In these times of political flux all over the Himalayan region, it is essential to be sensitive to assertions of identify. Such sensitivity is especially important in Nepal, whose people have only just gained the right to speak out and to demand.
In the past, itwas enough to pay cursory tribute to Nepal´s cultural diversity through inexpertly-produced ´phulbari´ programmes on Nepal Television or Radio Nepal. This will no longer suffice. While the Nepali speakers of India have long struggled with dual identities and confusing cultural markers, their kin in Nepal are bnry now haying to confront issues that India tackled in the early 1950s.
Are the political chieftains of Kathmandu sufficiently sensitive to the new ethnic demands? Indications are they are not Otherwise, why should scores of Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum sign petitions seeking compulsory Sanskrit education in high school, as if the debate over inclusion of "Hindu rastra" in the Nepali Constitution had never taken place. Do they appreciate thatmany Nepalis are Tibeto-B urman, who might speak Nepali but perceive Sanskrit as the vehicle for a Hinduised State?
There is a tendency to regard the newfound self-assertion among the tribes as an irritant on the rough hide of the nation-state. But if B shuns and Chhetris have a pan – Nepali identity to fall back upon, aRai or aMagar, depending upon how distant he is from his roots, has an ethnic identity in addition to that ´Nepali1 identity. Without doubt, more and more "hill ethnics" will be inevitably drawn into the pan-Nepali culture — pushed and pulled by market forces, politics and self-desire.