Last year, we saw the immense vulnerability of Nepali citizens following the earthquake. We also saw the state and its heavy hand on vulnerable minorities following the promulgation of the new constitution. We saw Tikapur burn. Those in the Madhes rose in protest, and violence ensued. This was followed by the blockade, which again showed us the vulnerability, not necessarily of the rich but of the poorer segments of people in a landlocked country.

Now as new negotiations unfold among political parties with the intention of reframing the constitution in a way that universalises rights in Nepal, one cannot help but be sceptical, for people’s vulnerabilities across the world seem to be on the rise. Kashmir has risen up in protest, which the Indian state responded with heavy-handedness and brutality—something that has become normal for modern states all over the world. But we did not see the same ferocity in our defense of Kashmir as we did in our Indian counterparts’ defense of Madhes. Perhaps we have become too inward-looking. Even if we agree with the international norm of not interfering in other states’ affairs, perhaps as people, we have the space to speak?

Rise of ultra-nationalists

When the present Indian government, composed of deeply communal forces, otherwise known for inducing episodes of lynching, racial profiling and mob violence across India, expressed its displeasure at the marginalisation of communities in Nepal last September, various segments in Nepali civil society ascribed it to a kind of benevolence. Even as the Indian government continued to express its displeasure over the formulation of the constitution in

Nepal, it continued to repress Dalit students like RohithVemula in Hyderabad. To point out this double standard would have been an opportunity for Nepal to critique all kinds of state discrimination. However, ethical enunciation is difficult; it requires occupying a grey zone where the very thing that does you right can also be wrong. When we rise against states, it is the ability to say that all states have a penchant for violence, the kind that Max Weber justifies as legitimate, which takes our claims and concerns outside ourselves. Thus, to place ourselves in the larger political economy is the need of the hour.

As the Westphalian frame of sovereignty that divides the world into nation-states continues to waver between utmost importance and utter irrelevance, we need to be able to think of violence and rights in different ways. Wendy Brown in her 2010 book, ‘Walled States and Waning Sovereignties’ argues that as neoliberal capital—people, money and capital geared towards capital gains—travels more freely across borders threatening to erase the relevance of nation states, the states will assert their sovereignty in violent ways. Brown argues that in their attempt to assert that borders are still important, states crack down on the movement of people and project the most vulnerable to state violence—particularly immigrants and transnational social movements—to protect their rights. Furthermore, she argues that hegemonic national identities become even more potent.

Many of us would have recognised the echoes of Narendra Modi’s rhetoric of “Make in India” in Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again”. The vehement ways the ultra-nationalists are asserting themselves across the world are strikingly similar. Although Prime Minister Oli made it clear that his was an anti-India position, which stoked the nationalist sentiments of many in Nepal, he was very much like his nemesis Modi in his imagination of the possibilities for Nepal—own oil reserves, own ships and smart cities. We could hear the echoes of Modi’s unrealistic plans of self-aggrandisement in Oli’s words. In the way they continue to loathe minorities, Modi and Oli continue to be strong allies.

Ethical responses

Hegemonic national identities are on the rise across the world. As thousands of refugees enter central and western Europe, the question of who is a citizen and who can be given rights has become more pertinent. I read that the recent British exit from the EU and the resurgence of nationalism across Europe with the election of right-wing governments in countries like Spain was in this vein. Interestingly, all this is happening in the same continent where the treaty of Westphalia, the treaty of Versailles and the Paris peace treaty were signed. These treaties have shaped our imaginations about what it means to live in nations and hold rights. It seems we need a reminder of our post-world war agreement that no one should be without rights and the expansion of states at the expense of lives must be curbed.

These are the same questions we grapple with in Nepal as well. As we continue to live in blissful ignorance of the fate of thousands of migrant workers and emigrants that have left Nepal in hopes of greener pastures, we forget that many remain citizens whose rights are fundamentally tied to the future of politics in Nepal. As Nepalis outside the border of Nepal become victims of violence, our responsibility extends beyond making our own states accountable. It becomes our duty to ask why more than 60 years after the world war, people continue to be vulnerable and without rights across the world. It becomes necessary to ask: What happened to all the UN treaties that everyone supposedly signed?

As those who are capable of thought and emotion, it is becoming increasingly pertinent that we become more reflexive and thoughtful about violence and citizenship. The ethical responses demanded of us, as citizens of countries and people of the world, require us to do the double task of looking inward and outward simultaneously. We are tasked with the responsibility of calling out on the atrocities in our own context as we are in the world.The present time demands that we learn from experiences elsewhere but also bring the learning back to our own context. It is perhaps only through this movement, from ourselves to others and back, that we can imagine a politics for ourselves that is ethical and productive.

Sharma is a research scholar at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University