KATHMANDU: If anyone thought that the dissolution of Nepal’s Constituent Assembly (CA) would lead to a period of calmness and reflection on matters related to federalism and inclusion, they were mistaken. The polarisation evident during the final days of the CA has only deepened. The political parties are even more divided and scared of each other’s actions, as recently witnessed by the opposition’s reaction to the formation of the Maoist-led federalist alliance. And these divisions have permeated deep into society. Conservatives and liberals find themselves together in opposition to ethnic demands. The conservatives are opposed to all of the transformation of recent years and display nostalgia for a centrally controlled Hindu state. The position of the liberals on the other hand is somewhat more complicated.

What is their position? They claim that they recognise that structural inequalities exist in Nepali society and that policies for inclusion and affirmative action are required. What they object to, they claim, is “ethnic-based” federalism. For territorial divisions based on identity can only lead to conflict between various groups.

Further, they argue that catering to group rights undermines the liberal values of individual freedom. In the current circumstances where ethnic claims are made with such aggression, they say, they feel helpless.

Similarly, the Nepali Congress and the Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) recently vociferously objected to the federalist alliance’s attempt to portray their parties as “anti-federalist”. The message here is: we are for the rights of all individuals and communities. We just don’t feel that identity-based federalism is the way to guarantee them.

Or alternatively, the liberals led by the Nepali Congress and the UML castigate Janajati and Madhesi leaders for only representing the elite sections of their communities. Many argue that an emphasis on ethnicity or caste alone will not resolve the entrenched problems of poverty and inequality. It is often pointed out that severe inequalities exist within Madhesi communities. There should be more of an emphasis on class and less on ethnicity and caste, it is often stated.

Strangely, six years after the end of the Maoist insurgency, now confronted with aggressive ethnic demands, the Nepali liberals appear to have come close to a Marxist position.

Given their criticisms of the Janajati and Madhesi positions, one would expect that the liberal parties would have an alternative view regarding the policies that would lead to greater inclusion. One would expect, perhaps, that the Nepali Congress and the UML, both of which claim to have done so much for the country’s deprived groups, to say something like: identity-based federalism is problematic, but there are other measures that can be taken to ensure greater inclusion. We urge affirmative action in state institutions. These measures will have to include provisions for class to be taken into account as well as ethnicity and caste. Special programmes for the recognition of the languages and cultures of marginalised groups should be adopted by the state.

If these parties did adopt such positions, they could help calm down tensions, attract at least some Madhesi and Janajati support and pave the way for a refinement of the federalism debate. But both the Nepali Congress and the UML have shown over the past six years that they are incapable of recognising, let alone addressing, the major demands within Nepali society. It is perhaps expecting too much for them to offer a complex political agenda.

What about the non-party liberals who shape public opinion? Could they offer an agenda that would be able to recognise the need for policies that address systemic discrimination?

So far, there are no indications of this. Rather, it appears that those who identify as liberals have adopted attitudes of belligerent opposition to ethnic claims or uncomfortable silence.

Granted, sympathy for the demands of historically marginalised groups was evident in the past. But the recent and aggressive rise of political groups pushing such demands has antagonised many important shapers of public opinion. It is not uncommon these days to hear frustration expressed about this development.

Sometimes it is said that “Bahun-bashing” in Nepali society has gone too far.

Sometimes it is claimed that federalism will undermine territorial integrity. Sometimes it is claimed that international development agencies are responsible for instigating social conflict. Development agencies that emphasise social exclusion have also recently been criticised for trying to infringe upon Nepal’s sovereignty.

So there is fear among the influential community of liberals. This in turn has led to more intense opposition from Janajati and Madhesi groups. This is a mutually reinforcing process. In their fear, the mostly upper-caste groups that shape public opinion are unable or unwilling to offer ways to address structural discrimination that will mitigate ethnic polarisation and conflict.

Seeing this, Janajati and Madhesi groups become further confirmed in their opinion that the establishment will offer them nothing, that their rights need to be wrested through force, and that nothing less than federal states based on identity will be able to grant them the rights they have lacked for so long.

By arrangement with The Kathmandu Post/ANN