Incorporating provisions of ‘agradhikar’ seemed neo-apartheid to many while it was seen as victory by some. The dominance of some 10 ethnicities over about 90 others will only polarize the hitherto one Nepali society. ‘Agradhikar’, a concept that goes against the norms of democracy and equality, will fuel animosity on both sides of the divide, both when implemented and withdrawn (if ever). Politico-social inclusion, economic enhancement and education uplift and empowering communities are not ‘agradhikar’. Remember, the masses of Yadavs of Nepal and Dalits of India haven’t benefited from Ram Baran Yadav and K R Narayanan’s accession to presidency.
As no state has the majority of any community because of the mixed distribution of ethnic population nationwide, the ethnic states will be ruled by one minority community or the single-largest community, at most. Naturally, other communities, which together form the majority, will in all likelihood resent.
Besides, the reason to form 10 states on ethno-linguistic basis and four others –Sunkoshi, Narayani, Karnali and Khaptad – on geographical grounds is not clear. Those four states could have been named after Khas and Dalits, thus recognizing and respecting their identity too. For whatever reason, this was not done. The resulting Khas discontentment, albeit dormant now, may explode later. Do the leaders realize this? Not only Khas, even others who have their own states with ‘agradhikar’ but who had been living in other provinces are unhappy as they will be reduced to second-class citizens. Take for example Newars outside Kathmandu valley, Tharus of eastern and central Tarai, Magars and Gurungs of eastern hills, Rais of Nuwakot district and the like.
The ethno-federalist lobby has always maintained that federal states are essential for the uplift of marginalized and ‘oppressed’ communities. Fine. Then, why haven’t Dalits – the most oppressed of all castes and communities – been given a state of their own? While large states have been proposed for communities that form less than 1 percent of the population (like Sherpas) and even for communities that hardly exist (such as Jad), there are no states for Khas and Dalits, who constitute 32 percent and 7 percent of the population respectively.
The list of anomalies and irrationalities are long. In fact, no scientific or logical basis has been adopted in the whole process. Politics of pressure and appeasement of minorities had been the only criteria. As a result, even before the states are born, disputes, claims and counterclaims with regard to borders and places between rival communities have multiplied. That is why the lawmakers who declared states deliberately chose not to demarcate the state’s boundaries and territories. In a nutshell, ethnic federalism has antagonized most and gratified a few.
Madhesis are not satisfied as Madhes has been divided not only into two separate states but also on two separate parameters. Eastern Madhes (Mithila-Bhojpura) has been formed on linguistic-regional lines while the focus is ethnicity in case of western Madhes (Tharuhat-Abadh-Lumbini). Both homogeneity and diversity of Madhes have been neglected. Real or perceived, the dangers of possible secession and blockade of upper regions by an all-encircling and extended Madhes has always scared non-Madhesi leaders. So, my question is: Why go for ethnic federalism in the first place amidst fears, suspicions and distrusts of this kind?
Our politicians advocate the right to self-determination but oppose the right to secession. What they haven’t understood is that federal states are not controlled laboratories, which they can handle with push-buttons. Can they tell what safeguards or plans they have in mind in case some provincial assemblies – the sovereign body of the state – pass a resolution to secede?
Many of the proposed states aren’t economically- and geographical-viable, which means that not only can’t they generate surplus revenue for the center or even just enough for themselves but they also need to be given heavy subsidies. The states are asymmetrical not only in terms of territories and terrains but also in terms of feasibilities and opportunities. The huge inter-state gap in terms of human, natural and financial resources will have a spiral effect on the whole nation.
If ethnocentric federalism is really viable, its supporters need not be afraid to agree to the proposals for a plebiscite to decide on the issue, which can be preceded by a national deliberation on its merits and modalities. But they won’t because they know that ethnic federalism can’t stand the public scrutiny as it is neither viable nor desirable.
I know that instead of answering the above questions/ arguments, our leaders and lawmakers will, as usual, dismiss them as regressive, Brahminical, Khas monopolistic, status-‘quoist’ and even monarchist. But real and imminent problems beg real and immediate solutions; they can’t be solved by escapism or rhetoric. Catastrophic examples of ethnic federalism are many – from Yugoslavia to Sudan to Nigeria – successful examples none. Still, it is not too late. It is time our leaders chose not to open the Pandora’s Box.
Related story
Awareness rally against demerits of social networking sites
