The management of cultural pluralism and diversity has become a focus of attention because of their universal existence in terms of race, religion, language, cultural differences, etc. in most of the world's nation states. In Nepal, particularly after the restoration of democracy in 1990, there is a growing academic as well as public debate to redefine the role of the state and the nature of governance to accommodate its diverse social, cultural, ethnic, language, and racial groups on an equal footing.

Plural societies such as Nepal lace one basic dilemma. On the one hand, all members of the liberal democracy are--in principle if not in practice-entitled to the same rights and opportunities. On the other hand, they also have the right to be different--and after 1990, the rights of minorities (especially of janajatis and dalits) to maintain and promote their cultural distinctiveness and to be visible in the public spheres, including the mass media, school curricula, and so on, are increasingly insisted on. A crucial challenge for plural societies therefore consists of allowing cultural differences to persist without violating common and societally defined rights. In other words, the challenge consists of finding a viable compromise, for the state as well as the citizens (representing power and agency respectively), between equal rights and the right to be different.

If we take a dynamic and positive view of ethnic, religious, and cultural and other forms of diversity as an invitation for people to interact, to celebrate and to learn from difference rather than a passive acceptance of the fact that diversity simply exist, it can make an important contribution to the balanced development of plural countries such as Nepal. This paper is an attempt to discuss some of these emerging issues of cultural pluralism and diversity in Nepal and to propose an alternative perspective to address he issues in new ways. This paper is primarily based on a review of literatures but I have also used my own empirical materials (M.Phil, MA and other field research) while developing my arguments. The central issue of the paper guided me to adopt a range of theoretical perspectives and approaches. I have tried to introduce theories while presenting my data and developing my argument in the subsequent sections of this paper.

This paper has been divided into seven sections. The first section introduces the background of the paper. The second section clarifies the meaning of cultural pluralism, diversity and plural society. In third section, I present an overview of theories and perspectives of cultural pluralism and diversity. Section four focuses on Nepalese pluralism, presents a retrospective of ethnic and cultural accommodations and provides an assessment of constitutional provisions to accommodate the country's diverse groups into the national mainstream. Section five discusses the emerging and enduring issues of cultural diversity of the country. Section six proposes some paradigms of cultural and ethnic accommodation to address the tremendous diversity of the country. Section seven concludes the paper presenting an alternative perspective to deal with the emerging and enduring issues of cultural diversity of the country.

The Concept of Cultural Diversity, Pluralism and Plural Societies

The Oxford Talking Dictionary of English defines 'pluralism' as a form of society or state in which ethnic or cultural groups maintain their independent traditions, practices, and attitudes. (1) Other definitions include the toleration or acceptance of a diversity of opinions, values, theories, etc. Similarly, the dictionary meaning of 'diversity' indicates the condition or quality of being diverse, different, or varied; variety, unlikeness. Thus the concept of pluralism reflects the social reality determined by languages, religions, ethnic memberships, and cultural traditions and implies control of institutions by members of the constituent groups (Bentley 1971:337).

The concept of cultural diversity also implies a societal condition comprising of many groups--ethnic, racial, and religious--with distinctive heritages, values, languages, and lifestyles. But the concept does not connote any clear-cut perspective, vision and movement to maintain equality, equal rights and separate identity among the diverse groups in the society. The concept of pluralism, however, implies not only the condition of existence of cultural diversity in any society but signifies a concrete vision, and perspective of promoting, and maintaining the separate identities of the constituent groups on the basis of equality and equal rights.

Through differing in many ways, at present many scholars share Van den Berge's (1973:961) definition of pluralism which refers to "a property, or set of properties, of societies wherein several distinct social and/or cultural groups coexist within the boundaries of a single polity and share a common economic system that makes them interdependent, yet maintain a greater or lesser degree of autonomy and a set of discrete institutional structures in other spheres of social life."

In plural society, memberships in distinctive ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are accepted and even applauded. Pluralistic societie's pride themselves on the freedom granted to diverse groups to preserve their different heritages, support various religions, speak different languages and develop independent associations. In essence, this Freedom is qualified only by the enforcement of loyalty to the prevailing political and economic system. This implies an appreciation of, and respect for, intercultural difference. However, emphasis has been given to the manner, extent, and functioning of 'pluralism within societies rather than on identifying and defining plural societies.

Thus, the concept of cultural pluralism and diversity denotes at least four meanings. It is a metaphysical theory, which claims that reality consists of a multiplicity of distinct, fundamental entities. It indicates a particular social condition of racial and ethnic or cultural diversity resulting from immigration, conquest or any other means. It includes a vision or a movement of a free and diverse society in which all individuals or groups live peacefully and amicably on a looting of equality with each other. And finally, it is a complex network of laws, programmes, and policies for managing that diversity.

In most societies the relationship between ethnic and cultural groups is not permanently fixed but changes in time and space. Scholars have identified four basic patterns of interrelationship between ethnic, racial or cultural groups in a plural society:

a. Amalgamation (A+B+C = D), the process in which contact between different ethnic, racial, and cultural groups lead to the formation of a new cultural and ethnic group. The Newars of Kathmandu Valley are one possible example of an amalgamated community.

b. Assimilation (A+B+C = A), the process of interaction between different groups in which the minority groups adopt the values and pattern of behaviour of the majority, and are ultimately absorbed by the majority group. Some of the Hinduized ethnic groups of Nepal, such as Magars, might offer examples of this model.

c. Segregation (A # B = A # B), the spatial separation of race, cultural and ethnic group by discriminatory means. It can be enforced by laws. The system of apartheid in South Africa and the caste system before 1962 in Nepal are examples.

d. Pluralism (A+B+C = A+B+C), a condition of society or a nation in which multiple ethnic and cultural units co-exist in dynamic relation to one another enjoying more or less equal rights and opportunities. Canadian, Australian and Swedish societies could be some examples.

Thus different forms of relationship exist between and among the diverse groups of a plural society. Metaphorically, they are known as "fruit salad" or "rainbow" or "garden" on the one hand, the "fruit compote" or "melting pot" on the other. In the fruit salad/rainbow/garden, the components are clearly distinct, ethnic and cultural boundaries are intact, and reflexively rooted identities are secure and stable. In the fruit compote/melting pot, on the other hand, the different fruits are squashed and mixed together with substantial use of force.

Theories of Pluralism and Diversity

Theories of the plural society or of pluralism stress the relationships (cleavages, or discontinuities, or mutual respect or co-operation and so on) between sections differentiated by race, ethnicity, language, religion or culture. These bases of differentiation are, however, not totally regarded as "primordial" (Geertz 1963) but are socially, culturally, politically and historically structured in the process of interaction.

Political Perspective

When we talk about pluralism from the political perspective, we mean the institutional incorporation of different ethnic groups or collectivities into one societal state system. This formulation of theories of plural societies emphasizes political structure rather than cultural difference. M.G Smith (1974), one of the proponents of this, approach of pluralism or plural societies, introduces the mode of political incorporation as a central concept. He identifies three modes of incorporation, the principles on the basis of which individuals or collectivities are incorporated into membership of the society: uniform or universalistic, equivalent or complementary and differential (1974:333-7).

Under universalistic or uniform incorporation, individuals hold their citizenship directly and not through sectional identification, and they hold their citizenship on the basis of equality, where as in equivalent or complimentary incorporation, and under differential incorporation, they are link to the polity, and their rights and duties are defined through their sectional membership. In equivalent or complimentary incorporation, the society is constituted as a consociation of complimentary or equivalent, but mutually exclusive corporate divisions, memberships in one of which is prerequisite for citizenship in the wider unit. In differential incorporation, the society is constituted as an order of structurally unequal and exclusive corporate sections that is as an explicitly plural regime. Thus, pluralism, then, defined in terms of unintegrated institutional structure, is much more widespread condition than the other criteria of plural societies, which must satisfy the additional criterion of differential incorporation.

Based on these different modes of incorporations, M.G Smith has distinguished three types of pluralism. The first of these is cultural pluralism, which refers simply to institutional differences without a corresponding collective segregation. Cultural pluralism usually exists in societies constituted on the basis of uniform mode of incorporation. Second, there is social pluralism that represents the condition in which institutional differences coincides with the sharp division of society in to closed corporate groups. Third, there is structural pluralism, which consists in the association of cultural and social pluralism with differential incorporation.

From the above discussion, I may argue that Smith's theory of pluralism is more taxonomical rather than explanatory. By this I mean his categories of analysis are comprehensive and informative but only an elaborate mapping exercise, covering neatly the different subspecies of plural societies according to the degree to which cultural difference is embedded institutional rules and practices. This theory does not provide us the causal and functional account of origin and dynamics of the plural societies in question. For this we need another framework for understanding the complexity of pluralism.

Interactionist Perspective

It seems common sense that the term "cultural pluralism" should refer to a situation in which several cultural traditions coexist in One community. But modern refinements in cultural analysis have increasingly rendered the concept 'cultural pluralism' as understood in commonsense unfit for any discussion of pluralism. Our accounts no longer provide empirically and distributionally bounded descriptions of cultures, composed of identifiable elements or items, and they no longer pretend to provide an exhaustive or gross picture of the content of a heritage (Barth 1984: 79).

For an analysis of the dynamics of cultural pluralism, one should develop some criteria by which one can identify and separate the 'stream' or 'tradition' that together comprise the plural scene. In this process, we need to develop a discovery procedure to ascertain how ideas/cultural items cohere in cultural stream or tradition, what the gross content of each tradition is, and how the contradiction and variation in a plural situation is reproduced and affects one another. Such contradiction and variation can be separated, and their coherence and contents can be explored by describing their social organisation, their distribution in space, their history, and their prospects (Barth 1984:82).

From the above discussion, it is clear that in order to differentiate the strands or streams of a plural society, we need to find out the separate tradition of cultures with their different histories and different prospects, so as to make an inventory of the local distinctive conditions of the perpetuation and change and their interdependence and dynamics. This focus on the distinct cultural traditions as the object of major interest must also affect how we phrase our question and description. Thus, in any plural context, we should not ask how culture is 'shared' between people, but instead investigate the process of 'enrolment' and 'embracement' whereby people come to participate in tradition.

Perspective from Power Relation: Pluralism is not merely a synonym for ethnic diversity within political analysis. Theories of cultural pluralism, which here include multiculturalism, identity politics, the politics of difference and the 'new' pluralism, involve questions about how the distribution of power and resources is or ought to be affected by cultural membership (Eisenberg 2000). In other words, the study of cultural pluralism looks at how power and resources are distributed to cultural groups. What accounts for a cultural group as a resource that can be drawn upon to improve its cultural security, or what are the circumstances that disempower a cultural group? In this regard, one of the most common concerns today is that seemingly neutral policies, practices, institutions and ways of thinking maintain the dominance of one cultural group over other (ibid).

However, since almost all societies contain more than one cultural group, the question is not whether power is distributed to cultural group, but rather to which culture(s) it is distributed in what proportion. Issues as disparate as affirmative action, ethnic conflict and secession fall under the umbrella of inquires about cultural pluralism because all essentially involve debates about the power and resources ought to be distributed among people of different identities.

Cultural Pluralism and Diversity in Nepal

The composite fabric of Nepali culture has been woven with strands and shades of varying textures and colours. It is no exaggeration to say that since ancient times Nepal has been characterized as a meeting place for many groups, religions, races and cultures.

Despite its small size, Nepal is characterized by a cultural assortment of religions, languages, caste, ethnic groups and indigenous people. At present, 101 ethnic and caste groups and subgroups, and 93 living languages have been documented (CBS, 2001). In addition, these caste, ethnic and language groups are further divided into eight major religions: Hindu, Buddhist, Islam, Kirat, Jain, Sikh, Christian and Bahai. The following categories of people more or less represent the population composition of the diverse groups of the country (see annex 1 for details). (2)

1. Parbatiyas- groups considered caste Hindus ("twice-born" castes as well as so called "untouchables") speaking Nepali as their mother tongue comprise about 39%.

2. Janajatis- hill and mountain ethnic groups of Tibeto-Burman language speakers comprise about 22%.

3. Newars- followers of both Hindu and Buddhist religious traditions comprise about 5%.

4. 'Madhises', peoples of the plains, comprise about 32%, including about 18% caste Hindus, about 10% plains ethnic groups and about 4% Muslims.

5. Marwari, Bangali, Sikhs, Christians and "unidentified" caste and ethnic groups consist of about 2%.

These wide-ranging cultural diversities in terms of caste/ethnicity, race, religion, languages, regionalism, and traditions of knowledge make Nepali society a cultural mosaic in the true sense (Dahal 1995; Bisla 1982).