In the two years since the sidelining of Nepal's monarchy in April 2006, and the restoration of a democracy that promised a more inclusive polity, the country has been characterised by a surge of ethno-nationalism. Communities that felt historically left out began to demand their own territorial space "in which they would be the masters, dominating politics, staffing the civil service, and controlling commerce", as historian Jerry Z Muller put it recently. Although the implicit understanding in the aftermath of the People's Movement of April 2006 was that the contours of both the Nepali state and the polity would be deliberated upon and decided by a Constituent Assembly (due to be elected on 10 April, after having been twice postponed), there were simply too many groups unwilling to accept assurances from the current political leaders of a more just social and political order in the future. The reason for this mistrust is not hard to find.
Despite promises of a fresh start following their ignominious performance during the 1990s, Nepal's political parties have done precious little to alter the character of the state. Given that the major parties, as well as the state apparatus, are under the control of the same two dominant minority groups – Bahuns (hill Brahmins) and Chhetris – that together comprise around 30 percent of the population, the concentration of power in their hands, and what benefits accrue from this power, was certain to be challenged as Nepal's political flux continued.
For a country that had just come out of a decade-long Maoist insurgency, it had seemed that bringing the Maoists into the political mainstream would begin the process of political and social reconciliation. But far from that, for more than a year Nepal was wracked by sometimes violent ethnic unrest, which effectively brought the country to a standstill for days on end. As Himal goes to press, an uneasy truce holds in the run-up to the Constituent Assembly elections, but there is no saying what form Nepal's politics of ethno-nationalism will take in the future.
Rise of the laggards
It is not surprising that ethnicity should suddenly appear as the most defining feature in contemporary politics, even though Nepal is neither a newly created country nor a product of decolonisation – both of which conditions are considered ripe for ethno-nationalist conflict. Nepal is one of the world's oldest states, having existed in more or less today's form since the mid-1700s. But having followed the empire model during its consolidation of territory and thereafter, ethnic markers remained notably vibrant. Ultimately, that Nepal stayed relatively stable for more than two centuries owes more to the state of underdevelopment ensured by the rulers than anything else.