1

Citizenship,subjectivityandsenseofagencybytheinfluenceofradioinruralNepal

JacobThorsen,Dept.ofInformationandMediaStudies,AarhusUniversity,June2010

WORKINPROGRESS–PLEASEDON’TQUOTE/CITE

Abstract

ThesocialanddiscursivenatureofsubjectivityisinNepaloftenoccludedbybroader

developmentalconcernsemphasisingon“equalrights”anddiscussionsthatfocusonlegal

rightsandcitizenship.Tounderstandthedebateaboutcitizenshiponlyintermsoftherole

ofthestateistoremaintoonarrowlywithinaliberalframework,inwhichthecitizenis

consideredprimarily,ifnotexclusively,anindividualsubject.Thecreationofsubjectivities

isbroaderthansimplyaquestionofrightsandindividuallegalsubjects.Rather,asIdiscuss

inthispaper,itisalsocontingentonhailingpractices,patternsofspeech,andtalksabout

whospeaksandwhoshouldbecalledtospeakinwhichcontemporaryapproachesto

developmentandthemediaareembedded.

Introduction

Severalscholarschallengetheliberalunderstandingofcitizenshipaslegalrightsand

responsibilitiesbestowedbythestateandarguetobringthediscussionofcitizenshipout

ofthe‘empiricalvoid’(Kabeer2005,Gaventa2002),asdiscussionsoncitizenshipoften

centersolelyonequalandlegalrightswherebythesubtlesocialanddiscursivenatureof

subjectivitybecomeoccluded.InthispaperIdiscuss(a)howinterpellativepracticesin

Nepalsubjectivelymakecastesandgroupsofpeoplerecognisingthemselvesasbeings

andwhotheyarevis‐à‐visoneanotherandhowtheirsenseofagencybecomeinscribedin

thesesubjectivitiesanddiffersaccordingtoposition,classandcaste,and(b)someofthe

2

indicationsthattheintroductionofmoderncommunicationtechnologyinNepalmayhave

providedtheverymeansthroughwhichthesesubjectivitieshavebeenevenfurther

manifested.

Duringfall2009IstayedonemonthinRolpadistrict,Nepaltocaptureinformation

regardingnorms,feelings,representationsandactionssignifyingvariouslevelsofsocial

life.InthisperiodI,togetherwithateamofassistants,conductedamediasurveywith

500representativerespondentsandqualitativeinterviewswith44respondents

proportionallyselectedbasedonage,gender,caste/ethnicity,location(rural/urban)and

language.InthispaperIpresentpreliminaryfindingsbasedonthequalitativeand

quantitativedatacollectedandIprimarilyconcentreonnarrativesfromtwointerviews

(BalmikiBKandShardaKC–botharefictivenames)tooutlinesomeoftheextreme

positionsinthediscursiveterrainofcitizenrynegotiationandmediaconsumptionin

Rolpa.Alaterfieldstudyscheduledfall2010inthesamelocationhasasoneofits

objectivestoverify,calibrateandobtainnuancesrelatedtothepositionsoutlinedinthis

paper.

Development’sencompassmentofsocialexperience

Nepal’sfirstdevelopmentprogramswerelaunchedinthe1950sandmarkedcitizensfirst

contactwiththeideasandinstitutionsofmodernizationandcommencedamodeofstate

interventioninpeople’slifeinordertomanagethewelfareofthepopulation.Institutions

rangingfromministriestosmalllocalprojectsofNGOsimplementthepromotionand

pursuitofdevelopmentinNepal.Althoughpriorities,programsandphilosophiesdiffer,all

developmentinstitutionsshareacommonfaiththatplannedchangecanbringabouta

bettersociety.Implicitinthisdevelopmentvisionareasetofmeaningsthatbothjustify

institutionalstructuresandprovideanauthoritativewayofrepresentingasocialworld.

Unavoidablywherethereisapushforprogressthroughdevelopment,thereisthe

creationofastateofbackwardness.Wherethereareinstitutionsandexpertswith

answers,theremustnecessarilybepeoplewhohaveneed.Judgingfromthechangesin

3

Nepal,developmenthasprovedmuchmoreeffectiveasanideologythanasasetof

technicalsolutions.

Developmentofferspersuasivenewframeworksthroughwhichsocialrelationsand

especiallysocialdifferencesarediscussedwherebydevelopmentbecomespartof

people’severydaylifeinNepalnotonlywhenanagencyestablishesaprogramintheir

village,butalsowhenthisideologybecomescompellingintheirsocialimagination.Esteva

(1992:10)remindsusthat:

(…)fortwo‐thirdsofthepeopleonearth,thispositivemeaningoftheword‘development’

–profoundlyrootedaftertwocenturiesofitssocialconstruction–isareminderofwhat

theyarenot.Itisareminderofanundesirable,undignifiedcondition.

DevelopmentnarrativesaboutNepal(asrecordedingenresasdiverseasagencycountry

reportsandtelevisiondocumentaries)stressthatNepalwasonly“opened”totheoutside

worldinthe1950s.TherecognisedNepaliauthorManjushreeThapainarecentarticlein

NewYorkTimesquotestheIrishwriterDervlaMurphy,thatinher1967travelogue

describedNepalasacountrythathadjustemergedfromcenturiesofisolationandwas

baffledabouthowtobepartofthemodernworld.MostofwhattheNepaleseandshedid

wastowaitforsomethingtohappen.“Wewaitedendlesslyforeverything,”Ms.Murphy

wrote.“Forglassesofteatobecarriedontraysfromthebazaar,forapoliceman’sbunch

ofkeystobefetchedfromhishomedowntheroad,foranadjustablerubberstampwhich

wouldnotadjusttobedissected(andfinallyabandonedinfavourofapen),forapassport

officertotrackdownIreland(whoseexistenceheseriouslyquestioned)inadog‐eared

atlasfromwhichtherelevantpageshadlongsincebeentorn,andforthechiefcustoms

officer,whowasafflictedbyavirulentformofdysentery,towithdrawtoanearbyfield

betweeninspectingeachpieceofluggage.”1Thesephrasescreatetheimpressionthat

historybeganforNepalonlywhencontactwiththeWestactivatedit.

1http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06thapa.html

4

TruetoitsSanskritrootdevelopment,bikasinNepalisignifiesgrowth,evolution–justas

itsEnglishequivalentdoes.Ineverydayconversations,however,bikasforthemostpart

meansthings:especiallycommoditiesthatcomefromelsewhere.StacyPigg(1992)

explainshowthebikasideologymeanttounitethenationthroughthecommongoalof

thestruggletomodernizesocietyandtheeconomy,butthatthisverylogicalsodivides

thecountry(bothmateriallyandsymbolically)intoareasoflesserandgreater

development(bikasitandabikasitrespectively).Notsurprisingly,thekeyaxisaround

whichthesedevelopmentaldistinctionsarisewithinNepalisthatofruralandurban

society,thecountrysideandthecity.MeanwhileNepalitselfischaracterisedasabikasitin

relationtocountries,includingIndiathatisrelativelymorebikasit(developed).

Pigg(1992)arguesthatalthough‘development’isembodiedinobjects(shecitesnew

breedsoflivestock,waterpipes,electricity,videos,schools,commercialfertilizer,roads,

healthpostsandmedicinesasexamplesofwhat‘development’typicallyconnotesin

commonusage)andassuchisquantifiablewithareasbeingclassifiedasofgreateror

lesserdevelopmentdependingonhowmanyofthesethingstheyhave,theessenceof

developmentistherelationshipsthatthenpertainbetweentheseareasandthepeople

thatinhabitthem.Whilsturbanareasareplacesof‘muchdevelopment’(dheraibikas),

ruralareasandvillagestendtobe,atbest,placesof‘littledevelopment’(thoraibikas),or

even‘nodevelopment’(bikaschaina).Sheclaimsthat:

Thisinverserelationbetweenruralareasanddegreesofbikasgivesrisetotwowaysof

representingnationalsocietyandlocatingoneselfinit.Oneusethetermsofbikasas

coordinatestodemarcatesocialterritoriesandpinpointsocialpositions;theotherturns

bikasandvillageintothecompasspointsaccordingtowhichsociallylocatedpeople

orientedthemselves(1992:499).

‘Development’hasinotherwordsbecomeawayofcategorisationandrepresentationand

asIshalldiscussinthefollowingparagrapharecommunicationandmovementacross

5

thesefissureinthesocio‐economiclandscapealsostructuredaccordingtothelogicof

bikasiideology.

Figuresofvoiceandsubjectivity

Thefigureofcommunicationandvoicefunctionsasasignofinteriority,intimacyand

presenceandreiteratesmodernliberaldiscourseaboutdemocracyasitproducesanidea

ofpersonhoodandagencytiedtothepresumeddirectnessofthevoice.Inlinewithbikasi

ideologytheterm‘villager’(gaulemanche)haspejorativeconnotationsthatare

reinforcedthroughnumerouschannelsofeverydaydiscourse.Pigg(1992)provides

examplesfromschooltextbooksandliteraturedistributedbyINGOs,includingpictures

thatcompareandcontrastchildrensupposedlyofthepresentshowninragscarrying

heavyloadsindokos(thetraditionalwickerbasketseenthroughoutNepal)slungacross

theirforeheads,withchildrenofthefutureincleanclothesandwhoareplayinghappilyor

readingschoolbooks.Socialrelations,atleastastheypertaintoclassandcaste,are

mediatedthroughbikasicultureandrestupontheabilityofagentstoinfluencetheflow

ofresources,encompassingmultipleformsofcapital(economic,educational,politicaland

cultural)betweenpositionswithinthatlandscape.AccordingtoUNDP(2009),Brahman

andChhetriscompriseone‐thirdoftheNepalipopulationbutholdsaroundtwo‐thirdof

theleadingpositioninthestateandcivilapparatus:thebureaucracy,politicalparties,civil

societyorganisations,andthejudiciaryandexecutivebodies.Inthelegislativeand

constitutionalbodiesoftheConstituentAssemblyasof2008,however,thefigureof

Brahman/Chhetryrepresentationis40percent.OneoftheleadcausestheMaoists

initiatedtheirarmedrevoltin1996wastodismantlefeudalismandcastebased

inequalitiesandalthoughdiscriminationhasdilutedoverthelastyearsandespecially

amongtheyouth,itisstillaninfluentialsocietalcondition,subjectfordisputes,andoneof

thecontemporaryverysensitivediscussionsinNepalipolitics.

6

ShardaKCisaBrahmanladyinherearlyfortiesandasocialleaderinhercommunity.She

outlineshowsheandothertwocommunityleaders(alsoBrahmans)invitethecommunity

todiscussdevelopmentprogramsorreconcilewhentherearedisputesinthecommunity.

Interviewer:Forexample,thereisaproblemofdrinkingwaterinyourwardandyouhave

todecidehowtobringdrinkingwater.Dothethreeofyoumakethatdecisionordoyou

inviteallpeoplefromthewardandexplaintothemwearetryingtodothisandthis?

ShardaKC:Weinviteallpeoplefromwardandtheymakeusgroupleader.Andtheygive

advice;wedonothavedrinkingwaternearby,wedonothavedrainchannelhere,and

theyaresayingwedonothavethisandthat.Fromthatdecisionwemakeprogram.

[WadaKasabaivaktaharooLaibolaune,uhaharooLehamiLaigroupleader

banaunuhunchha.]

IntheinterviewShradaKCutilizestheverbbolaunetoaddresshowsheandthe

communityleadersinvitethecommunityformeetings.Bolauneisthecausativeformof

theverbbolnu“tospeak”andasacommonNepaliwordbolauneisoftentranslatedby

theinnocentterminvitingoraddressing.However,translatingbolauneusingthemore

pointedEnglishglossesarecapturedthesocialrelationsembeddedintheword:

summoning,callingorhailing.TranslatedliterallyintoEnglishbolaunemeans“tomake

someoneelsetospeak”.2

Bolauneisacentralpracticetoanalysebecauseitrevealstensionsbetweentheideasof

democraticspeechandpoliticalconsciousness.Kunreuther(2009)tracestherelation

betweenvoice,subjectivityandshiftingnotionsofintimacyandaccordingtoherbolaune

2Thefigureofvoiceactivatedinthisdebatesuggestthinkingaboutconnectionsbetweenthepatternsofrecognitionestablishedwithin

thesubjectsofbolauneandtherelationsemergingbetweencitizenandstateduringthistransformativemoment.Forhistorical

precedent,onecanturntoRichardBurghart’sanalysisofvoiceandlisteningduringthemonarchicalPanchayatregime(1960‐1990)

when,hesuggests,criticismagainstthestatewassimultaneouslyanefforttocommunicatewiththeking.Hearguesthatonlyafterthe

creationofamoralspace(whichisassumedtobepartofcivilsocietyinEuro‐Americanliberaldemocracies)dosubjectsacquirevoice

(Burghart1996:317).

7

appearstobeaharmless,everydaypractisethathaslittletodowiththebroaderpolitical

significanceasthetermisusedinmanycontextstosimplyrefertotheactofcallingoutto

someoneonthestreetortoinvitingafriendorrelativetoaparty,awedding,orone’s

house.However,intheparticularcontextofaleaderofaNGOcallingorinvitingsomeone

toameetingthewordcarrieswithinithierarchiesofcaste.Theactofcallingoutto

someone,bolaune,constitutesthatpersonasaspeakingsubjectthroughthespeechof

another.Thiscallingisalsoarequestforresponse.Acalleranticipatesrecognitionthrough

theparticipationoftheother;theyservetoreinforcehisorheridentity.Ona

fundamentallevel,then,bolauneisapracticeofmutual,butasymmetrical,recognition

betweencitizens,vis‐à‐viseachotherandthemselves.

Practicesofbolauneproduceformsofrecognition,speechandagency.FollowingLouis

Althusser’s(1971)notionof“interpellation”,Kunreuther(2009)suggeststhatpracticesof

bolauneareconstitutiveofcaste‐basedsubjectivityandthemeansbywhichpeople

positionthemselvesinrelationtooneanotherasthetermrevealsanddefinethe

hierarchiesofcaste.Bolaunecharacterisesasubjectivitydefinedthroughrelationshipsof

dutyandobedience,whichcharacterisesthehierarchiesstillexistinginNepal.Kunreuther

(2009)continuesherlineofargumentationthatthepracticeofbolaunecorrespondsto

whatLoisAlthusser(1971)calls“hailing”–amodeofaddressthatestablishesaperson’s

subjectivity,andevenbody,throughspeech.Hailing,orusingAlthusser’smoretechnical

terminterpellation,revealsthediscursivenatureofidentityandsubjectivity.

Interpellationoccursthroughreiteratedformsofaddressandconventionsthatdelineate

asocialposition.Throughinterpellation,apersoncomestorecognisehim‐orherselfnot

onlyasanindividualbutalsoasasubjectpositionedwithinasocialworld.

8

ReflectingonAlthusser’snotion,JudithButler(1997)writes

(…)interpellationisanaddressthatregularlymissesitsmark,itrequirestherecognitionof

anauthorityatthesametimeitconfersidentitythroughsuccessfullycompellingthat

recognition.Identityisafunctionofthatcircuit,butdoesnotpre‐existit.Themark

interpellationmakesisnotdescriptive,butinagurative.Itseekstointroduceareality

ratherthanreportanexistingone;itaccomplishesthisintroductionthroughacitationof

existingconvention(1997:33).

Theprocessofinterpellationthuscontinuouslytransformsindividualsintosubjects,even

thoughindividualsarealwayssubjectsthemomenttheyentersociallife.Bolaunedoes

notsomuchconstructasinglesubjectasconstituteasocialrelationshipandthesubjects

formedwithinit.Thepractiseofbolaunecompelstherecognitionofthecallerbythe

called,therebycreatingtheirdifferences,theiridentitiesandtheirsubjectivities.Itboth

recognisessomeone’spresenceinthecommunityandmarkshis/herabsenceand

exclusionfromtheactivitiesinthecommunity.Indoingso,itre‐membersamemberofa

communityhe/sheisn’tmemberof.BalmikiBKisaDalitwomaninherlateteensand

claimssheandhercommunityarenotinvitedforcommunityprograms.

Interviewer:Andyousaidthatyouarenotgoingforthevillagediscussionprogram,why

didyounotgothere,isthatbecauseyoudislikeorwhat?

BalmikiBK:Especiallytheydonotinviteus.Theythemselveswithheadpeoplearedoing

allthingsbuttheydonotcallus.

[Nimatapanigardainan.UniharoothulathulamanchheHaroolegarchhanrahamiLai

bolaudapanibolaudainan.]

BalmikiBK’sstatementreaffirmshersubjectivityandindicatesimplicitlyshewouldhave

expected(oratleastwanted)aninvitationfrom“they”(theBrahmanandChhetry

leaders).IfbolauneisawaytointerpellateaDalittemporarilyasamemberofa

9

community,theprocesscanonlyworkifBalmikiBKactuallybeginstoactandspeakabout

herselfinthesamefashionastheBrahmincalltoher(hamiLaibolaudapanibolaudainan–

notinviteus),asinterpellationrestsonthenotionthata“speechactbringsthesubject

intobeing,andthen…thatverysubjectcomestospeak,reiteratingthediscursive

conditionsofitsownemergence”(Bell1999:165).

AsWebbKeane(1997)haspointedoutinhisbookonrituallanguageinIndonesia,itisnot

onlylanguagethatgrantsrecognitioninasymbolicworldbutalsothewaylanguageand

materialobjectsworktogethertocreatesocialconnectionsanddivisions.Keane’sanalysis

wasspecificallyaboutritualandperformativelanguagebuthispointmightbeextendedto

everydayformsofperformativespeechandpractice.Theimaginedeffectsuggeststhata

birthrighttobeacommunityleader(Brahman/Chhetry)iswhatdrivesShardaKCtolead

andinvitethecommunity–evenbyforceifneeded.

Interviewer:Areyouincludingallcastesinyourcommunity’sprograms,meetings,

discussionsanddecisions?

ShardaKC:Yes,nowinourforestsocietywearesayingtherehavetobeJanjati,Dalit,

Brahman,Chhetry,buttheyarenotwillingtocome,sobyforcewearekeepingonefrom

eachcaste.

[Hajur,ahilehamrobansamuhaMapaniJanjatihunaparyo,dalithunaparyo,bahunhuna

paryo,aa‐afnochhetryhunaparyobhanerahamile…,abaunhaHarooaunaimannuhunna

aunaimannuhunnaaunaimannuhunnajabarjastiekekjanarakhekachhaun.]

Thecombatofcasteinequalitiesbymeansofquotasandaffirmativeactionhasfora

numberofyearsbeenadevelopmentstrategyofNGOstoassureequalgender

representationandinclusionofallethnicgroupsinprograms.Itisinterestingtonote

ShardaKCmentions“Yes,nowinour…”(Hajur,ahile…),indicatingthisisanewpractice.

Hence,perhaps,thereforeShardaKC’‘eagerness’toassuretheworkofherNGOhas

participationofallethnicgroupsandcastesintheprograms.Notsurprisingly,however,

10

thisforcedapproachtodealwithissuesofcommunityconcernisn’tanappealingwayfor

alltheinvited.ToBalmikiBKpublicspaceisn’talwaysasecurespacetoenter.AsBalmiki

BKexpressesit:

(…)ifwegotoafriendshometheygoinside[theBrahman/Chhetryhouse]andwe[the

Dalit]havetostayoutside.Thatmakesusfeelsad.ThattimeIaskmyselfthequestion

whythishappens?Whenweareathomewearelikeakingsotherearenoproblems,but

whenIgooutsidethenIfeelalittlesad.

AlthoughinthisquoteBalmikiBKtalksaboutaccesstocertainprivatehousesandnot

publicspaceperse,herremarksuggests‘outside’toherhasundertonesofdiscomfortas

leavingherhousehastheriskshemightbeconfrontedwithdiscrimination.Agencyand

equalsocietalstatus,however,wouldhaveenabledBalmikiBKtoalsodothecallingand

speakingsoshecouldargueandrequiretheBrahmantorespondtoherwhysheisn’t

invitedinsidethehouse.Insteadbolaunehasbecomeapracticeandone‐waycircuitin

whichonlytheBrahman/Chhetryaddressesandtheotherpersonisaddressed.

AssuccessivepoliticalmovementsinNepalhaveworkedtoreshapeevenmoreradically

therelationshipbetweenmonarchandsubject,citizenandsubjectivity,thequestion

raisedbyKunreuther(2009)aboutvoiceandsubjectivitymayhavebecomeevenmore

usefulforgainingamorenuancedunderstandingofwhatisatstakeinthewidely

divergentapproachestodevelopmentandcitizenshipincontemporaryNepal.

11

Bikasandthemedia

TheideaofbikasalsodeterminesmuchmediaactivityinNepal.Electronicmediahasbeen

usedinstrumentallyinthecreationofdevelopmentandamassaudiencebaseduponthe

unificationofanationalpopulationaroundacommonmediatedcultureand“havebeen

deployedbycentralgovernmentsasanintegrativeforce”(PageandCrawley2001:26).

However,theroleplayedbythemediainthecreationoftheNepalistatehasnotfollowed

anysimplepattern,especiallyafterindependentmediaemergedafterdemocracywas

introducedin1990andmostsignificantlyafterthesecondpeople’smovement(Jana

AndolanII)in2006.Inslipstreamofthemushroomingofindependentmedia,twolocal

radioshaveemergedinRolpadistrictwithinthelastcoupleofyears.RadioRolpawas

foundedbyalocalNGOaffiliatedwiththenationalhumanrightscommissionandthe

MaoistfundedRadioJaljalawasonairshortlyafter.

Radio TVThosewithradio

havingaTVMagar 78.7% 7.6% 8.2%Brahman/Chhetri 71.1% 53.2% 51.1%Dalit 66.1% 25.9% 30.8%Total 74.3% 27.2% 26.2%

Table1:OwnershipofradioandTVinRolpacross‐tabbedwithethnicgroup.N=497.NotethatsamplesfromMagarcommunitywerecollectedfromalocationwithoutelectricity.ThetelevisionvariablesrelatedtotheMagarcommunitythereforehavetobeusedwithprecaution.

RadioisthemostpopularmediainRolpadistrictwiththree‐quartersofpeopleowinga

radio:theDalitcommunity,however,lessthanaverage,theMagarcommunityslightly

more,andtheBrahman/Chhetricommunityroughlyonaverage.Thesignalofthetwo

localradiostationsisreceivablebyall,whereas69percenthouseholdscanreceivethe

statebroadcasterRadioNepal.Television,incomparison,isownedbyone‐quarterofthe

households.Overall,theBrahman/Chhetry’shouseholdshavemoretelevisionscompared

totheotherethnicgroups.Thereiscorrelationbetweenthosehavingaradioreceiverand

thoseowningatelevision,withaminormarginof1percentpointofhouseholdshavinga

televisionnothavingaradioreceiver,althoughintheDalitcommunitytheproportionof

12

thosehouseholdshavingradioalsoowningaTVsetisslightlyhighercomparedtothe

otherethnicgroups.

RadioNepal RadioRolpa RadioJaljalaMagar 7.0% 49.3% 42.3%Brahman/Chhetri 3.1% 67.5% 29.4%Dalit 17.6% 49.0% 33.3%Total 6.8% 56.1% 36.4%

Table2:Preferredradiostationcross‐tabbedwithethnicgroup.N=426

AlthoughRadioRolpaoverallisthemostpopularradiostationasthetableaboveindicates

therearesomedisparitiesintermsofradiopreference.TheMagarethniccommunityhas

somepreferencetowardsRadioJaljalacomparedtotheotherethnicgroupswhereas,by

meansofcomparison,BrahmanandChhetristendtopreferRadioRolpa.TheDalit

communityhassomepreferencetowardsthestatebroadcasterRadioNepalcomparedto

theotherethnicgroups.Itwouldbehastyandunwisetomakeanysimpleconclusions

solelybasedonthefiguresoutlinedinthetableabove,althoughthedatadoesgive

indicationsthatethnicgroupssympathywiththeMaoists,suchastheMagarcommunity,

alsomanifestsaspreferenceforradiostation.Likewise,thereareindicationstheDalit

community,comparedtootherethnicgroups,toalessdegreeidentifythemselveswith

localradiobuthasgreaterappealfornationalradiobroadcasting.TheBrahman/Cheetri

community,incomparison,toalargerdegreeseemstoidentifythemselveswithRadio

Rolpa.AsShardaKCcomments:

Mostofmyattentiongoestothis[RadioRolpa]communityradio,becausethisradiois

everyone’scooperativeradio.RadioJaljalaisjustlikeanownparty’sradio,theyaretalking

onlyabouttheirownpartyactivities,andtheyhavetheirownpartysongs.Andwhatother

thingstheyaredoingIdon’tgivemyattention–Iusetohearthis[RadioRolpa]radio

more.

13

ShradaKC’preferenceforRadioRolpamightberelatedwiththefacttheradiostation

givesairtimetoher.Shesays:

Inradio,ourpresidentoftheradio[RadioRolpa]hasinvitedmemorethan10times.He

asksmetocomefortheprogram‘SamayaSambad’(TimeofConversation).HesaysthatI

in‘SamayaSambad’cananswerourquestionsorsharewhatyouknowandyour

experiences.Ididn’twanttogothereandtoldhimI’manuneducatedpersonanddon’t

knowhowtospeakasImightspeakincorrectly.Butheaskedmemanytimes.Ihavealot

ofworktodosomanypeopleareinvitingme.

[RadioMahamroAdhyakhsyajyooLemalaidashaun(morethantentimes)patakbolauna

aaunubhayo.]

InShardaKC’referencetohowshewasinvitedtotheprogramSamayaSambadshe

utilizestheverbbolauna,whichunderlinestheintimaterelationshipshefeelsshehas

withRadioRolpa.Thisisalsoemphasizedinherreferencetothepresidentwhoshecalls

‘ourpresident’(hamroAdhyakhsya).Fromthequoteabovewealsolearnshehasbeen

invitedtoshareherknowledgeandexperiencealthoughsheisuneducated.Inher

capacityasasocialmobilisorsheobviouslyhasalotapracticalknowledgetoshare,butit

couldalsobeinterpreteditisherintimacyandcaste‐basedbondswiththepresident(that

isBrahman)thatgiveshertheairtimeandclosefeelingofrelationshiptoRadioRolpa.In

contrast,theimpactofradioseemtobelessontheDalitcommunity–asBalmikiBKsays:

Interviewer:AndIthinkyoulistenradioalot.Whatkindsofprogramstoyoulistento

mostoften?

BalmikiBK:HowtosaywhichprogrambecauseIdon’tlistenthatmuch.

14

Thepictureemergingfromthequotesaboveandthefiguresfromtheaudienceoverall

radiopreferenceisthattheintroductionofradioinRolpamayhaveprovidedthevery

meansthroughwhichthedistricthasbecomeevenfurtherfragmented.Whilstnational

unitywastheidealisedaimofsuccessivegovernment’smediapolicies,theresultsin

practiceatdistrictlevelcontributedtothegrowthandre‐emergenceoffissurewithin

Nepalesesociety.Paramountamongstthesehasbeenthegrowthofjati(ethnic)

consciousnessmostnotablyseenwiththeMadhesiupraisinginthelowerbeltsofNepal,

Terai,butalsoinruraldistrictsinhillareassuchasRolpawherestrongethnicsentiments

supportedbytheMaoistsareontherisetheseyearsastheMaoistsadvocateforafederal

structureofNepalalongethniclines.HencemaybeanexplanationtotheMagar

community’srelativesupportforRadioJaljalaandShardaKCstrongreservationtowards

RadioJaljala,whichalsohasanundertoneoffearthattheradiowillundermineherand

RadioRolpa’srelativepower.

Furthermore,thereisasplitbetweenbikasiandabikasi(developedandunderdeveloped)

sectionsofsocietyandnotsurprisinglyisthislattersetofdistinctionsprimarilymade

manifestinthecontrastingformsofurbanandruralsocietythathaveariseninNepal

duringthepastthreedecades.BalmikiBK’slittleinvolvementwithlocaldevelopment

activitiesandidentificationwithradioingeneral,andtheDalit’soverallandrelative

supportfornationalradiobroadcastingcouldexplaintheDalit’ssubjectificationasabikasi

andthusidentificationwithnationalthoughtschemesastheyfeelexcludedfromlocal

programs.Thepictureemergingfromtheoutlinedpositionshereseemstobeinlinewith

whatKievelitz(1996:5)calls“politicallyvociferousform[s]ofethnicity[which]only

developedasaresponsetothethreatofnationalismwhichtendedtoneglect,eventried

toeradicateethnicdifference”,referringheretoageneralprocessofethnicidentity

formationwhich,heasserts,is“auniversalprocessintimeandspace.”

InmyfieldstudiesscheduledlaterthisyearthisissomethingIwillexploreingreater

detailstodetectmorenuancedpositionsinthisdiscursiveterrain.

15

Conclusion

ThesocialanddiscursivenatureofsubjectivityisinNepaloftenoccludedbybroader

developmentalconcernsemphasisingon“equalrights”anddiscussionsthatfocusonlegal

rightsandcitizenship.Tounderstandthedebateaboutcitizenshiponlyintermsofthe

roleofthestateistoremaintoonarrowlywithinaliberalframework,inwhichthecitizen

isconsideredprimarily,ifnotexclusively,anindividualsubject.Thecreationof

subjectivitiesisbroaderthansimplyaquestionofrightsandindividuallegalsubjects.

Rather,asoutlinedinthispaper,itisalsocontingentonhailingpractices,patternsof

speech,andtalksaboutwhospeaksandwhoshouldbecalledtospeak.

Tochallengecommunicativerelationsmeanstoassessexistingpracticesofspeechand

alsohowthesepracticesareembeddedincontemporaryapproachestodevelopmentand

themedia.Toassumethepositionofaspeakerwhosummonsratherthanissummoned

andwhotherebyacquiresaplaceofpublicrecognitionissimilartotheasymmetrical

relationsbetweendevelopmentexpertiseandlocalvaluesandknowledge.Thepracticeof

bolauneandbikasshowthefundamentallysocialnatureofsubjectivitycontinuedthrough

hailinganddiscursivepractices.Throughinterpellativeandprescriptivepracticessuchas

bolauneandbikasdifferentcastesandgroupsofpeoplerecognisethemselvesasbeings,

makingthemwhotheyarevis‐à‐visoneanotherasone’ssenseofagencyisinscribedin

thesesubjectivitiesanddiffersaccordingtoposition,classandcaste.Likethepractiseof

bolaune,theimplicitpremiseinwhichtheraisond’êtreofbikascanbefoundandits

outcome,isaformulationabouttheidentityofthosewhoneeddevelopment.The

combinedinterpellativepracticesofbolauneandbikasasinthecaseofNepalisdouble

problematicbecausethesamepeopletypicallypracticingbolaunearealsothosewhoare

entrenchedwithbikas.Thereby,theobjectiverealityofthestateapparatus,largepartsof

civilsocietyandcertainmediabecomemergedwithsubjectiverealitiesreinforcingeach

other.Esteva’s(1992)reminderof“whattheyarenot”isthereforeimportanttoexplore

asoneapproachtoenterandunlocktheviciouscircleofself‐fulfillingprophecyof

incapacityandlackofagencyofcertaingroupsofpeopleinNepal.

16

Referencescited

Althusser,Louis(1971):IdeologyandtheIdeologicalStateApparatuses(Notestowardsaninvestigation).InLeninandPhilosophyandOtherEssays.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress1971.Bell,Vikki(1999):OnSpeech,RaceandMelancholia:AninterviewwithJudithButler.Theory,CultureandSociety16(2):163‐174.Burghart,Richard(1996):TheConditionsofListening.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPressButler,Judith(1997):ExcitableSpeech:APoliticsofthePerformative.NewYork:RoutledgeEsteva,Gustavo(1992):Development.InWolfgangSachs(ed.)TheDevelopmentDictionary:AGuidetoKnowledgeasPower.London:ZedBooks.Gaventa,John(2002):ExploringCitizenship,ParticipationandAccountability.IDSDevelopmentBibliography33.2.Sussex:InstituteofDevelopmentStudies(IDS)Kabeer,Naila(2005):Thesearchforinclusivecitizenship:meaningsandexpressionsinaninterconnectedworldinInclusiveCitizenship–meaningsandexpressions.London:ZedBooks.Kievelitz,U.(1996):EthnicityandnationalismintheNepalicontext:aperspectivefromEurope.OccasionalPapersinSociologyandAnthropology.Kathmandu:CentralDept.ofSociologyandAnthropology,TribhuvanUniversityKunreuther,Laura(2009):Betweenloveandproperty:Voice,sentimentandsubjectivityinthereformofdaughter’sinheritanceinNepal.AmericanEthnologist,Vol.36,No.3Page,DavidandCrawley,William(2001):SatellitesoverSouthAsia:Broadcasting,CultureandthePublicInterest.NewDelhi:SagePublicationsPigg,StacyLeigh(1992):UnintendedConsequences:TheIdeologicalImpactofDevelopmentinNepal.SouthAsiaBulletin,Vol.XIIINos.1&2UNDP(2009):UNDPDevelopmentReport2009:StateTransformationandHumanDevelopment.Kathmandu:UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgrammeWebb,Keane(1997):SignsofRecognition:PowersandHazardsofRepresentationinanIndonesianSociety.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress