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An unpublished report produced by the UK Department of International Development (DfID) has warned that the current debate and assertion of the rights of one group has failed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)