Identity groups fail to recognize equal rights of others: Report

An unpublished report produced by the UK Department of International Development (DfID) has warned that the current debate and assertion of the rights of one group has failed to recognize the equal rights of others. There are inherent tensions and contradictions in the accommodation of diversity- with respect to the rights of minorities within minorities (like women and Dalits whose human rights could be compromised by traditional practices) as well as with respect to areas where the claims of one group may conflict with the rights of others, it is said in the report titled “Forging Equal Citizenship in a Multicultural Nepal” which still remains in a ´draft´ form despite its completion almost a year ago due to the pressure from ´hill elite´. DfID, however, has said that the report is yet to be finalized.  The ´draft´ report basically unravels how Bahuns and Chhetris have dominated in the state affairs creating a uni-cultural society and explains the challenges in addressing the issues concerning five excluded groups - women, Dalit, Janajati, Madhesi and Muslim.  The report is the summary version of Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment (GSEA) that DfID produced through a joint World Bank/DfID Trust Fund and through DfID´s Enabling State Program (ESP). The Asian Development Bank provided further support to the project. “Most groups have failed to recognize (or admit) that their demands impinge on the equal rights of others,” the report says, stressing on the urgent need for better and clearer communication between different identity groups about their respective visions of the state and how each group would accommodate the aspirations and demands of the other identity groups. “The inconsistencies between some of these multiple demands and aspirations need to be brought out into the open so that a framework of mutual accommodation based on a common core of rights for all citizens can be worked out in the constitution,” it says. The report further highlights how bargaining is going on behind the scenes and how most identity groups have not yet been able or willing to negotiate clear limits on their demands.  “There is probably an element of “bluff” in some of the demands because some minority groups are still unsure which of their claims are appropriate and which are not,” it says.  Terms and concepts in current use have not been clearly defined or debated and each political party and interest group seems to have their own words or phrases to capture key concepts under negotiation, the report adds, citing an example of ´special´ or ´additional´ rights claimed by Dalits and agra adhikar (prior or preferential rights) asserted by the Janajatis.  “Often these terms seem to be used as threats or bargaining chips by different groups who feel vulnerable and hope to use them improve their chances of a more favorable ´deal´,” it says. “But little progress can be made until these terms are clearly defined.” The report stresses on developing a clear and widely understood ´logic´ of multiculturalism and minority rights without which even progressive members of the traditionally dominant groups - and other groups as well - are likely to see minority rights as a “slippery slope” with no clear boundaries.  “This is likely to stimulate resistance that could block or even reverse the considerable progress towards an inclusive state that has already been made,” it further says, adding, “It should be made clear that the goal is inter-group equality - a level playing field - rather than the substitution of one embedded hierarchy for another.” Besides stressing on the need for equal share in state affairs of all the groups, the report highlights how the sense of insecurity among non-Janajatis and their uncertainty about their land ownership rights in areas where Janajati groups are concentrated has caused many to sell and move out of the Eastern hills.  “There is an urgent need to clarify the provisions of ILO Convention 169 that require extensive national consultations with indigenous groups about natural resource use and benefit sharing in areas where they are concentrated,” the report says. “Dispute resolution mechanisms are also called for in the Convention and need to be set up.” Stating that the decentralization which was promised in the 1990 constitution was never materialized, the report says not only Janajatis, but most ordinary Nepalis would like to reduce the power of Kathmandu and have more decisions made by governments that are closer and more accountable to them. A much greater degree of local autonomy for Janajati groups within the framework of the state is required, it further says. “As formerly subordinated groups seek to escape the monocultural model of the state that has oppressed them for centuries, they often use the same rigid conceptual apparatus to (re)build their own identity as was used by the former dominant group,” it says.  Saying that there is a risk of fragmentation into smaller and smaller identity groups as “minorities within minorities” seek their own autonomy, the report adds that the Janajatis seem to have anticipated this aspect of the problem and tried to address it through the identification of “autonomous areas” which are to be set aside within the new federal units for some of the smaller Adivasi Janajati groups.  But, it says, the territory-based solution is not a good fit with the reality of Nepal´s highly intermixed population where members of minority groups are not generally located in a single identifiable area but are instead scattered throughout Nepal.  “Given this reality, the notion that the rights of each identity group in Nepal will only be protected if they have their own territory seems oddly anachronistic - and also perhaps reflective of a lack of trust in the law as a guarantor of rights.” “It is also important to highlight that the territorial federations under discussion during the preparation of this report do nothing to improve the inclusion of women, Dalits, Muslims or smaller Janajati groups. The dream of a ´territory´ or ´ancestral homeland´ holds no allure for Dalits or for women. Rather, these two groups have the most to gain from a strong common framework that guarantees substantive equality to all citizens.  “Along with the Muslims, other religious minorities and small or endangered Janajati groups, women and Dalits could become champions for a constitutional approach to inclusion that relies on establishing (and enforcing) the rules of the game for equitable co-existence within the Nepali state rather than one that focuses on separation or new hierarchies that would once again leave women and Dalits at the bottom.” (This report was taken from the Republica Daily of 22 August, 2012)

Pressure from 'hill elites' halts DfID exclusion report

An extensive report on Nepal´s socially excluded groups prepared by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) is yet to be published even after a year of its completion due to the pressure from the traditional ´hill elites´.

The report titled "Forging Equal Citizenship in a Multicultural Nepal" was completed in September last year, but still remains a ´draft´ because of DFID´s ´self-censorship´ under pressure. 

The report, prepared after a thorough research, highlights how Bahuns and Chhetris continue to prevail on all aspects of state affairs and how difficult it is to develop a just and inclusive Nepali society.

The report basically unravels how Bahuns and Chhetris have dominated in the state affairs creating a uni-cultural society and explains in detail the present status of five excluded groups - women, Dalit, Janajati, Madhesi and Muslim. It analyses the progress made since Jana Andolan II on the issues of social inclusion and highlights related issues and challenges.

The report is the summary version of Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment that DFID produced last year, with core authors being Lynn Bennett, Bandita Sijapati and Deepak Thapa of Social Science Baha, a non-governmental organization.

Many key social activists and intellectuals are also involved as reviewers some of whom include Seira Tamang (a PhD currently associated with Martin Chautari), Laurie Vasily (now the director of Fulbright Commission), Bal Krishna Mabuhang (Janajati activist), Pratyoush Onta (Historian associated with Martin Chautari), Mohamad Rashid Iraqi (who worked as political officer in the United Nations Mission in Nepal), Hari Bansha Jha (Economist) and journalist Prashant Jha among others.

The major funding support for the GSEA 2011 project was provided by the DFID Nepal Social Inclusion Action Programme (SIAP) through a joint World Bank/DFID Trust Fund and through DFID´s Enabling State Programme (ESP). The Asian Development Bank provided further support to the project.

"Though the report was completed almost a year ago, DFID has not been able to make it public," a source close to those involved in the project told Republica“ "There is because of pressure from the hill elites (the so-called high castes) not to publish the report."

DFID Nepal, however, claimed that the Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment is not yet finalized.

"It is currently in draft form awaiting important new data, such as analysis of the Nepal Living Standards Survey, before it can be finalized," Philip Smith, acting head of DFID Nepal, told Republic. "Without this new data, the report would be incomplete and quickly become out of date."

The intention of this exercise is to generate updated information on gender and social inclusion in Nepal, according to Smith. "Once finalized, we hope that this empirically-based report will provide robust data contributing to the social and political development process in a constructive way," he said.

He also said that DFID, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank remain committed to the government´s policy of supporting social inclusion in Nepal.

But sources said DFID decided to self-censor and delayed its publication after the delegation of various high-caste organizations put pressure on the donors not to interfere in Nepal´s affairs by promoting the cause of the marginalized communities.

The delegation of the Joint Struggle Committee for National Sovereignty and Ethnic Harmony, a front comprising 11 different organizations of Brahmin, Chhetri and Dashnami, met with head of DFID Nepal Dominic O´Neill in May this year and told the latter not to interfere in Nepal´s internal affairs by providing funds to various NGOs, thereby promoting the cause of indigenous Janajatis.

The delegation told DFID that it was not right for them to lobby for federalism based on ethnic identity, according to Om Sharma, secretary of Brahman Samaj, one of the members of the struggle committee. 

"We told them that the international organizations should instead focus on investing for the backward people in general which includes people from different caste, ethnicity and backward regions," Sharma told Republica.

This even led those in DFID to re-think about using the term ´socially excluded´ in their reports. 

Journalist Prashant Jha, one of the reviewers of the report, wrote in The Kathmandu Post on June 13 that International organizations, from multilaterals like World Bank to bi-laterals like DFID, have been bullied by the Bahun-Chhetri interest groups to the extent that they are toying with the idea of shifting from the term ´excluded´ to ´poor and vulnerable´. “

"They are scared to publish reports on gender and social exclusion which have been prepared after spending funds allotted in the name of marginalized Nepali communities," wrote Jha. 

The ´draft´ report availed by Republica focuses on understanding how Nepal is accommodating its diversity and dealing with the dilemmas of acknowledging the collective rights of different groups while also guaranteeing the individual human rights of all its citizens.“

"Forging Equal Citizenship in a Multicultural Nepal" follows the earlier 2006 report "Unequal Citizens: Gender, Caste and Ethnic Exclusion in Nepal" that was written during the period of the insurgency and the royal take-over. 

While the original publication focused on the need to ensure equal rights to all Nepali citizens (equal citizenship), this follow-up volume expands its focus to reflect the increasingly strong demand for accommodation of difference as an equally essential part of the foundation for the restructured Nepali state, it is stated in the report.

The report has highlighted the domination of elite-caste hill Hindu which made it difficult to move the country beyond ´uni-culturalism´ in the 1990 constitution due to the retention of the Hindu monarchy and Hinduism as the state religion, terming it as "half-hearted effort at accommodating Nepal´s diversity.“

"Bahun, and Chhetri, males remained overwhelmingly dominant in all branches of elected and administrative government - either unaware of or failing to take seriously, the resentment of other groups," it has stated.

(This report was taken from the Republica Daily of 20 August, 2012)

Advice Note to SLC Graduates

I am delighted that many students come to see me for academic and career counseling. During this interaction, I always try to discover what our youths have to say about their lives, values, hopes and dreams. My personal experience will give many of you a glimpse into some of the many ways present youths might unfold in their goals, ambitions and concerns. 

As an education advocate, I am keenly aware that education is the powerful means to individual empowerment and the prerequisite for the development of any country. When the youths know that the adults in their lives care about them and offer guidance, they will certainly bloom. When these focuses are absent, their hopes and dreams wither.

In meeting youths from different walks of life, I have learned from listening to them even though they might worry about the future, they are more concerned about their present. Most of them are ready to absorb the lessons that will help them to succeed in life, and they are grateful to those who are willing to invest time and effort in guiding them. When the guiding energy of ours matched by the learning energy of our youths, the results are stronger lives and a stronger society.

I am often asked to give an advice to youths, and this is what I tell them: Remember that you are the architect of your own destiny.  Consider how to prepare yourself for the future. Think about the habits, skills, and knowledge that will help you succeed in life. Choose a circle of friends who have admirable qualities –honesty, intelligence, kindness and wonderful sense of humor—and who bring out the best in you. Spend as much time reading as you can and read widely. You will learn a lot, always be able to entertain yourself, and be interested to other people.

My greatest wishes for youth everywhere is that there will be adults in their lives to show them, both by lesson and example, the skill they need to take their place as secure, productive and happy member of the society. As a facilitating organization, Professional Development and Research Center (PDRC) is working to ensure that every socio-economically excluded youth should have an access to quality higher education. They are further equipped with professional skills and competencies so that they can be a true professionals in their chosen career. With that crucial foundation, all other learning process becomes easier and a successful life can follow.

Education for Underprivileged

Couple of years ago, I was having a conversation with a gentleman and he has a wonderful idea to educate underprivileged youths. He was talking about educating poor kids through individual contribution of well off people in Dalit community. According to him, each person should take responsibility to educate at least one student." He baptized the idea as “Each one to teach one.” The idea sound pretty great!!! 

Probably K R Narayanan would not have become the president of India if he hadn't got scholarship assistance from J.R.D. Tata. Same applies in the life of Dr. Ambedkar as well. There are millions of such people, born and probably yet to be born - deprived of the opportunities at birth and hence require a little push. In fact, there is no difference between poor and rich person. Both are gifted with endless potential. Just that the former is more likely to suffer because of the cash-nexus system we have. Sadly, most of the times these poor creatures can't even get a chance to know what they are made of - let alone harnessing it! The talent remains untapped!! 

There's no denying that the state in some ways must set some conducive environment – where mind is without fear - where people's talents can blossom - irrespective of the class they belong to. We fret it might be too much to expect from a country like Nepal. The political turmoil it is mired in, its tone deaf stance to the economic agendas and the obscurity in social inclusion policies all attest to this fear. 

In this backdrop, can't there be something which we can act on our own efforts to spark a change in our community? Certainly yes! Your power, talent and a little help can metamorphose the life of at least one student. But it implores an abiding commitment to the principle of goodness and generosity. Allow me to mention here that the people like us, who have accomplished some sort of heights in our careers, must feel a responsibility to assist others especially the ones with a blazing desire for success but fall short of enough opportunities! 

Who knows the new generation of Dalit leadership might emerge out of our earnest endeavors. Many individuals are coming forward to extend their helping hand to poor students. Basanti Sunar is one of them. She is helping a student named Dal Bahadur B K who is originally from Mugu district. He is the most deserving student. They are the true friends for such needy students. We must acknowledge that every life should have equal value.

BRB One Year Down the Line

BRB had caught the imagination of many people- friends and foes alike- when he entered the Singha Darbar in 2011. He had been an outstanding student throughout his student life. More than that, his entry in to the politic has encouraged many talented youths to join public life. He seemed to connect our aspirations towards the political stability and economic prosperity. After a long time, he succefully instigated confidence among the people. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for the sheen to peel off the man.

At the end of his first year, what we see is an alarming drop in his popularity rating, leading many to ask: how big of underachiever is Babu Ram Bhattarai? The nation has spent big chunk of money for making constitution, but instead of creative ideation one seems him lapsing into protectionist rhetoric and blame game. The Nepalese society is in the throes of political instability, but he is merely an onlooker for a man who promised to constitution making, army integration, peace and security. BRB has neither been able to make constitution on stipulated time, nor keep pace and security in the country.

The general mass labeling him as an apologist, trying to shifting blame to the parties. But, many of his erstwhile supporters and admirers are also disappointed with the compromise he is making, often diluting his own policies at the cost of ignoring many of his promises- whether to establish peace or promote double digit economic growth.He also angered his well wishers in the opposite party by trying to spread the blame of political failure, perhaps under the influence of south Asian mindset. People feel that instead of doing some serious task, BRB is now looking for the most appropriate exit. 

In the recent past, there were some significant surveys made about the current political deadlock. His ratings are hovering down significantly which his insiders justify as being natural for an incumbent prime minister- it is the significant fall in his ratings. The latest survey, conducted by Himal Khabar Patrika shows BRB’s rating to be as low as that of any other average leader. Though he didn’t create these problems, he created the expectations that they can be solved. Many people attribute the drop in BRB’s popularity rating largely to his inability to deliver on his promises.

BRB had indeed kindled much hope with his much celebrated 40 points demand to then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. Quoting historical anecdotes, he had embarked in his mission to explain the deprivation of the country by stressing that Nepal can be a prosperous country. In an attempt to redefine Nepal’s strategic location, he proposed Nepal to be a dynamic bridge between the two vibrant economic giants. He had tried to convey a clear message that Nepal is also interested to be benefited from their growth and prosperity.

One could well argue that BRB we see today is a man awakened to realities, a man who has realized that it is easy promise dreams, tougher to build them. However, BRB is still the prime minister of hope. He happens to be at the realm during transitional phase- a time when an opposite parties are not supporting at all.

Not many are willing to forgive BRB that easily, or allow circumstances attenuate his blame. They had reposed far too much faith and confidence in his ability to heal the wounds of the people.