Yubaraj Ghimire
The Indian Express
January 20, 2015
Secularism may not be a hated word in Nepal today, but it is arguably one of the most contentious issues in the constitution-making process. Some of the major parties that took the lead in declaring Nepal secular in May 2006 are rethinking the matter. Last week, K.P. Oli, chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) invited Modnath Prashrit as guest speaker at the party’s standing committee meeting. Prashrit, who quit the party seven years ago, has been a key crusader against making Nepal a secular country. He also favours restoring January 11, the birth anniversary of king Prithvi Narayan Shah (1723-75), as national unity day.
The government led by G.P. Koirala, which had the UML as a coalition partner and Maoist support from outside, had taken both decisions — doing away with Nepal’s Hindu status and the national unity day. Prashrit has stood against the government ever since, and asked for the annulment of both. Others, mainly the Maoists, fear that a review of Nepal’s secular status may next lead to a questioning of the federal and republican character of Nepal.
“How can this country remain secular, which means adopting an indifferent approach towards religion, when it spends from its coffers 500 million rupees for the development of Buddha’s birthplace, an almost equal amount for the development of Hindu shrines, and a little less for arranging Hajj trips?” he asked. And added, “As a country that has been the birthplace of Buddhism and the land of many Hindu gods and goddesses, its glorious past, civilisation and culture must not be done away with.”
The demand for the restoration of Nepal’s Hindu status is gaining ground. Not only the UML but also the Nepali Congress (NC), which heads the coalition with the former, is vertically split on the issue. Religion and caste/ ethnicity have emerged as the major issues and stumbling blocks in constitution-writing. Maoist chief Prachanda, who heads a 30-party alliance that includes the Madhesi parties, has been demanding ethnicity-based provinces while advocating a secular state. According to a senior NC leader, “…a Hindu wave sweeps across Terai as well as the hills, and Dahal (Prachanda) is being backed by European groups in dividing Hindu society.”
Managing politics and parties with diverse ideologies may be easier some times. But the politics of caste and religion may not be that easy to handle. The January 22 deadline for the delivery of the constitution will be missed, which may not only cause the early exit of Sushil Koirala as prime minister but also bring the second Constituent Assembly’s existence into question. The UML, by reviewing “secularism”, perhaps wants to convey the message that it will deal with contentious issues more seriously and solicit a wide spectrum of public opinion, something that hasn’t happened in the past.
Secularism is being interpreted differently, triggering a largescale reaction. Padma Ratna Tuladhar, who issued a public statement as minister in 1993 arguing to allow cow slaughter, now leads a movement for secularism and ethnicity-based provinces in alliance with Prachanda. Maoists have a history of trampling Hindu temples and idols, burning rare Sanskrit manuscripts and slaughtering cows, which remains taboo, during the civil war. As a result, Hindu groups are now more agitated, especially after some EU states began openly advocating the right to change one’s religion.
In 1991, a British parliamentary delegation had approached then PM K.P. Bhattarai — when Nepal was writing its democratic constitution — to have the country declared secular. His blunt answer was that once the UK, the “mother of democracy”, did away with having the inheritor of the throne profess Anglicanism, Nepal too would follow. That democratic constitution had retained the country’s Hindu status.
But while provisions were debated threadbare before they became part of that constitution, no such process was followed last time round, when Nepal was declared a secular and federal republic. “We will not compromise on our demand that people must have their say on all these issues, if necessary through a referendum,” said the Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal. However, with the majority community developing a visible persecution complex, which may even result in aggressive nationalism, the situation looks sad, especially since Nepal has had a reputation for being a tolerant and harmonious society. The absence of meaningful debate in the CA and within parties is responsible for this dangerous syndrome.
