Did the NEFIN Pacified IPs Movement and Rising Tide of IPs Politics?

Who Used Whom?

During the 1950s IPs were used by the Nepali Congress in armed insurgency against the autocratic Rana rule. After the success of the political movement, which some refer as “revolution,’ IPs leaders were systematically marginalized and ignored. During the 60s and 70s King Mahendra used IPs leaders to abolish IPs ownership and control over their ancestral land such as the Kipat of the Limbus, and destroy IPs identity, language, religion and culture by imposing a project of homogenization or Nepalization in terms of Nepali identity, Khas Nepali language, Hindu religion and culture. IPs leaders may have thought that they are using the King and the partyless Panchayat political system. At the end of the day some individual IPs leaders made fortune at the cost of all other IPs and their identity.

One may debate on whether the Maosit used the IPs or vice verca. Some people believe that the Maoist insurgents used indigenous peoples such the Magars, the Tharus, the Rais and the Limbus in a decade long armed insurgency. Without IPs support and participation, the class based war of the Maoist would have gone no where. IPs, however, believe that they have used the Maoist to universalize and legitimize IPs issues such as right to self-determination and ethnic autonomy.

Until the CA election, the NEFIN did not play any party politics; political parties came to the NEFIN. Though the NEFIN is an organization that has collective leaders, its leaders joined and worked for different political parties, they have been unable to use political parties for the NEFIN’s cause.

By now it has become clear that the main political parties including the Maoist, Nepali Congress and NCP (UML) are using IPs leaders, cadres or followers and sympathizers that IPs leaders using them. Many IPs leaders who used raise IPs issues very strongly and were its die hard champions have switched on their role by giving secondary importance to IPs issues by giving high priority to the ideology they now adhere. Such a role change has generated frustration among common IPs as they have lost faith on IPs leaders.

Is Every One Infected by ‘I am Right’ Virus?

Some IPs academic, leaders, activist and professionals really know the core values and issues but others have either shallow or no idea about it. One of the weaknesses of IPs movement is that each IPs leader believe that (s)he is right and others are wrong; his/her approach is correct and others’ approaches are incorrect; his/her strategy works and others does not, (s)he or his/her organizations should lead and others just follow, if (s)he is represented all IPs are represented and if others are represented they do not represent the IPs and so on. It means IPs movement in Nepal, like elsewhere in the world, has often been individual centered or group centered or organization centered or IPs community centered. IPs leaders only think of I, my, mine, instead of we, us, ours, our group, our community. And unless this transformation takes place, it is difficult to move forward as indigenous peoples with a common goal and common good. IPs leaders need to accept mistakes including the game of omission and deadlock for no good reason.

Who are the Rotten IPs Potatoes?

It is said in Nepal that if there is a rotten potato in a sac it would work as a catalytic agent to make all potatoes in the sac to rot. In the IPs movement also there are times when a rotten leadership has damaged the whole IPs movement. There are IPs leaders who have misused the IPs movement for their personal or family or community gains only. Although at this critical historical juncture the differences should be set aside and come under a single umbrella o fight against the common enemies but that is not happening.

Has There been Dilution in the Quality of IPs Movement due to Its Rapid Expansion?

IPs movement from the 1990s to 2006 was generated and uphold by a small group of IPs leaders and followers. It had quality in its work in terms of upholding the core values of IPs movement and collective and common good of all IPs. After the People’s Movement of 2006, IPs movement expanded so rapidly that both leaders and followers with no clarity about core IPs values and IPs issues swarmed in the movement as leaders and followers, the whole IPs movement has now been diluted. From mid 1990s to 2006, IPs movement was the movement that drew attention of all and the political parties also recognized IPs movement as a genuine force to be reckoned with. After expansion of the base of IPs movement after People’s Movement of 2006, it looked like it reached climax as the IPs-fraternal organizations of the main political parties actively participated in the movement. In development industry expansion cost efficiency and effectiveness, and same thing happened to the IPs movement in Nepal.

Who is the Leader of IPs Movement?

The current NEFIN leaders seem to be affiliated not only with too many organizations but also with specific political parties, and are too busy to sit down for serious dialogue. They too do not have time to work together. What we lack today in IPs movement is visionary leaders like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, individuals who rose above themselves for the cause. There is indeed a need for collective efforts with collective leadership but that is not happening as it should be. Charismatic leaders are created or made by the movement but such leaders are utterly lacking the IPs movement. IPs leaders have neither common understanding on core values of Indigenous Peoples nor the successors acknowledge and respect contribution of the predecessors. Some IPs who believes in collective leadership and organizational initiatives do not want to take leadership role and those who have neither vision nor strategy of IPs movement are dying to get and/or continue the leadership.

Who Refuse and Who Diffuse?

IPs leaders, followers and community members are at different stages of the awareness and understanding about core IPs values and issues. Many refuse that IPs issues are valid and legitimate. Some IP are confused about its rights and wrongs. Some IPs are in a stage of infusion; they are hungry of information about IPs issues. Very few IP are indeed at the stage of diffusion. Among those who are at the stage of diffusion, some are regressing back to confusion or refusal stage as they begin to speak the languages of the dominant groups than of the IPs. Same is true with non-IPs, specially the Bahuns and Chhetris. Many Bahun-Chhetris, Dalits and Madheis still refuse IPs demands and issues; some are confused; few specially those who are in the left political parties are infused, and very few who are associated with the NCP (Maoist) are in a state of diffusion. However, unfortunately, some Bhun-Chhetri Maoists who diffused IPs issues have now regressed and oppose it.

Meet Expectation from Top-Down or Bottom Up?

IPs at the local level are willing to go to march in the streets or even rebel against the state but they look for definite direction and guidance from the central leadership. The feel that the central leadership are divided among themselves and they have become almost defunct and passive. The IPs at the grassroots level keep demanding that the central level IPs leaders should develop common understanding and common position to fight for IPs rights. On the other hand, central level IPs leaders complain about lack of commitment of IPs at the local level to participate in the movement that adopts strong protest programs such as the Bandhs. Similarly, IPs leaders and activists want CA members to take proactive strong actions such as Sit Down at the CA Rostrum, boycott of CA meetings. The CA members want leaders and activists of IPs movement to exert pressure from the street and give them needed support to push IPs agenda in the CA. It has now become like a Cath-22 situation; who blinks their eyes first? IPs CA members or IPs on the street? IPs central leadership or the IPs at the local level?

Follow Deductive or Inductive Method or Approach of the IPs Movement?

We have already seen deductive method or approach used in the IPs movement. IPs leadership at the center or top decides everything and all IPs from national to local levels had to provide full support. It has not worked until now. Now the need of the hour is to upscale IPs movement from bottom up in an inductive way. The movement of the Tharus and the Limbus have already proved that inductive method or approach could be even more powerful and effective than the past deductive approach or methods to secure IPs rights. The initial IPs Movement of the 2006 was indeed very inspiring. However soon after that the movement slowed down and subsided. Now it is the Tharu movement that has inspired all the IPs.

Is confidence of IPs CA Members Waning?

IPs CA members’ initial confidence that they could make a difference in their respective political parties and within CA to mold them to ensure IPs rights, specially indigenous peoples’ autonomy & self-rule and prerogative rights on ancestral land other natural resources. Presence of 219 IPs CA members and no mention of whip in CA process, implying permission fro conscience vote at the CA raised high hopes of IPs CA members that they can turn around the things in favor of IPs. However, the lukewarm support of IPs CA members in the formation of IPs Caucus, denial of CA to recognize IPs caucus, and snails pace of work by the informal caucus like IPs CA Members’ Assembly, strong party pressure and lack of influence in the CA Committees’ works have quickly receded the high hopes of IPs CA members.

Is There Rising Resistance against IPs autonomy by the Dominant Caste within the Maoist?

The Maoists, including Bahun-Chhetris, Dalits, IPs and Madhesis, and women have been for ethnic, linguistic and regional autonomy. However, in recent times increasing number of Bahun-Chhetri leaders of the Maoist party are taking positions against IPs autonomy and pleading for some sort of regional autonomy. As the rank and file IPs within the Maoist party are openly advocating fro primacy of class over ethnicity, Bahun-Chhtri Maoist are taking side against IPs autonomy with an argument that such autonomy would not solve exploitation of poor IPs by rich IPs, and that there is no area where single IPs live in majority.

Do IPs Need to Hit When the Government is Weak Or Strong?

Nepal went through a ‘liquidation’ period specially after 2002, and we are still at that phase. At present the country is unstable and weak. Some IPs leaders are of the opinion that the IPs movement should hit hard when the government is strong as the possibility of the gain is much higher. Other IPs leaders, on the contrary, strongly believe that IPs movement should hit hard when the Government is really weak and divided. IPs could gain much at such time. There are even others who believe that hitting the government should be a routine process irrespective of weak or strong Government. In reality, IPs movement labor hard to raise IPs issues but the leadership gets tired when the time is almost ripe for yielding results from the Government. (To be continued)

Posted on : 2010-04-14 06:29:21

Comments (2)