Dhruba
It is really frustrating to see many instances of Nepali psyche being marred by confusion and double standards. When the case, actors and beneficiaries change - people are found shifting side, from one to another – sides that stand on very different and contrasting principles and policies - knowingly or unknowingly. These days such psyche is rife equally within Nepal
Example of double standards
This write-up intends to bring fore one striking case of such nature. Such psyche has come fore strikingly in the form of response by people of Nepali origin living in Hong Kong . They have announced publicly that they would oppose vehemently the appointment of Economic Consular of Nepal to Hong Kong because he belongs to none of the indigenous ethnic groups dominant there. The poor guy is Brahmin. The echo of announcement is: “Sorry guy, you unluckily could not enter into the womb of any woman from some ethnic groups – Rai, Gurung, Magar Limbu or others, so you cannot come and work in Hong Kong as the Economic Consular.” Further, they have warned that his arrival in Hong Kong would be greeted with black flag as the symbol of opposition. They would boycott him totally.
Such response does not match with the arguments and claims they are pushing persistently for a long period against the treatment they are receiving from British and Hong Kong-China Government. Their claim or fight is waged on the principle of non-discrimination based on birth – where he/she was born, either within British territory or other countries. The real essence of such a claim is to respect the work of a person, not his birth or origin. If one Nepali had served British Army, he/she should be equally eligible for any kind of benefit earmarked for a British as a soldier. They fought for equal salary, pension and living permit in Britain
Does it conform the same standard what they were fighting for a long period with the argument they are raising now for opposing the appointment of a person as the Economic Consular? Simply and apparently - no. Because, first, their fight is against birth-based discrimination, and second, in favour of birth-based discrimination, i.e. the Economic Consular to Hong Kong should only be Janjati, no other. The demand that the Economic Consular to Hong Kong should be a person from Janjati quite obviously establishes discrimination based on birth.
This argument may be reacted to with the saying – if the Government of Nepal (GoN) always chooses Brahmin for appointment, then Nepali people of Hong Kong need to react in such a manner. If they recall names, then they find – Jainendra Jeevan, Madhav Ghimire, Keshav Bhattarai and now, Binod Upadhyay – all from Brahmin community, why it is like this? The GoN has always appointed Brahmin the Economic Consular, so they are incited to oppose.
Individual rights and efforts be respected
That’s not the way to look into the case. Let’s see them as individuals. Each of them put own possible efforts in the same manner what a person belonging to Rai or Gurung or Limbu or Magar community did individually to get selected and promoted in the British Army. If the British Army was not cakewalk for Janjati, civil service was not also cakewalk for Brahmin, either. No one can find just red carpet welcome without efforts in any vocation. So, it is quite unfair to single out someone as unfit for a position because many people of his/her community already enjoyed the opportunities or benefits of that position. If your hunger cannot be satiated by eating food from your community, it follows that no one should be denied a position only on the reason someone from his/her community already enjoyed the position or share. It is an individual’s right to get position in civil service based on own qualification; which should not be conditioned. Justice can be guaranteed only when your efforts put you in a position that you deserve, and not any kind of discrimination - based either on birth, sex, colour, caste, ethnicity etc. exists.
Instead of opposing the appointment making point of the incumbent does not belong to Janjati, they should have emphasized on the objective selection criteria – qualification, experience and past performances and methods followed to comply with the criteria. They should have recommended what acquired qualities are very relevant to be the Economic Consular of Hong Kong. And, it must not be those qualities which a person cannot acquire despite his/her all efforts. To be a Janajati, of course, cannot be an acquired quality, so it should be avoided to be criterion.
Let’s think that why from past to present – Economic Consular to Hong Kong come from Brahmin community, not Janjati. The answer to this question would come better if we try to understand the reasons of why Janjati people are 98 percent in Hong Kong . It is because youths of few Janjati groups (especially Rai, Gurung, Magar and Limbu) dream to join British Army, so they make all efforts. They carry sacks and bamboo baskets full of sand on backs to be fit for selection in British Army. This symbolizes their hard and sincere preparation. It is rare scene that any youth of Brahmin, Tharu or Thakali community doing such preparation. If there is no interest and preparation, then there is no chance of success.
The interest and preparation brought aboard many youths of above-mentioned communities to British Army and subsequently they became ID Cardholders of Hong Kong, similarly, youths of Brahmin entered to the civil service and were upgraded to higher positions. You will find most of top civil officials of Government of Nepal pursued their studies in educational centres as young cooks known as Bhaanchhe Bahun because their parents could not afford the costs of studies of their wards. They dreamt and toiled for years to join civil service. Such endeavour was no less painful sacrifice than the preparation carried out by youths aspiring to join the British Army. So, instead of looking into the reasons and efforts put in to secure a position or achievement, blaming people as exploiter or privileged is quite unjust. The dominance of few ethnic groups in British Army and of Brahmin in civil service has anthropological, social and psychological roots; so to blame or bar any person or community from opportunities ignoring above roots is quite irrational and unjust.
Change should be evolutionary, not volcanic
I am not in favour of disproportionate diversity in civil service. Present system needs change. At the same time, I also emphasize that no person should be a victim of the system change. The composition of Nepali civil service at top level cannot be changed overnight; it comes up from bottom in evolutionary manner. Top position should not be seen only as a package of benefits, but a complex blend of competencies and responsibilities. Efforts are ongoing, so it will bear fruits after a few years. So, instead of bringing diversity in the civil service by evolutionary process, barring officials belonging to Brahmin, Chhetri and Newar from getting better positions in the name of change would be quite unfair and unjust. You cannot change a system overnight and see major positions filled by Janajati, Dalit and women next morning.
It is unfair to think that a person belonging to Brahmin community cannot adequately represent the interest of Janjati. For example, in the legal battle in the British Court
XXX
(The writer is associated with UN Integrated Mission in Timor Leste)
Manufahi, Timor Leste
Comments
Post a Comment