Ethnic Conflict Or Insurgency In Nepal Politics Essay

Ethnic difference of opinion Or Insurgency In Nepal regimen activity EssayAlthough the unification of Nepal began in the later- half(prenominal) of the eighteenth century, integrating m all a(prenominal) minor principalities and emerging as a nation ground of the Westphalian model, Nepal always remained a multi pagan, non-homogeneous country without having any core ethno-federal official theatrical component.1While Nepal did non get word any significant heathen problem for al more or less two and half centuries subsequently it came into being, slightly of its heathenish groups enjoyed more privilege in the socio-politico- frugal welkin than others. Yet, after the government of a democratic dodging in 1990, grievances of underprivileged groups sur face. As the heathenish grievances were burgeoning, the abrupt climb up of the Maoist insurgency in 1996 overshadowed all heathenish exertions, assimilating them into the large-scale Maoist rebellion. Thus, it is d ifficult to catego face lifting the Nepalese heathen problem and perceive it either as an heathenish skirmish, heathenish ferocity, or a rebel movement. Prior to the groundwork of the Maoists fortify movement, social problems in Nepal were based on policy-making, frugalal, social, and cultural issues, limited, to the level of involution but did not escalated to the level of violence. However, with the beginning of the Maoist insurgency, the Nepalese fight turned into an ideological based impetuous policy-making position beat against the be government by a rebel organization. While thither may be different interpretations and perceptions regarding whether the Maoist movement was self-made or not atomic number 53 thing is clear, it was successful in outmaneuvering the then brass regime becoming the largest semi governmental elementy bloc in the radical Assembly election. The puzzle remains w here(predicate)fore the ideological booking was successful despit e the proclamation of end of the history by Francis Fukuyama and a clangour of civilization as a form of future date by the eminent policy-making scientist Samuel Huntington after the end of the Cold War.2My purpose in this paper is to analyze this divergent outcome in Nepal.There has a been a nascent cultural aw arness after the giving medication of a democratic strategy in Nepal, further, the political mobilization of heathenishity by elites would not lead been possible without the political incentives to activate it. I argue that the preventive by the Nepalese Maoists mutated the nature of the ethnic conflict into a fusionist one. before addressing the core question, I attempt to analyze the Nepalese ethnic conflict through different theoretical lenses.Nepalese Conflict from a wide PerspectiveGenerally, any ethnic conflict can be pardoned in the light of three broad set outes -situational, instrumental, and primary. While explaining the variant motivations of c onflicts in Nepal, the situational and instrumental approaches seems to be more convincing than a primordial one.3However, slightly dimensions of primordial trace cannot be reind out especially a rise of grievances caused by taking the lid finish up after the collapse of the monarchy in 2006. When the authoritarian panchayet system ended in 1990, it had created a post vacuum in Nepalese politics. When political and ethnic entrepreneurs rushed in to fill the void, namely vested, as well as parochial bear ons belittled the affirm and form new democratic cosmoss. Manipulating these opportunities of political chaos and ethnic grievances, the Maoists came entered the scene with a strategic objective of establishing a totalitarian communisticic regime. They divided the country into their own administrative units and subunits to consolidate and advance their get by more effectively and efficiently. Their administrative division of the country based on ethnic lines validated t heir excessive reliance on ethnicity to achieve ideological strategic objectives.4According to Michael E. Brown, a hit-factor explanation cannot fully explain the maturation and enthusiasm of natural and ethnic conflict, rather he advances multiple arguments derived from in theory active, causes of internal conflict. Therefore, the Nepalese conflict can excessively be analyzed by means of three main arguments primal factors, catalytic or proximate factors, and a fictitious character play by domestic help elites.5Underlying Causes of the Nepalese ConflictFour underlying factors suggest why the Nepalese situation and its geography contributed to ethnic conflict. First, the structural factors explain the likeliness of ethnic conflict in terms of washy states, intra-state security department concerns, and ethnic geography. While other symptoms of weak states are also more or slight prevalent in Nepal, where the political institutions remained in a primal state. Some of th e reasons for such(prenominal) an existence of rudimentary political institutions in Nepal are explainable by unhealthy inter-party political rivalry after the establishment of the multiparty democracy in 1990, and the legacy of 104 years of the Rana oligarchic, political system from 1846 through 1950. Some other endogenous factors such as endemic corruption, administrative incompetence, and inability to evoke economic development also aim contributed immensely as precursors to the conflict.When the Nepalese state became weak, the agent exertion amid and among various political parties increase. The two major political parties, the Nepalese sexual congress and the Communist Party of Nepal United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), and other political parties make different alliances to claim paramount state power. Most of the time, during the multi-party democratic period, the Nepalese Congress was in power neertheless, it could not complete even single full term of its tenure in the government following a split in the party. Because of this power struggle among the major political forces, ethnic groups such as Rai, Magar, Limbu, Tamang, Sherpa, Newar, Tharu, and Madhesi, which formerly had been oppressed by the contract, were able to vagabond themselves politically. The weakening state structure also issuinged in a less effective understand of the Nepal-India demonstrate. Such a less effective control rapidly increased cross-border movements of arms, ammunitions, explosives, and other smuggled goods. This was a racy purlieu for the Maoists to launch their violent ideological struggle. galore(postnominal) heap from rural areas travel to neighboring India for great security and employment. This situation also created a commodious number of Internally Displaced People (IDP) within different parts of NepalWhen the state grew further weaker, different groups and persons started arranging for their own security. This also provided incentives to the Ma oists for military preparations. The establishment of a Maoist Militia to defend themselves and fight against their enemies threatened the states security apparatus and other groups at community level, resulting in doubling the surface of Nepals military and lead as well to the formation of anti-Maoists community self-denial forces at the local level. This again galvanized an upsurge of the Maoists military structure and a resulting gird violence creating a vicious cycle of security quandary. At times, community defense forces exhibited offensive capabilities, even if they were formed for defensive purposes. This intensify the security concern caused by the Maoists.6Nepal was a multi-ethnic fabric interweave by a thread of a common language, religion, and tradition obtained through the unification process. During some thirty years of authoritarian rule, from 1960 through 1990, the panchayat system was relatively successful in consolidating a nation-state based on a single lang uage, religion, and culture intermingling various ethnic groups throughout the country. However, the melting pot did not completely melt everything in the pot and Nepalese leaders were unable to produce a homogeneous mixture. Some ethnic groups such as the Brahmins and Chhetries intermingled with other ethnic minorities throughout the country patch some other ethnic minorities existed in a separate ethnic-geography. Many ethnic groups did not raise secessionist demands whereas other ethnic non-integrated groups were on and off raising their secessionist demands. At times, these secessionist demands weakened because of the some effectuate of intermingling with other ethnic communities. After establishment of the multi-party democracy in 1990, as a result of a third wave of democratization, ethnic minorities started to demand their rights in a now more liberal political, social, and economic environment. Among various ethnic groups, the Magars in the western part of Nepal became mo re aggressive and consequently were effectively apply by the Maoists to initiate their armed struggle.Second, political factors such as the dimensions of jaundiced political institutions exclusionary subject ideologies inter-group politics and elite politics serve to explain the Nepalese conflict. The closed authoritarian Panchayat system generated much choler over time because some(prenominal) minority ethnic groups viewed the system serve primarily the interests of higher caste groups, such as Brahmins and Chhetries. The perceived disproportional representations of ethnic minorities in government, the military, the police, the political parties, and other state and political institutions created inviolable grievances in them. The ethnic conflict grew especially during the political changeovering from authoritarian rule to democracy in the early 1990s. The states repressive attitude during the democratic transitioning as well contributed to propagate insurgency in Nepal.Wh ile there were no exclusionary national ideologies per se, the privation of pragmatic implementation of egalitarian principles enshrined in the personalizedity and civil code contributed the outbreak of the conflict. Although the Nepalese people usually demonstrate civic-nationalism while protesting against foreign interference, the ethno-nationalism prevailed when the institutional vacuum occurred due a forceful political change. But, so far, the ethno-nationalism has not progressed towards an intense secessionist movement. It is pertinent to mention here that the Nepalese exclusionary practices were based on the caste system rather than on religious or ethnic grounds. Occasionally, Nepal experienced inter-group politics especially surrounded by Madheshi and non-Madheshi groups, but elite politics played a dominant role most of the time. Desperate and opportunist politicians always tried to take benefit of political and economic turmoil. For instance, the Maoists took advant age of fragile political and economic situations to start their armed rphylogenesis.Third, economic and social factors also played important roles in initiating conflict in Nepal. Nepal remains an agrarian society and lacks an infrastructure for a market-based economic development in most parts of the country. Tourism is one of the important sources of income and employment, after agriculture. Over the last decades, foreign employment and absolution hold back run short the main sources of national revenues. After the establishment of a democratic system in 1990, the aspirations of people for economic development went up astronomically. Nevertheless, peoples aspirations could not be met because of the lack of political stability, clear vision, commitment, and political consensus. Rather, unemployment, inflation, and resourcefulness competition provided the breeding ground for the conflict. Failure to jump start economic development by the new political elites contributed to an ev er deepening political crisis. The failure to adopt an all-inclusive economic policy widened the gap mingled with rich and poor. Peoples from the oppressed community, scheduled caste, and minority ethnic groups did not have a stake in the countrys economic activities. Corruption, mismanagement, nepotism, and bribery moved the economic situations from bad to worse. Although there was no profound discriminatory economic policy, unbalanced economic opportunities, unequal access to resources, and vast differences in the standard of livelihood were seen as unfair and illegitimate by the disadvantaged members of the society.Lastly, cultural or perceptual factors also had a considerable impact on the evolution of ethnic problems. Cultural favouritism against minorities was one of the principal, contributing cultural factors for ethnic conflict. The people from different ethnic groups found the educational opportunities inequitable especially, t separatelying in minority languages becam e problematic because of lack of resources and investment. The Madheshi felt the compulsory Nepali language in school as languistic colonialism. Ethnic groups such as Magars, Gurungs, Rai, Limbu, Tamang, Newar, Maithili, and Bhojpuri valued teaching in their own languages. Group histories and group perceptions also played a role in triggering conflict. Brahmin, Chhetrie, Thakuries and some other military castes considered themselves the creators of a unified Nepal and took great pride in their nationalist savorings whereas, other ethnic groups such as the Newar, who were defeated and subjugated during the unification process, considered themselves asunder from such glory.Proximate Causes of the Nepalese ConflictWhile the aforementioned underlying factors have been essential to explain what situations and conditions led to ethnic conflict in Nepal, the proximate causes of internal conflict are more convincing in explaining the ultimate triggers. One of the major proximate causes of Nepalese conflict was the persistent, internal problem of governance after the establishment of democracy in 1990, such as rampant corruption. The power vacuum created by removing the king from the center of state power galvanized some political parties to rush for power. The political parties created various alliances to remain in power in order to serve their personal or partisan interests. This situation made the government unable to dole out with societal demands and ameliorate peoples stark challenges. However, a threatening security dilemma did formerly not exist in Nepal however, as Nepal was not created from the rubble of a larger entity or gained independence from a colonial power. Rather, the government deemphasized the military structure inherited from the previous Panchayat system, considering it unimportant in the new democratic environment. The government clearly showed skepticism to take self-command of the military. The deemphasizing of the military on one han d, and the progeny of a power struggle between, and among, elites on the other hand, triggered the initiation of ethnicity-based movements all over the country by desperate and opportunistic politicians thereby, preparing the ground for insurgency. As there was a lack of coordination and cooperation between the civilians and the military, the growth of ethnic movements and ineffectiveness of states mechanisms provided the breeding ground for the fire of the insurgency. The Maoists were able to transplant their communist ideology effectively into the ethnic movement. Thus, the null created by the ethnic movement proved to be a force multiplier for the Maoists to advance their communist agenda. The issues, especially related to the inequality, exclusiveness, and discrimination formed basic grievances for different ethnic groups.7Despite the global declining trend of ideology as a source of conflict, the Maoists were successful in creating a fusionist violent movement by ingeniously combining ethnic conflict and communist ideology. Social and economic problems such as sharp competition for the peculiar resources, the increasing divide between the poor and rich, and social, caste-based, inequalities and exclusiveness were the catalyst for the initiation and the growth of the internal conflict in Nepal.The Roles of Elites in the Nepalese ConflictWhile social and economic problems provided the underlying causes, the internal and external elite-level and spile level factors were more responsible to trigger the conflict.8External mass-level factors enamord especially the Terai country of the country. The many people of Indian origin that migrated to the plains area of Nepal along the border compounded ethnic tensions with the other non-Terai population. Although there were bad domestic problems and some bad neighborhood effects, the elite-level factors seemed more responsible than mass-level factors. Internal elite-level factors such as power struggles between different political parties power struggles between political parties and the king and ideological contests over how to manage the countrys political, economical, and social conditions among different political parties, played important roles in escalating the conflict. The bad leaders problem, created, in turn, an ethnic problem and subsequently lead to open conflict between, and among the government and different minority, ethnic communities. The major political parties were in the government most of the time, yet they could not lead the country towards a positive direction. Instead, the political leaders split the parties to fulfill their vested interests. The political opportunism led to the creation of many undesirable alliances. Such alliances kept on making, and breaking, government power. Some alliances lasted around a year, where some lasted just a few months. This situation created a fertile environment for an insurgency.The external, elite-level contentions, also played an important role in generating ethnic tensions. The foreign powers attitude towards Nepal, intermingling with domestic politics, covert cooperation with disgruntle political parties triggered the conflicts. These countries always had an interest in Nepal for their own security and not least(prenominal) for the vast water resources available in Nepal. The external powers also wanted to maintain their market monopoly in Nepal to pursue their own economic interests. Although they advocated advance of democracy in Nepal publicly, claiming themselves as promoters of democracy in the world, democracy never remained a real priority in the face of their own national interests. Their indirect interventions became successful because of the attitude of the pro-foreign power political leaders in Nepal. They overtly did not support the Maoists, but the proxy war launched by them effectively paralyzed the states mechanism and contributed to the conflict intensification. The bad neighbor effect s may not have happened without the discrete and deliberate support by these countries.Although neighboring countries meddling in the Nepalese domestic affairs played an important role for the conflict, without the closings and actions of the Nepalese domestic elites, the conflict could not have been sparked. The domestic elites conflicts were generally power struggles and were ideological in nature. However, before the emergence of the Maoist Party, the conflict that erupted between competing elites was in effect only a struggle for power. The burgeoning political parties in the new democratic milieu contended for power and forged alliances between one some other for one purpose to become the principal national power. Even within the political parties, the leaders competing and forge alliances were numerous, which contributed frequently to making and breaking of governments. This led to aspirations and grievances of underprivileged and minority ethnic groups, to go unheard and unaddressed, causing serious frustrations and dissatisfactions among these groups. These frustrated ethnic groups as well as some political opportunists unable to grasp power through democratic elections, started movements for the rights of ethnic minorities to gain power by another venue.Analysis of ethnic conflict in NepalAt some point, the ethnic self-images and the images of others played important roles to shape ethnic conflict in Nepal. During the monarchal period, the different ethnic groups co-existed because they shared the mutual history of unification of greater Nepal, and converged into a unified language and national character.9The Chauvinist mythmaking by the Shah dynasty was a hallmark of civic nationalism that contributed to overshadow the ethnic nationalism to some extent.Until the state was sinewy, no significant ethnic conflict existed in Nepal however, the ethnic groups started devising mechanism to protect their groups after the state became weak. In trusted d egrees, the rise on the ethnic conflict was the result of the self-help mechanism active by ethnic groups to protect their groups interest when the state failed to provide security. However, the decision to adopt a federal system in Nepal by amending the lag constitution acted as an important confidence building measure to promote the rights and positions of minorities by mitigating the strategic dilemma that would have produced violence.10The third wave of democratization changed the Nepalese political system and institutions as it swept throughout the midriff East, Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. The establishment of a liberal democratic institution and globalization changed the social structure in many of the countries around the world. The forceful change in political and economic structure broke existing social contracts resulting in resentment as well as opportunity, and provided fertile ground for the Nepalese political entrepreneurs to tantalize support around et hnic and sectarian identities leading to ethnic conflict.11Before the beginning of democratization, the ethnic issues were weak and limited among the people at large in Nepal. The political transitioning and democratization in 1990 provided elites ethnicity as a tool to harness popular energies for securing state power as more voters began to play a larger role in politics.12This led to ethnic conflict when contested elections were held and varieties of political groups criticized the governmentand each other. Although the new constitution addressed the issue of minority rights, they did not feel their rights guaranteed because the privileged groups showed reluctance to surrender real political authority enjoyed by them versus that of the average Nepali citizen. Thus, initial steps in the rocky transition to democracy increased the risk for ethnic conflict when the immature political parties indulged simply in parochial party politics.Although many ethnic groups were demanding an et hnically-based federal state, only some particles of Madheshi had occasionally demanded an autonomous state with the right of self-determination. This section of the Madheshi people felt that the control of Terai region ensures their survival by defend group identity. Since the Terai region was populated with Madheshi people and was considered their homeland, they launched a violent conflict when their interests clashed with those of the Maoists. Yet, some of the non-Madheshi groups and some factions within the Madheshi community heavily criticized this idea. Also, for the state, the control of grease was vital for physical survival.13However, after realizing the state would oppose their sovereignty demands with violence if necessary, these Madheshi O.K. down from their demand and contended for an autonomous region. It appears that Indian interests also ability have played an important role to forgo the right for self-determination, because such an action might lead to an inten sification of a similar demand in an already contested situation in India. The Terai region being the bay window and strategically vital Nepal tract of land, the State was likely to use any means and level of violence to secure its control.The Madheshi uprising gained momentum after the Maoists entered the political main stream. The uprising was widely believed to be covertly backed by India primarily for two reasons. First, India wanted to counter the Maoists growing influence over the Terai region. Second, India wanted to exert its influence and control on the Terai region so that it could influence Nepals internal politics. When the Maoists tried to counter the Madheshi activities in the Terai, they faced fierce opposition, and violence broke out. Hostilities targeted the non-Madheshi people living in the Terai region, and many people fled to other areas leaving their homes. The mix of Madheshi and non-Madheshi populations raised the risk of inter- communal conflict during the v iolent Terai movement started in Gaur.14However, the rejection of secessionist demands by Madhesh-based political parties and patience from non-Madheshi groups, controlled violence from spreading further. The risk of communal violence was not discovered in other multi-ethnic parts of the country.The two centuries of cordial intermingling among diverse ethnic groups and three decades of consolidation of civic nationalism under the Panchayat system based on single language and tradition, hardly left field any room for a bottom-up demand for ethnic mobilization in Nepal. Certainly, there was ethnic awareness in Nepal, but it would, most likely not have evolved into organized political competition without being capitalized on by the political elites. As Jessica Pimbo asserts, Enduring ethnological cleavages were not likely to occur in the absence of political parties that attempt to mobilize ethnicity.15The dynamics of massive mobilization of ethnic groups for group-level purposes is not very clear. unselfish and chauvinist leaders identified with specific groups seem to forgo their individual self-interests while seeking group interests. The subjective identity seems to go along with group identity rather than objective identity, which may only betray with an individuals life history. According to the logic of collective action, the group interests and the personal interest cannot progress concurrently, and most of group-oriented activities do not commensurate with group interests. Thus, coincidence of group and self-interest leads to spirals of violence, and a groups betterment comes only at the constitute of others. This leads invariably to zero-sum, or even negative-sum, situations in which nobody gains from the conflict.16The presence of rightist, centrist, and left-winger ideologically-based political parties, such as the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), the Nepali Congress (NC), and various Communist Parties created tension over the organization of political, economic, and social affairs in Nepal. The ideological tensions existed between hardline communist parties and other political parties. The ideologies were mainly based on economic and class terms, creating struggles over how political, economic, and social affairs should be organized to create a New Nepal.17Although class-based movements with communist agendas were decrease in many parts of the world, the Nepalese rebel movement transplanted into the political agendas of indigenous people and ethnic minorities was burgeoning. The Nepal Communist Party (Maoists) emerged because of political, economic, and cultural discrimination widespread dissatisfaction, inequitable distribution of resources and disproportionate economic development. The Maoists effectively and efficiently utilized the energy and momentum gathered by the different ethnic groups political movements and gave voice to those ethnic minorities agenda with their own. As the amalgamated movement was progressi ng under the leadership of the Maoists, the government started repressing the movements rather than addressing the underlying causes for the conflict. This approach further propagated the movement and finally resulted in political negotiations and, ultimately resulted in establishing the Maoists as a largest political party in the country. This movement essay to shift civic-nationalism to ethno-nationalism in Nepal, and provided the political elites with powerful incentive to play the ethnic card.The climb economic problem constituted the main reason for people to initially follow an ethnic movement and subsequently as well, a Maoists agenda which in turn had successively taken over many ethnic groupings. Although there were some traces of inter-group grievances, yet the existence of significant antipathetic group histories did not exist. Existing economic problems such as unemployment, increased inflation, and intensifying resource competitions forced more people to join the arm ed movement for a radical change in the countrys political course. It is pellucid that the emergence of elite competition was a major proximate cause, where as the socio-economic problems constituted the core for conflict in Nepal.Intensifying elite competitions and mounting economic problems played a crucial role promoting a strong political movement in Nepal nevertheless, the movements would not have been successful, had there been same populations and fewer ethnic grievances. In other words, had there been economic forwarding like in Malaysia, Indonesia, or Thailand, which had ethnic grievances with a similar intensity as in Nepal, the ethnically energized Maoist conflict would not have occurred or succeeded so easily. Michael E. Brown and et. al assert Sustained economic growth, which gives groups, even relatively disadvantages groups, incentives to avoid conflict and destruction of a system that is bringing more and more economic benefits.18With the Maoists armed movement ca using the death of more than 13,000 human lives, and the ethnic mobilization as part and parcel of the Maoist insurgency, the Nepalese conflict graduated from an ethnic conflict to a hybrid conflict. It was a fusion of ethnic grievances of various ethnic groups and the ideological movement of the Maoists. This hybrid conflict was successful mainly because of the Maoists craft to combine ethnic movement with their ideological precepts acquiring the energy of a fusionist movement to fuel their ideological movement. Since this marriage of convenience was primarily think on achieving success for the Maoists rather than to take on seriously solutions to existing ethnic issues.