The state is extremely narrow, lenient and biased in matters of culture and heritage

Whether it is an individual or a society, a nation or a region, its identity is determined by the cultural heritage associated with it. Heritage is of two types, tangible and intangible. If one ethnic group has to destroy the existence of another ethnic group, then it is destroying culture. To develop social harmony, one has to respect the cultural heritage of the other and accept coexistence. In this sense, cultural heritage has a multifaceted meaning.

If we talk about Nepal, the state seems to be very narrow-minded, lenient and biased in matters of culture and heritage. The state is openly displaying its autocratic character and is eager to destroy cultural heritage. While saying this, one may disagree or object, but this is the bitter experience of decades of involvement in the study and research of various subjects of culture.

Nepal is a country alive with the cultural heritage of diverse ethnic groups and communities. However, looking at the behavior of the state, it must be said that the state does not like this diversity or existence at all. The weapon that the state often uses to destroy cultural heritage is showy development. The state has its own interpretation of development and is determined to destroy cultural heritage by using it as a weapon.

There is no doubt that the problem of squatters or landless people in the country remains and that this problem needs to be solved. But for that, by focusing on the land under the Guthi, it is clear that the state has a negative view of various cultural aspects. Some of the cultural life of the Newar community, such as festivals, festivals, and worships, is sustained by the Guthi. For that, land is kept as income. When the income is destroyed, cultural matters are automatically affected. Ignoring this, the state tried to introduce the Guthi Bill some time ago, showing an autocratic character. But after immense opposition from the public, the state had to hesitate and withdraw the bill. When the bill was withdrawn, the hostility towards culture was clearly visible in the gestures and expressions of the then Minister of Land Reforms and other officials. This hostility is not only certain to manifest itself again in another context, but it was also manifested in the days that followed.

It is good to build a road, but it is not necessary that the road be built by destroying heritage that has existed for hundreds of years. Graves or other places are also linked to faith or culture. The Khuwalung on the Koshi River is not just a stone, but also a heritage related to faith and history. But the mindset of destruction dominates in the name of development. In the same way, historical settlements from ancient times are also being demolished in the name of development. No attention is paid to alternatives keeping in mind culture and heritage, whereas there are many alternatives. If the concerned party suggests an alternative, it is denounced as anti-development. Naming various places that represent historical and social issues after the name of a particular person is also an interference in heritage.

At first glance, the state seems to be sensitive to cultural heritage and a large amount of money is allocated for it every year. However, it is found that its work is done not with an understanding of the importance of cultural heritage, but to fulfill vested interests. In this way, the character of the state is also seen to be biased towards a particular community or faith. It is natural for this character to adopt a tolerant view of other cultures and heritage.

The state should adopt a policy of equality, especially in a country with diversity like Nepal. Giving priority to only one community or faith will instill resentment towards that community or faith in today's era. Failure to be sensitive to this issue or to provide education to be sensitive, there is a strong possibility that the general public will become more averse to any culture and heritage. This ultimately does not benefit anyone. Since today's society is not built in isolation like in the past, it should be built in coordination with each other and fostering brotherhood. The state must be sensitive to this matter.