This paper attempts to address a couple of questions, which draw greater attention for public discourse in Nepal in the post-1990 period. Whether Nepali state--which gained a new image as a democratic state after the restoration of multiparty system in 1990--is potentially inclusive or not? How has it responded to demands and struggles of the excluded groups? (1) What are the main contents/agendas of "backwards" and ethnic groups of Nepal? Is there any possibility of forging an alliance of all kinds of excluded groups? How Nepali democratic system could be made an inclusive and participatory? These questions arise in consideration of three major factors. One, Nepal is a diversified and pluralistic state in terms of caste/ethnic, linguistic and religious composition of population. The 2001 census of Nepal recorded 100 caste and ethnic groups, 92 languages and dialects, and 9 religious groups (CBS, 2002). Two, the advent of democracy has in its wake raised the voices of different groups of people hitherto silent. Three, democracy generates hope of minorities and deprived sections of society that the state, unlike in the past authoritarian regime, would become responsive to their needs and interests.

Discourse on ethnicity in Nepal has been developing with conflicting views on three major subjects: conceptual framework, definition of dominant and minority groups, and understanding and interpretation of caste-ethnic relations. Opinions among the native scholars are generally divided in line with one's belongingness to a particular group. This paper covers the representative ideas and thoughts of both native and foreign experts. To capture the emerging ethnic movement in Nepal in conceptual framework, few observe in primordialist line that it is quest for identity; others, particularly those belonging to hill Bahun-Chhetri, take instrumentalist stand that ethnic upsurge is motivated to gain some political and economic advantages. (2) The opinions of many scholars, both native and foreigner, are close to what Prayag Raj Sharma states, "The ethnic politics of Nepal in the 1990s seems to have elements conforming with both the primordialists and the instrumentalists models (1997: 483). It is, however, interesting to note that foreign scholars observe--without mentioning explicitly but indicating the elitist nature of such movement (3) and its relevance to the interest of the masses of the ethnic groups--that the ethnic activism in Nepal has greater elements of instrumentalism and lesser primordialism. For instance, David Gellner is of the opinion, "One should not assume that ethnic activists and ordinary people share the same agenda" (2001: 5). Scholars from ethnic group discard instrumentalist and primordialist model and urge to see the ethnic movement of Nepal from the perspective of the principles of equality and struggle against discrimination (Bhattachan, 1998). Ganesh M. Gurung's opinion could be a representative of one set of argument, "Ethnic movements in Nepal are a natural outcome of age old suppression through the imposition of stratified hierarchical model by the Hindu rulers of Nepal, which needs to be removed with a view to making the hitherto deprived ethnic groups equal partners in the development of a single territorial Nepalese nation-state" (1999, 81).

To see the ethnic issue of Nepal from particular conceptual angle--principle of equality and struggle against discrimination--has its own relevance in defining dominant group and minority group. Numerically, all groups are minorities in Nepal and the largest one, Chhetri, constitutes 15.80 percent. The combined strength of hill Bahun and Chhetri is 28.54 percent. They (including hill low castes) have, however, long been treated as the majority group, because the people identified with Nepali language and Hindu religion are in majority, 48.61 and 80.6 percent respectively, according to 2001 census. Nepali language and Hindu religion are closely associated with hill Bahun-Chhetri identity, and on later case the tarai castes also share a common identity. Yet madheshi is a minority group since the majority population of the country are inhabitant of hill region. The janjatis are also a minority group, because they are originally neither Hindu nor Nepali speaking people. So culturally, the majority-minority division has already been shaped as superior-inferior groups. Recently, such a division is reformulated into 'dominant group and minority group'. Hill Bahuns-Chhetris are considered as dominant group because of their dominant position in power structure of the country; others who have been historically 'discriminated' are treated as minorities. This is widely accepted and adopted approach to the study of ethnicity in Nepal (Neupane, 2000; Serchan, 2001). The division of groups in line with dominant and minority is mostly used in dealing with the question of inclusion and exclusion.

Richard Burghart finds the systematic exclusion of minorities in nation building process since the post- unification period (1996). Harka Gurung has played with a number of statistical data projecting hill Bahun-Chhetri as the dominant group and the others i.e. janajati, dalit and madhesi as marginalized groups in all the social, economic and political spheres of the country. He, therefore, argues that the country has not yet been integrated in a way of multicultural nationalism (1998, 2001). Mahendra Lawati points out intrinsic nuisance of the majoritarian democracy--what Nepal adopted in the post-1990 period--and concludes that Westminister model is unsuitable to pluralistic society of Nepal, and so, contributing for continuous exclusion of numerous socio-cultural groups (2002). As the situation remains unchanged even after a decade long exercise of multiparty democracy, Krishna Bahadur Bhattachan predicts "ethnic insurgency" in "predatory unitary Hindu state" on two grounds. One, the structure of political opportunities in Nepal is unduly favourable to Bahauns-Chhetris but unfavourable to other groups. The other is the strength of Federation of Nepali Nationalities (FENNA) constituting of 48 janajati organizations at present. (1995, 1999, 2000). Dilli Ram Dahal counters that the prevailing ethnic politics could hardly pose any threat to political stability and national integration due to two major reasons--one is the lack of base of ethnic activism at the grass-roots level and the other is heterogeneity within and among the various janajati groups in culture, tradition, language and religion (1995, 2000).

Moreover, Dahal challenges the validity of the most used approach--hill Bahun-Chhjetri as dominant and the rest minorities--while making argument that distribution of economic and political power do not strictly follow the line with caste and ethnic division. (4) Giving an account of the historical pattern of elite formation in Nepal, he rather formulates a thesis of "dominant individuals" against the most common used concept of "dominant caste" (2000). Dahal's argument, particularly on question of dominant group in terms of wealth, seems valid while linking the issue of development and regional disparity. The people of mountain regions and mid-west and farwest regions are more excluded from development. Seventeen out of twenty-two districts in which Chhetris--considered as one of the dominant groups--constitute as the majority or the largest group of district population--are below the standard of national human development index (NESAC, 1998: 264-265). The poverty Index also shows Chhetris's position, marginally better than Rai, Magar and Limbu but slightly worse than Gurungs and Tharus (Gurung, 2003: 7).

Differences of opinions are reflected in understanding and interpretation of relations among different groups of Nepal. Based on caste, ethnic, regional, cultural and linguistic cleavages, Nepali population can be broadly classified into three major groups: pahadi (hill people) and madheshya (plain people); jat (caste groups) and janajati (ethnic/tribal groups); and high caste and low caste Hindus (within jat). Inter groups relations in pluralistic and diversified society may be complementary or conflicting or mixed of both types. In Nepal relations between diverse groups of society is harmonious and free of tension and violence, some argue (Sharma, 1997; Dahal, 1995, 2000; Pradhan, 1995, 2002). Based on her study on Humla district, Nancy E. Levine generalises, "Models of ethnicity in Nepal stress, on the one hand, unlimited ethnic diversity and, on the other, a rather limited set of ethnic contrasts ... ethnic relations ... are characterized more by interaction, interdependence, and mobility than contrasts and boundaries between groups (1987: 71). Disagreement to such views are expressed, "The ethnic harmony may have been exaggerated" (Gellener, 1997: 6) and, to the extreme, it is "blatantly manufactured myth" (Bhattachan, 1995: 125). Even those taking position of harmonious relations among different groups of Nepal consider the case of madhesh as an exception. Frederick H. Gaige is the pioneer author who explores regional conflicts between hill and plain groups on issues of language, citizenship and land ownership (1975). The native scholars from Bahun caste conform his finding and perceive the tarai as vulnerable area. (5) Its geographical proximity with India and ethnic affinity with the people across the border area are additional reasons behind the anxiety of disintegration. But the relations between other groups (caste and janajati of hill, and high caste and low caste Hindus) have long been seen as harmonious. Nevertheless, Lionel Caplan's studies, done in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, reveal conflict between hill high caste and hill ethnic groups, and tension between hill high caste and low caste Hindus (1970, 1975). These parts of conflict have received prominence since Dor Bahadur Bista pin points "Bahaunbad' as obstacle for development in Nepal (1991).

The exchange of hated words in recent discourse make both Bahun and janajati scholars more rigid in their stand. For instance Prayag Raj Sharma, who showed his sympathy to the problems of exclusion in his early writings (6), asserts to accept the foundation of Hindu state as a hard reality of history while expressing it bluntly, "Weaker groups and weaker powers have always been overrun by stronger powers and groups" (1994: 44). While retaliating to climbing up of harsh opinions coming from ethnic scholars and leaders, Sharma has turned his position from moderate to conservative camp and pleads for the continuation of age-long tradition of Nepali nationalism based on monarchy, Hindu religion and Nepali language, if otherwise, he warns the birth of "Bahun ethnicity" (1994, 1995, 1997). At the other extreme, Krishna Bahadur Bhattachan blatantly depicts Bahuns-Chhetris as "exploiters, oppressors, and internal colonizers" and provokes the excluded groups to wage zero-sum struggles against the Bahhun-Chhetri (2000: 157). Making of particular group, instead of state, as target of struggle may lead to degenerate the ethnic movement into communal politics. The ethnic upsurge will remain ethnic so long as the target is state but it gives more flavour of communalism if target is made against particular group. Perhaps Bhattachan is aware of it and has consciously indicated to the characteristics of South Asian states that they have always been insensitive to the ethnic problem unless the ethnic tension turn into communal violence between two groups. In fact, ethnic relation has been changing rapidly towards the greater degree of discord, conflict and tension. The root of problems lies in history.

Looking back to history

The monarchy has played a central role in the unification and evolution of Nepali state. Prithvi Narayan Shah, the king of Gorkha principality, established modern unified Nepal by conquest. He, thus, introduced the Shah regime based on the right of sword. The utility of sword for territorial expansion was, however, effectively blocked following the end of war with British-India in 1816 and demarcation of the political territory of the Kingdom. Hence, the legitimacy of sword was confined to and symbolized with the royal army, which was, however, significant to retain control in conquered areas. But...