Nations break all the time, even empires break, so what can we expect in a country that's not even 300 years old. its about time that we admitted the fact that Nepal is an anamoly among modern nation states because there's no single ethnic majority. The process that started in other places many centuries ago, and got momentum after Woodrow Wilson spoke of "self-determination" in 1919 Paris Peace conference, has finaly started in Nepal, and you cannot say its a bad thing. We have to take it as a normal historical process. Nations break all the time. For example: Pakistan ,USSR, Yugolsavia, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Indonesia.
Nepal needs to change, and the sooner it chanegs its better for everyone. Analyze this: What does a Nepali in Nepalgunj has common with a Nepali in Kathmandu? Nothing. His language is different, his culture is different, and he looks different. If Jung Bahadur hadn't gotten the Naya Muluk back from the East India Company, then they, the peoples in Banke, Bardia, Nepalgunj would be Indians today. So this whole nation/nationalism stuff , to borrow Anderson's phrase, is invented and imagined. We are concerned about the "seperatist" movement in Terai because we tend to think that each and every Nepali looks like us, eats daal bhat and speaks Nepali and that they are really fortunate to be the citizens of Nepal and that its senseless and baseless for them to demand a seperate country. As far as I can see, no, that's not the case. Once we start looking at the issues more objectively we see that no, not all the people who live in the geographic area known as/called Nepal look the same, speak the same language or eat daal bhaat twice a day everyday. So what rights do we Nepalis peaking, daal bhaat eating peoples have to deny them independence if the peoples are consiously demanding independence. Something to think about, no?
Last edited: 01-Nov-08 11:48 AM
Last edited: 01-Nov-08 11:51 AM
