Kathmandu: Professor Sanjeev Uprety examines politics and society through the concept of “structural dividend.” According to him, a structural dividend is the comparative advantage one gains over others due to their position within societal structures, such as caste, class, gender, geography, language, and physical condition, among other factors. In such a social framework, a middle-class Brahmin male born and raised in Kathmandu without any physical disabilities naturally enjoys more economic, cultural, and political privileges compared to Dalits, women, people with disabilities, or those from rural areas like Karnali or Taplejung. Uprety argues that by analyzing our social and political system through the lens of structural dividends, we can clearly identify socio-economic, cultural, and political disparities in terms of equity, justice, and equality.
To illustrate his point, Uprety shares a personal example. He mentions that he can participate in the Citizens Movement of Nepal whenever he chooses, stating, “because I have free time and can afford to join street protests against corruption and nepotism and other events organized by BNA (or Brihat Nagarik Andolan), as I do not have to worry about my basic needs.” He adds, “In other words, I can contribute to these just causes because I have money, time, and resources. Without these structural benefits, I would still be teaching or running a business to support my family.”
Uprety acknowledges that while some of his privileges may result from talent and hard work, they are also due to being born into an upper-middle-class, Nepali-speaking Brahmin family. He explains that structural dividends enable those in power to maintain their dominance while preventing the marginalized and deprived from rising to or staying in positions of power. Uprety further notes the intersectionality in structural dividends, explaining that among Brahmins and Chhetris, wealthier, more educated, and traditionally powerful individuals enjoy more significant advantages. “These are the people who reap the benefits of social and political change. Often, it is the richer, more elite members of society who benefit from the proportional representation system in the current political setup,” he says.
According to Uprety, the misuse of quota and proportional representation (PR) systems by traditional elites has tarnished the system. Seats reserved for the genuinely underprivileged and marginalized are instead occupied by those from more privileged backgrounds within those communities. He argues that structural dividends are evident even among so-called marginalized groups, as those with better connections and resources in those groups are able to take advantage of opportunities before those who are truly at the bottom of the social pyramid.
He shares an experience of visiting the Mushahar community to illustrate real poverty. “I have seen firsthand the dire conditions they live in. Their homes are small huts without separate rooms—a single space for cooking, storage (if you can call it that), and sleeping. To give privacy to newlyweds, older parents often sleep outside and risk dying from the cold,” he explains. About 35 percent of Mushahars do not have citizenship, preventing them from sending their children to school and accessing state benefits, trapping them in perpetual poverty, he further shares. Uprety emphasizes that true representation at various government levels should come from families in such conditions, but often, it is the relatively more privileged among the marginalized that represents them.
This concentration of structural dividends in the hands of a few is not unique to Nepal but is present in India and other parts of the world, despite constitutional safeguards. This is why Uprety and his colleagues in the Greater Citizens Movement discuss ways to ensure that reserved seats and quotas benefit the truly underrepresented. “Can we think about a ‘reservation within the reservation system’ to ensure these quotas reach their intended recipients?” he asks.
Uprety warns that if the misuse of PR quotas and reserved seats by the elite continues, it will create a privileged “creamy layer” akin to India’s over a longer period of time, leading to public frustration and potential revolt. He suggests reviewing the system to make it more effective for those in need. “If the elites who reach positions of power through the PR and quota system could represent and advocate for their communities, the system would face less resentment. We need a political mechanism to hold these individuals accountable to their communities, but we have yet to develop such a system,” he states.
“If federalism remains stagnant without reforms to make it more inclusive and accountable, criticism will only grow. Removing provinces would result in severe backlash and resistance that the state would struggle to manage.”
Uprety also highlights the failures of the federal system in ensuring justice at the grassroots level, citing the case of Nirmala Kurmi’s struggle for justice. “We suggested she pursue justice at the local level rather than traveling from Nepalgunj to Kathmandu. But the reality is that the corrupt nexus of officials and politicians at the local level poses a threat to her safety,” he says. The federal system was meant to enable local governments to deliver justice, but in practice, individuals like Kurmi must travel to Kathmandu, endure prolonged strikes, and still face government indifference. “This apathy towards justice raises questions about the system’s relevance,” he adds.
Uprety and the Greater Citizens Movement have continuously advocated for justice for women like Kurmi and organized peaceful protests against corruption. When asked about the operation of the Greater Citizens Movement, Uprety explains, “It is a loose network of volunteers, not a registered firm or organization. It is a group of people committed to social justice, political accountability, good governance, and a corruption-free society.” He elaborates that their communication is conducted through application such as Viber and WhatsApp, where members discuss and decide on actions collectively, without a designated leader. “Anyone can join as long as they are unaffiliated with political parties, and we don’t accept donations or have bank accounts,” he adds.
Expenses for printing placards or banners are borne voluntarily by members, and the cost of meetings is often shared. They even purchased a microphone set through member contributions. “That’s how the Greater Citizens Movement functions, so it is disheartening when people accuse us of being funded by external sources,” Uprety says.
Uprety argues that federalism was intended to dismantle long-standing structural dividends and distribute them to the grassroots, but this has not been achieved. Provinces have become “white elephants,” platforms for political parties to employ their cadres and draw salaries. “Voices against provinces are growing, but the real problem is that they lack sufficient power. Eliminating provinces would only lead to further resistance, particularly in regions like Madhesh,” he says.
Uprety warns of potential conflicts if provinces are removed or continue to operate ineffectively. “If federalism remains stagnant without reforms to make it more inclusive and accountable, criticism will only grow. Removing provinces would result in severe backlash and resistance that the state would struggle to manage,” he explains. The solution, according to Uprety, lies in empowering provinces to function effectively and ensuring state bodies are truly inclusive and representative.
[Photos from Sanjeev Uprety’s Facebook page]
Comment