Promulgation of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 has created further polarization in Nepalese politics. The protests organized by the Madhesi and indigenous Peoples against the constitution demonstrate that the long awaited constitution has fulfilled the political interests of the dominant ruling caste group, namely Bahun and Chhetri. Demands for immediate amendments corroborates the fact that the new constitution failed to be inclusive and failed to fulfill the political aspirations of the indigenous peoples. Drawing on Limbuwan’s identity movement and particularly showcasing the Limbuwan-oriented political parties’ as well as organizations’ protests against the new constitution this paper will seek to answer: a) why Limbuwan, together with other provinces, based on cultural and historical identity, could not be constitutionally ensured or in other words why the constituent assembly could only promulgate the constitution with ‘unnamed’ provinces; b) what can be the political logics behind the dominant political parties or the ruling caste groups, namely Bahun and Chhetri, to be against the identity based names of the provinces; c) why did the ruling political parties convolutedly presented ‘identity’ to be ‘fearful’ and ‘divisive’ for the country; d) why the Limbuwan oriented parties could not put strong enough pressure on the ruling parties to convince them to ensure Limbuwan in the constitution, or did the ruling parties simply ignore the movement for Limbuwan or were they not able to comprehend the logic of the adivasi’s identity movement?
This paper will consider the Nepalese state making process as characterized by the attributes of colonialism in which the ruling castes, namely Bahun and Chhetri subjugated and controlled over the adivasi-janajati and Madhesi peoples for prospering the ruling castes themselves. I will argue that in Nepal the ruling caste groups’ political characteristics ascribe to the ‘white man’s burden’ concept in political dealing with the Limbuwan and the Limbu even today. Drawing on Terence Turner (1984, 1997, 2004, 2012), Maurice Godelier (1999) and David Holmberg (2011), this paper will discuss why collective cultural identity is politically important for the adivasi-janajati, including the Limbu, in a multicultural country like Nepal and why the constitution of Nepal should embody the cultural differences or identity of all different groups for better functioning of democracy (Godelier, 1999). This paper will conclude that all different cultural groups, as being sovereigns of the country, have right to be culturally included in the constitution. Such an inclusion and incorporation of cultural differences into the constitution and due recognition of collective identities of different cultures by the state will make the peoples realize that they have ownership of the constitution as their most sacred document of democracy founded on their own blood and sweat (Godelier, 1999). I will also conclude that constitutional recognition and inclusion of cultural differences/identities is not a divisive attempt but is necessary for uniting different cultural nations under one constitution and one country.