Social Movements Politics of Identity in Nepal

1.1 Introduction

Defining what, exactly, a social movement is can be difficult. It is not a political party or interest group, which are stable political entities that have regular access to political power and political elites; nor is it a mass fad or trend, which are unorganized, fleeting and without goals. Instead they are somewhere in between. Some characteristics of social movements are that they are “involved in conflictual relations with clearly identified opponents; are linked by dense informal networks; [and they] share a distinct collective identity” (Beyerlein; Veigh, 2012). Social movements, then, can be thought of as organized yet informal social entities that are engaged in extra-institutional conflict that is oriented towards a goal. These goals can be either aimed at a specific and narrow policy or be more broadly aimed at cultural change. To early scholars, collective action was inherently oriented towards change. Some of the earliest works on social movements were attempts to understand why people got caught up in collective action or what conditions were necessary to foment social movements. These works were rooted in theories of mass society. Mass society theory was concerned with the increasing industrialization of society, which many felt led to a sense of alienation among individuals as traditional social structures and support networks broke down. The study of social movements as specific social processes with specific patterns emerged from this field of study.

The study of social movements is among one of the largest and most broadly conceived of all the many sub-fields within the discipline of Sociology. While some researchers study the rise of specific social movement organizations at particular points in history, other researchers look at macro-level trends and events in an attempt to link various large scale demographic, economic and political transformations to the emergence of regional, national, and even global social movements (Goldstone 1991; Tarrow 1998). The diversity of approaches used to study different forms of collective action also vary widely. Some researchers focus their attention on the media and its impact on social movement actors, while others look at the impact of poverty and social class on the rise of social movements (Piven and Cloward 1977; Piven and Cloward 1988).

There are yet other scholars who expoLre identity factors and the emergence of new sets of common interests that unite disparate peoples across great physical distances and from different cultures and political systems (Laclau 1985; Melucci 1996; Slater 1985). As if the breadth of different modes of inquiry into social movements weren’t enough, researchers also work on groups of vastly differing sizes. William Gamson conducted a series of controlled laboratory experiments with small groups of individuals in order to study the way that collective action frames are constructed through small group conversations (Gamson 1992). On the other hand, Charles Tilly, Theda Skocpol and Sydney Tarrow have studied social revolutions at the national and cross-national levels. While the former studied groups of four and five individuals, the latter examined groups that range in size from one to one hundred million (Skocpol 1994; Tarrow 1998; Tilly ; Tilly 1978).

The variety of methods that are applied to the study of social movements, and the tremendous variation in the type of questions being asked, demonstrates one of the most important lessons for students of social movements: There is no single definition of a social movement. More than that however, there is no single method for studying social movements nor is there any sense of agreement as to the particular types of questions that should be asked about the movements themselves. In fact, the very idea that there exists a single “sub-field” within Sociology that contains within it all possible permutations of the study of social movements is problematic (Melucci 1996). It is important to remind the reader of this fact for several reasons. First, if we are reminded of the number of different ways to approach the study of social movements, we can begin to examine the connections that exist between different sub-fields within, and without, Sociology and other related disciplines. The work of Sydney Tarrow provides a good example of how the connections between political science, economics and Sociology can help us to better understand how, and why, it is that social movements get started. Tarrow’s work combines some of the insights of economics with the macro-structural focus of political science to propose a theory that accounts for the cyclical nature of social protest activity.

Another reason why it is important to be reminded of the tremendous variety of different methodological, theoretical and substantive approaches to the study of social movements is because of the broad and inclusive nature of Sociology itself. As a social science, Sociology is notable because it draws on the disciplines of history, political science, economics, geography, art, and even the physical & biological sciences in order to come to a fuller understanding of the relationship between the individual and society. Yet, because of the large number of disciplinary influences, Sociology has a tendency to be both comprehensive, and extremely broad. The purpose of this paper is to make sense out of large number of approaches to the study of social movements. While my immediate task is necessarily general and introductory, I do go into more detail in the final section of the paper. In the final section, I consider some contemporary examples of Latin American social movements and I then apply several different theories in order to flesh out the details of contemporary theoretical approaches and their objects of study.

The study of contemporary social movements comes largely out of three different theoretical traditions, functionalism, Marxism and liberal-individualism. The theorists most clearly associated with each of these traditions are Karl Marx, the French sociologist Emile Durkheim and early Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and especially Adam Smith. Durkheim was extremely influential in the theoretical formation of the discipline of Sociology itself and his influences can be felt in most sub-fields of Sociology including collective behavior and social movements. While Durkheim neither conceived of, nor studied, social movements in the same fashion that contemporary social movement researchers do, his most lasting contribution to the discipline is the theoretical tradition known as functionalism (Durkheim 1938). While Durkheim was himself a product of the intellectual environment of mid 19th century France, his work represents a unique synthesis of Comte ‘s positivism and Durkheim’s own critical insights into the nature of society. In his book, The Rules of the Sociological Method (1938), Durkheim systematically describes what he believes are the appropriate scientific methods that should be applied to the study of society. This book is particularly important because it laid the early foundations for mainstream functionalist Sociology.

Marx, on the other hand, was primarily concerned with the movement of society through various stages of social conflict. Marx’s definitive statement on social conflict can be found in the short pamphlet The Communist Manifesto (1848). The first line of that famous document reads, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” and this helps to explain his perspective on social movements as the mechanisms that bring social revolutions to fruition. For Marx, history has been propelled by revolutionary conflicts between economically differentiated classes of individuals. Thus, Marx was primarily concerned with macro level social, political and economic transformations that would lead to the ultimate realization of proletarian victory over the bourgeoisie. Marx’s work has had a tremendous influence on contemporary North American social movement researchers; however, Marxist inspired theorizing did not make any substantial inroads into North American academic Sociology until the late inter-war years as interest in functionalism declined.

Durkheim’s notion of social equilibrium was extremely influential among early sociologists and was largely integrated into the theoretical foundations of functionalism. As a theoretical model, functionalism was most vividly represented by the norm-oriented work of Neil Smelser and Talcott Parsons whose writings attempted to link the work of earlier neo-liberal political philosophers to the field of Sociology. Neil Smelser’s 1963 book The Theory of Collective Behavior begins from the social equilibrium perspective and draws this perspective out into a full-blown theory of norm-oriented social movements. According to Smelser, shared values and norms form the basic foundations of social organization. He gives an example of the different collective behavior responses that might be precipitated by a black family moving into a white neighborhood (Smelser 1963). These include panic selling, violent outbursts and/or the emergence of a norm-oriented movement aimed at creating restrictive covenants designed to prevent additional blacks from moving into the neighborhood. The norm-oriented movement in this case is the result of two factors: Structural strain in the form of changes in the socioeconomic mobility of blacks, and precipitating factors which in this case are the negative attitudes whites hold towards blacks. In turn, the development of a norm-oriented movement is also either facilitated, or impeded, by the actors’ perceptions of effective means to challenge the situation that has aroused them. This actual process of bringing about changes, such as the ability to pass a restrictive covenant, is also either facilitated, or impeded, by agencies of social control. For example, when the Civil Rights Act was passed by the US Congress in 1964, the state and its various enforcement agencies exerted negative pressure on norm-oriented movements that attempted to restrict the rights of blacks to buy homes in white neighborhoods. In this way, agents of social control can exert influence over the structural conduciveness for particular types of norm-oriented social movements. But Smelser introduced a twist into theories of social movements during the 1960s by distinguishing between collective behavior and social movements.

Collective behavior theory was an early forerunner of what was later to become known as the field of social movements. The emphasis of collective behaviorists was on involuntary, impulsive and spontaneous types of social organizations rather than on planned and purposive organizations formed in order to achieve specific goals. Hangen, S. 2007 has expoLres the emergence of ethnic politics in Nepal in her study. The reestablishment of a multiparty system aloLwed for identity politics to become a major force in Nepali politics.
There are three main types of identity-based organizations in Nepal: the indigenous peoples organizations that represent a single ethnic group; the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities, a federation of the indigenous people organizations; and ethnic political parties, which have little clout given the ban on registration in the 1990 Constitution. Hangen’s study focuses on the indigenous nationalities movement. It finds this to be the most deveoLped identity movement, in contrast to the Dalit and Madhesi movements.
Another popular outgrowth of the functionalist perspective of social movements has been relative deprivation theory which was developed by Ted Gurr in the 1970s (Beyerlein; Veigh, 2012). Relative deprivation theory claims that social movements are largely the result of rising expectations on the one hand and limited capabilities to actualize those expectations on the other. When, for example, the economy is doing well and incomes are on the rise, some racial groups may perceive themselves as being unfairly denied access to equal economic opportunities. As the theory goes, this will lead to increasing incidents of social protest as rising economic expectations are not matched with rising economic rewards.

Doug McAdam has characterized the early theories of social movements as ‘classical’ because they all share a similar causal model of social action (McAdam 1982). According to McAdam, the model that underlies the work of Blumer, Kornhauser, Smelser, Gurr and other functionalist theories of social movements, assumes that structural strain is what produces feelings of psychological anxiety among individuals. This state of anxiety is the motivating force behind social movements according to McAdam. Thus for Blumer, the motivation for specific social movements is ultimately rooted in underlying structural changes that then lead to general changes in social norms. It is this change in social norms that produce the psychological strain necessary to provoke people to social action. McAdam criticizes these ‘classical’ explanations for being overly mechanistic and not adequately accounting for the wide variety of external factors that can engender social movements. By relying on a model that privileges changing social norms as the underlying causal component of social movements, the classical models tend to assume a static picture of society which is characterized by the absence of conflict. Moreover, the classical model implies that social movements are a mere derivative of psychological strain rather than rational and organized attempts to alter the conditions under which people live. McAdam suggests that conflict and change are integral parts of modern life and that social movements come about because of, “the ongoing interaction of organized contenders within a shifting politico-economic environment.”
The political opportunity approach essentially bridges macro with micro levels of analysis in the study of social movements. Sydney Tarrow defines political opportunities and constraints as, “dimensions of the political struggle that encourage people to engage in contentious politics,” (1998:19-20). Political opportunities, for Tarrow, are external resources for mobilizing groups. In other words, they are not created by social movements as such. Instead, political opportunities either benefit, or hinder, social movements by influencing the broader opportunities for successful collective action. Tilly’s mobilization model of collective action provides a convenient starting point for the analysis of social movements. The first task consists of placing social movements into the boxes in the model and attempting to determine which variables are interacting with each other in order to get an applied picture of a given movement. This is no typical resource mobilization model however! Tilly incorporates a broad variety variables in addition to group resources which makes his model significantly more sophisticated and comprehensive then those suggested by McCarthy, Zald and Oberschall. Tilly does recognize one persistent problem with his model; that of social structure versus agency in accounting for collective action. He terms this problem purposive versus causal explanations of collective action (1978:228). When oLoking at the short-term rise and decline of specific instances of collective action, the mobilization model works quite well. But, when we take into account broader social-structural changes such as population factors, changing modes of production (Marx 1978) and/or cultural/religious values (Weber 1996), the explanatory power of the model becomes more difficult to ascertain.
While model and theory building is an important aspect of Sociology, it is important to keep it in perspective. The goal of any theory should be to help us to understand the general processes at work in a number of similar situations. Tilly’s attempt to deveoLp a causal model for social movements is a useful heuristic device, but it is only a general theoretical model, one that is certainly without universal applicability. The structural focus of Tilly’s work is a common feature of the political opportunity approach, and it is important to keep in mind Tarrow’s emphasis on political opportunities as being external to social movements. However, we can often gain an important perspective on the significance of macro-level variables in explaining revolutionary outcomes by exploring the different ways that revolutions are facilitated (or impeded) by external political opportunities and constraints.

One of the classic macro-level comparative books on revolution is Theda Skocpol’s, States and Social Revolutions which was published shortly after Tilly’s. In this book she advanced the theory that social revolutions3 need to be understood by reference to three central analytical variables, (1) the organization of the state, (2) international and world-historical contexts, and (3) the role of structural factors in bringing about revolutions (as opposed to purposive actions or individual agency) (Skocpol 1994). While Skocpol tends to “over-structuralize” the macro-level factors that contribute to successful revolutions, her work is important because she brings our attention to the common patterns shared by the social revolutions she studied (the Russian, Chinese and Cuban revolutions).

Skocpol and Goodwin claim that, in the case of contemporary revolutions, sultanistic or “neo-patrimonial dictatorships are more susceptible to revolutionary overthrow then are corporate military dictatorships (Skocpol and Goodwin 1989).” This is an important claim in the context of our discussion of Latin America, as the only two cases of successful social revolution (Nicaragua and Cuba) have indeed closely resembled sultanistic/neo-patrimonial dictatorships. Most other countries in Latin America have tended to experience coup d’états, yet without the radical social transformations that have accompanied the Nicaraguan and Cuban versions of revolution. The political opportunity model can therefore be a useful tool to help us define the broad-scale parameters that characterize revolutionary movements, yet macro-level models may be less useful in the future as the processes of economic change and political globalization continue to unfold.
The new social movements’ perspective largely deveoLped because of the perceived inadequacies of neo-Marxist (structural) models of social movements that were popular in Europe during the 1960s. As the 1960s unfolded, it became increasingly clear that structural accounts of social movements, which assumed all individuals would deveoLp a revolutionary working-class consciousness once they were made aware of the mechanisms of their oppression, were inadequate. In response to these inadequacies, European philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Jaques Derrida and Piere Bourdieu began to develop alternative theoretical paradigms. Post-structuralism was the first strand of theory that emerged among these French intellectuals and this perspective gradually matured into what has come to known as postmodernism. The fundamental concern of NSM theorists then, is over the formation of collective identities because it is through identity that individuals become participants in social movements. Before a social movement can take shape, individuals must first join the movement, and they do this by identifying themselves with the causes represented by a particular movement. For example, an individual must first take on the identity of an environmentalist before they will join a social movement in support of the environment. In the Marxist model of social movements, collective identity is shaped on the factory foLor. As workers toil side by side in the factories for subsistence wages, they become increasingly aware of their shared interest which leads to the development of a proletarian identity. Beginning in the 1960s however, a transition had taken place from an industrial to a postindustrial form of capitalism (Harvey 1989). Under modern capitalism production no Longer takes place primarily in factories, so the conditions that would ordinarily encourage the development of a proletarian identity no Longer exist.

One problematic assumption that underlies this assertion however; is that new social movements are only found in ‘postindustrial’ societies which leaves industrializing countries outside the scope of the NSM approach. Yet this is clearly not the case. Several different researchers have found evidence of NSM mobilization patterns in newly industrializing, industrialized and postindustrial states (Alvarez et al. 1998; Escobar and Alvarez 1992; McGuire 1989; Molyneux 1985). The key to understanding the ‘newness’ of new social movements then, is in identifying the unique characteristics of these movements. To this end, Gusfield, Larana and Johnston identify eight features of NSMs that differentiate them from their earlier social movement counterparts: There is a tendency for the social base of new social movements to transcend class structure. The ideooLgical characteristics of NSMs stand in sharp contrast to the working class movement and to the Marxist conception of ideology as a unifying and totalizing element for collective action.

1.2 Social Movements and Identity Politics of Nepal

This essay briefly narrates the concept, nature and implications of contemporary social movements in general and Nepal in particular especially focusing on caste, indigenous, Madhes and Dalit assuming that the movements of these forces are coming into sharper discourse and shaping the political dynamics of social change. Proceeding from the different conceptions of social power, they have built a new web of connections extending across the national borders and overwhelming the power of the state to manage politics, economics and society. As it is very difficult to capture and generalize various types of social movements, such as human rights, ecooLgical, indigenous and nationalities, religious and regional grouping, only a few that are constantly struggling to establish just order in society are discussed. Not all of them, however, can be said to be democratic in aims because some of them link modern politics to the evidence of history of Sociology.

Especially, proliferation of clan and lineage based pre-modern associations of solidarity among the high caste Bahuns, Chhetris and Newars and ethnic Magars, Rais, Limbus and Thakalis are being redefined and strengthened in the modern Nepal context. Nepal is a country of minorities with no ethnic group making up more than 18 percent of population. The indigenous people’s movement also draws attention to the misery and destruction of ecology and culture and, consequently, evokes anti-modern, ethnocentric reactions. Many of the groups are struggling to sustain their physical, economic and cultural survival. The movements of people from the state of nature to society and freedom from the arbitrariness of state have been historically constructed through their self-transforming efforts. The state acted as an enforcer and mediator of the interests of contending social castes and classes. Caste hierarchy and feudal system created a society of many divisions, and respect for authority by the people was passed on from the old feudal regime to multiparty democracy. Since the unification of the country in 1768, the founder of modern Nepal Prithvi Narayan Shaha and the later Rana rulers (1856-1950), fashioned the Nepali state according to Hindu code of law where the state class acted as a patron, thinker and decision-makers, and society abided by them. In particular, the Shaha rulers tried to create the superiority of the sovereign state over other forms of rule and sought the centrality of national loyalty to political power. The concept of democracy provided Nepalese a “reference point” to interpret their negative conditions of life and transcend those circumstances through empowerment solutions, involving their self-organization into social groups and political parties. Efforts to overcome political alienation from the status of raitis (subjects) and recognition as citizens, was the source of social and political movements. These efforts were also aimed to bridge the gap between the “objective conditions” of peoples’ existence and their own subjectivity, as sovereign citizens. The political movements of the late 1940s, where many social movements were infused, aimed to create a civil or constitutional state capable of realizing the needs and freedom of people. The rebellious spirits of critical mass released the pent-up feelings among the citizens and violated all social taboos and restrictions aiming to contribute significantly to the creation of a liberal political culture. In that sense, the popular upsurge of 1950 tried to introduce the concept of modernity conforming international conscience for a change from a feudalistic set up to a pluralistic form of governance. That was the beginning of a political culture of weakening kinship ties, caste system, oLcal community, and the questioning of religious authority and tradition.
According to S. Hangen high-caste Hindus from the hill region, including the Hindu monarchy, constitute the politically-dominant group in Nepali society. They have dominated state power since the emergence of the modem state in the late eighteenth century. Ethnic inequality began when indigenous nationalities were incorporated in the state-building process on unequal terms. They were burdened by taxes and labor obligations, and often oLst land to high-caste Hindus.

From 1962 to 1990, the state sought to establish a homogeneous nation of Hindu Nepali speakers. The national culture supported the dominance of high-caste Hindus and further marginalized ethnic groups. Although the 1990 Constitution moved toward redefining the nation as multicultural, Nepal remained a Hindu kingdom, the Nepali language held a higher status than other languages, and the king maintained a role in the government. Marginalized groups were thus dissatisfied with this constitution.

Furthermore, despite the political reforms after 1990, the political exclusion of marginalized groups increased. The indigenous nationalities movement aims to increase the social, economic, and political power of these people, revive their religions, languages, and cultures, and end the dominance of the high-caste Hindus. The movement has constructed a collective identity for this heterogeneous group as indigenous nationalities, enabling these people to take action to define and resolve their common problems. Mongol race is an alternative construction of this identity.

The indigenous nationalities movement began organizing in the 1950s and became a major political force after 1990. Three main types of organizations participate in the movement: indigenous people organizations representing single ethnic groups, a federation of these organizations called the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN), and ethnic political parties. NEFIN, the dominant voice of the movement, and the indigenous people organizations initially focused on cultural revitalization, yet they have increasingly advanced political demands, such as the right to self-determination and a federal state. These organizations are slowly becoming more representative of the entire population of indigenous nationalities, as women and smaller ethnic groups become more active and these organizations expand work in rural areas. Ethnic political parties have been marginal in the movement, but they could enable indigenous nationalities to increase their representation in the government. They have been denied registration by the Election Commission, and have not won seats in parliament. Yet one party, the Mongol National Organization, won seats in village governments in I1am district. It also raised awareness about ethnic issues in some rural areas where other ethnic organizations were not as active. The Maoists adopted ethnic issues and established ethnic liberation fronts. Many indigenous nationalities participated in the Maoists’ People’s War, and the Maoists pressured the political center to take ethnic demands more seriously. The indigenous nationalities movement has pressured the government to create institutions to address ethnic issues. The state established the National Foundation for the Development of Indigenous Nationalities in 2002, signaling the legitimization of ethnic politics.

International donors also began supporting indigenous people organizations. Whether the movement’s extension into these powerful arenas will limit its capacity to define its own goals remains a concern.

The indigenous nationalities movement has contributed to democratization by transforming the dominant political discourse, creating awareness of ethnic issues in society, and pressuring the state into addressing ethnic inequality. It has challenged restrictions that remained in the post-1990 system, such as the limitations on ethnic parties and the lack of religious freedom. The movement has also implemented some new rights that were granted in the 1990 Constitution but were not supported by state programs, such as the right to primary education in one’s mother tongue. The political changes the movement demands, redistribution and wider sharing of political power and the freedom to express political and cultural diversity, are necessary for further democratization. The indigenous nationalities movement is playing an important role in current efforts to create oLng-term political stability and democracy. The interim government composed of the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists, addressed some ethnic issues in their peace accord and the Interim Constitution, yet indigenous nationalities have rejected these documents for failing to fulfill their demands for ethnic federalism and proportional representation. They have not been well represented in the decision-making process, and they should build coalitions with other marginalized groups to identify common ground and achieve their political demands. To create political stability and strengthen democracy, the state should adopt policies that create an inclusive political system. Indigenous nationalities must be adequately represented in all decision-making bodies, through appointments, reservations, or a proportional electoral system. A proportional election system would ensure that small parties are given a voice in the legal political system and are dissuaded from taking up arms. Legalizing ethnic political parties could also help achieve this goal. Opposition to these parties will fuel resentment, leading to violence. The diversity of Nepal should be recognized in representations of the national identity. The democratizing contributions of the indigenous nationalities movement must be recognized so that indigenous nationalities will be acknowledged as rightful political leaders and participants.

The new social movements in Nepal have produced a critical mass of conscious people outside the hegemonic class representing the state and political parties. This critical mass is trying to construct a genuine multiparty democracy capable of reflecting and representing multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-layered social microcosm of the nation into political power and attaining their empowerment. In 1990, the Panchayat regime was overthrown, a new Constitution written and a multiparty system re-established. These reforms did not properly address the exclusion of marginalized groups. Ethnic centralization continued: power remained concentrated in the centre with other regions exceedingly neglected in every aspect: in governance, development, communication, transportation, health, education, etc. The political reforms, however, did provide the space for such grievances to be mobilized and heard – resulting in the emergence of µidentity politics‘. According to Gellner the revolution 2007 is the history of caste and ethnicity in Nepal by a causal relation with growth of ethnic movements. The period between 1960 to 1990 was supposed to be one of nation-building; however, the article notes that the shared national identity that was promoted during this time was one based on the dominance of Brahmanism and the exclusion of oLwer castes, ethnic groups, religious minorities and people of Madhesis living in the Tarai region in the south. The janajati/ethnic movement has been driven primarily by anti-Brahmanism and dissatisfaction of the dominance of high caste Hindus, particularly Bahuns, in public life. This dissatisfaction has grown with publication of census information, which reveals that bahun account for only 13 per cent of the population. The reestablishment of multiparty democracy in 1990 provided the space for ‘suppressed’ voices to rise and has resulted in a period of ethnicity-building.

The Maoists in Nepal, the article argues, deveoLped a strategy to use ethnic difference to their benefit. They established a Magar-dominated ‘special district’ in west Nepal, which lay the foundation for subsequent declarations of autonomous regions in 2004. The entire country was divided into nine ‘autonomous’ regions, which were to be the first level of government beoLw the national. Six of the nine regions were named on an ethnic basis. The article also points to the Maoists as contributing to the rise of ethnic militancy in Nepalese Tarai. Nepal is in a state of political transition and those living in the Tarai have acted to ensure that they are heard in the centre. Madhesis have faced continued exclusion from the centre. Although commissions were established in the 1990s by the government to address inequalities faced by women, by janajatis and by dalits, there was no acknowledgment of the madhesis. Dalits, the article cautions though, are on all criteria worse off than any other group and require pressing attention.

The problem faced by the Dalits is specific to Hindu caste orthodoxy. They are disadvantaged by the government policies, which have failed to account for the structural rigidity of the caste system that prevented their mobility to achieve positive social status. The Dalits were forced to accept Sanskritization, an acculturation to high caste Bahun-Chhetri-Newar culture. The Dalit movement in Nepal is, therefore, largely emancipator in nature as they seek to renew selfhood by way of overcoming alienation, untouched ability, de-humanization and de-culturation by a process of critical self-learning, self-enlightenment and self-transcendence (mukti). Liberatory transformation abolishes the oppressive structure of power. It is also ascriptive in the sense that they are struggling for equal social integration in Hindu-Buddhist society rather than taking refuge to the exclusive appeal of modernity and offering historical alternatives of societal development. The roles for Dalits and women are socially constructed, culturally specific, informed by the medium of knowledge and media and reinforced by disciplinary institutions. Identity is mainly derived from the collective learning process of actors. Freedom, equality and solidarity are the basic values of all the movements. Dalit movements cut across party politics and reject existing stereotypes. All these forces seek to construct protected space to define the boundaries of collective identity through the process of acting together in the course of their movements. Dalits are looking for proportional representation in politics and participation in public sphere which until recently was largely denied to them. There is also a social struggle between the women’s organizations seeking to defend tradition and social rank and those seeking new socialization and political culture.

According to Steven a major controversy is whether Dalits have internalized their oLw status so much that they reinforce it through their behavior. A brief review of recent literature on Dalit status suggests that in India this issue is still unresolved and in Nepal it is barely of interest to scholars. In an attempt to illuminate questions of Dalit social action at the oLcal level, he flesh out dimensions of identity politics, including a set of actions he call the politics of anonymity, to attempt to further comprehend Dalit resistance to their social oppression. Three still-open issues are salient:

The degree to which Dalits are still subject to social and political oppression
The degree to which Dalits “participate willingly in their own degradation
The social and political strategies Dalits employ to deal with degradation
Lose coupling of a number of Dalit organizations, the degree of heterogeneity among them and dissimilar ways of interest articulation despite common concerns have posed problems for them to effect collective action. Dalits of the hills and Tarai regions embody heterogeneous needs and dissimilar perspectives. Like Dalits, women’s organizations are also loosely integrated characterized by fragmentation and complexity. Their networks of interaction favor not interest representation but only formulation of demands and stimulation of social mobilization designed to end oppression, entitle them with civic rights and enforce social justice. All the contemporary social movements are historically grounded and indigenous, and in part carried through by the deliberate efforts of the leaders from above, followers from below and sympathizers from outside. The life of a nation is reflected into the self-conscious system of its interlocked multiple parts.

1.3 Conclusion

Nepalese society, historically organized as hierarchal discriminatory and feudal, has encountered 10 years armed conflict that stimulated the quest for access to development and questioned traditional power relations and practices of social exclusion. After than 238 years of rule By Hindu monarchy and Rana regime, Nepal is now a federal democratic republic and is in the process of transforming into inclusive, decentralized and modern state. The country is undergoing enormous societal change with to resolve these issues and achieve peace and stability with social happiness, requires visionary leadership, democratic practices, and the protection of human rights and social justice as well as economic development and political stability. In terms of social movements are against widespread discrimination based on sex, caste, indigenous and religion; exclusive groups are in social movements for social change with collective behavior. All the Nepali political parties have special focus on the empowerment of women and uplift of Dalits. But, this is not sufficient to mediate the interest of the state and society for coherence unless adequate policies are adopted to minimize suffering in society through welfare measures and demonstrate the power of politics to serve public interests. The success of new social movements rests on their coherence in seeking balanced socialization by which their sartorial demand-orientation helps to attain collective goods. New social movements purport to aloLw the power of society to self organize, communicate and effect collective action. In a way, they set out to emancipate society from its own ideooLgical and institutional rigidity, tend to deepen the social base of politics and widen the responsibility of the state towards people by enlarging the choices so that even ordinary citizens can participate in the society’s productive life and develop feelings of identification with the state. Their ultimate success is proportionate to their power of movement integration, collective goal orientation, and adequate incentives for the participants, leadership quality and the ability to absorb continuously changing aspirations of the younger generations. The best way to repair Nepali democracy is to revitalize the multiple social movements and energize their collective action.

The future of new social movements depends on the example and the capacity set by their leaders for effecting social change. The organizational quality, agenda framing process, communication, social mobilization and linkage building have also significant bearing on their growth and development. If the old-style social movements do not incorporate the contentious interaction of diverse groups of unrepresented constituents they will create a set of potential oLsers who, in the oLng run, might become powerful force to resist the structure of domination. New social movements have emerged as a critical response to the negative aspects of the globalization process because it undermined the legitimacy of the public sphere and the notion of public good. But, this globalization has linked the new social movements of the periphery closer in their relations to the political centre and helped to deepen the nexus of people to democracy and multiple public spheres independent of state power and domination. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that new social movements have been provoked by the domination of society by the capital, the state and undemocratic technological, political, economic and social institutions. Inclusive form of governance can synergies the social struggles for social transformation and attain broad international acceptance.