 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Tanka
Subba/‘Inclusion’ in Indian democracy:
lessons for Nepal
In
India, the terms ‘affirmative action’
and ‘reservation’ are used interchangeably.
India’s practice of protective discrimination
dates to the early 20th century, specifically
to the concessions granted to Muslims in 1909.
Over the course of the last century, protective
discrimination became entrenched in non-Brahminical
movements throughout the Subcontinent. The guiding
idea was that depressed castes/classes need special
protection, and that the state must assume responsibility
for this. This concept is enshrined in the constitution
of India.
During
the early years of independent India, lists of
protected castes/classes were developed and expanded.
Under the Moraji government, the Mandal Commission
was formed, and V.P. Singh’s decision to
offer reservations in accordance with the commission’s
recommendations sparked massive protests and litigation.
In
spite of these policies, little change was made
in the caste system; instead, the caste system
adapted itself to the policies. Many people argue
that affirmative action policies have created
a ‘creamy layer’ among the tribes.
There have been advances in tribal representation,
but not necessarily in intra-tribal relations.
Scholars argue that reservations have reinforced
existing social structures within the hierarchy.
In any event, as the state withdraws from its
role in the market place as a job provider, its
ability to assist egalitarian social projects
through reservations is diminished. Moreover,
with the failure of many tribals to complete education,
the reservation policies have not helped them
out. These people know that they are members of
scheduled tribes, but they are unable to capitalise
on it; they are the excluded among the included.
Inclusion
creates exclusion in some ways. Initially, in
1956, many groups resisted being stigmatised with
a label, and some ‘upper’ groups took
pride in not being dubbed as ‘reserved’
or ‘backward’. But the high caste
response to the reservation system began to change
in the late 1970s, and some institutions had to
temporarily close in the face of violent protests
in 1980 after the Mandal Commission’s recommendations
were made public. Ahmedabad witnessed 404 days
of disturbances.
Oddly, the same groups received different allotments
in different states. In Arunachal Pradesh, Brahmins
became a scheduled tribe. But in the Northeast,
because nearly everyone falls in a reservation,
anti-reservation sentiment is weak. These issues
have not made much impact among the Nepali diaspora
in Darjeeling. Violent outbursts have not occurred;
cooptation is more common.
The
Nepali language is one of the national languages
of India used in education and writing. Still,
Nepalis have often faced harassment throughout
the Northeast. Moraji Desai said that Nepali was
not a national language of India, which angered
many Nepali-speakers and in part contributed to
the Gorakhali movement. Some Indians imbibed paternalistic
British attitudes toward Nepalis, and others saw
them only as settlers. In response, many Nepalis
in India have stressed their connections to India
and adopted monikers that stress their Indian-ness.
The
Indian system of reservations is not suitable
for Nepal. Instead, Nepal needs a more inclusive
system that draws on the lessons of the Northeast.
Protective discrimination is necessary, but it
must be qualified. Reservations should be made
on indicators of backwardness, which could be
done by identifying the most needy at the local
level. Families would get 10 years to develop,
after which they would lose their protection.
This would help avoid the politics of victimisation.
Nepal’s
social discrimination is more cultural-linguistic
than political. Some groups demand regional autonomy,
but regional autonomy without economic independence
is meaningless. There are few districts in Nepal
with an overwhelming majority of one group; the
solution is in making each group feel that it
is represented. Political and social development
would diffuse tensions by leading to intra-caste
competition rather than inter-caste competition.
-----
Because his travel plans required an early departure,
Tanka Subba took questions and offered responses
before the other presentations were delivered.
-----
Questions, which came in two waves with Subba
offering a round of responses in between, covered
a wide range of issues related to minority communities
in India and Nepal. One panellist asked who/what
is seen as the oppressor among ethnic Nepalis
in India, and noted that in Nepal it is Hindu
hegemony. Another asked about how OBC groups in
India adjust their culture to become the beneficiaries
of positive discrimination, followed by a question
about the impact of global economic changes on
India’s reservation system. Other questions
relying on comparisons between India and Nepal
probed the influence of Indian politics on janjati
activists in Nepal, the changing of caste names
when Nepalis migrate to India and the possible
promise this strategy might hold for Dalits, and
the differing use of the terms ‘tribe’
and ‘ethnic group’ in India and Nepal.
Subba was also requested to more fully elaborate
on his political recommendations for Nepal and
discuss B.R. Ambedker’s influence on the
Indian constitution with respect to reservations.
Subba
opened his response by noting that, in India,
the dominant Other is student bodies. These groups
draw their membership from local, non-Nepali populations
and sometimes organise campaigns against ethnic
Nepalis in India. On the second question, he argued
that cultural change among OBCs in India had been
happening for some time, and that it usually involved
reviving practices or traditions in order to signify
themselves as unique. Subba said that the impact
of global economic changes on the reservation
system in India were complicated and difficult
to assess. On the other India-Nepal questions,
Subba argued that many janjati activists had been
influenced by India because they either study
there or through conscious modelling of agitation
strategies. He discussed the practice of name-changing
by noting the some groups, particularly Newars,
did change their names on migrating to India,
and that this might hold some promise for disadvantaged
communities. Concerning terminology, Subba explained
that the term ‘tribal’ was used in
India while Nepal used ‘ethnic groups’,
and that the two terms were not interchangeable
because they have different meanings in the two
places. Nonetheless, some people are now using
the term ‘tribal’ in Nepal, showing
that concepts can colonise new areas even without
official sanction. Subba’s political recommendations
did include a policy of reservations, but he emphasised
that positive economic discrimination must be
linked to actual conditions. Finally, concerning
Ambedkar and India’s reservation policy,
Subba explained that Ambedkar had wanted reservations
to exist for only a decade after the framing of
the constitution, and that the current system
of expansive reservations was a deviation from
his original plan. Also, various bodies have influenced
reservation policy since it was first enacted;
the supreme court, for example, capped reservations
at 50 per cent of the population.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
