http://nepaldalitinfo.net/2007/07/08/256/
Inclusion of Dalits By DR KHAGENDRA N SHARMA During the post Janandolan II, various issues of inclusion have been articulated and sharpened by various communities, agencies, organizations and individuals. The most glaring example that emerged was that of the Madhesi issue followed by that of the indigenous and ethnic communities. Women's inclusion has also been favorably considered and lobbied. But the Dalit issue has not been pushed as hard as the other issues have been. The House of Representatives (HOR) declared Nepal a state free from untouchable. Are the Dalits flattered that they are no more untouchable? Has the untouchable factor really gone? Why else is there no heat in the Dalit campaign for equitable inclusion in the power structure? In legal terms, the untouchable factor had been abolished in 1964 amendment of the old Civil Code which was the basis not only for the courts but also for the entire social system. Even in the Panchayat system that stood for the preservation of old values, there was no provision for caste discrimination and some Dalit representation was visible here and there. But there was a great discrimination in behavioral terms. This distinction has to be noted and evaluated whether there has been a real difference. In legal terms, the HOR declaration is weaker than the amendment of 1964 which had the force of a law. In practical matters, the caste discrimination still persists. Dalits are still physically assaulted for just touching the person or the food or drink of the upper caste and tortured as a form of punishment. The distribution pattern of Dalits has made them a minority community throughout the country. This is one main reason why the Dalit voice is not very loud and daunting. Contrasted with this, the ethnic communities are area specific and they are in a majority in each respective geographic region. There is a Limbu area, a Rai area, a Magar area, a Tharu area; but there is no Kami area, no Damai area, no Sarki area, no Kasai area and so on. So, when Limbus can call for a Limbuwan autonomy, or the Tharus can call for a Tharuwan autonomy, the Kamis and Damais or the Sarkis cannot call for a Kamiwan autonomy, or a Sarkiwan autonomy, or Damaiyan autonomy. There is no area specific reference also in the case of the Brahmins and the Chhetris, but there is a big difference. The Brahmin-Chhetri combine holds politico-economic power and social influence. In fact it is this superimposing status of the Brahmin-Chhetri combine that has triggered most of the present socio-political controversy. The social discrimination factor is present not only between the Dalit and the high caste people, but it is also equally present between the various Dalit castes themselves. It is this inter-community discrimination that is impeding the growth of the Dalits as a class. They can neither claim the autonomy on a regional basis like the ethnic communities, nor can they have a strong organization which requires solidarity among the participating communities. Most of the Dalit population can be characterized as illiterate, poor and destitute. They are, therefore, always vulnerable. They are economically exploited, socially despised and politically weakened. They have the least access to all channels of socio-economic enhancement. Although the Dalits are the most deprived class in the Nepali context, they have some very good and strong qualities. As they do not have an area specific identity, they have the national identity. This is the best ground for the consolidation of a strong nation. In the context of building a new federal structure, the Dalits can retain a total national identity. (In this sense, the Brahmin-Chhetri combine also fall on the same ground: one good side in an otherwise oppressive class.) The ethnic groups have not addressed the issues of the Dalit communities, because they feel that the Dalits are the hybrids of the Brahmin-Chhetri combine and they are not the indigenous Mongoloid stock as most of the ethnic groups are. However, the ethnic communities are depriving themselves, by this means, of a great support from the Dalit class. The Dalits constitute about 15 percent of the Nepali population. Their combined strength could have worked as a greater pressure than the recent Madhesi movement. The ethnic identity is a negative pressure for the division of the nation into federal units. Such a partisan tactics weakens the social fabric that sustains a nation. Instead, the call for the formation of federal units should be based on the common aspirations of the people living together in a contiguous geographical region, bound by socio-historical bonds. Supposing a division on the basis of ethnic identity is conceded as the basis of a federal structure, several inter-communal questions will emerge. What will happen to the other minority communities? Will the ethnic state declare a permanent war against those communities that are different from the ethnic state group? Will it always regard the Brahmin-Chhetri combine as their superior enemy as of now, and guard against their entry into the new power structure? Will the ethnic state regard the Dalit communities as a subordinate class and continue to mistreat it? Will the issue of inclusion end with the establishment of an ethnic state? Will the ethnic state ask or order the other communities to evacuate their state? Will it not be paranoia to pursue a policy of ethnic cleansing? It is evident that the Dalits are the most deprived groups, wherever they are living. The ethnic groups have nothing to lose in lobbying for the cause of the Dalits. In fact, they can gain a nationwide support for their cause of autonomy: an autonomy that is holistic in goal setting. The autonomy should be for the entire people living in a specific area or region. A call for such a regional identity will not only get spontaneous support of the local or regional people, but will also create a viable local unit within a unified, strong nation. The major ethnic group or groups living in a specific region will obviously get the major portion of the cake of power, but they will be hardly able to eat the cake if the other components of the region are not given a proportional share of the cake. Given the multiethnic nature of Nepali society, the inclusion issue is an issue of national integration. We are not trying to break the nation into incompatible psychological units. Nor are we trying to build a pyramid of tribal states or units. The ethnic call for federalization can have a greater logic and strength by including the Dalit aspirations in their present agenda. Conversely, the Dalit movement will also create a greater political arena by aligning with the ethnic movement. The Dalits should also take two simultaneous initiatives. First, they should start a war to do away with their inter community discrimination. Second, they should join hands with the ethnic groups in settling the inclusion issues. ] The Dalit community had a miraculous success in the recent election held in India's UP state under the charismatic leadership of Mayawati. The Brahmins also accepted her leadership and they were accommodated in her electoral strategy. If a Hindu conservative UP can be ruled by a Dalit woman leader, why can't a similar strategy succeed in an equally conservative Nepali society? The Indian constitution was drafted by a Dalit scholar. India also put one Dalit as its president. A Dalit President of the Democratic Republic of Nepal is not a distant picture. This view can be the culmination of the inclusion issue. Source: eKantipur.com.
