Tuesday, December 30, 2008


Nationalism: limbuwan and khambuwan
The hotly discussed question in nepali political epicenter is federal system brought by different political parties on the basis of various approaches. It is certain that Nepal’s federal system is no more relevant with other federal nations in terms of its own diversity in culture, ethnicity, and geography. So our successive mindful task is to formulate particular federalism that would address all strata of people and feel secured in many respects in the society. We know that we have heterogeneous society that any particular caste is not found resided in any particular region of the state. It might create the grave concern for demarcating ethnic federal state in the process of drafting new constitution. Limbuwan, khambuwan, tamasaling and tharuhat are, for example, demanding of ethnic autonomous states. They have for a long time been struggling to accomplice their voice. On what ground they have been raising their voices for ethnic autonomous, it is very essential to point out.

Nationalism: nationalism is generally broken down into two parts, civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism is associated with the civilization of northern Europe that as a legal political concept. And ethnic nationalism was originally associated with countries in eastern and central Europe. This ethnic nationalism is based on ancestral association as compared to civic nationalism. To talk about limbuwan and khambuwan nationalism, at its basic level, a sense of identity felt by individual and groups common history, common customs on cultural traditions. Not only that it is also the quest for political independence, or say, ‘self-determination’ is based on the perceived right of everyone.

The crucial factors of limbuwan and khambuwan nationalism are ethnic rights and historic rights they are claiming. From the beginning of the regime of late king prithivi narayan shah limbuwan had a certain piece of territory; kippot, historical precedent in other word. Even united nation has already declared indigenous rights in bringing (ILO 169) that allows them to claim historic rights. Second, the majority in the given region is determined by population counts, polls and votes of self-determination

Ethnic federal system itself is complicated issue on the one hand. If it is divided on the basis of ethnic groups, why not other groups who dwell in the reason claim own autonomous? Is it plausible if such kind of issues will be skyrocketing one after another? To be raised such kind of question is normal. In my understanding, it can be possible any ethnic federal autonomous. But only if it has been analyzed situations to require its pre- requisites. According to the geographical structure how it puts good relationship with other federal states, whether it is sufficient to manipulating natural resources for development and to ensure the rights of minorities is another important part.

Limbuwan, khambuwan ethnic federal autonomous states are to some extent relevant but it doesn’t mean that historic rights and ethnic rights will encompass all aspects of nationalism at all. Even though it is declared federal states, I don’t think the problem is minimized; the roots of problems will be broadening moreover. In nationalism, the least standard of equalities are common culture, traditions and history as a part of ethnic nationalism. Due to the political independence such matters have been deformed of social uniformity into disintegration. In yesterdays, all limbuwan, khambuwa, tamasaing and so on would belong to kirant. It was a kind of emotional attachment we had. Now it is no longer remained as it was in history.
kiratis have been separated in small ideologies. Such activities will create enemies in the name of self- identification. When people identify with one group they often develop mistrustful or hostile feelings about the people outside that group. Even neighboring state with great deal in common can come mistruth each other.

In shankhauwa sabha district, Lohorung rai and yamphu have their own historical identity. According to the unrecorded history, it had different territory as of limbuwan. The situation is different at present; Limbuwan has begun to claim it. But they are neither in limbuwan nor are in khambuwan. They are different than other wans. If anyone claims that territory, they have also no choice besides to go and unite against them. One thing I want to remind you that a lohorung cannot be compared with kiratis, a kirat cannot be compared with an indigenous and an indigenous cannot be compared with nepali. It has its own graduated scale. And each scale has its own significance.
It is now right time to take responsibility of including all kiratis and to have the helping hands of all stakeholders. Otherwise widespread national politics will take us nowhere but to the deadline of hostility; we are now at driver seat.

No comments: