- Mitra Pariyar

The election of Barak Obama as the first Black President of America was widely acclaimed. It wasn’t just in America where fireworks were played. It appears the euphoria made it all the way to the Himalayan republic of Nepal as well. All local papers gave prominence to the election and indeed the results. Some leading papers wrote editorials singing the glory of Obama-the-Great; and a leading daily hoped the President-elect would allow illegal immigrants from Nepal to settle in his country.

One of those greatly excited by the Obama victory was our not-so-novice Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav, who publicly commented that this had brought “joy” to all the underprivileged people. For once, I was forced to ask myself – is he the Foreign Minister or the Minister for Minority Rights? I thought even the non-minority people had admired the positive change in the US history.

Yadav’s remarks indicated that he considers himself to be the de facto spokesman of the marginalised people of Nepal. He probably gets this narcissist impression from his clever play of the Madhesi card in the past years which provided him a swift access to power. But does he qualify to speak on behalf of all the marginalised people of Nepal? Why didn’t he speak on Nepal-US relations instead, as per his responsibility? He could have asked the President-elect to pour more aid money to help his government create a new Nepal. I am sure Prime Minister Prachanda would not have objected to such a plea because he has already done so with the outgoing administration in his recent US visit. Or if Yadav did not have anything significant to say, perhaps he should have restrained his urge to make a statement.

The situation of African-American people in America before racism was effectively banned was, in many ways, similar to the current situation of the low caste in Nepal. People from Dom, Chamar, Harijan, Musahar and other communities in his region are today facing the similar prejudices and discriminations as Obama’s grandparents in their youth. Upendra Yadav (and his party) has never attempted to accommodate the voices of these people undergoing daily segregation and domination and humiliation at the hands of the high caste, including the Yadavs. To those who understand this reality, it looked extremely absurd and fallacious when he expressed his “joy” on behalf of the underprivileged.

Going back to Obama, one would argue, why is there so much excitement - more about his colour than his talents? Why should all minorities of the world rejoice his ascent to power? Is he the harbinger of hope for all the suppressed people and communities in the world? Is it his job to fight for the rights of the ethnic minorities everywhere? As the President of the most powerful democratic nation, his certain policies could have positive influences globally. But he will be working to promote the best interests of the pan-American people and that of the American state. This is the job he is voted for. I am sure his supporters did not vote for him because they desperately wanted to see a Black successor to President Bush. They looked at his potential, integrity, and proposal for a better future, and trusted on him to bring about the change he promised. He may frustrate them in the future, but now the Americans expressed their faith on him and gave him the license to rule. Besides, he is not one of those impoverished men directly walking out of the Black ghettos; he belongs to a ruling class in America. His lifestyle is no different to the Whites, what differentiates is his colour he got from his Kenyan father, even his mother was a White.

There is, however, a powerful symbolic significance of the Obama victory, particularly for the American minorities. This victory was significant in the way that it showed many Americans had rejected racism, not just in conformity with the legislation but also out of their mental constructs. This indicates the greatness of the American people because of their great egalitarian values. And the victory has also shown that the meritocracy has indeed burgeoned in the US, which means the American minorities, once treated as outcaste and slaves and aliens in the society, now have a better chance of succeeding through hard work and talent. The ascribed status matters much less.

But this can not be correlated to countries like ours for the basic fact that Nepal is not America. Even in the UK people do not anticipate a Black Prime Minister anytime soon.

In fact India had such an example long back when it had its President from a Dalit community (although President is not an executive position). Perhaps this may have acted as an inspiration for other Dalits in India. But we did not see any marked change of policy or programme in favour of some 300 million low caste during his regime as well. Such is the reality of our parts of the world. I wonder how much psychological impact will be drawn from the American President.

A question arises - when will Nepal have a Prime Minister from a Dalit community? Based on the current trend, my answer would be – probably never. If there is a cross-party, uncontested understanding in Nepal, it is the undeclared policy of turning deaf ears to the low caste. It is frustrating that even the Maoist-led government has not shown any concern on this front and there is a growing recognition among the oppressed people that we might be losing out on the recent historical changes as well. Dalits will probably not get their Obama in the next couple of centuries.

(The author is a Post Graduate Student at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom. He can be reached at ud.pariyar@gmail.com.)

RELATED NEWS:

Barack Obama becomes the first African-American elected as the 44th President of United States