Federalism, Reservation And The Current Situation
Pratap Sharma
Nepal is a small country which, at different
intervals throughout its history, has undergone radical changes that have
drastically altered the political environment and the culture throughout. Perhaps the most important of these historic
periods occured in 1950, when the Nepalese people revolted against the Rana Regime,
installing a three party agreement which was done under the arbitration of
India. Following a regime that was heavily
isolationist, most experts agree that foreign influence became strong during
this period in Nepalese policy making.
The political crisis and immature mentality of many of the political
leaders during that time provided a suitable opportunity for the new monarch at
that, king Mahendra to make a move later referred to as 1960 Coup d'état,
wherein he suspended the constitution. He
effectively dismissed the elected parliament and the cabinet, and imposed
direct rule, imprisoning Prime Minister Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala and his
closest government colleagues. To defend
these actions he claimed that the congress had fostered corruption, failed to
maintain law and order, and put party politics above the interests of the
nation. More than 10 governments were
formed and then subsequently dismissed during the period from 1950 to 1960,
which created political instability and conditions of lawlessness in
Nepal. King Mahendra consequently
eliminated the party system and promulgated a new constitution introducing a
Panchayat, a "guided" system wherein the people could elect their own
representative. However, the true power
remained in the hands of the Monarchy, and political dissenters were referred
to as "anti-national elements".
In many ways a similar political
strife to that of the 1950's is appearing in Nepal after the promulgation of
the new constitution in 2015. As a
result the implementation of a federal state reservation system has been a
topic of heated debate and controversy, heavily steeped in ethnic and cultural
issues. Many feel that the plans,
policies and programs within the reservation system should be reviewed, and
that they should focus more on those of low economic status rather than those
of a particular ethnic group.
However, in addressing this issue
it's important to understand the ethnic climate in which reservation policies
have sprung forth. Nepalese society is
still rife with inequality, and research has shown us that certain communities
and castes are given little to no opportunities to work in the public
sphere. Lower castes, women, and the
poor are still some of the most vulnerable in our society, with minimal access to
civil institutions and resources. Education
is also lopsided, with seven out of ten of the least educated districts in
Nepal lying in Madhesh, and these seven districts have an average literacy rate
of 48.77%. Moreover, people in these
districts earn a much lower income than the overall national income, and it is
still quite common for Madheshi girls to drop out of school prematurely. Those who were born to privilege of family
name, business connections, and inherited wealth have more of an advantage to
be able to display their abilities based on merit and achievements, and those
born without those advantages are simply not evaluated or considered. With the existing situation in Nepal being
what it is, it is certainly not easy to distinguish between issues of caste and
issues of poverty, where boundaries between the two are often blurred.
Reservation is a form of
"positive discrimination" that seeks to provide opportunities to
individuals of every group with equality in mind. It is designed to favor members of a
disadvantaged group, who face discrimination within their society and
disproportionately suffer more hardships.
It has been implement in many countries outside of Nepal, including India,
Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, the United States, and many more, but wherever
such policies are implemented they are almost always hotly debated. Experts still disagree on the effectiveness
of reservation on the disenfranchised groups it is designed to support.
One of the sharpest criticisms of
reservation is that it tends to benefit only the wealthiest and most fortunate
of the groups it targets, and overlooks those in the same group of low economic
status, while actively taking opportunities away from poor people of other
groups. However, the problem with this
criticism is that it assumes that reservation is like some kind of welfare
program designed to help the poor. It
isn't. Its specific intention is to help
those of a certain group, which faces discrimination, to gain equality overall
in their society, equality in education, and equal representation in government,
thus granting upward mobility to those who previously had no access to it. There's no question that there should be
programs to help the poor of all ethnicities and castes, but this is not an
effective argument against reservation because there is no reason why we can't
have both.
Before I end this article, however,
I want to explore one more factor. Many
supporters of reservation in Nepal would also like to divide the country on the
basis of caste and ethnicity. This would
likely have the reverse effect of what they are looking for, and would instead
provide a means for further negative discrimination against the vulnerable
sections of society. Dividing the
country by caste would only serve to further separate the castes socially and
politically, increase ethnic tensions, and create possible conflict. Reservation should not divide groups up and
separate them, but instead it should bring groups together and allow them to
get to know each other in ways never possible before. In this way, I feel that reservation in Nepal
is taking a wrong turn compared to other countries who have managed to use it
effectively.
प्रतिकृया दिनुहोस्
Loading...
