The blog post is based on the masters' thesis of David Rangdrol, Uppsala University (Sweden). The thesis was written in 2007 and is titled, "Religious Nationalism in Nepal: Understanding the Demise of the Hindu Kingdom." Most of my blog posts are about countries where religious nationalism is increasing but this one will be focusing on a country where religious nationalism declined, something rare as Mr. Rangdrol explains:
Until 2006 Nepal was known as “the only Hindu Kingdom in the world.” The Hindu attribute has its roots in the creation of Nepal in the 18th century; it was written down in the highest law of the land in 1854 and finally enshrined in the constitution from 1962 onwards. But 2006 marked a year of important transitions for Nepal: from civil war to peace, from totalitarianism to democracy, and from religious nationalism to secularism. This last point is particularly interesting given the larger context. The above-mentioned study [of 120 armed conflicts that occurred in Asia between 1946 and 2005] has found that a majority of conflicts (21 out of 31) that had a religious incompatibility at their core involved rebel groups that fought governments against secularism in order to establish religious states. Nepal on the other hand is the unique case in Asia in the past 60 years where a rebel group, the Maoists, has fought a government and included a demand for secularism in its agenda. Though the Maoist People’s War cannot be characterised primarily as an anti-religious war, the demand for a secular state was an important part of it. In any case, the most outstanding event that we will try to explain in this essay is that Nepal has officially shifted from religious nationalism to secularism in May 2006, effectively erasing an important, centennial feature of Nepal – to the dismay of Hindu nationalists.(p-7 of Mr. Rangrol's unpublished thesis)
The literature used to help answer the research question is: Mark Juergensmeyer, The New Cold War: Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State; Nikki R. Keddie, The New Religious Politics: Where, When, and Why Do “Fundamentalisms” Appear?; and Gabriel A. Almond, R. Scott Appleby, Emmanuel Sivan, Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around the World.
According to Mr. Rangdrol, following were the four main reasons for the decline of religious nationalism in Nepal:
1. There was no failed post-colonial secular nation-building experience:. Most the nations where religious nationalism has arisen in the last three decades were witness to a high expectations period after independence from European powers when a primarily secular leadership took over and led the country. However, this leadership failed to deliver and there was marked disappointment. The ensuing soul-searching by the people (and efforts of the religious elite) made religious nationalism popular. Nepal was never colonized so there was no secular legacy. Nepal was united by Gorkha King Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1769 as a Hindu Kingdom and remained so till 2006. Rangdrol describes how Hinduism was linked to the Nepali Kingdom from the start and how Nepali Kings and Ranas promoted Hinduism and proclaimed Nepal as the real and the only Hindu Kingdom in the world as India, despite being bigger, was ruled by initially by the Mughals and then by the British:
In 1769, Prithivi Narayan Shah, brought small independent states, chiefdoms and principalities of different ethnicities and religions under his control and created modern Nepal. The first Gorkha King declared Nepal asali Hindustan, the “true land of Hindus,” and “garden of four varnas and thirty-six jats.” The kings became widely revered as an incarnation of god Vishnu, one of the main gods of the modern Hindu pantheon. Though scholars disagree on the intensity with which Hinduisation and cultural assimilation was thereafter implemented, it remains clear that Nepal espoused the identity of a Hindu state from its very inception, and that over time non-Hindu indigenous, nature-worshipping, animist or Buddhist people have been gradually ‘Hinduized’ as a result of the conquest of the Hindu Kings and the migration of Parbatiyas (high-caste hill people) to different parts of Nepal.” In 1846, members of a powerful family, the Ranas, relegated the Gorkha monarchy to a secondary role and effectively became the rulers of Nepal, establishing a legacy of dictatorial prime ministers that lasted over a century.
The Ranas chose to build on the Hindu foundations that the Gorkha Kings had laid before them: In 1854, Jangabahadur, the first Rana minister, introduced laws based on Hinduism and divided the country hierarchically, subordinating all other nationalities to the Brahmins and Kshetris (Khas) ruling class. The civil code of 1854 the Muluki Ain (law of the land) cemented the cast system and ensured that the rulers would exercise total control over a static society: “Grounded in the Hindu idea of ritual purity, the Muluki Ain regulated the lives of every citizen from birth to death, making social or political mobility almost impossible.” From then, the process of Hinduisation under the Ranas though not overtly aggressive but rather “gradual and almost imperceptible” had its effects, of which the slow, piecemeal adoption of Hindu traditions and the dominance of the Higher castes. One political function of this was to project a distinct image of Nepal vis-à-vis India which was seen as “defiled” by Mughal Muslim rule and called pejoratively “Muglan” (land of Mughals). Jang Bahadur Rana thus spoke: “We have our own country, a Hindu rajya [state], where laws prescribe the cows shall not be slaughtered; nor women and Brahmins sentenced to capital punishment…In this age of Kali this is the only where Hindus rule.” The Rana rule came to an abrupt end in the 1950s. This tumultuous decade also saw Nepal’s first democratic experiment, which lasted until 1960 when the Gorkha dynasty staged a royal coup and took back the power it has lost to the Ranas a century before. (p-24-25)
Source: Nationalism vs. Patriotism: What will save Nepal?
In 1962, King Mahendra came up with a new constitution under which the king not only reigned but also ruled on top of a panchayat regime. The new constitution enshrined rights of all Nepalis but the position of Hinduism was also secured. Nepal was declared a Hindu kingdom and cow, the national animal, and promoting conversion of religion was prohibited. The king was the source of all power and he had to be a Hindu of Aryan descent:
Article 20: His Majesty-the Source of Power
(1) In this Constitution the words ‘His Majesty’ mean His Majesty the King for the time being reigning, being a descendant of King Prithivi Narayan Shah and adherent of Aryan culture and Hindu religion.
(2) The sovereignty of Nepal is vested in His Majesty and all powers-executive, legislative and judicial emanate from Him. These powers are exercised by His Majesty through the organs established by or under this Constitution and other laws for the time being in force keeping in view the interest and wishes of His Majesty’s subjects according to the highest traditions of the Shah dynasty. (1962 Constitution)
Furthermore, the Panchayat regime safeguarded the continuance of traditional Hindu customs and religion at the lower level.
This system continued till 1990 when large-scale demonstrations forced the king to give up power. In the aftermath, for the first time in Nepal, secularism was discussed as an alternative to religious nationalism. The 1990 constitution replaced the party-less Panchayat system with a democratic multi-party system. There were more rights for minorities and the hold of monarchy and culture and tradition (of which Hinduism was a big part) was reduced. However, Nepal was still a Hindu kingdom and cow the national animal (1990 Constitution).
The 1990 Constitution continued till 2006. The period under the 1990 Constitution was tumultuous. Nepali Maoists started a civil war in 1996 and a royal massacre happened in which Crown Prince Dipendra killed nine members of the royal family (including King and Queen) before killing himself. The new King Gyanendra also showed his assertiveness by dismissing several governments and, in the end, imposing a state of emergency to directly rule Nepal.
It is obvious from the above discussion that Nepal was never secular. It remained a united Hindu kingdom from 1769 till 2006, ruled by a Hindu god-king, who claimed to be an incarnation of one of the principal deities of Hinduism, Vishnu.
2. Nepal was a fragile and poor country: Literature on religious nationalism indicates that a weak state may lead people and elites to look for answers to what went wrong. As mentioned above, it was the failure of the secular experiment (in terms of economic, social and political development) that has resulted in the rise of religious nationalism in many countries. Nepal had the opposite experience of these countries. It did not experience the failure of the secular experiment; it experienced the disastrous consequences of a religious experiment. As Rangdrol explains, Nepal, social and economic indicators were one of the worse in the world:
Things were not well in the Hindu Kingdom. Nepal has a history of totalitarianism, punctuated by coups, popular revolutions, and democratic experiments that only highlighted the governing elite’s political immaturity and proclivity for corruption. As the authors of People Politics and Ideology: Democracy and Social Change in Nepal explain, legitimacy rests to a great extent on economic development.125 Nepal is one of the poorest nations in Asia. Four out of ten people live with less than one Dollar a day. Nepal ranks 138 and 147 out of 177 in the Human Development and Gross Domestic Product indexes.126 The infrastructure, especially in the capital, cannot support its growing population. Traffic is abysmal and dangerous; sewage overflows daily and spreads deadly disease in the monsoon rain, and the air quality ranks Kathmandu the second most polluted city in Asia.(p-38)
Therefore, people rejected the religious nationalism and opted for something new and different i.e. secular nationalism.
3. No internal or external enemy that belonged to another religion: Threat from religious groups, different from one's own, is one of the primary reasons for the rise in religious nationalism in many countries. When a group identifies its enemy group on the basis of their religion, religion becomes not only a marker but also the primary reason for the conflict. The enemy group can be internal or external i.e. within the borders or outside it. According to the 2001 Census, Hindus constitute more than 80% of the Nepali population. The biggest religious minority are Buddhists, who are around 8% of the population, and most Hindus consider them a part of Hinduism, not a minority. Muslims and Christians, around 4% and 0.5% respectively, are the only "real" minorities but there was no history of tension between Hindus and Muslims and Christian as described by Rangdol:
Religious nationalist movements are typically exploiting threats of an “other,” which helps them mobilise people to their cause. But that “other” is difficult to locate in Nepal. Nepal was never a colony, neither Christians nor Muslims invaded it, it has experienced no large-scale inter-religious violence nor any other type of traumatic event that can be credibly blamed on this or that religious minority...it is clear that religious demographics show a solid Hindu majority with Buddhists for main minority. It is not customary to talk about Hindu-Buddhist confrontations, and it is very difficult for most Hindus to demonise or speak of a ‘Buddhist threat’ for the simple reason that they take Buddhism as a branch of Hinduism. (p-42)
Maoists, although instrumental in the fall of religious nationalism in Nepal, were also not considered enemy:
If not the secular west, the local secular elite, or religious minorities, who else then could personify an anti-Hindu enemy? The Maoists perhaps? After all, it is them who have asked for a secular state at the point of AK-47s, and they are communists and therefore should be in principle atheists? Although many religious nationalists perceive Maoists as enemies144 – being the brute force behind the fall of the Hindu Kingdom – they have not been widely portrayed directly in terms of an “anti-religious” force.145 In general, Maoists do not fit the anti-religious/atheist communist stereotype. The Maoists seem to have managed a skilled balancing act: on the one hand harvesting the grievances left by decades of pro-Hindu discrimination, and, on the other, being careful enough not to harm Hindu or traditional sentiments. Though the CPN-M official banners display the usual communist avatars146 alongside their leader Prachanda, they have differed from Mao and some of his acolytes in that they have not proactively promoted atheism and anti-religious policies. Although it is reported that there were incidents in the People’s War, especially at the beginning, that involved iconoclastic gestures such as destroying temples or intimidating priests, they were quick to realise the strategic downside of those methods. They have managed to recruit all the marginalised people of the Hindu state system while they have also displayed respect for the Hindu religion and its traditions. (p-43)
Similarly, although Rangdol does not talk about it, there was no external enemy that belonged to another religion. Nepal has no external enemies but Nepalis often feel resentment towards India due to historic land and water disputes, the annexation of Sikkim, both actual and perceived slights by the big neighbor as well as direct intervention by India in Nepali affairs (See Bollywood Meets Nepali Nationalism). The religious "other," therefore, does not even exist outside Nepal, contributing to the decline of religious nationalism in Nepal.
4. Top-down religious nationalist structure: There were no religious nationalist political parties in Nepal during the from the 1950s to 2006. The major reason for this was the presence of Hindu king and declaration of Nepal as a Hindu kingdom. With a four-fifths majority in population and the most powerful man in Nepal on Hinduism side, there was apparently no need for a Hindu nationalist party. Compared to India, there was no history of religious mobilization in Nepal by Hindu nationalists. Therefore, when the king was ousted, religious nationalism went with him:
Part of the reason why there were no Hindu nationalist parties even in the 1990s rests on the historical structure of religious nationalism in Nepal: its top-bottom configuration. Hindu nationalism had been imposed from the top with authoritarian means from the very beginning. The institution of Kingship always secured the Hindu state, and therefore no bottom-up religiopolitical activism was ever needed to maintain religious nationalism...If one compares this trajectory to India the contrast is telling. In India, Hindu nationalism has a century of training by trial and error...In Nepal, with the King in a corner and intensified Maoist pressure, no strong alternative mediums were there to protect the interests of the Hindu state, and none of the political parties saw it as a vital part of their agenda. Hindu political parties did not emerge because there was no demand or need for them; state Hinduness was secure with the King. The 1990 secular debate was an alarming moment Hindu nationalists did not heed, there was no such instinct, no such culture. But not much could be expected in such a short lapse of time because social networks take time to form. (p-48)
