A national flag does not define a nation, nor does it create a sense of collective nationhood among the citizens. It is not just the national flag but also other symbolic national icons which work only as long as the nation is defined and unified on the basis of some deeper sense of collective belongingness where people see a meaningful purpose for such belongingness. These days it appears as if only political parties are the ones who need this nation because they will/have the opportunity to rule the territory. As for the common people, they may have a question: Why should we defend a nationhood that is inherently left in the hands of incapable political leadership which will most certainly multiply our agony and suffering?
No other country in the region is struggling like us to define nationhood.
People need the state, and they respect it, because the state provides them with security, opportunities to prosper and emanates a sense of common purpose. But, why should people continue to take pride in a nation that cannot provide any of these? And what has the poor national flag got to do to keep people priding the entity called nation?
Some people still take pride in the idea that Nepal is the oldest state in South Asia. That may be true; but so what? Isn’t Nepal also the youngest country in terms of evolving into a nation from a state? No other country in the region is struggling like us to define nationhood. We must understand that all states are free to redefine its nationhood at any point in its history. There is no specific good or bad time for it -- these are merely historical circumstances and processes which have their own bizarre courses. In Nepal’s context, there isn’t a single concrete idea upon which the process of re-defining its nationhood is based on. There only exists a rhetoric which is mis/interpreted by politicians as per their political convenience. The controversy regarding the national flag is just one example. If changing the national flag would make the nation a better place then nations world over would have a provision to change the national flag every year or maybe even more frequently. The flag-changing debate simply misses this important point.
National symbols, whether old ones or new ones, get legitimacy and wider acceptance when there is a collective political ownership of the transformation process. Here is an example: As long as there existed some sort of political tolerance at the party level outside the Constituent Assembly (CA), the CA committees were working more or less through consensus. The moment political animosity increased outside, CA committees too began to experience problems on several subjects. In the context of widening suspicion among the actors, no national symbol is going to generate the required consensus. So what is required first is a common understanding and agreement on the essence of what constitutes a state. Then only there will be a proper understanding of the symbolic manifestations of the agreed description, like the national flag.
The existing national flag would have carried a lot more weight and pride had the country been able to prosper well and be strong. It is true that at present the flag appears feeble, non-unifying, demoralized and almost defeated. I don’t have a particular liking or dislike for our national flag. I would not consider it a big deal even if the current flag was replaced by another that would satisfy the revolutionary ones among us. But the point is: No debate can take place on national symbols in the absence of the idea, which in this case is the idea of Nepal as a nation. The very crisis of the country lies here. There is no unifying leader, no unifying political goal and there is no unifying purpose. If things were alright, even the festival of Dashain could have given some unifying message like Chath, Eid or Lhosar could.
We have waited very long for political parties to break the deadlock, at least the break of the parliamentary deadlock. Contrary to the general expectation, the prime minister has left for New York without any political breakthrough. But we are still left with the bosses of three major parties in town who could do something to offer a gift of hope to the people on the eve of Dashain. In the past, even when the armed-conflict was ongoing, there used to be slogans like “peace until Dashain.” We have had “peace” of sorts for the last three years so we might as well hope for a “political breakthrough” by Dashain. But realistically speaking, the symbolic trend of achieving something around the festival is merely being wishful.
A symbol is called a symbol because it does not have any essence or content in it. So, is the national flag a symbol? The flag can be interpreted in several ways and the interpretations can contradict each other. Those who want to change the national flag and those who want to retain it must engage in conversations that relate the idea of the national flag to the idea of Nepal when it is restructured and becomes a more vibrant nation. Otherwise, we can do without too much of rhetoric on this topic and several other accompanying issues. It will only be of interest to those who are undertaking academic studies on the use of rhetoric regarding nation-state. In reality, it will mean hardly anything.
bishnu.sapkota@gmail.com
Related story
In Pictures: National Flag Day being celebrated today
