If the mass media is any index of public memory, the end-of-year riots in Kathmandu triggered by the supposed anti-Nepal comments of an Indian film celebrity appear to have been relegated to the back of the Nepali consciousness. Having learnt to live with the crippling burden of repeated bandh shutdowns, the Kathmandu intelligentsia seems to have shrugged off the agitation that degenerated into communal riots as a bad experience better forgotten. Which is a pity, because the nasty turn of events has a deep bearing on the further evolution of Nepali society.
In the effervescent politics of new democracy, Hrithik Roshan's unstated 'derogatory' remarks against Nepal and Nepalis provided opportunity for yet another show of strength on the streets—mostly by the left parties (joined by the opportunistic right) in the name of wounded national pride. But something went horribly wrong. Instead of coming together against a common enemy, the defenders of 'national honour' turned against their own kind.
No one knows when and how, but at some point during the riots, the anger against India transformed into mob attacks against Indians and 'Indian-looking' people of Tarai origin. Dark-skinned madhesis—and anyone else who looked similar, including many from the hill castes—were beaten up and humiliated in the Kathmandu streets and bylanes. What began as a reassertion of national pride turned into communal violence which deepened the divide between the parbatey hill people and the madhesi plainspeople. If the purpose was to strengt-hen national unity, this agitation achieved the opposite to a degree that takes the breath away.
The reaction of the hill-based activists has roots, at its deepest, in the vision of nation state. 'Nation' is the most powerful political concept of the day and no Nepali mainstream political party wants to lag behind in appealing to nationalism. In Nepal, as elsewhere in South Asia, the worst crime is to be 'anti-national' or 'unpatriotic'. But 'nation' as understood can never encompass everyone, particularly in the diversity that marks this country of hill, plain and high mountain.
Exclusionary agenda
Before the 'nation state' came along as a by-product of European history two centuries ago, there was the 'territorial state', where authority was vested in the ruler—the emperor or king. Power flowed from the top, and the identities of the people per se, whether ethnic or national, did not make much difference to their political status. However, with democratic revolution challenging the role of absolute rulers, the 'nation' became the source of political authority, representing as it did an identity based on religion, language, custom, shared history, and so on. The nation states of Europe thus emerged coalescing around established identities. But even there, the subsuming of disparate identities was not complete, and so you have today the Scot nation, the Basque nation or the Bretons retaining
their exclusive identities and smarting under the more dominant nations within which they have been contained.