The primary purpose of federal restructuring is to address those issues of Nepali polity, economy and society that remained ignored since the inception of nationhood in the unitary and overly-centralized state mechanism. These issues can be summarized into three broad categories and they should be addressed simultaneously.
The first crisis is an unequal representation. The various castes, ethnic/cultural groups, regions and gender of Nepal don’t feel equally represented in the politics and government. Some are over-represented and gender imbalance continues to remain a serious problem. The under representation of ethnic groups, Dalits, Madhesis and other backward communities in the politics and government form the very foundations of this crisis. This is the political angle of the national crisis.
The second crisis is the lack of inclusion of many cultures that led to the creation of a skewed national identity. A single national identity which was developed by the hill-dominated culture was forced upon other national cultures. The ideas of dhaka-topi and daurasuruwal; one-language-one-dress, one-religion-one culture were brutally promoted at the cost of other existing cultures. There was no concept of nation-state and recognition of other identities. The inherent sanctities of many cultures, languages must be recognized. Previously, the state had enforced homogeneity of national identity but heterogeneity of cultures and social identities were not recognized. The national identity should evolve out of democratic partnership of all the identities. This issue forms the societal dimension.
The third crisis concerns economic and spatial disparities. Some regions are affluent in resources, infrastructure and socio-economic development while others are deprived of it. The vertical and horizontal imbalances and spatial inequalities in development are basic characters within the Nepali economy. Fiscal and spatial equalizations are preconditions to a balanced and equitable development in all geographical regions. Ensuring equity and fairness in the assignment of public revenue, expenditure and intergovernmental transfer, minimizing fiscal disparities and acquiring greater degree of equalization at sub-national and local levels is another key challenge ahead. This outlines the economic dimension of the crisis.
Addressing the crisis involves acutely understanding the fundamental fact that federalism is the vehicle for political transformation and socio-economic development to achieve sustainable, equitable and just development and ensure social justice and equity in polity, economy and society.
However, in the concept papers and the Pharakmats on federal delineation do not address the aforementioned crises at all in many ways. First, the papers are incompatible with the aspirations of people and contradict federalism being demanded as a means to address developmental deficiencies due to overly- centralized state and non-addressed vertical and horizontal inequalities. Some of the proposed provinces will face further deprivations due to spatial inequalities. What will happen to provinces like Sherpa and Jadan considering their current development potentials, status of infrastructural development and feasibility of the fiscal federalism? The compatibility of population facts and figures too has been ignored. Not a single community has absolute majority in any delineated provinces. In all provinces, rule of minorities over the rest of majority has been projected. It is very obvious that delineation proposals were made haphazardly.
Second, the declaration of state as a secular one is based on the notion that the state is a rational entity—it has no official religion. If the country itself cannot possess one sociological variable i.e. religion, then how can delineation of provinces be based on other sociological variables i.e. caste/ethnicity? This is a great paradox within concept papers and Pharakmats. The papers lack a proper understanding of the issues. Ironically, the proposals seem to push back the Nepali polity and society rather than taking it forward; degenerating Nepali state into tribalism; making it incompatible with the notion of modern democracy.
Third, the concept papers are also not attuned with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights instruments such as ICCPR and ICESCR and other human rights obligations that Nepal is a signatory of. The term Agradhikar (Premium rights) is very much misused in the proposals. Nobody can be excluded “to elect and to be elected” in a democracy. All citizens are equal before the constitution and law; however the concept papers challenge this idea.
Fourth, the papers fail to realize that “to elect and to be elected” is always associated with taxation in a democracy. If some caste/ethnic groups have an exclusive Agradhikar “to elect and to be elected” then why should people from other caste/ethnicity pay tax for others’ identity and Agradhikar? If this happens, the vertical and horizontal block or special grants cannot be given. For example, why should the merchant class of Kathmandu pay tax for Sherpa or Jadan? A Newar or a Rai may ask “Why should I pay tax for Sherpa’s identity?”
Fifth, solving one problem should not augment other problems. However, solving the problem of identity and giving Agradhikar may lead to sectarian conflicts in future.
Sixth, the proposed model cannot solve the problem of Dalits’ representation who alone number more than 16 percent.
Seventh, it has been stated that the Agradhikar on harnessing and utilization natural and local resources should be given to province and local governments and that must be addressed in the constitution. However, this is akin to granting monopoly to a particular caste/ethnic group which is not democratic. Affirmative action does not mean caste/ethnic-based control over state resources and power.
Similarly, the Pharakmats of “One-Madhes-One-Pradesh” is also based on falsehood and is impractical and against the people’s mandate expressed by the CA election results. Madhesi parties obtained only 22.22 percent of vote in Tarai. In three districts such as Chitwan, Dang and Kanchanpur, they obtained less than one percent of total valid vote. In First-Past-the-Post System of the election, they obtained only 37 percent seats in the whole of Tarai. How can they claim “One-Madhes-One-Pradesh”? The table shows the facts and figures of the votes. Madhesi leaders who do want change and who are against the land reform in Tarai are the ones demanding “One-Madhes-One-Pradesh” to monopolize power.
b.p.bhurtel@gmail.com
Related story
DoFE directs cyber centres, training centres to remove misleadi...
