Submit your Article

Can an academician from South America, who just retired this month after 30 years of teaching at Yale, be useful in proposing an alternative view of federalism in Nepal? 

Walter Mignolo, for 30 years a professor at Yale, is one of the most foremost theorists on decoloniality, a concept much broader than decolonization. At its foundations, decoloniality is about getting rid of the structure of powers that are still shaped and controlled by the same hegemonic forces that were the drivers of colonization. 

As we know, over the last few years, there has been a lot of noise about amending the constitution that Nepal adapted in 2015. The regressive forces are asking for a return of a centralized state under the emblem of the monarchy and return of Hinduism as the official state religion. 

The forces obstructing the enforcement of federalism are driven by an attitude or mindset that rows against devolution of powers to local levels. Pushing back, there are those who have, essentially, embraced federalism but want to twist it, making it more effective. 

There are also forces like the Rastriya Swatantra Party that want to dramatically reshape the federal structure by curtailing the power of provinces. The most common-sense position is one centered on implementing the current provisions as they stand. Amid this complex and sensitive debate, we often forget to hear the voices of indigenous nationalities of the country. It is here that Mignolo’s ideas come to the fore. 

I asked RK Tamang, an indigenous rights activist and a strong follower of Mignolo’s ideas, how the concept of “decoloniality” can be turned around in the context of Nepal. His answer: “Making Nepal a plurinational state”.

“This constitution failed to address the aspirations of indigenous nationalities, which have been fighting for a plurinational state for long”, he explained to me. Indigenous people represent the largest part of the population and because of the unequal power relations that still prevail in the country, most of their voices and concerns remain disregarded. A large, though not the whole section of indigenous people of Nepal, consider themselves as members of different indigenous nationalities.

The National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities (NFDIN) Act defines “indigenous nationalities (Adivasi Janajati) as distinct communities having their own mother tongues, traditional cultures, written and unwritten histories, traditional homeland and geographical areas, plus egalitarian social structures. One of the major confusions about empowering indigenous nationalities is related to the often-misunderstood concept of ethnic federalism that is perceived as a dangerous tool that could disintegrate the nation.

Yet at the core of the aspirations of indigenous nationalities is the concept of a plurinational state. There is still a lot of theoretical and conceptual work that must be addressed and there are still several open questions on how indigenous nationalities can be shaped up and organized and guaranteed their statehood. According to Tamang, indigenous nationalities have been facing internal colonization for centuries and are stateless nations and despite the abrogation of monarchy and the creation of a more inclusive federal polity, the structure of power has not changed. “The state-bearing nations promulgated the new constitution in 2015, surpassing the stateless indigenous nations, which legitimized the coloniality in the federal democratic republic of Nepal”, he told me in an interview.  

First his perspective, those indigenous activists calling for a recognition of their nationalities do so within the framework of a present Nepal. None of them is calling for a breakup of Nepal as a state. It means that the concept of indigenous nationalities, while recognizing their traditions and practices belonging to different ethnic groups, is not exclusive in nature but inclusive, rather. “All groups, including those who have been historically on the top of Hindu hierarchy, have an equal role to play” Tamang explains to me. In short, no one is excluded.

All citizens are equal, so even citizens not belonging to indigenous natalities, like Chettri, Madhesis and Brahmin will have full rights like anyone else. This is a major key point: No one is calling for a dissolution of Nepal as a state but rather there is a call for restructuring the present Hindu hierarchy into social engineering based on national sovereignty. “Within a plurinational state, nations will exercise their power according to a new constitution based on the concept of shared sovereignty,” he added. Importantly and essentially, both in theory and practice. 

The plurinational state will guarantee two aspects of stateless nations: First self-governance and second self-determination of their future. Let’s not forget that self-determination is already a key cornerstone of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People of which Nepal is a signatory. Importantly, we cannot simplify and generalize self-determination with independence. State-bearing nations have to revendate the state in order to end colonialism, given Mignolo’s maxim that coloniality is “not over but it’s all over”. 

Plurinational democracy will revendate the democracy to the stateless nations, and based on it, the plurinational state will revendicate the state as the decolonial state. “If the Nepali state-bearing nation fails to satisfy both past grievances of the Indigenous nationalities and future aspirations for greater self-determination, the political flux will prolong, and Nepal will fail to develop in the 21st century as well” Tamang believes. In short, Tamang proposes for Nepal to allow political autonomy that reflects the historical and cultural presence of the main ethnic groups living in the area. There is still a lot to discuss about what this means in practice. One of the key points being proposed is the fact that traditional rules and forms of governance belonging to Indigenous nationalities should be, somehow, in place. 

Again, it is important to clarify that such embracement of Indigenous governance system does not create a new hierarchy of power where those belonging to indigenous groups or as Tamang prefers to refer to them as nations, have equal powers and privileges as the state-bearing nations have today. Another theoretical framework at the base of the concept of plurinational is provided by Professor Michael Keating who wrote a magistral book in 2000 titled “Plurinational Democracy: Stateless Nations in a post-sovereignty era”.

At the core of its work, there is the idea that there is no just one concept of sovereignty that is self-perpetuating and imposed upon the people. “I have used the term ‘post-sovereignty’ not to indicate a world without any principles of authority and legitimacy, but to indicate that sovereignty in its traditional sense, in which it is identified exclusively with the independent state, is no more. Rather there are multiple sites of ‘sovereign’, in the sense of original authority”, Prof Keating writes. 

One major caveat is that the book mostly refers to western settings, specifically efforts to transform central states into plurinational entities. The focus is, for example, on Canada, Belgium, Spain and Italy. So, transferring the ideas of plurinational states in a diverse country like Nepal is another level of challenge, especially where ethnic and cultural groups are vastly intermingled. 

Imagine an area where indigenous populations have a clear and undeniable historic presence. There, some customary laws could be adopted if they are aligned with key foundational values and principles of human rights. 

Some indigenous forms of governance could also be implemented as long as they are respectful of the rights of those not belonging to the indigenous group, who is, numerically speaking, more predominant. Such a system could hardly do away with the existing model of liberal democracy based on political parties even though deliberative democracy could offer an answer to accommodating different groups and perspectives. The same deliberative democracy model could be used in urban settings where it is almost impossible to even conceptualize the indigenous nationality model. Yet, for example, in the case of the Kathmandu Valley, where Newari culture has been for centuries the only one on the ground, some accommodations of traditional and customary laws could be imagined.

I have severe doubts and reservations on the modality of reshaping Nepal based on indigenous nationalities. Yet it is important to understand a point of view that has been neglected for so long. Ultimately, listening to the concerns and demands of indigenous activists willing to reshape the governance of Nepal without dismantling it is a worthy thing. The journey toward creating a functional model of local governance co-existing with modern legislations that also include human rights is not going to be easy. 

All in all, I believe that it is essential to make an effort and try to answer the following question: Can Nepal imagine re-building its core structure from an indigenous perspective?

Concept

The concept of the term ‘Inclusion’ is really very significant, democratic and justice-based in view of contemporary world politics. An affirmative action to eliminate and erase discrimination and oppression based on factors like class, caste (racial), region and gender, this social justice-based concept is recognized by world bodies like the United Nations as well as democratic-progressive political forces around the world.

South Asian scenario

This concept is very popular and resilient in South Asian politics because the aforementioned discrimination and oppression run deep in South Asian societies. Different South Asian countries have introduced a slew of legal provisions for bringing up their marginalized groups into the political mainstream through affirmative action (positive discrimination) resulting from reservation and representation systems. Indian democracy is one of the unique and welcoming examples of this kind.

Indian scenario

India has a long history of reservation system and affirmative action, introduced for mainstreaming of marginalized groups in the State architecture. India’s political history shows that a relatively weak regime of reservation system and affirmative action was in place even during the British rule. In 1979, the Mandal Commission gave some concrete recommendations to strengthen the regime, based on which the Modi 2.0 government further expanded the regime in 2019, ensuring 10 percent reservation for economically weaker sections of the general category in educational institutions and government jobs.  At central government-funded higher education institutions in India, 22.5 percent of available seats are for students from Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities—7.5 percent for STs and 15 percent for SCs). This reservation percentage has been raised to 49.5 percent by including an additional 27 percent reservation for other backward classes (OBCs).

Nepali scenario

The issue of inclusion got legal and political recognition in Nepal mainly after the peoples’ revolution of the year 2006 through the Interim Parliament and the Interim Constitution of 2007 whereas the Constitution of Nepal 2015 institutionalized it. Articles 42, 50 and 283 of the 2015 Charter have ‘guaranteed’ the rights of marginalized communities for representation (inclusion) in different bodies and organs of the State. While some Acts are already in place for enforcing inclusion, some Bills are under consideration in the Parliament.

The yardstick

Let’s examine the Narendra Modi 3.0 government and the Pushpa Kamal Dahal government through the lens of inclusion. In India, a 72-member Council of Ministers has taken shape under Modi, comprising 30 full Cabinet ministers, six ministers of state with independent charge and 36 ministers of state. Seven of these ministers are women—two Cabinet ministers and five ministers of state, constituting about 10 percent of the Cabinet’s strength. Of the 72 Cabinet members, 42 are from marginalized communities (accounting for around 58 percent representation of the Cabinet) and 27 from OBCs, comprising 37.5 percent of the Cabinet. Five are from STs, comprising around 7 percent of the Cabinet and 10 are from SCs, accounting for about 14 percent of the Cabinet. 

Nepal’s Council of Ministers has 23 members—22 full Cabinet members and one Minister of State.

Gender-wise, five of the 23 members are women—two from Janajati communities and one each from Khas-Arya 1, Madhesi and Muslim communities—accounting, roughly, for 22 percent of the Cabinet. 

Ethnicity-wise, 11 of the 23 Cabinet members are from the Khas-Arya (ruling) community, constituting around 48 percent of the Cabinet, seven from Janjati communities (30 percent of the Cabinet) and four from Madhesi communities (around 17 percent) and one from the Muslim community (around 4 percent of the Cabinet). Notably, there’s no Dalit representation in the Cabinet.

Takeaways

Drawing a comparison between the two cabinets, we can say without hesitation that India’s Cabinet is more inclusive than Nepal’s. Members of marginalized communities account for more than half of the Indian Cabinet’s strength (58 percent), with all legally-recognized marginalized groups represented.

In the case of Nepal, there’s no Dalit representation in the Cabinet, which is totally unjust and inappropriate as well as politically and legally objectionable. Representation of Madhesi communities and women representation is quite low whereas the representation of the Khas-Arya community (the ruling caste group) is pretty high.

This, despite very positive and encouraging constitutional provisions vis-a-vis inclusion, thanks to a lack of full implementation of relevant provisions and political commitments. The Constitution talks about discrimination and oppression on the bases of class, caste (ethnicity), region and gender and envisages legal remedies for ensuring justice and equality. Top leadership of different political parties should have the will to implement relevant constitutional provisions and their own commitments to do away with discrimination and oppression.

Way forward 

World bodies like the United Nations have incorporated this important agenda in their policies, programs and actions. Moreover, discrimination and oppression is a political as well as a social agenda of class societies in general and multidimensional societies in particular. In today’s world, no political force can ignore or reject this agenda as it has gone global. It can be a source of conflict as well as a source of peace, harmony and social stability. The time has come for Nepal’s political leadership to choose between social conflict and social harmony. Time has come for our leadership to truly internalize the agenda and work for the protection of inclusive democracy and maintenance of peace, stability and social harmony in the country.

[email protected] 

The Indian electorate has evolved to a point that it might be incorrect to assume that the average Indian voter is not affected by foreign policy as a political issue. Foreign policy has been an elite discussion mostly with a class angle attached to it, where it used to dominate in urban centers only. But it has been observed since the last parliamentary elections held in 2019 that foreign policy has been traveling from elite dinner table conversations to a much more democratized space. This is highly observant in the campaigning style of the political players where Bharatiya Janata Party has juiced out every opportunity of projecting India’s rising image in the globe through its ultra successful diplomatic victory in the recently held G20 Summit. The leading opposition parties like Indian National Congress, also acknowledges the power of foreign policy and thus reflects its vision for India in multiple pages of its election manifesto, elaborating on its foreign policy and security goals.

Winning for the third term under Narendra Modi, Bharatiya Janata Party has a strong track record with respect to foreign policy that it is showcasing to its electorate. The growing importance of foreign policy has to be understood in the context of India’s strategic positionality in the global world order and how an average Indian has reacted to this rising brand of India.

Domestic vs foreign policy agendas

If we examine other countries, this trend will not remain unique to just India, for instance public opinion regarding foreign policy has affected electoral results, but mostly in conflict periods. With the single exception of Atal Bihari Vajyaee, foreign policy and national security concerns have been leveraged as equivalent to domestic political agendas. India’s 1998 nuclear test was emphasized during his political campaign, quite in sync with Modi’s post 2014 election campaigning, which had significant emphasis given to public diplomacy as well his presence in high-level visits all across the globe. A 2023 survey done by Lokniti CSDS and NDTV showed that 63 percent of respondents reported that India’s global status has risen since Modi assumed office. While it is unclear whether foreign policy and the perception of India on the global stage offer greater electoral benefits than domestic issues like inflation and development, foreign policy plays a significant role in influencing public sentiment, casually called the “mood” of the elections.

The Indian brand

India’s journey in the global arena is not restricted to its trajectory post 2014. Prior to that, India has been playing a critical role in one of the most powerful multilateral setups, but what remains striking is its shift from being a “balancing” power to a “ leading one”, as argued by Milan Vaishnav and Caroline Mallory. While India’s multipolar setup is not new, its rise as a principal agent in this multipolar world is definitely new. Despite western criticism and pressure, India kept purchasing Russian oil since the war in Ukraine and has maintained close ties with a natural ally like Moscow. Last June, at a panel in Bratislava, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar faced questions about this controversial choice, and he responded.” Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems”. While diplomats like Ashok Kantha argue that India’s foreign policy has not changed drastically, but its style has changed, the above-mentioned statement from an external affairs minister, which later garnered millions of views in social media, projects how India’s robust foreign policy choices have become great electoral brownie points.

The public display of India’s contemporary style of  foreign policy has another significant feature i.e. criticizing western standards of benchmarking democracy and western media in projecting an opinion on its national issues. Although Indo-US relations remain strong, India’s position in this multipolar swing set remains crucial in making sense of its strategic autonomy. While being criticized for maintaining relations with Russia, during the ongoing war against Ukraine, and alleged assassination allegations of a Khalistani separatist in a foreign land, the Indian messaging aligns with its ‘national sentiment’ of choosing what is right for them, rather than what is deemed to be right by the West. This is also consistent with a recent announcement by the Modi government, that India will come up with a homegrown democracy ratings index which is supposed to reflect Indian narratives regarding its democratic principles and practice rather than western rankings.

Conclusion

It is to be noted that the changing nature of the global order has a huge impact on the way foreign policy is growing as an election topic in democracies like India. With the continuous rise of powers like China, the United States has been increasingly being questioned about its legitimacy of being the strategic security provider of the world. With conflict-stricken Eurasia and currently even the Middle East, China seems to be heavily invested in creating an alternative to the west-dominated liberal international order. The fragmentation of this order, however, has given a good chance for rising powers like India, which want to position themselves carefully yet robustly. India’s growing economy, diplomatic positions in multilateral bodies and its overall rising image, is testament to this evolution of this robust foreign policy strategy. And this has found a way back home, where the government has projected the idea of “Amrit Kaal”, which is quite simply opening up the grandeur nation to the world, from “twelve centuries of slavery”. 

However, this growing importance of foreign policy implications in national elections requires a much more nuanced inquiry. As argued by Vipin Narang, it seems unclear as to how the foreign policy successes have a positive impact in projecting a government’s global stance, but it does not suffer from any downside from supposedly contested foreign policy failures, for instance Chinese incursions in the LAC. In addition, it can be argued that foreign policy might just be an important impact factor in influencing national sentiments, but it needs to be balanced carefully in order to not risk India’s relations with international players, just for electoral benefits back home.

The author is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies. He is currently pursuing his doctorate from National University of Juridical Sciences, India specializing in South Asian Politics and Conflict Studies

The year 2024 is considered the largest election year ever in the world, with at least 64 countries and around 2bn people expected to participate in the electoral process. Countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mexico, the US, Russia, and Brazil hold significant national, regional, and global elections this year. 

As the world’s largest democracy, India's elections are watched carefully both globally and in Nepal. Stretched over six weeks, conducted in seven phases, and contested for 543 seats in 28 states and eight union territories, India's recent parliamentary election is over. A new government has been formed. However, the consequences, takeaways, and key concerns of the electoral process will be discussed and analyzed for weeks and months to come.

Despite its political significance, the electoral operation itself is overwhelming due to the world record numbers participating. Out of 968m eligible voters, 642m voted, of which 312m were women, marking the largest women’s participation in any election.

Elections are not only about who gets elected and who does not. Analyzing elections merely on the basis of winners and losers is not understanding elections as a multifaceted process that requires the engagement of multiple stakeholders, including but not limited to political parties, civil society actors, the diverse demography of the country, media, general voters, electoral management bodies, and security forces.

While political pundits have been analyzing the outcomes and consequences of the election results, my observations are primarily focused on elections as both a multifaceted technical process and a people-centric process.

Role of EMBs

In a well-functioning democracy, Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) play a critical role beyond simply conducting periodic elections. They act as impartial referees, ensuring transparency throughout the process and ensuring trust among all electoral participants. EMBs are responsible for creating a level playing field for all actors involved.

While perception matters a lot, the recent Indian elections raised concerns about the Election Commission's (EC) effectiveness and credibility in these areas. The EC faced criticism for remaining silent when prominent figures from both the ruling party and the opposition opted for hate speech. Additionally, questions arose regarding the EC's monitoring of media coverage and its response to the spread of electoral misinformation and disinformation. Some independent candidates further alleged that attempts to register their candidacies in the constituencies of the Prime Minister and Home Minister were inexplicably blocked on minor administrative grounds.

Shrinking media and civic space 

Critics have increasingly expressed concern about the shrinking of civic and media space in India over the past decade. A healthy democracy thrives on a diverse, inclusive and independent media landscape, and the current climate poses a significant threat. India’s ranking of 159th out of 180 countries on the World Press Freedom Index paints a concerning picture.

The understood pressure to act as government mouthpieces has pushed many mainstream private television channels toward self-censorship. This, in turn, has pushed some prominent journalists to start their own independent YouTube channels, where they can potentially reach wider audiences than through the now-constrained mainstream media.

Furthermore, while the government spends millions on public awareness campaigns, these funds are often directed toward media outlets that toe the official line. This leaves many independent journalists reliant on YouTube monetization for their livelihood, creating a system where financial sustainability is contingent on editorial decisions.

National vs local

Despite efforts to set the national narratives, the Indian elections highlighted the continued importance and relevance of local and regional concerns for voters in the federal republic. While religion is becoming a significant factor in Indian politics, caste continues to exert a powerful influence. Notably, Dalits, the historically marginalized community at the bottom of the social hierarchy, appear to have made their voices heard this election cycle. Some new faces in the parliament are from Dalit community, including some young women leaders. 

Social media and AI 

When it comes to the use of social media, many election pundits say that the 2014 Indian election was a “Facebook election”, 2019 became the “WhatsApp election”, and 2024 is shaping up to be the “YouTube and short video/reel election.” This also shows how the use of social media is evolving in recent years. 

Independent YouTubers played a crucial role in educating voters through evidence-based criticisms and awareness. Furthermore, political parties and media used Artificial Intelligence (AI) for campaigns, including deep fake videos by both ruling and opposition parties. Videos of many celebrities, including Aamir Khan, were circulated on social media appealing to voters to support certain political parties. However, the role of social media companies came under scrutiny. The Guardian published a report on how the owner of X (previously Twitter), Elon Musk, was allegedly favoring the ruling party BJP, which in return advocated to lower the tax on Tesla cars in India. The YouTube India team came under fire for manipulating the algorithm to favor the ruling party. Although Meta announced a new campaign against electoral misinformation during Indian elections, such companies must implement strict policies to ensure their platforms do not become spaces for misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech.

Exit poll 

This time, except for some political analysts like Yogendra Yadav and some regional media channels, the mainstream media and exit polls miserably failed to understand the mood of the common people. There has been a strong voice claiming that the exit poll was designed to favor stock investors affiliated with the ruling coalition. The Delhi Chief Minister, before going to jail again on alleged corruption charges, publicly challenged those poll workers for manipulating the stock market. Political strategists like Prashant Kishore had to publicly acknowledge the mistakes of existing pollsters and further announced that he would never dare to do that again. 

Demography and the farmers 

India, with the largest population in the world and a median age of 28 years, saw significant participation from young voters, especially first-time voters. Over 19m youth voted for the first time, with primary concerns being education and employment. Women voters also had a huge influence, with 312m women voting, making them one of the key influential electoral stakeholders. The farmers’ movement in India also impacted the election outcome. An estimated 700 farmers died during protests, and while street protests may not have been reported in mainstream media, their voices were heard loudly in these elections.

Role of state institutions 

Permanent state institutions are ideally expected to operate independently, professionally and responsibly. However, the roles of intelligence, the CBI, and the Enforcement Directorate have been questioned. Political leaders who were investigated were forced to join the ruling coalition, and charges were dropped after they joined the BJP. Many opposition leaders were jailed or are still being investigated. The bank accounts of the largest opposition party were frozen. While the Supreme Court is still looked upon with hope, its role in some cases is considered biased. In West Bengal, a high court judge immediately joined the BJP after leaving the court, raising concerns about the judiciary's independence.

In light of these observations, it would be worth watching the upcoming elections in other larger democracies and also in Nepal, where some of the parties are already mentioning the next elections.

@brabimkumar 

The author works in an international organization as an electoral advisor. Opinions expressed are his own and do not represent the views of his association