Nepal as a mirror to South Asia's dilemmas

by Lynn Ockersz

In co-incidental developments which would help greatly in defining and clarifying the "structural violence" currently gripping parts of South Asia, some 23 paramilitary soldiers have died in a bomb blast in India's eastern state of Chhattisgarh, triggered by suspected Maoist rebels, while in neighbouring Nepal, counterparts of the latter have reportedly declared a three-month unilateral truce in their long-running bloody rebellion with the Nepalese central authorities, in an effort to parley with Nepal's political parties.

Although the observer would tend to focus more intently on the developments in Nepal on account of the graver nature of the political crisis gripping that state and the resultant, increasingly mounting bloodshed, it is the report on the Chhatisgarh violence which is more revealing.

While the broad aim of the People's Liberation Army in Nepal in declaring the ceasefire is said to be the formation of an oppositional front against the Nepalese monarch, with the country's political parties, the report from India says that the Maoists of Eastern India - active in at least five states - "are battling for greater social and economic rights for indigenous tribes and landless farmers".

The latter proposition lays bare the "structural" or "systemic" roots of the current violence in Eastern India and Nepal.

That is, it focuses on the social and economic inequalities underlying the bloody violence, which in Nepal, has claimed tens of thousands of lives since the mid-nineties. The Maoist rebellion in Nepal thrives on these socio-economic inequalities and it is in the poorest and most depressed regions of Nepal that the Maoists enjoy their widest support.

In February, Nepal's King Gyanendra suspended the country's Cabinet and legislature and took over their powers, thus, virtually bringing to an end the democratic process in the troubled State.

This amounted to compounding Nepal's problems because the little representational governance it thus enjoyed was done away with, leaving the people voiceless.

The Maoists' strategy seems to be to muster all of Nepal's political forces for a campaign to restore parliamentary governance but it is unlikely to call a halt to its campaign of violence with the accomplishment of this limited aim. For, as long as factors such as poverty, caste-based oppression, minority victimization and religion and language-based discrimination exist in Nepal, the Maoist rebellion will secure considerable sustenance and remain in contention.

Nepal's constitution provides for equality among its citizens but does not accord special recognition to group rights, particularly in the socio-economic and cultural spheres. Thus, indigenous communities and national minorities cannot access any avenues of empowerment. Likewise, such depressed groups do not enjoy the benefits of positive discrimination because the constitution is yet to incorporate a Bill of Minority Rights and provide for the installation of mechanisms which would facilitate preferential treatment of this kind.

In this respect, Nepal differs vastly from India and so does Sri Lanka, except that Tamil is now accorded official language status in Lanka. But it is an open question whether a Tamil citizen of Sri Lanka could correspond comfortably with a State institution since it is not clear whether all State bodies have been vested with the facilities to give effect to the Tamil language provisions in the Lankan constitution.

However, India, unlike most of its neighbours, has worked towards the empowerment of its national minorities and depressed groups, for instance - to the best of its ability - by instituting the legislative provisions and mechanisms which make positive discrimination possible.

For instance, these groups enjoy a measure of political representation which is constitutionally-guaranteed.

That residual "structural violence" continues in India is proof that even in the "world's largest democracy" much more needs to be done to meet the aspirations of disaffected groups.

The ending of "anti-systemic" violence in South Asia, then, calls for a broad, humanistic vision on the part of its ruling elites. Group and minority rights must not only be recognized and constitutionally-enshrined, but also rendered realisable in very, concrete, practical terms.