Reference no: EM133698088

Assignment:

Read this and answer the questions at the bottom in paragraph form containing 7-12 sentences each. Also, include an introduction with a hook and thesis and a conclusion with a review of the main points.

Has Nepal's New Constitution Ended the Civil War?

Our chapter has noted the persistence of ethnic and national conflict across the globe and how these can overlap with ideological or theocratic values. For example, at the start of the chapter, we spoke of India. In spite of its robust democratic institutions and practices, it has faced a rise in a reactionary Hindu fundamentalism that views India as a Hindu, rather than secular, state. This has increased tensions between different ethnic and religious groups and challenged the country's political culture of state-nations. Some worry that Indian democracy may be eroding. At the same time, however, one of India's neighbors-Nepal-has moved in a somewhat different direction. A country known largely by outsiders for Mount Everest, in recent years Nepal has made a dramatic transition from monarchical rule to democracy, and from centralization to federalism.

Yet the path has been bloody and it is by no means certain that recent changes have put an end to ethnic conflict. Nepal is exceptionally diverse. No one ethnic group makes up more than 20 percent of the popu-lation; over 100 languages are spoken, and less than half the population speaks Nepali as their mother tongue. While 80 percent are Hindu, there are significant Buddhist and Muslim communities as well. The country also has a strong caste system, that is, hereditary social classes that have their origins in Hindu-ism. In many ways, then, the country resembles India. Yet a major difference is that, as opposed to India's history of British colonial rule, from 1769 until 2008 Nepal retained an independent monarchical regime. During most of that time Nepal was largely closed off from the outside world. Economic and political power was monopolized by upper caste elites within the royal court, and discussions of ethnic difference or inequality were suppressed. Attempts at democratization were unsuccessful until 1990, when, in the face of mass protests, the king accepted a new constitution with multiparty democratic elections and limitations on his power.

During the following period of constitutional reforms and democratic elections, various ethnic, religious, and ideological conflicts came to the fore. For example, a number of minority ethnic groups began to organize, challenging the existing notions of what made up Nepali identity-in essence, who was a "true" Nepali. However, one of the greatest rifts that emerged was within the Hindu majority itself. The Madhesi, a marginalized Hindu population in the lowlands, began to adopt arguments that they were a separate ethnic group relative to upper caste Hindu elites who had traditionally monopolized power. And yet even as ethnic identity sharpened, it remained illegal to form parties based on religion, ethnicity, region, or caste. The proliferation of politicized iden-tities, fueled by the sense that democratic change had not led to a more just redistribution of power, contributed to government instability.

Civil war eventually did come in 1996, though on the surface it did not appear to be a manifestation of these ethnic, national, or religious divisions. Rather, it began when a faction of radical communists launched an uprising against the government, modeling themselves after Mao Zedong's struggle to power in China. Why did ideology, rather than eth-nicity, become the engine of conflict in Nepal? While poverty was certainly a major factor in mobilizing support, many who joined the communist insurgency were motivated by group differences, supporting the communists' desire to end the political domination of upper caste Hindus. Over the course of the next decade over 15,000 individuals would die in the conflict. Peace talks, the abolition of the monarchy, and elections helped eventually bring an end to the Maoist insurgency.

A peace agreement and the creation of a republican regime was a dramatic transformation of Nepali political institutions. But a major sticking point remained: How should power be distributed in such a diverse country, where political divisions had only intensified over time? After years of negotiation, in 2015 Nepal passed a new constitution that enshrined federalism-though not, as in India, in an asymmetric form. Seven new provinces were created, each with is own legislature, and local elections were held in 2017. Importantly, the new federal provinces and lower municipalities were not drawn on the basis of a dominant identity (as many Madhe-sis demanded), for fear that this could exacerbate conflict by increasing divisions between groups. Indeed, violent protests broke out among Madhesis in 2015 and 2017 over their perceived marginalization in the new system. As of late 2019 four of the seven provinces still lacked names, in part because of the tension inherent in any particular choice that might reflect the preference of one identity over another.

Questions:

1. How do India and Nepal's political institutions differ? How effective are these institutions in accommodating each country's profound ethnic diversity?
2. What is an example of ethnic conflict in Nepal?
3. How has the proliferation of politicized identities contributed to government instability?
4. How do the Madhesi's violent protests demonstrate why Nepal's implementation of federalism was not successful, while India's implementation of federalism was successful?