My previous column, published in this paper on March 30, was entitled “An apology is not enough.” In the article, I thanked the Balendra Shah administration for deciding to offer a formal apology to Dalits on behalf of the state, while seriously doubting its sincerity to contain the hitherto widespread problem of caste discrimination.

Sadly, any discussion on the proposed state apology has become futile now, as it has been silently ditched. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) government has shamelessly reneged on its promise—and prevaricated it through Rabi Lamichhane’s emotional speech.

This exposes a height of dishonesty and hypocrisy on the part of a government popularly expected to deliver corruption control and good governance, as well as transparency and accountability. Now, one would be inclined to ask: How and why did the Balen government withdraw its own decision to formally apologise to Dalits?

Emotional theatrics

People might counter that the Chair of the RSP, Rabi Lamichhane, did apologise to Dalits in Parliament on April 2.

A man of great eloquence, Lamichhane said sorry on behalf of both his party and the government. That’s highly commendable, of course. He further declared that, almost like the king of yesteryear, nobody would be humiliated based on caste from then on.

This sounds like an extremely hollow promise, because he didn’t announce any new policy initiatives or programmes to that effect. A highly complex and deeply entrenched problem like untouchability doesn’t simply vanish because a leader said so. Don’t forget: Way back in 2006, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba declared Nepal a nation free from untouchability!

In any case, whatever Lamichhane said was his opinion, and it was also his party’s commitment. His words cannot be construed as a state apology. He may be a great party leader, but he isn’t the official representative of the state.

In fact, reading between the lines of his speech, he was announcing his party’s decision to pull back from plans to offer a state apology to Dalits. Hence, the use of a highly emotional oration and bombastic wording.

And he was quite successful in his theatrics. Many people, including Dalits, still haven’t realised that the plan has already been scrapped. Some Dalit activists and intellectuals are still writing and speaking about the historical importance of apologising to Dalits—oblivious of the fact that there has been no apology, and there will be no apology.

A formal apology from the state can be delivered only by Prime Minister Balendra Shah. He is the executive head. Why hasn’t he bothered to speak on such a critical matter?

Strictly speaking, however, even the premier’s speech doesn’t qualify as a state apology. Formal decisions must follow a specific process involving the following steps:

First, a written document justifying the apology must be passed by a Cabinet meeting. Second, the same document must be printed in the gazette. Only the things published in a gazette become truly official, which are required to be honoured by all state bodies.

And third, the executive head must present the published decision in the joint houses of the federal Parliament. Prior consultations with other parties and a debate in the parliament would be even better.

But, sadly, none of these steps has been followed. Lamichhane’s sweet-worded prevarication has been used to conceal this fact.

I have understood from relevant sources that the RSP has silently ditched the decision to apologise to Dalits. It is done and dusted. Now the question arises: What might have led the Shah administration to lie to Dalits so blatantly?

Likely causes of withdrawal

I could think of several factors that may have contributed to the silent withdrawal of the decision to formally apologise to Dalits.

It could be that the RSP is least bothered about the persistent suffering of Dalits. They deliberately invented the idea of apologising to Dalits for quick popularity, as another cheap stunt. They never meant to implement it.

My analysis seems plausible because, like other populist parties around the world, the RSP rarely problematises structural issues. Its stated beneficiary is the middle class, and has almost no interest in resolving the issues of caste, class and gender inequality.

Another factor likely responsible for ditching the decision to apologise to Dalits could be the strong opposition of powerful state bodies. Powerful persons in the army, the judiciary and other organisations may have vigorously opposed the idea of defaming the sacred caste hierarchy by bowing down to the Shudra.

Likewise, influential people in the conservative and orthodox Hindu groups and communities might have voiced their anger against the decision to upset the caste system and pave the way for the emancipation of the ritually polluted. Followers of the Manusmriti are very powerful.

Conclusion

Whatever the reason behind the dismissal of the state’s apology to Dalits, it has seriously discredited the incumbent government and the RSP. Their honesty and integrity are on the line.

A major difficulty with the current administration is that Prime Minister Shah seems to think of himself above public scrutiny. He doesn’t bother to answer any questions regarding his decisions, which is both irresponsible and undemocratic. How can one expect transparency and accountability from such a leader? If there are credible reasons for not going ahead with the decision to apologise to Dalits on behalf of the state, do let us know.