignity, and an end to state violence. Since the 1980s, however, the ‘ethnic question’ has become a development issue and the developmental idea of indigeneity has consolidated both ethnic elites and peasants. Recently, identity politics has become a dominant ideological force, rapidly unraveling the course of radical political developments in the country. Interestingly, this political movement emerged in a particular historical conjuncture where Nepali politics has been extensively shaped by the recent Maoist revolution and a long history of international development. This paper explores various aspects of ethnic peasantry and argues that the notions of indigeneity and identity politics have reinforced elite domination by depoliticizing ethnic peasant politics in Nepal.

Keywords:

• ethnic peasant
• indigeneity
• identity politics
• Maoists
• Nepal

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Vinay Gidwani for his intellectual guidance and collaboration to consolidate ideas for this paper. Thanks to Emily Yeh, Ian Baird, Brian Burke, Jennifer Westerman, Gregory Reck, the editors, and two anonymous reviewers for providing very helpful comments and suggestions. In Nepal, several conversations, particularly with Jailab Rai, Mukta Tamang, Parbat Gurung, Bishnu Upreti, and a number of ethnic and peasant activists, were highly generative for this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Gurung, “Evolution of Indigeneity”; Tamang, Identity and Social; Leve, “Identity”; and Mishra and Gurung, Ethnicity and Federalism.

2. Lawoti and Pahari, The Maoist Insurgency; and Seddon, Blaikie, and Cameron, Peasants and Workers.

3. Tamang, ”Culture, Caste and Ethnicity.”

4. Whelpton, “Political Violence in Nepal.”

5. Gidwani and Paudel, “Gramsci at the Margin.”

6. See note 3 above.

7. Bhattarai, “Building a New Type of State.”

8. Adhikari, The Bullet and the Ballot Box.

9. Mishra, “Ethnic Upsurge in Nepal.”

10. Amin, “Nepal, a Promising Revolutionary Advance.”

11. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 115.

12. Upreti, “Nationalism and Militarization in Nepal.”

13. Adhikari, The Bullet and the Ballot Box; and Upreti, “Ignored or Ill-Represented.

14. Upreti, “Nationalism and Militarization in Nepal.”

15. Mishra and Gurung, Ethnicity and Federalism in Nepal.

16. Whelpton, “Political Violence in Nepal.”

17. Upreti, Ignored or Ill-Represented.

18. Fujikura, “Emancipation of Kamaiyas.”

19. Gidwani and Paudel, “Gramsci at the Margin.”

20. Fujikura, “Emancipation of Kamaiyas.”

21. Whelpton, “Political Violence in Nepal.”

22. See Yeh and Bryan, “Indigeneity”; Li, “Articulating Indigenous Identity”; Rodriguez-Pinero, Indigenous People; and Watts, “Political Ecology.”

23. De Janvry, Land Reform and the Agrarian Question.

24. Guha, Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency.

25. De Janvry, Land Reform and the Agrarian Question.

26. Li, “Articulating indigenous identity”; Tsing, Friction; Yeh and Bryan, “Indigeneity”; and Baird, “Translocal Assemblages.”

27. Baird, “Indigenous Peoples’ and Land.”

28. See Healy, Llamas, Weavings and Organic Chocolate; Yeh, “Tibetan Indigeneity”; and Li, “Management of Dispossession.”

29. Baird, “Translocal Assemblages.”

30. See Merlan, “Indigeneity: Global and Local”; and Yeh and Bryan, “Indigeneity.”

31. Li, “Management of Dispossession”; and Baird, “Indigenous Peoples’ and Land.”

32. Yeh, “Tibetan Indigeneity”; and Li, “Articulating Indigenous Identity.”

33. Baviskar, “Indian Indigeneities.”

34. See also Hodgson, “Becoming Indigenous in Africa.”

35. Shah, Shadows of the State; Hale, “Activist Research”; Wainwright and Bryan, “Cartography, Territory, Property”; and Mollett, “Mapping Deception.”

36. Bista, Fatalism and Development; Tamang, ”Culture, Caste and Ethnicity”; Hachhethu, “The Nepali State”; Lawoti and Pahadi, “The Maoist Insurgency”; and Mishra, “Ethnic Upsurge in Nepal.”

37. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebook, 109.

38. The 2001 census has recorded 92 languages spoken in Nepal, out of which each of more than 12 are spoken by more than a million people. Non-Hindu ethnic groups comprise about 37% of the total population (see Tamang, ”Culture, Caste and Ethnicity”).

39. The Kingship was tied up with the religion. The Hindu and Buddhist Kings were powerful in strategic places. Buddha himself was a prince in Lumbini Kingdom in the western part of Nepal. But the Hindu Kings were aggressive in institutionalizing the Hindu religion into national politics. Buddhism remained a minority religion in Nepal (see Cammann, Trade through the Himalayas; and Liechty, “Selective Exclusion.”)

40. The civil code was introduced in 1854 based on caste hierarchy, which treated non-Hindus and lower castes as artisanal workers, institutionalizing hierarchical moral codes, unequal judicial norms, and differentiated caste-based roles in governing the country. These legal provisions were changed subsequently over time, making caste and religious discrimination illegal, but the social structure is still organized under the spirit of Hindu hierarchical order.

41. Cammann, Trade through the Himalayas; and Regmi, “Modern Nepal.”

42. Giri, “Cultural Anarchism.”

43. Liechty, “Selective Exclusion.”

44. Caplan, Land and Social Change.

45. Regmi, Modern Nepal.

46. See Whelpton, “Political Violence in Nepal”; and Cammann, Trade through the Himalayas.

47. See note 45 above.

48. See Hangen, The Rise of Ethnic Politics; and Whelpton, “Political Violence in Nepal.”

49. Gidwani and Paudel, “Gramsci at the Margins.”

50. See note 3 above.

51. See Gurung, “Evolution of Indigeneity”; and Tamang, ”Culture, Caste and Ethnicity.”

52. Tamang, ”Culture, Caste and Ethnicity”; and KC, Nepal ma communist andolan.

53. Baral, Oppositional Politics in Nepal; and Hachhethu, ”Nepali State and the Maoist Insurgency.”

54. See Mishra, “Ethnic Upsurge in Nepal”; and Tamang, “Cutlure, Caste and Ethnicity.”

55. Gidwani and Paudel, “Gramsci at the Margins”; de Sales, “The Crucible of Revolution”; and Leve, “Women’s Empowerment and Rural Revolution.”

56. Singh, Ugra-Bampanthi Bichardhara ko Khandan; and KC, Nepal ma communist andolan.

57. Thapa, Understanding the Maoist Movement of Nepal.

58. In preparation for the People’s War, Baburam Bhattarai, a Maoist ideologue and leader, emphasized that the ‘oppressed regions within the country are primarily the regions inhabited by the indigenous people since time immemorial. These indigenous people dominated regions that were independent tribal states prior to the formation of the centralized state in the later [sic] half of the eighteenth century, have been reduced to the present most backward and oppressed condition due to the internal feudal exploitation and the external semi-colonial oppression.’ (from Boquérat, ”Ethnicity and Maoism in Nepal.”)

59. Bhattarai, “The Political Economy of People’s War,” 150.

60. Bhattarai, ”Question of Building a New Type.”

61. Before the launch of the revolution in February 1996, the United People’s Front, the public front of the CPN (M), which had nine seats in the parliament, forwarded a 40-point demand to the government, covering a range of issues including economic, political, state governance, ethnicity, caste, gender, and regional.

62. Gurung, “Evolution of Indigeneity”; Mishra, “Ethnic Upsurge in Nepal”; and Tamang, ”Culture, Caste and Ethnicity.”

63. Gidwani and Paudel, “Gramsci at the Margins”; and Fujikura, “Emancipation of Kamaiyas.”

64. Mihaly, Foreign Aid and Politics in Nepal; and Fujikura, “Emancipation of Kamaiyas.”

65. Mishra and Gurung, Ethnicity and Federalism in Nepal.

66. Mishra, “Ethnic Upsurge in Nepal”; Upreti, Ignored or Ill-Represented; and Leve, “Women’s Empowerment and Rural Revolution.”

67. As the Maoists’ official explanation for Nepali society was semi-feudal and semi-colonial, autonomy of the ethnic nationalities was seen as a way to overcome these dominations and prepare a transition towards industrial capitalism creating conditions for socialist transformation. Ethnic autonomy was understood as a first step towards classless socialist formation, and the potential risks of turning ethnic issues into bourgeois identity politics were either not foreseen or were undermined (see Bhattarai, “The Political Economy of People’s War.”).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dinesh Paudel

Dinesh Paudel is an assistant professor in the Department of Sustainable Development at Appalachian State University, North Carolina, USA. His research explores the relationship among development interventions, environmental change, and political transformations in Nepal and the Himalayas.