Interview with Dr. Om Gurung
federal Nepal, the debate surrounding state restructuring is unlikely to be settled in the 12
days before May 28. In the lead up to the crucial deadline, voices both in support and in
opposition to federalism along ethnic lines are getting louder. Among those in support isOm Gurung, head of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and former
Secretary General of the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN). Biswas
Baral and Bidushi Dhungel caught up with him to discuss the rationale behind his
support, the terminology and legalities, and the intricacies of Nepal’s janajati/adivasi
movement.
Dr. Om Gurung
What is your reaction to the proposed 14-state model?
There are technical weaknesses in the model, but in principle, it is fine. The need for such
a model is based on identity and capacity, and this embodies the sentimentality of the
Nepali people. But there should be some revision with regards to names, borders and the
actual number of states. Once the technical issues have been addressed, the model will be
acceptable.
You mentioned identity and capacity, but it seems as though the janajati movement
has focused primarily on the identity aspect.2of 9
State building itself is defined by identity. It’s what brings the nation together. The real
question is whether states based on identity can be self-sustaining or not.
The capacity of a state is secondary to identity. Recently, people have begun to talk about
the capacity of the proposed states in terms of economic viability. But as economic
viability is based on labour force, the states’ viability is determined by the people living
there. It is necessary to consider capacity, but it doesn’t make much sense to prioritise it
over identity. Ultimately, people themselves create capacity.
Why is ethnic federalism necessary?
Ethnic federalism is linked to identity; state building isn’t possible without it. There are
some proposed states that haven’t been decided along ethnic, but rather linguistic,
cultural and geographical lines. Even if we were to allocate states on a solely
geographical basis, there would still be ethnicities that give regions an identity. So the
federal states will give concrete shape to what is already here. In the Nepali context,
federalism will hold theoretical, historical and ideological strength.
How are you defining agradhikar (priority rights)?
In development, it focuses on those who should have a priority over natural resources.
However, in the duration of Nepal’s history, since access to natural resources has been
dictated by politics, agradhikar has a political face. But there seems to be a
misunderstanding between those demanding it and those opposing it. Those demanding it
should not have rights at the expense of everyone else, so those against need not feel
threatened. Neither side should take an extremist position.
There are those that argue that agradhikar is against democratic norms. What do
you think?
This is not true. It will strengthen democracy. While democracy is normally defined by
individual rights, In Nepal we are also talking about collective rights. Our country is
diverse but unequal and though democracy provides equal opportunity, it doesn’t
guarantee everyone equal access. Agradhikar will provide access to people who have
been marginalised even in the course of democratic practice in Nepal.
How would you defend agradhikar to make the people understand?
This is not something that will be in effect forever but only for a certain period of
time. We have said these rights will be in effect for two terms. But some communities
may need it for less than that, while others may need it for longer. It depends on how
quickly the effects are seen.
Some scholars see identities as fluid, and constituted hence not a feasible basis for
federalism.3of 9
I agree to an extent. However, the fundamental identity based on core values remains the
same. For example, I am Gurung, and while there may be behavioural changes within my
community, the identity itself does not change. Although a level of assimilation is
apparent, when opportune moments arise, identities are always invoked. We are cultural
producers and where culture isn’t the same between groups, there should always be a
right to be different. The idea of difference does not change with time.
There is a school of thought that thinks the 14-state model is not pragmatic as many
of the smaller states are not economically viable.
Most economists say a small state like Jadan is not possible. They base their argument on
its infrastructure, resources, arable land, communications and links. But this is just the
present reality and we must look into the future. As I mentioned before, capacity is based
on human capital, knowledge, technologies and a system of opportunity. Human capital
can be mobilised to develop capacity. This is not to say that all the states should be
strictly separate. In asymmetrical federalism, which we will hopefully have in Nepal, a
level of inter-dependency is necessary. This can be managed by the centre.
In recent times it appears as if janajati politics has been divided along partisan lines.
Is this true? And if so, what is causing divisions?
This is true to an extent. But there are on-going discussions on creating collective fronts.
When the janajati movement gained momentum, the political parties all opened janajati
fronts. While this isn’t necessarily bad, they have hijacked our agendas. As a group we
should be neutral to party agendas and focus on our own.
Janajati groups are often accused of promoting the donor driven agenda. How
much of an influence do donors have on setting the janajati agenda?
The donors try to guide and control our agenda. Britain’s Department for International
Development (DFID) wrote a letter to the janajati federation, saying that they had
infringed on the rights of civilians when they called a banda. If donors dictate our agenda
then our movement cannot go forward. If this is the case, we shouldn’t take money from
them. If we do, then it shouldn’t be under any conditions. Donors have their own interests
and limitations. We have to be careful about how much they will actually benefit us. We
shouldn’t expect more, nor can they do any more.
The terms janajati and adivasi are used almost synonymously and their definitions
are still unclear in the Nepali context. Is this problematic?
It’s not easy to define who’s indigenous and who’s not. Certain international standards
provide for country specific definitions. They are indeed different terms with different
connotations. While indigeneity is usually defined by history, janajatis are defined by
social characteristics. Historical presence is a part of the definition, but it’s more to do
with who have been excluded, discriminated against and oppressed by the state. Even4of 9
historically, indigenous peoples (janajati/adivasi) were here prior to those of Aryan
origin. So while it is a bit unclear, the movement is defined in Nepal by marginalisation.
What will the janajati/adivasi agenda be post May 28?
We are open to options. We support CA extension, but there needs to be a clear plan
stating how much time is needed and why. A draft summary dealing with the real issues
later is not acceptable. There are plans for bandas, barricading the CA and more protest
programmes.
How do you sum up the janajati movement?
Self determination is not useless; it is about having the right to determine our own life
and future. It cannot be seen in the colonial context in that the country will break if we
adopt federalism with the right to self determination. This is not our agenda. It’s simply
a movement for rights to a dignified life, respect and inclusion in the state. At the local
level, it’s about self rule and at the centre, about proportional rule.
Source:
http://www.ekantipur.com/2011/05/16/oped/monday-interview/334081.html
Understanding the term “indigenous”
Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not
been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern
understanding of this term based on the following:
• Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the
community as their member.
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
• Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
• Distinct social, economic or political systems
• Distinct language, culture and beliefs
• Form non-dominant groups of society
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive
peoples and communities.
The term “indigenous” has prevailed as a generic term for many years. In some countries, there
may be preference for other terms including tribes, first peoples/nations, aboriginals, ethnic
groups, adivasi, janajati. Occupational and geographical terms like hunter-gatherers, nomads,
peasants, hill people, etc., also exist and for all practical purposes can be used interchangeably
with “indigenous peoples”.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf5of 9
INTERVIEW WITH OM GURUNG: 'We must keep our integrity intact'
Dr Om Gurung, who heads the Napal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NFIN),
is an assistant professor of Central Department of Anthropology, Tribhuwan University.
Dr Gurung holds PhD degree from Cornell University and loves to call himself a social
activist, rather than assistant professor of TU. NFIN has begun to stage a peaceful
protest since Saturday to exert pressure on the government for granting autonomy on the
bases of language, ethnicity and geography. He says that this protest should not affect the
holding of constituent assembly polls. Dr Gurung spoke with Puran P Bista of The
Kathmandu Post, shedding light on how the state should be restructured and ethnic
groups and subgroups be empowered in this country.
EXCERPTS:
Q: Why has your organization been fighting for ethnic rights when the interim
parliament?
Dr Om Gurung: In the current political process, we have given priority to ethnic rights.
The rationale is that in the last 238-year long history, the rights of the ethnic groups have
been denied by the state. The state never tried to address the problems of the ethnic
groups. For example, tribes such as Tharu, Magar, Gurung, Rai, etc are the indigenous
people but their stakes in state administration, judiciary and armed forces, as per the
population, have been minimum. They have been suppressed, oppressed and
marginalized. The state has limited their growth because of the denial of the socioeconomic and political rights. The state continues to exclude them from all kinds of state
welfare schemes. The state benefits directly go into the pockets of those who are in
power. And I think you know who are benefiting from such state-run programs.6of 9
The ethnic groups became poorer. Their languages have been pushed toward extinction.
The indigenous groups have endured the state suppression for long. We can no longer
tolerate such practices. We want our rights to be guaranteed in the constitution to be
drafted after the constituent assembly polls. The first thing is, the state must acknowledge
this fact and restructure it to ensure the rights of indigenous communities. To do so, we
must have stakes in all the decision-making bodies. In other words, our representation
must be granted on the basis of population.
And we have adopted a peaceful means to exert pressure on the government.
Q: Could you be more specific on your demands?
Dr Gurung: The reality is that the state has failed to accommodate us and recognize our
languages, culture and tradition. This is very clear. So long as the current policy of
exclusion or discrimination lasts, the indigenous communities will continue to suffer. We
think that the three aspects should be taken into account before we restructure the state:
Language, communities and geography. Distinct communities settled in particular
geographical areas have distinct languages. The state should be restructured on these
bases. The theoretical objective is to have provisions of self-determination. We have been
claiming "along with the provision of self-determination", which means that an ethnic
community does not enjoy the right to determine the fate of the area it dominates. There
are differences between the "along with self-determination and the provision of selfdetermination".
Q: What are the differences between "the along with self-determination and selfdetermination".
Dr Durung: If we say the provision of self-determination, it can go to the extent of
having a separate state. "Along with self-determination" means the autonomy granted to a
unit that does not enjoy the right to be a separate state.
Q: Does your version of self-determination mean that any ethnic group enjoys no right
to hold plebiscite on whether or not a unit can be part of Nepal?
Dr Gurung: "Along with self-determination" cannot be equated with the demand made
by the Sri Lankan Tamils who have been fighting for a separate Tamil state. "Along with
self-determination" means a separate geographical unit within the country. We have to
take into account the country's integrity and social structure before restructuring it. We
have stayed together for so long. Now, we cannot demand for a separate state. Secondly,
if we look at the geo-political situation, it is very fragile. Our country has been wedged
between two Asian giant countries—China and India. We have to learn from them and
live together. If we demand separate states, there are chances of swallowing these states
by either of these two Asian giants. So, we have to be careful and should not let the
separatist groups have upper hands in deciding the fate of this country. We do need selfdetermination but not to the extent of granting the ethnic groups to opt for a separate
state. It is impossible to think so both in theory and practice.7of 9
Q: But one of the demands made by Madhesi People's Rights Forum and Terai
Janatrantric Mukti Morka is of provision for self-determination. Don't you think so?
Dr Gurung: We, too, have demanded self-determination. But it is absolutely different
from that of MPRF or TJMM. We differ on this count with MPRF. MPRF wants a
separate terai state stretching from Jhapa to Kanchanpur, where over a dozen ethnic
communities are living. They speak different languages, practice different cultures and
traditions. We never let terai be in the hands of a few feudal lords who want to rule the
weak and poor.
A few groups want self-determination for a separate state. We have to grant autonomy on
the basis of language, community and geography. It empowers every community and
provides an opportunity to develop this country.
Q: That means the country does not need to be federalized. There are other political
mechanisms as well, to empower the indigenous communities.
Dr Gurung: No, we are very much for federalism. The structure of the country should be
federal.
Q: What kind of federalism you think will be suitable to this country? Do you see India
as the best example?
Dr Gurung: Again, we define it on the basis of how we draw provisions for selfdetermination. We are not looking for a union sort of federalism as the Soviet Union had,
nor a confederation. Grant autonomy to the unit and empower the local people. We need
a loose and indivisible federal structure, where our sovereignty is kept intact.
Q: Don't you think that we got to look into the economic aspect as well, while
federalizing this country? Is it possible to grant your kind of self- determination to 90
ethnic communities?
Dr Gurung: It should be based on ethnicity. The separate regions are dominated by
separate ethnic communities. For example, Solukhumbu is dominated by Sherpas. If you
visit Manang, you find Manages. In terai, Maithelis, Bhojpuris, Awadis, Tharus etc speak
different languages. So, if it is possible to grant autonomy on the basis of language, then
let us do so. But take for granted that it is not applicable to all parts of the country. Terai
cannot be made a single unit citing Hindi as a binding language. We can grant autonomy
to western and far-western regions on the basis of geography. Whether you call it
Karnali Pradesh or Western Pradesh, we have to make it a separate unit on the basis of
region rather than language. The rest can be split into different units on the basis of
ethnicity. For example, Gandagi Pradesh is dominated by Gurungs, it should be made a
separate unit. Similarly, let us have Magarat Pradesh for Magars.
Q: Economically, the curving of such Pradesh may not be possible as some of them,
you just mentioned, lack adequate resource for sustaining themselves as separate units
of this country.8of 9
Dr Gurung: Yes, we have to see into economic aspect as well. But how are you going to
protect language, preserve culture and practice tradition? Many units could sustain and
revenues generated by some of the units should be allocated to the weaker units.
Q: You have discussed on three aspects—language, ethnicity and geography. Granting
autonomy or self-determination on these aspects may lead to ethnic cleansing as there
would be several minorities living within each unit, and they may face the same sort of
exclusion.
Dr Gurung: All forms of exploitation should not be based on ethnicity. Let us say that
there are several subgroups within the group. The majority represents the unit but the
minorities should also find space in decision-making bodies.
Q: How is it possible?
Dr Gurung: We have to make special arrangements for the subgroups to ensure that they
find voice in all decision-making bodies.
Q: You mean introducing a reservation system as India has done so?
Dr Gurung: Yes, we can go for that. And let us not take only the backward and poor
communities. Within the unit, there could be other communities as well, provided they fall
in the category of minority groups. So, there is no question of ethnic cleansing. We must
accommodate all the communities into the unit to address common problems. We cannot
deny the basic rights and displace them simply because they happen to be subgroups
living in a particular region.
Q: Such ethnic cleansing may not take place in Limbuwan, Khumbuwan or Gandak
region. Can you rule out such possibility in other parts of the country?
Dr Gurung: I have a special reservation. I call it an ethnic violence. We have to
dissociate from such ethnic division and those who promote violence. What is happening
in terai is dangerous. It is gradually taking a shape of ethnic violence whatsoever the
leaders of terai claim it.
Q: Why do you support MPRF then?
Dr Gurung: We have supported on certain issues only. The state exploited the Madhesi
community. It suppressed the rights of the Madhesis for long. We support the
organization that is genuinely fighting for the political rights. We have been unable to
reach an understanding with MPRF because of this reason. First, MPRF talks of federal
structure but on the basis of geography only. They want to have three federal units—
terai, hills and mountains. How can the entire terai be a single unit only? At the most,
they can compromise on a vertical division of the country into 14 zones and 54 districts
only. We do not agree with such political agenda. Don't take that only Madhesis are in
terai. Second, our interpretation of Madhes is different from that of Madhesis. We want
to know where Madhes is. We indigenous communities think that Madhesis are there in
this country but there is no land called Madhes in Nepal. These Madhesis have come9of 9
from Madhyadesh. It is a place between India's Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. So, we call
them Madhesis. The rulers of this country brought them into Nepal. Now they are
demanding a separate Madhes.
The third thing is that the Madhesis want the entire terai to be a separate state. There are
several ethnic communities living in terai. MPRF must acknowledge this fact and seek
our cooperation. Otherwise, we are not going to back the movement, no matter what they
claim and demand.
MPRF talks of proportional representation of total terai. We have told them that
proportional representation should be based on the population of ethnic communities.
The intention of MPRF is to deny the rights of Tharus, Rajbansi, Shanthal and other
minority groups living in terai. It will be dominated by Yadavs, Jhas, Shahs, Mishras, etc
who have been wielding power. (TKP, March 19, 2007)
No comments:
Post a Comment