Ethno-nationalism and federalism

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.