Form a Unity Government to Strengthen Nepali-Nationhood
Prakash Bom
July 29, 2008
In democracy it is considered reactionary if an individual strikes tactlessly in order to establish the agenda of his or her party, gang or tribe because such spank violates the rule of law. But it is not reasonable for one to fight back in the same manner under a lawful democratic society that might override one´s right for justice. It is a question of ethics in democracy.
That is why people of Nepal are protesting against the rapid humiliation that lately elected vice president Parmananda Jha has committed against the Nepali-nationhood. If VP has genuinely been concerned he could have apologized instead of his attempt to justify why he took the oath in "Hindi". As a matter of fact, he was irresponsible to the entire people of Nepal by taking oath in "Hindi" in favor of Teraian-Nepalis who speak "Hindi" as their second language.
The VP who is burdened to those political parties in Constituent Assembly, which exemplify openly the interest of Hindi-India in pretention of Madhesi-rights above the interest of Nepali-nationhood, is unfortunate. Moreover, the attempt to homogenize entire Teraian-Nepali into "Hindi" tongue is utterly anti-nationalistic. Perhaps main political parties are failing from protecting national integrity of Nepali-nationhood from these political parties´ anti-nationalistic politics.
For example, how tri-alliance of Madhesi People´s Rights Forum (MPRF), Terai Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP) and Sadbhawana Party (SP) took the advantage of the situation to successfully elect their parties´ VP nominee Parmananda Jha trickling down all main political parties - Maoist, NC and UML. Besides, Maoist party was actually not only trickled down but also fell down to the politics of bottomless pit. It is Maoist party, which needs to refocus its position as main political party.
If again Maoists leaderships fail in rebuilding consensus with main political parties NC and UML, the pro-Indian anti-Nepali-nationalist parties will kidnap the government in an attempt to further demoralize Nepali-nationhood with their sneaky agenda like of VP Parmananda Jha´s use of "Hindi" language. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that Maoist party leaderships refocus their position building firm consensus with NC and UML.
The tri-alliance of anti-Nepali-nationalist Madhesi party has the hook ready on target to catch-up with the opportunity. If Maoist leaderships fail to alert their party due to the sudden and uptight decision-making attitude of their eccentric members of Central Secretariats, then the tri-alliance of the anti-Nepali-nationalist party of Constituent Assembly will rush to enforce such agenda antagonistic to Nepali-nationhood. The consequence will be unfortunate for the nation and people of Nepal.
The argument that the leaders of tri-alliance Madhesis made in support of VP´s use of "Hindi" that the nationalism based on national medium of language and uniform cannot be acceptable to them, which in fact is an instance of self-contradictory statement that plot double-standard against Nepali-Nationhood. To the point, Nepali-nationhood is composed of diverse community of multi-ethnic, multi-culture and multi-linguistic. Therefore, all in diversity Maithali, Bhojpuri and Avadhi culture and languages are part and parcel of Nepali-nationhood, but not the package-agenda of Hindi-India of the tri-alliance Madhesi political party.
By all means the Hindi as the national medium of language of India cannot intrude into the state affairs of other nation because it has become popular as second language. If Madhesis´ Madhes represents Hindi-Indian culture and language in the politics of Nepal then Nepali-nationhood and its national integrity will simply be assaulted. This has to be clear to all political parties of Constituent Assembly while forming a unity government to accomplish the fundamental objective of Constituent Assembly.
Nepali-nationhood that is composed of diversity must sustain alone with its origin of culture, linguistic and ethnicity in the contemporary politics of Nepal. For example, the use of diverse Teraian languages such as Maithali, Bhojpuri, Avadhar, Tharu, and Rajbansi in the state affairs of Nepali-nationhood can never offend the patriotic sentiment of people of Nepal. It should rather be national triumph.
However, Teraian-Madhesis imposing Hindi-India forcefully over the Nepali-nationhood is unacceptable because it renders humiliation and doubt. If Hindi evolves as English has as a popular international language then it will eventually be adopted. Otherwise, it is obvious that this is the politics of Indian interest therefore it is suspiciously anti-nationalistic. For that reason, it is aberrantly premature for atypical Madhesi homogeneity that is so ambitious for the greater Madhes with the tongue of Hindi-India.
It has become absolutely necessary that the formation of a new government must protect the integrity of Nepali-nationhood while accomplishing fundamental objective of Constituent Assembly. That is to drafting a new constitution of the federal democratic republic of Nepal. Therefore, to include those political parties in CA, which are vested with the anti-nationalist agenda such as ´Hindi-India´ will be against the interest of the Nepali-nationhood. Such political parties, if they comply with the ethics of democracy then they should stay in opposition.
At this point in the politics of the contemporary Nepal, place for such opposition can be realistic because the questions for the nation and people of Nepal have become whether to dignify the Nepali-nationhood or humiliate; whether to integrate the nation or disintegrate; whether to make democracy inclusive for the aboriginal national ethnicity, culture and language or wipe-out all with the one and only homogeneity of ´Hindi-India´ ethnicity and language.
Basically, politics of Nepal does not necessarily follow the ethics of democracy. Therefore, anti-nationalistic political parties take the unnecessary advantage of the situation. For example, Prime Minister GP Koirala has already resigned yet he is assigned to lead Nepali delegation to the SAARC summit in Sri Lanka without the consensus of other political parties in the interim government. This is utterly unethical practice, which will set bad example in the evolution of Nepali democracy. This can create a golden chance for anti-nationalistic parties to take the unnecessary advantage of the situation.
It is irrational to argue that international community is not aware of the internal political disputes and deadlocks of Nepal. But to SAARC community the Nepali political crises are headlines on their daily news. The UML and Former secretary general of SAARC Yadav Kant Silwal suggestion to send President Ram Baran Yadav on behalf to lead the delegation is the best choice of ethics in democracy that the contemporary democratic Nepal can practice.
The new democratic Nepal can no longer put up with the dirty politics that ends up with political deadlocks, eccentric obstinacies of leaderships, and party-burdened unapologetic VP and Constituent Assembly representatives. If all of them in the contemporary politics of Nepal feel accountable to the Nepali-nationhood then they must comply with the ethics of democracy that they cannot play dirty politics as they wish irrationally. Therefore, as per the norms of forming a new government it is unethical for the political parties of CA, which do not support strengthening Nepali-nationhood, to be the part of the unity government. Similarly, it is unethical of the unity government of CA to include anti-Nepali-nationhood political parties in the cabinet.
That is why people of Nepal are protesting against the rapid humiliation that lately elected vice president Parmananda Jha has committed against the Nepali-nationhood. If VP has genuinely been concerned he could have apologized instead of his attempt to justify why he took the oath in "Hindi". As a matter of fact, he was irresponsible to the entire people of Nepal by taking oath in "Hindi" in favor of Teraian-Nepalis who speak "Hindi" as their second language.
The VP who is burdened to those political parties in Constituent Assembly, which exemplify openly the interest of Hindi-India in pretention of Madhesi-rights above the interest of Nepali-nationhood, is unfortunate. Moreover, the attempt to homogenize entire Teraian-Nepali into "Hindi" tongue is utterly anti-nationalistic. Perhaps main political parties are failing from protecting national integrity of Nepali-nationhood from these political parties´ anti-nationalistic politics.
For example, how tri-alliance of Madhesi People´s Rights Forum (MPRF), Terai Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP) and Sadbhawana Party (SP) took the advantage of the situation to successfully elect their parties´ VP nominee Parmananda Jha trickling down all main political parties - Maoist, NC and UML. Besides, Maoist party was actually not only trickled down but also fell down to the politics of bottomless pit. It is Maoist party, which needs to refocus its position as main political party.
If again Maoists leaderships fail in rebuilding consensus with main political parties NC and UML, the pro-Indian anti-Nepali-nationalist parties will kidnap the government in an attempt to further demoralize Nepali-nationhood with their sneaky agenda like of VP Parmananda Jha´s use of "Hindi" language. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that Maoist party leaderships refocus their position building firm consensus with NC and UML.
The tri-alliance of anti-Nepali-nationalist Madhesi party has the hook ready on target to catch-up with the opportunity. If Maoist leaderships fail to alert their party due to the sudden and uptight decision-making attitude of their eccentric members of Central Secretariats, then the tri-alliance of the anti-Nepali-nationalist party of Constituent Assembly will rush to enforce such agenda antagonistic to Nepali-nationhood. The consequence will be unfortunate for the nation and people of Nepal.
The argument that the leaders of tri-alliance Madhesis made in support of VP´s use of "Hindi" that the nationalism based on national medium of language and uniform cannot be acceptable to them, which in fact is an instance of self-contradictory statement that plot double-standard against Nepali-Nationhood. To the point, Nepali-nationhood is composed of diverse community of multi-ethnic, multi-culture and multi-linguistic. Therefore, all in diversity Maithali, Bhojpuri and Avadhi culture and languages are part and parcel of Nepali-nationhood, but not the package-agenda of Hindi-India of the tri-alliance Madhesi political party.
By all means the Hindi as the national medium of language of India cannot intrude into the state affairs of other nation because it has become popular as second language. If Madhesis´ Madhes represents Hindi-Indian culture and language in the politics of Nepal then Nepali-nationhood and its national integrity will simply be assaulted. This has to be clear to all political parties of Constituent Assembly while forming a unity government to accomplish the fundamental objective of Constituent Assembly.
Nepali-nationhood that is composed of diversity must sustain alone with its origin of culture, linguistic and ethnicity in the contemporary politics of Nepal. For example, the use of diverse Teraian languages such as Maithali, Bhojpuri, Avadhar, Tharu, and Rajbansi in the state affairs of Nepali-nationhood can never offend the patriotic sentiment of people of Nepal. It should rather be national triumph.
However, Teraian-Madhesis imposing Hindi-India forcefully over the Nepali-nationhood is unacceptable because it renders humiliation and doubt. If Hindi evolves as English has as a popular international language then it will eventually be adopted. Otherwise, it is obvious that this is the politics of Indian interest therefore it is suspiciously anti-nationalistic. For that reason, it is aberrantly premature for atypical Madhesi homogeneity that is so ambitious for the greater Madhes with the tongue of Hindi-India.
It has become absolutely necessary that the formation of a new government must protect the integrity of Nepali-nationhood while accomplishing fundamental objective of Constituent Assembly. That is to drafting a new constitution of the federal democratic republic of Nepal. Therefore, to include those political parties in CA, which are vested with the anti-nationalist agenda such as ´Hindi-India´ will be against the interest of the Nepali-nationhood. Such political parties, if they comply with the ethics of democracy then they should stay in opposition.
At this point in the politics of the contemporary Nepal, place for such opposition can be realistic because the questions for the nation and people of Nepal have become whether to dignify the Nepali-nationhood or humiliate; whether to integrate the nation or disintegrate; whether to make democracy inclusive for the aboriginal national ethnicity, culture and language or wipe-out all with the one and only homogeneity of ´Hindi-India´ ethnicity and language.
Basically, politics of Nepal does not necessarily follow the ethics of democracy. Therefore, anti-nationalistic political parties take the unnecessary advantage of the situation. For example, Prime Minister GP Koirala has already resigned yet he is assigned to lead Nepali delegation to the SAARC summit in Sri Lanka without the consensus of other political parties in the interim government. This is utterly unethical practice, which will set bad example in the evolution of Nepali democracy. This can create a golden chance for anti-nationalistic parties to take the unnecessary advantage of the situation.
It is irrational to argue that international community is not aware of the internal political disputes and deadlocks of Nepal. But to SAARC community the Nepali political crises are headlines on their daily news. The UML and Former secretary general of SAARC Yadav Kant Silwal suggestion to send President Ram Baran Yadav on behalf to lead the delegation is the best choice of ethics in democracy that the contemporary democratic Nepal can practice.
The new democratic Nepal can no longer put up with the dirty politics that ends up with political deadlocks, eccentric obstinacies of leaderships, and party-burdened unapologetic VP and Constituent Assembly representatives. If all of them in the contemporary politics of Nepal feel accountable to the Nepali-nationhood then they must comply with the ethics of democracy that they cannot play dirty politics as they wish irrationally. Therefore, as per the norms of forming a new government it is unethical for the political parties of CA, which do not support strengthening Nepali-nationhood, to be the part of the unity government. Similarly, it is unethical of the unity government of CA to include anti-Nepali-nationhood political parties in the cabinet.