The problem lies with our Westminster-style democracy which has all along been dominated an defined by our feudalistic tradition.

On 22 Jun 2016 23:40, "Bihari Krishna Shrestha" <biharishrestha@gmail.com> wrote:

Our nation's problems today have nothing to do with a handful of whom the author calls "Bahun Kantha". All "Kanthas" from almost all caste ethnic groups who have found themselves adorning the various public positions over the last quarter century and more--not only PM, but also ministers, MPs, DDC VDC presidents, party presidents and members, government officials from top to bottom--they have all behaved no differently. In one sentence, they have all been corrupt and have been so with total impunity. The only reason the Bauns seem to be the ones indulging in them mostly is because the Bahuns are the largest ethnic category (12%+) after Chhetri (16%+) except that most chhetris are as disadvantaged as most other caste ethnic groups and so do not make it to the top. Besides, the Bahuns are the ones who are culturally the most progressive: they are required to place highest premium on literacy. And given the hierarchically defined Hindu caste system, considerable societal resources flow their way. However, outside of the small tribe of Thakkhola Thakalis, Newars are the most prosperous of the caste ethnic groups in Nepal with advances in literacy comparable to that of Bahuns. The reason they are not so visible as Kanthas is because, in Nepal's population there are at least two Bahun Kanthas for every Newar Kantha.

The problem lies with our Westminster-style democracy which has all along been dominated an defined by our feudalistic tradition. Every single group, whether Bahun or non-Bahun, are vertically stratified with the elites at the top enjoying the most power, politically, economically and so on. So, given the feudalistic hold in our social organization, leadership in the communities are conferred ascriptively in that anybody who is high caste and rich emerge as local leader who would then go on to be anointed also as local VDC head, party head, and forest user group head and so on. And those who make it to Kathmandu are the most feudal of the feudals, i.e. who are much richer than most and are necessarily high caste. So, most of them have to be Bahun Kanthas.

But consider this particular situation. While whether a Bahun Kantha or Kantha of some other caste ethnic groups, he as the head of the forest user group does not engage in corruption, because the basic decision making body is the users in the user groups as a whole. Due to this universal participation of the users, the management of the FUGs is transparent and that makes the leaders necessarily accountable too. This has been the secret behind our world class success in forest regeneration in Nepal.

However, in other decision making situations, there  is no such room for universal participation, and as a result , no compulsion for transparency and accountability. It has been this failure of the Westminster model of democracy that has caused havoc in Nepal all these years. I call this the Westminster's Curse to Nepal. In short, Bahun Kanthas are born as a result of this farcical attempt to transplant Westminster model--that prospered in largely rational and literate Western societies--into the traditional society that is Nepal (and India too, from where we imported this model in the first place). While we have had Kami, Damai, Sarki, Paswan, Newar Gurung,,Magar, Yadav ministers, they all turned out to be Kanthas, not only KP Bhattarai, GP Koirala, MAKUNE, Jhala Khanal, and so on. In short, the problem lies with the structure of our democracy vis-à-vis the feudalistic nature of our society, and blaming it on a few Bahun Kanthas would be a gross mistake and would misdirect our search for solutions, besides unnecessarily igniting ethnic tensions in already fragile inter-ethnic relationship in Nepal.

Bihari Krishna Shrestha