Constituent Assembly (CA) member Dr Prakash Chandra Lohani emphasizes the need for a constitution that ensures “participation, inclusion, and substantive equality to all citizens under a democratic framework,” and states that a “federal structure is not an objective. It is only a means to the objective of institutionalizing inclusive policies and the empowerment of the masses.” The author agrees with Dr T K Oommen’s (Professor Jawaharlal Nehru University) focus on creating a strong “national-state” and uses a “salad bowl” metaphor to describe an integrated country in which each ethnic group retains their own identity.
Dr Pitamber Sharma agrees that “federalization is (only) a means to an end” and that any model of federalism must be inclusive, guarantee the devolution of power, be based on economically viable states, and facilitate the optimal and complementary use of resources.
While identity politics became exaggerated during the Maoist insurgency, Nepal’s former ambassador to the United Nations and the United Kingdom, Murari Sharma reminds readers that ethnic differences are more artificial than real and more political than substantive. He warns that a continued focus on difference could “lead down a path of increased fragmentation rather than a road to an inclusive society.”
Chairman of Constitutional Committee of CA Narahari Acharya emphasizes the fact that the numerous ethnic groups of Nepal are widely dispersed throughout the nation and that “carving out provinces along ethnic lines … can create animosity among racial groups.” Regarding special rights, he believes the idea “itself goes against the basic principles of democracy.”
Like Dr Alok Bohara, Mukesh Khanal, Nandankaji Budhathoki, and Chandan Mani Adhikari stress the need for economically viable states and emphasize the “need to consider natural resource allocation” when drawing provincial lines. Mukesh Khanal, Nandankaji Budhathoki highlight the mass migration from rural areas to the urban center of Kathmandu that took place during the Maoist insurgency and recommend that this “first city” bias be addressed to ensure even development throughout the country.
Previous research and studies by a variety of authors have also contributed to the on-going debate. CA member Dr Ram Sharan Mahat places a priority on economic development. Drs Anand Jha, Mahendra Lawoti, and Vijaya Sharma believe ethnic federalism will improve representation, while Zakeria “Zak” Yacoob sees a language-based model of federalism. Shyam Mainali emphasizes on fiscal- and language-based federalism. Natural resource allocation is the focus of UNDP Nepal, and Drs Shiv Raj Bhatt and Syed Mansoob Murshed, and Surendra Devkota focus on ethnic composition and the economic viability of states. Nepal: New Frontiers of Restructuring the State by Dr Lok Raj Baral (ed), provides a comprehensive approach to restructuring Nepal’s government.
We believe the research findings and concerns highlighted by these authors are important to consider and incorporate into the design of Nepal’s government model.
Nepal’s population distribution (48.43 percent in Tarai’s 20 districts; 46.83 percent in the Hills’ 44 districts; and 4.7 percent in the Mountains’ 11 districts) is out of balance with GDP contributions. For example, the district of Kathmandu generates 42 percent of the total revenue in Nepal. The top 12 (of 75) revenue-generating districts contribute 94 percent of Nepal’s total revenue. To ensure even development, the new states of Nepal need to be balanced.
A geo-spatial analysis of Nepal’s 2011 population figures and ethnic distribution percentages, access to natural resources, and environmental concerns such as the distribution of forests, farmland, and water, produces five viable states (figure 1) — Karnali, Gandaki, Narayani, Kathmandu (Newa), and Koshi. Each of the watershed areas surrounding Nepal’s five major rivers suffer from land degradation that negatively impacts the ecosystem of the Tarai. Notable are the ravines that have formed in Churia & Bhabar that contribute to extensive environmental degradation and compromise ecosystem services in Tarai.
Similar to Dr Alok Bohara’s model (2008), our proposed states could include sub-regions without territorial boundaries to protect the identities of ethnic communities. In line with the late Dr Harka Gurung’s model of a north-south divide that ensures national sovereignty and sustainability of ecosystem services, the boundaries of the five-state model run vertically from north to south.
Recognizing the demands of Nepali citizens to decentralize power and provide equal opportunities to historically marginalized groups, our proposed model does not mix politics with ethnicity. The model crosscuts Nepal’s diverse ethnic populations, and allows the rivers and forests of Nepal to be shared by multiple communities. It transcends linguistic, ethnic, religious, caste and geographical differences and utilizes the existing administration and economic capabilities of each region. Of the five proposed states, four states include a major north-south flowing river, for which the state is named. The fifth state is comprised primarily of the Newar and retains the name of the country’s capital, Kathmandu. The Bagmati and Bishnumati Rivers run through this state.
Balancing Population & Revenues
We have analyzed gross national product, population and major ethnicity figures for each of the five states. With the exception of Kathmandu, none of the states have an ethnic majority. The population-GDP ratios of the states are better balanced and will increase accessibility of resources. Noting the concerns of the Madeshi people, the model allows for optimal levels of representation from the 20 Tarai districts.
Percentages of GDP, Population & Ethnicity of Five States
Karnali State supports 20.86 percent (Tarai 8.9, Hill 11.5, and Mountain 0.46) of the total population. It contributes only 16.62 percent of the total GDP from 22 districts—Dolpa (0.09), Rukum (0.63), Mugu (0.12), Humla (0.14), Jumla (0.26), Jajarkot (0.38) Dailekh (0.51), Pyuthan (0.53), Rolpa (0.61), Salyan (0.16), Surkhet (0.98), Bajhang (0.46), Darchula (0.48), Achham (0.59), Doti (0.65), Baitadi (0.7), Dadeldhura (0.56), Dang (1.64), Banke (1.76), Bardiya (1.24), Kailali (2.44), Kanchanpur (1.69). The major ethnic groups comprise of Chhetry (32 percent), Magar (9 percent), Brahmin-Hill (10 percent), Kami (7 percent), Thakuri (7 percent), Tharu (31 percent), and Muslim (4 percent).
Gandaki State houses 18.45 percent (Tarai 7.1, Hill 11.26, and Mountain 0.09) of the total population. Though it contributes 18.45 percent of GDP, such contributions are mainly from urban and land-based—Manang (0.09), Mustang (0.12), Myagdi (0.46), Lamjung (0.76), Gorkha (1.17), Tanahun (1.25), Syangja (1.41), Kaski (2.17), Parbat (0.64), Baglung (1.03), Gulmi (0.75), Palpa (1.05), Arghakhanchi (0.79), Nawalparasi (2.46), Rupandehi (3.21), Kapilvastu (1.8). The major ethnic groups include Brahmin Hill (21 percent), Magar (17 percent), Chhetry (14 percent), Tharu (12 percent), Gurung (12 percent), Kami (9 percent), Muslim (9 percent), and Yadav (6 percent).
Narayani State supports 32.55 percent (Tarai 15.9, Hill 14.3, and Mountain 2.3) of the total population. It contributes 26.56 percent of total GDP from 16 districts. The contributions are either urban or farm-based—Dhanusa (2.23), Mahottari (1.46), Sarlahi (1.7), Rautahat (1.58), Bara (4.02), Parsa (2.33), Dolakha (0.57), Sindhupalchok (1.17), Sindhuli (1.0), Ramechhap (0.72), Kavre (2.02), Rasuwa (0.27), Nuwakot (1.19), Dhading (1.21), Makwanpur (2.41), and Chitwan (2.7). The major ethnic groups comprise of Tamang (28 percent), Chhetry (16 percent), Brahmin-Hill (14 percent), Newar (8 percent), Magar (6 percent), Yadav (12 percent), Muslim (9 percent), Tharu (3 percent), Teli (2 percent), and Koiree (1 percent).
Kathmandu (Newa) State is densely populated. The three districts alone house 6.67 percent of total population and contribute 16.12 percent of GDP. The Newar ethnic group is in majority (52 percent) followed by Chhetry (25 percent), Brahmin (12 percent) and Tamang (11 percent).
Koshi State has 21.25 percent ( Tarai 13, Hill 6.64, and Mountain 1.61) of the total population. It contributes 21.17 percent of the total GDP—Taplejung (0.53), Sankhusabha (0.67), Solukhumbu (0.52), Ilam (1.15), Panchthar (0.72), Tehrathum (0.47), Dhankuta (0.61), Bhojpur (0.68), Khotang (0.74), Okhaldhunga (0.5), Udayapur (0.94), Jhapa (2.75), Morang (4.55), Sunsari (2.88), Saptari (1.79), Siraha (1.67). The major ethnic communities include Rai (19 percent), Chhetry (20 percent), Limbu (10 percent), Brahmin-Hill (16 percent), Tamang (7 percent), Magar (5 percent), Yadav (9 percent), Tharu (8 percent), and Muslim (6 percent).
Historically, Nepali people have lived together peacefully. The demand for ethnic- federalism emerged as a possible political solution to address discrimination of the past. Our analysis of ethnic federalism cases with similar geographic and economic conditions suggests that an ethnic federalism model of government will likely produce more problems than solutions for Nepal. Our analysis using land productivity data for the past four decades (1970-2010) and recent satellite images (figure 1) suggests that drawing state boundaries along vertical lines will allow equal access to natural resources and create a strong Nepali “national-state.”
The first two parts of this article were published on October 16 and October 23.
Keshav Bhattarai is Professor of Geography & Darlene Budd is Associate Professor of Political Science & Director of International Studies at University of Central Missouri, Missouri, US
(Concluded)
bhattarai@ucmo.edu
dbudd@ucmo.edu
Related story
Work underway to take Melamchi and Indrawati rivers back to the...
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)