Nepal Minister of Home Affairs: Communalism is superior to, and influences insurgency more than, nationalism. The higher degree or intensive influences of communalism are dangerous to sustainable peace and security. It can adversely affect social harmony in pluralistic society. But communalism can be managed by adequately addressing economic discrimination and political exclusion, and by preserving ethnic heritages.

::::::::

Editor's Note: In The Madhesis of Nepal, K. Yhome writes (paraphrased): "Dramatic events in Nepal have redefined the political landscape of the Himalayan nation in more ways than one. One important change is the visible rise of "marginalized" groups in national politics.  The "excluded" groups - cutting across ethnic, religious and language lines - are demanding their due rights.  In the midst of these changes is the rise of the Madhesis (plains people).  Madhesis are an important segment of the population in Nepal. They economically occupy the most significant region of the country with 70-80% of the country's industries located in the Terai region.  It accounts for 65% of Nepal's agricultural production. Nepal's economy depends heavily on the region. Strategically, the Terai belt constitutes the lifeline of Nepal.  All key transportation routes from India pass through this region, making it the gateway to landlocked Nepal.  Almost all the country's import and export takes place through this region.  Given these factors, any disturbance in the region involving the Madhesis becomes extremely critical as it has the potential to seriously jeopardise the country.  See map.   

Krishna Hari Pushkar holds special expertise in the areas of peace, security and conflict management with relevance to developing countries and is currently affiliated with Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Nepal.

This paper looks into the issue of communalism and its superiority to nationalism, with a short case assessment of Nepal's Madhesis movement. The main hope of the paper is to begin an academic and political discussion about the conventional definitions and traditional concepts of nationalism and communalism.  Is communalism superior to nationalism? This paper presents my experiences and observation about communalism found in various cases.  

Communalism means a hereditist spontaneous loyalty and down-to-earth commitment toward a similar ethnic community or caste or racial group to which people belong.  Communalism is stronger than nationalism, particularly when such people, groups, or communities represent a minority or less mainstreamed part of society who often suffer discrimination. This can include disabled people, lesbians and gays, or people of particular professions, religions, or any groups or communities that share and express like concerns.  Communalism is a spontaneous feeling or state of mind that binds people intellectually or emotionally to a particular course of action, to achieve specific goals.  Communal feelings force people to some extent to act in a particular manner.  This is done knowingly or unconsciously, because communalism springs from heredity, or conventional and contemporary practices. It is human nature to associate with an inherently recognized identity, or it can be constructed in some exceptional cases by particular society or groups to fulfill contemporary needs, e.g. to achieve rights or recognition, etc.  Communalism is part of natural phenomena, which exist, in every human society.  However, its level, type or degree may differ in person-to-person, society-to-society, region-to-region and situation-to-situation.

Conversely, nationalism is a broader umbrella term with limited horizons.  It is based on legal doctrines and connects citizenship with a specific geographic boundary.  But status within that boundary may be changed easily, as when people legally immigrate or emigrate.  Also, borders fluctuate, being unilaterally or multilaterally revised, so nationalism as a concept can be murky.  Further, nationalism promotes the idea that one culture and set of interests are superior to any other.  But in practice, where societies and communities are pluralistic, nationalism tends to be secondary to regional identities and concerns.  In reality, millions of people change their national citizenship simply to enjoy a better standard of living, or to take advantage of better employment opportunities, better education, or to fulfill some specific missions and goals.  Therefore, the notion of nationalism seems very fragile in contemporary society. 

Nepal and the Madhesi People 

The Madhesis are indigenous inhabitants of Nepal's plains.  While census figures are in dispute, the Madhesis comprise between 30 and 50% of the total population of Nepal.  The Madhes region comprises the southern plains, which stretches from southeast to northwest. Nepal is landlocked between India and China.  The major issue of Madhes can be presented in two versions: the general political version and the insurgents' version. The political version of the Madhesis issues can be understood from the demands of Madhesi Peoples Rights Forum (MPRF) who played a leading role during the popular Madhes movement 2006-2007.  Key demands include: 

* Constituting a federal democratic republic;

* Proportional electoral system;

* Autonomy in the Madhes region (one Madhes, one province);

* End of internal colonization;

* Regional autonomous governance system including right to self-determination;

* Rights to the land's natural resources and biological diversity;

* End of racial and regional discrimination; and

* Provide citizenship certificates to all Madhesis without discrimination.

The insurgents' version of the Madhesi issue is considered from the demands of one of the hardcore Madhesi insurgents named Jantantrik Mukti Morcha (JTMM: Jwala Sigh). The JTMM demands that: 

* Madhes should be declared an independent state;

* There should be proportionate participation by determining constituencies on the basis of population;

* All police, army and administration in the Madhes should be evacuated and Madhesi people should be posted;

* Population census should be conducted in Madhes and coordinated by Madhesi;

* All the revenue collected from Madhes should be spent for the development of Madhes;

* All the Madhesi killed by the state and Maoists should be declared martyrs and rupees 1.5 million should be provided as compensation;

* Citizenship should be issued from the central to district level as coordinated by the Madhesi;

* The land of Madhesi captured by Maoists should be returned; and

* Maoists should stop their donation drive and tax collection in Madhes.

Besides these conflicts, nevertheless, there are many similarities among the different political groups, including their demands, working style, action strategy, and more.  Both groups are continuously combating the government for inclusion of Madhesis in all principal organs of state, human rights, proportional representation and autonomy, rights of self-determination, power sharing, development, and abolishment of all types of discrimination against Madhesis.  Thus, two groups of Madhesis people seek similar goals but employ different strategies: one supports general political actions e.g. bandh, gherao, strike, blockade, demonstrations, etc.; the other involves itself in murder, kidnapping, shootings, bombings, counter war with national security forces, control over non-Madhesis properties, attack of governmental offices and its officials, etc. In short, there are two major groups, one who adopts civil political means and another that adopts a guerrilla warfare approach.  (Perhaps they learned from the recently ended Maoist insurgency.) 

The Madhesis are politically marginalized, though some of them are affiliated with various ruling and political parties such as Nepali Congress, Nepal Communist Party (UML), Nepal Communist Party (Maoist), Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Nepal Sadbhawana Party, etc.  Few Madhesis sit in positions of authority, nor are they represented in the cabinet, parliament, or other high-level positions in the various political parties.  While many Madhesis are affiliated with various political parties and they practice the given ideology, during the 2006-2007 Madhes movement, all Madhesis united in one communal voice by ignoring all national and political ideological practices.  Some of the Madhesis politicians revolted inside the respective ruling political party.  Many sacrificed their political positions or disobeyed the imposed instructions by their affiliated parties to express solidarity and stand together during the Madhes movement to achieve the goals outline above.   Madhesi civil servants, Madhesis ethnic security personnel, and other professional people (e.g. engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc.) also stood in community with the Madhesis movement, abandoning the norms and guidelines of nationalism, professionalism and any interests other than communalism. The Madhesis people living abroad also supported the movement through various means such as online communication, donations, media marketing, diplomatic pressure, and by use of their various resources to internationalize the issues.

Meanwhile, majorities of ruling political parties and their commanders and central leaders (including the Prime Minister of Nepal Girija Prasad Koirala, Pusp Kamal Dahal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, etc.) worked hard to suppress the Madhes movement.  They accused and frequently vouched that the Madhes movement was a conspiracy against Nepal nationality and an attack on national sovereignty and integrity.  Further, they impeached the Madhes movement as being against the verdict of the second national people's movement of 2006.  Some non-Madhesis remarked, "The royalist, pro-monarchical and Hindu fundamentalists are behind the movement," and some even went as far to say "it is a movement of regressive forces and criminals."  The anti-Madhesis politicians and some self-proclaimed nationalist parties officially supported suppressing the movement through use of force:  by using security forces with joint-action operations with Indian security mechanisms.  Majorities of non-Madhesis considered the Madhes movement an ominous movement for secession.   

However, no single Madhesis person diverged from the movement and its supporting mentality; Madhesis continued their actions toward effecting the desired common goals.   

Accordingly, a natural question arises:  why did the Madhesis people go beyond national interest?  Simply, the answer is due to communalism, which has a higher priority than nationalism.  Such hardcore communal solidarity emerged even while the nation endured transitional crises brought about by the peace process with Maoists, issues of constitutional assembly elections, monarchial abolishment, governmental restructuring, and many more other important inclusivity issues affecting regional communities, gender, castes, etc.

In practice, it has been observed in many case studies that people love and attach to their own language, socio-cultural or religious group to which they belong.  For instance, let's imagine four people living together in the same building in the U.S. or in any foreign country: a Nepalese person from Darjeeling, India, a Madhesi person from Darbhanga, India, a Madhesi person from Janakpur, and a Nepalí from Kathmandu, Nepal.  In that case, it has been seen that people from Darbhanga and Janakpur and the people from Darjling and Kathmandu are closer and more intimate than with those with the same nationality.  This is simply because of the stronger feeling of communalism. Shared common interests, practices, problems, and other relevant notions make people naturally closer.  It is commonly believed that intimacy and closeness should be guided by nationalism in most cases.  This integrates people in a single line as well as in a matrix. 

However, in practice, just the opposite is found to be true in dozens of case studies in various communities such as Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and America:  regional communalism bound each group more tightly than nationalism.  In other words, communalism is more deeply valued than nationalism. Thus, the presented case shows that the bonds of communalism seem stronger in a majority of ethnic communities around the world.  

Other Examples

In the border area of Germany and France, some German ethnic people have French nationality and vice versa due to redrawn borders from various periods of time. In this case, it has been also observed that people give priority to their communalism rather than their nationality.  

In another example, the Turkish ethnic people who adopt German citizenship also retain their communal identity as Turks.  This communalism was openly revealed during the European Football Championship program 25th June 2008, in the semifinal match between Germany and Turkey.  Several Turkish ethnic German people violently reacted when Turkey lost the football game against Germany.  Few, if any, Turkish ethnic German citizens were happy that their nation's team defeated Turkey. They wanted to see Turkey win due to their natural communalism with a shared culture, rather than the artificial construct of nationalism.

A similar situation occurs in the case of Kashmir at the Indo-Pakistani border, where conflict is ongoing.  This situation exists in many parts of Indian Territory.  Hence, the degree of communalism is comparatively higher in the developing world and lesser in the developed world. However, communalism exists everywhere.  Nepotism, favoritism, racism, etc. are also inseparable consequences of communalism and its practices.  Communalism seems inversely proportional to the higher-level positive trend of development and directly proportional to marginalization, discrimination and under-development.  

The Rise of Communalism in Nepal Politics

In Nepal, communalism has produced many regional and ethnic based political parties. For instance, the result of a recently held election of constitutional assembly proved the Nepalese people liked communal parties in general or the parties who seeded communal issues.  Parties like Nepal Communist Party Maoist, Nepal Madhesi People Rights Forum, Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party, and others, gained popular votes because they addressed the communal sentiment, becoming the unexpected winners.  In India, the Bhartiya Janta Party, Bhartya Janta Dal, etc. also represent communal interests, and have risen in position in Indian polity. The so-called national and historical parties in Nepal, especially Nepali Congress and Nepal Communist Party (UML) are detested and marginalized by grassroots political sectors because they failed to address communal sentiments and its contemporary desires.

In the dimension of rebellion, two dozen insurgent groups are active in the Madhes region of Nepal and battle against the state.  Madhesi people and Madhesi politicians directly and indirectly support almost all Madhes centric insurgents.  However, the degree of support, types and size are different and depend on individuals.  Majorities of Madhesi political fellows have good relations and coordinate with almost all Madhesi insurgents, while no Madhesi politicians formally oppose the Madhesi insurgency.  The insurgents express gratitude, "We are surviving just because of the valuable and direct contribution of Madhesi ethnic people."  This implies that Madhesis politicians are also somehow in support of the insurgency.

The Indian people living in the bordering area of Nepal also openly help them.  They claim, "We have blood relations with Madhesis people; they are our relatives, they are our castes, and they are our brothers and family members, so we should support Madhesis in all possible courses of action that they need to achieve their rights."   Again, the reason behind such feeling is found because of the natural influences of communalism.  They do not care about the Indian Government's official policy and views towards Madhes unrest.  They directly reject any kind of governmental actions and imposed directives that subvert Madhes issues.  They support the Madhes insurgency spontaneously and without any confusion.  Therefore, both the Indian as well as the Nepali Government should heed this nascent support, and seek to resolve the conflict before the issues escalate by involving both nations simultaneously.  

Nationalism vs. Communalism

The traditional philosophy of nationalism seems no longer valid nor significant as a trusted platform of integrity and sovereignty.  The definition of nationalism should be modified as per contemporary perspectives of people's interests, trends and nature.  Nationalism should be denoted with diversities of communalism rather than a hard-line definition, which seems based and valid only in some extent of homogeneous society's structure.  However, radicalism in communalism can be harmful to a nation, therefore, governments should play a vital role in balancing the interests of a pluralist society.  If not, communalism can be turned into ethnic conflict. 

To manage and minimize the negative influence of radical communalism, governments should introduce effective nation building polices, balance power sharing among all ethnic and social groups, develop a proportional inclusion structure in all possible state organs, and designed community-based integrated development packages.  Specifically, racial and ethnic discrimination should be abolished through effective policies. The superiority or dominance of particular castes, or groups, families, or culture, should be eliminated.  Social justice can be materialized through adopting several approaches for equity and equality by using various tools such as positive discrimination for marginalized groups, scientific localized structure of federalism, community participation, induction of a balanced redistribution system, and democratization of the nation through political, administrative, economic and diplomatic channels.  One of the most important ways to effect social justice is to use official efforts for converting the mindset of respective individuals and communities so that citizens feel ownership towards the nation where he or she holds legal nationality.  But nations should recognize that people will always identify more closely with their own regional culture, like the Turkish ethnic German people who are legally German but who never accepted themselves as German.  They will always reject German nationalism over communal affinities.

Communalism is superior to nationalism. Communalism is a more deeply held value than nationalism. The higher degree or intensive influences of radical communalism is dangerous to sustainable peace and security.  Radical communalism can directly affect social harmony in pluralistic society.  But, communalism can be managed through proper handling.  Governments can take advantage of the positive aspects of communalism during the course of community development programs, institution building, infrastructure development, preservation of heritage, culture and social phenomena, etc. The broader influence of communalism defeats the contentedness of nationalism. Therefore, the superiority of nationalism is no longer valid in contemporary society. Hence, communalism is superior to nationalism. 

Further scholarly and political debate is welcomed.

Authors Bio:
Mr. Pushkar was a DAAD fellow and studied research master in peace and conflict studies in Germany. Also, he holds an internationally honored first class master degree in public administration. He has participated in dozens of national and international trainings, seminars,and workshops programs related to governance, migration, ethnicity, social inclusion, human rights, diplomacy, peace, security and conflict management in US, Europe and Asian countries. Mr. Pushkar often writes opinion articles, reports, conduct researches and publish commentary notes on the various contemporary issues related to the areas of his expertise, specially with reference to Nepal. He is an Under Secretary of Nepal Government and well honored as a Peace, Security and Conflict Management Professional. Mr. Pushkar actively involves and contributes regularly to the dozens of national and international nongovernmental organizations as a capacity of peace and conflict management expert.