[Below today are two
posts that default federalism for Nepal. But The Himalayan Voice believes federalism
can flourish in the country and with equal access of all to the national
resources be viable economically also. The superstitious angst of
disintegration stands far from reality. This overhyped ‘disintegration’ is fear-mongers’
over-blown default tactic. Let’s be clear – the country can’t afford to hang in
limbo for long. We can’t say neither ‘this’ nor ‘that’. There may not be going back to fiefdoms, one may be right in saying so but
we can’t also keep clinging on the status-quo. We have to choose now. The choice
may not be theirs. The country has chosen
for a change which can’t now be voided out. The question is - ‘ what is the alternative or what next then?' Let’s have confidence in our 'Nepali
nationhood' first and commitment also. No group of people forms an absolute majority in the country but
the Janajatis make the largest bulk of 37.38% followed by Brahman-Kshtriya and
other 'privileged folks' together 36.56% of the total population in the country. The
Dalits are also not in small size. They make 21.7 % and we can't negate them standing in the 21st century on our age old religious scriptures. The Muslims may seem in minority by 4.27 % in
the country but we have to honor their minority rights also. Let’s have the people have their say. The Maoists are not those
guys that first professed federalism for Nepal. It was Rastriya Janamukti Party
that first floated the idea in 1990 taking notes from Swiss system of government. The Rashtriya Janamukti Party also said in its party manifesto that the country is in a dire need of proportionate
representative system. Has anybody in Singh Durbar heard it ? This makes the Maoists default heroes whom some people in illusion think their saviours. – The Blogger]
By Biswas Baral
 |
| A Chettri wields his sword and shield during a protest rally in Kathmandu |
Nearly
six years into the peace and constitution processes the
country has made significant achievements. The first of the two projects is
nearly done and dusted with and the second is only a matter of agreement on a
handful of (albeit contentious) issues.
If only wishes were
horses. Six years on, top political leadership and opinion-makers are still
unable to decide if a tenable agreement can be worked out on army integration
before May end, and more worryingly, if the country should go federal at all.
Hang on. Isn’t the
country already a federal republic? Or so we thought. As the deadline for the
final extension of the Constituent Assembly closes in, more and more doubts are
being expressed in the media on whether federalism is really applicable to Nepal.
Right through the last
six years, among the most common gripes of the anti-federalists have been:
a) Federalism is
economically unviable;
b) It could lead to
possible disintegration of the country; and
c) The heretofore
marginalized groups can still be best served by a unitary state.
One doesn’t have to
think too hard to see the vacuity of the viability argument. Traditionally, the
Nepali state has always been an unviable entity for the majority of people. The
only people who found it viable comprised of a tiny fraction that milked the
state for their partisan benefits—resulting in widespread socio-economic
disparities and marked class and caste divides.
The second reservation
of the anti-federalism forces is with the likely disintegration of the country
under a federal model. Yes, as I argued in my last write up (State of the
Union, Feb 23), such a possibility cannot be completely ruled out. But again,
this cannot be an argument for the retention of the current unitary state
model. If the central agenda of disadvantaged communities (i.e. federalism with
a degree of autonomy over local resources and governance) is to be brushed
aside, it is by no means certain that the traditional unitary model can keep
the country together, especially in the absence of its central symbol in the
monarchy. If anything, if the dominant political class somehow colludes to
merely tweaking the old unitary model instead of undertaking state
restructuring in true spirit of federalism, the possibility of instability and
likely disintegration will considerably increase.
The third argument that
Madhesis, Dalits, Janajatis and other marginalized communities would still be
best served under the old unitary dispensation (that the problem with it was
not its exclusionary character but lack of devolution) rings equally hollow.
Unsurprisingly, it is the traditional ruling classes that have resorted to this
line of thought. Try convincing that to a Tharu in Dang forced into hard labor
in perpetuity or a Madhesi in Birgunj demoted to second class status on the
basis of his name and skin color.
Again unsurprisingly,
it is the traditionally ‘ruled’ who have been the strongest advocates of
federalism with the right to self-determination.
Not that there is any
reasonable chance of reverting to the old scheme of things. But it also doesn’t
look like the traditional agents of discrimination are giving up their fight
anytime soon. A huge chunk of Nepali Congress continues to believe federalism
is a misguided agenda. If Sher Bahadur Deuba had his way “the 75 districts can
easily be converted into 75 [federal] states”.
UML leaders in their
recent mass gathering at the Open Air Theatre were competing against one
another in trying to prove, on the strength of their capacious vocal cord, that
“all Madhesi leaders are corrupt” and in league with the Maoists are ‘scheming’
to rend the country apart.
The corrupt-Madhesi
leadership argument not only defies simple logic—apparently, since some birds
are black, all birds must be black—it is also grossly unfair on the Madhesi
political class. Most ministers in Nepal have always been corrupt: at this
point, many ministers belonging to the Madhesi community are corrupt no doubt,
but not because they are Madhesis but because they are ministers.
In the case of Tarai in
particular, noted commentators from the Madhesi community have been time and
again warning that a revolution has been silently brewing in Madhesh. They warn
that if the center continues to turn a blind eye to the genuine demands of Madhesh—most
importantly a guarantee of their political and socio-economic rights—the whole
region might once again erupt in revolt. But the ‘mainstream’ political
leadership, after six futile years of dirty power plays, still refuses to see
the logic behind the demand for federalism, leave alone contemplate substantive
state restructuring to safeguard the rights of all peoples.
Their fear that some of
their traditional privileges might be in threat under the new dispensation is
genuine. But how could it be otherwise? For the marginalized communities to
gain some rights, it is imperative that the traditional power centers forgo
some of their old privileges.
Besides, the argument
of loss of all powers is often overdone. Most marginalized communities are not
asking that they be granted quotas and first right over local resources and
governance in perpetuity. Their demands are rather centered on fixed-term
quotas and reservations. Again, the votaries of unitary state might argue that
it’s impossible to divide the spoils among over 100 ethnic communities in the
country.
Indeed. The task might
be difficult. But shouldn’t be for these communities to decide on their shares?
It’s presumptuous of those who in the past made decisions on their behalf to
argue that the prerogative be continued in New Nepal. The same logic applies to
the devolution argument. If the disadvantaged groups believe the problem was
not lack of devolution but the reluctance of the privileged class to devolve
power and resources, they are perfectly entitled to that belief. And it is the
state’s obligation to honor it. For as a Nepali saying goes, only the chopping board
understands the agony of the khukuri.
At a time the country
is crying out for radical transformation, invoking the Mahendra-era nationalism that privileges a handful of groups
against all others is revisionism, plain and simple.
It is not
federalization of the state according to the demands of the marginalized
communities that poses the biggest danger to Nepal’s integrity. It’s the
shortsightedness of the privileged class that is unable to see beyond its
narrow gains.
[The
State Restructuring Commission was formed hastily on deadline, filled mostly
with party activists, and came up with 'majority' and 'minority' reports
without ever once talking to the people. The majority report itself included an
absurd 'non-territorial' Dalit province, and excluded the earlier one for the
Sherpa, possibly because the Commission was led by a Dalit and did not include
a Sherpa.]
By
Bihari K Shrestha
The federalization
debate in Nepal remains more contentious, paradoxical and the most
superficial also. And since last week, it is followed by violence and
terrorism.
The demand to retrovert
Nepal into federal states first surfaced in 1996 just before the start of the
war when the Maoists demanded 'autonomous governments where ethnic communities
are in the majority'.
In a country which is a
dense mosaic of ethnic groups, the demand was clearly a war tactic to drive a
wedge in the body politic, and to help boost recruitment. Ten years later, when
the war ended and the Maoists made their triumphant return from India, the NC
and the UML were in tatters. Discredited for fecklessness and corruption, they
had to meekly give in to the Maoist demand for ethnic federalism.
The CA itself never constituted
the State Restructuring Commission, but seemed pretending that it was working
on it. Its frivolous and irresponsible attitude was on full public display at
the 127th meeting of the CA's State Restructuring and Power Redistribution
Committee when the Maoists quickly undid the consensus of earlier meetings in
just 30 minutes. They won over the seven UML members by agreeing to Sherpa and
Mithila provinces, and outvoted what otherwise would have been a parallel
proposal from the NC.
The State Restructuring
Commission was formed hastily on deadline, filled mostly with party activists,
and came up with 'majority' and 'minority' reports without ever once talking to
the people. The majority report itself included an absurd 'non-territorial'
Dalit province, and excluded the earlier one for the Sherpa, possibly because
the Commission was led by a Dalit and did not include a Sherpa.
The biggest
shortcoming, however, has been that these reports never looked into the
fundamental issue of federalisation: how would it improve the lives of the
people economically, socially and politically?
The neo-feudal
politicians in the CA must acknowledge that in this intermixed ethnic country,
few are asking for a federation, let alone one with specific ethnic groups as
the new ruling class. Most people in Nepal suffer from acute food shortages and
underemployment, and they have to migrate to earn enough to feed their families.
This requires unrestricted freedom of movement, which ethnic territories will
restrict.
There are signs of
things to come. Last Monday's blast in Kathmandu was one. Two years ago, seven
men from Gorkha were butchered in Manang for trespassing during yarsa
harvesting. There have been attempts at ethnic cleasning in the Tarai.
Federalisation, if anything, is only going to raise communal friction among the
communities. No one wins, everyone loses.
Neo-feudalism and a
blatant lack of transparency and accountability on part of the politicians at
all levels have kept Nepal the poorest and the most misgoverned in the world.
Despite this, we have some things to be proud of: the widely-applauded world
class success of community forestry due to our demonstrated ability to restore
severely depleted forests in just a decade or so is an exemplary example (See:
Nepali Times, # 593).
More recently, Nepal is
ranked at the top among a handful of countries projected to meet the Millennium
Development Goals in child survival and maternal mortality rate reduction.
These dramatic success stories were the result of devolution of authority to organisations
who are beneficiaries themselves: forest user groups in the case of community
forestry and the mothers groups in health.
The secret ingredient
in both cases is that all members of these user groups (rich, poor, men, women,
castes and ethnicities) effectively participate in decision-making, ensuring
good governance, transparency and accountability.
What Nepal needs is
extensive devolution of authority to local communities, not breaking up the
country into what is most likely going to be feuding feudal fiefdoms.
Bihari Krishna Shrestha
is an anthropologist and was a senior official in the government.
