(c) from a hegemonic to a participatory system of governance,
(d) from a state underpinned by one dominant religion to secularism, and
(e) from a centralised unitary system to decentralisation and autonomy.ii. the 1990 constitution and its demise
The 1990 constitution of Nepal declared the country ‘multi-ethnic and multi-
lingual’ (Article 4 ( 1 )). Yet it described the state as indivisible and sovereign
and created a highly centralised government. It declared Hinduism the official
religion and made Nepali in the Devanagari script the sole official language
(Article 6 ( 1 )). The king, closely associated with a particular religion and social
structure, was described as the symbol of the Nepalese nation and of the unity of
theNepalesepeople.Thekingthuspersonifiedtheexclusionarynatureofthe
state, oriented towards the majority religion, language and culture. The ‘first-past-
the-post’ electoral system restricted marginalised communities’ access to, and
participation in, institutions of the state. The hegemony of the high-caste elite,
in control of major political parties, was to be preserved by prohibition of
sectarian and ethnic parties (Article 112 ( 1 )andproviso 3 of Article 12 ( 2 )). The
people of Nepal were envisaged as a ‘collectivity’ and the assertion of identity on
the basis of religion, caste or language was sidelined, rather than celebrated in any
way (Article 2 ). A principal task of the state, as highlighted in the Preamble, was
to promote ‘amongst the people of Nepal the spirit of fraternity and the bond
of unity on the basis of liberty and equality’.
Nepal was not unusual in using the state to establish the hegemony of a
particular elite or community and to create the entire population in its image
(and in this respect the Constitution carried on a much older tradition of state
formation in Nepal^2 ). However, in recent years the legitimacy and fairness of this
‘nation-state’ model has come under severe challenge in many parts of the world.
The roots of discontent lie in the economic, social and political exclusion of
communities and their members. There is a close correlation between poverty
and ethnic minorities. Although a powerful case for a more inclusive state system
is based on the threat to the culture of minority communities and therefore to
their identity, self-respect and social orientation, many ethnic protests and insur-
gencies are less about the preservation of culture, religion or tradition than about
lack of access to the state and the economy. In this way, ethnicity itself becomes a
social and political force, a means to mobilise and organise members of the
community, as its leaders advance claims for full participation in the affairs of
the state.
(^2) See, for example, Werner Levi, ‘Government and politics in Nepal:i’( 1951 ) 21 ( 18 )Far
Eastern Survey 185 ; Werner Levi, ‘Government and politics in Nepal:ii’( 1952 ) 22 ( 1 )Far
Eastern Survey 5.