In early April 2020, a news media ran a sensational story suggesting that certain religious groups were plotting to spread the coronavirus in the communities. Hundreds of thousands of social media posts quickly amplified it, stoking religious violence. This led to rioting in parts of eastern Tarai, with the police having to resort to using force to bring the situation under control. The news report was fake - but the very fabric of social cohesion was shaken.

With widespread job losses and the looming prospect of hundreds of thousands of returning migrants, fake news of this nature will only play into people’s frustration and anger.  In the coming days and months, Nepal needs to brace for the bigger challenges of socio-economic recovery.

The pandemic has threatened to exacerbate the already existing inequality and instigate conflict, more so where certain communities and groups are exposed to stigma and discrimination. Besides the economic impact, the social impact can be widespread, long lasting and devastating for countries like Nepal given its diversity and a history of armed conflict and disasters.

While in the recent past Nepal has successfully managed a turbulent peace process, a great deal remains to be done to address the root causes of the conflict, injustices and inequalities, which can easily resurface in the wake of major societal shocks, such as the recent earthquake and the ongoing COVID crisis.

The concept of social cohesion can be discussed primarily as the extent of trust in government as its vertical dimension and trust within society as its horizontal dimension which indicates the relationship between various social groups (religious, ethnic etc.). The Nepali word for social cohesion is samajik sadbhav: translated back into English it becomes ‘social harmony’, which however only emphasizes the horizontal dimension of the concept and misses the equally relevant vertical one.

The challenges of social cohesion in Nepal are emerging from this overlooking of the vertical dimension. On this premise, here I discuss some of the key social cohesion issues in Nepal that are surfacing now because of the COVID-19 crisis.

Returning labor migrants

Hundreds of thousands of jobless migrants will be returning home this year.  They are coming back from India and other countries. Many others are moving to their homes from different cities within Nepal. Many of them are now facing stigma and discrimination in their communities. These challenges are compounded by the historical injustice and inequality as they are from lower economic background.

Just focusing on their livelihood recovery as a response to the crisis will not be enough. This will require integrating them into society and creating both social and economic interdependence in their communities to build back better as a more cohesive society. This will involve mainstreaming social cohesion and conflict sensitivity across humanitarian response plans and strengthening humanitarian, development and peace 

Suspicion and fear towards other religious groups

While Nepali society in general is seen to be tolerant towards religious diversity, religious tensions in the past have at times turned violent. These kinds of crises and disasters fuel existing frustrations created from an unequal access to employment opportunities and meaningful civic engagement in social and governance structures. This exposes some of the communities and groups to discrimination. This also emerges from the lack of understanding and appreciation for each other’s cultures, ways of life and world views.

Any solution to this should not only focus on mitigating hate speech and rumors in social media through messages of social harmony and tolerance but it also demands delving deep into the causes. The response to this will require measures such as integrating peace education into the school curriculum, community learning centers, and adult literacy programs and incorporating the idea of global citizenship as part of the national civic education programs.  

Political culture and lack of trust

Looking back at 2013, the time of the elections for the second constituent assembly in Nepal, three kinds of conflicts were identified as being prevalent: political, resource-based and identity-based (PRI). The latter two categories of conflict subsided to a large extent after the promulgation of the constitution and implementation of federalism. The kind of political fragmentation and polarization of that time had decreased, and it was assumed that Nepal was experiencing the most peaceful time in its recent history.

However, there are rooms for improvement in the areas of internal democracy within parties and the ‘political culture’ in general in Nepal. Political culture is the acceptance of opposing viewpoints and acknowledging others who also need to be taken into confidence for better and inclusive governance.  After the outbreak, there has been increasing global trend of consolidating more power by the state and decrease in the trust in the government. As the extent of trust in the government—the contract between the state and citizen—decreases, the questions arise on its capacity and intention to deliver on development or protecting its citizen from a pandemic or any disaster. The current situation underscores the need for increased support to dialogue facilities and multi-stakeholder forums if we are to foster the ‘political culture’ for a sustainable peace and development in Nepal.

Social distancing and social discrimination

The pandemic has made social distancing a catchphrase and an essential ingredient to deal with it. The social distancing though does not mean keeping away from social connections and bonding. It rather means physical distancing to limit the transmission of the virus in social interactions. However, when the social distancing measures are played out in countries like Nepal, where there is caste-based discrimination, its unintended connotation may resonate with already existing social distancing practices further re-enforcing and legitimizing the prevalent social, cultural and gender-based discriminations towards the marginalized population.

Furthermore, the economically disadvantaged groups will have to bear the burden more from the social distancing measures who will have fewer choices at their disposal. They are also becoming the victims of the new digital divide as the economy and services are more and more digitized. This perpetuates poverty, deepens inequality and runs the risk of exposing more people to social discrimination. This is another social cohesion challenge, which needs to be addressed through policy interventions that bridge the digital gap and make the digital connectivity and services accessible for all in the spirit of ‘leaving no one behind’.