Nepal's Failed Unification?

Rishikesh Ram Bhandari

As different Nepal and Liberia are, there exist important commonalities in regime hegemonies, state structure and social exclusivity that are crucial in understanding Nepal's current transition. Both of these relatively new states are struggling to establish their identities and cast away historical legacies that have restricted multidimensional national expression. Comparing histories from the very outset to the current day, we find some compelling parallels.ParallelsIn order to extinguish the problems of slavery by repatriation to Africa, the United States established the American Colonisation Society (ACS). The freed slaves, called Americo Liberians, started a colony, defeating numerous little kingdoms and ultimately gaining independence from the United States in 1847. On the other side of the hemisphere, a few decades earlier, Prithvinarayan Shah waged his unification campaign to create a modern Nepal. His dream took shape once he captured the three kingdoms in the Kathmandu Valley. After independence, the ACS had to consolidate a deeply divided nation. Naming itself from the Latin liberare, Liberia was confined only to capital Monrovia, which was occupied by the Americo Liberians. The indigenous Liberians had not been absorbed into the national mainstream and did not identify with this imposed 'Liberia'. The Americo Liberians made use of existing tribal chieftaincies to extend their domain. As a result, the chieftains got a fused role, both as the customary lawgiver as the local clan chief and an administrative role of the new government in Monrovia.After Prithvinarayan Shah and the subsequent Shah Kings conquered the baise and chaubise rajyas, the subjugated kingdoms' rulers were still kept in place, only to be governed from Kathmandu. Thus, the rajas became administrative functionaries of the Shah Kings, and it is through the conduit of such minor kings that the capital was able to extend its control. In this way, the minor kings maintained equilibrium between the Shah King and the subjects.When ACS created its colony, it did not do so by taking over one nation, but numerous little ethnic entities. Similarly, Prithvinarayan Shah did not usurp only one national consciousness. There was no overarching identity space that Prithvinarayan Shah had filled with his cavalry. Because of this, it was hard, ideologically, for the kingdoms to unite in expulsing the aggressors. Furthermore, as the deposed kings were still in considerable power as they were given administrative functions under the new Nepal, they lacked enough incentive to revolt and were absorbed into the ruling class. As a result, a distinct two-layered rule was created - the ruling class and the ruled. This crafted state structure allowed Prithvinarayan Shah to wield force to maintain a politically unified (yet) divided nation.In both countries, the state existed as a vacuous shell, and the diverse ethnicities never became incorporated into the mainstream. It was necessary for the ruler to exercise absolute hegemony to keep the state intact. Liberians did this by making the True Whig Party the sole party and extending membership only to Americo Liberians, hence on social lines. Indigenous Liberians were even yet to be called citizens of the state. The Shahs and the Ranas employed the same strategy by keeping the monarchy and ultimately the oligarchy intact by limiting power within the thakuri kshetriyas. The feudal land structure reinforced the Rajas' hegemony down to the village and also became a tool to further suppress the marginalised. Prithvinarayan Shah's much touted chaar jaat chhattis barna ko fulbaari (garden of four castes and thirty six sub-castes) is reduced to mere propaganda (rhetorical ploy) when we see how social cohesion was based not on an egalitarian playing field for all castes but a distinct hierarchy that subjugated identities of every ethnicity outside the maharaja's aristocracy. The scramble for Africa internally buttressed the TWP as it had to ward off imperialistic forces. Americo Liberians even used indigenous Liberians as bonded labourers to encourage investment for plantations, later on drawing the attention of the League of Nations. On the other hand, the East India Company had been sending off aggressive signals which Prithvinarayan Shah tried to counter by hastening his unification campaign to forge a strong nation. Ultimately, the Ranas used the extractive framework to gain support from the East India Company by exporting people as mercenaries for the British army. The Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 and the two world wars are prime examples. The Gurkhas were allegedly welcomed into the British troops for their bravery and valiant behaviour, but we must realise that this was a form of slave trade grounded on foreign policy objectives, repression and economic destitution, and is a form of resource plunder.After more than 150 years of hegemonic rule, an indigenous Liberian, Samuel Doe toppled the Americo Liberians' regime promising a new Liberia. However, as the state ACS-TWP crafted state structure had been so embedded that he found it easier to operate in the system rather that to bring change. The same situation resulted in Nepal when the political parties gained power. The democracy they brought in was not inclusive and participatory. It was only with the sheer force of the April movement that the ethnic minorities started to really clamp down about their rights and identities. Since King Gyanendra had been symbolically vanquished, the ethnic minorities who had been subjugated to maintain the garden of Prithvinarayan Shah started to display the deep divisions that were never dealt with since the unification process started two centuries ago. Once a hegemonic structure is toppled, the repressed identities come to surface. The ethnic issues that are being raised are a result of the improper unification process based on imposing a coercive and extractive feudal structure. LessonsLiberia is well into post conflict reconstruction and reconciliation. Nepal needs to learn an important lesson about ethnicity from Liberia. There are important lessons that Nepal can learn from Liberia. Labelling ethnic tensions as mere political propaganda of the regressive royalists shall only serve to elude us about the suppressed ethnic tension. We need to realise that ethnic tensions could not have been played up if cleavages had not existed in the first place. Therefore, all effort must be taken to create a new and inclusive participatory democracy.

Source: The Rising Nepal, August 1, 2007