After going through many permutations and combinations, the three parties have finally proposed their versions of the federal structure with varying numbers of provinces: NC (7), UML (12), and CPN-M (10). Prepared behind closed doors and without much public feedback, these maps have failed to address the long-term welfare needs of the nation. What’s worse is that these maps seem more like political chess moves than a sincere exercise in national building.
First, it is not an easy task to divide a unitary state system into pieces while satisfying every ethnic group. Second, it is equally wrong to have left this exercise exclusively in the hands of politicians who care more about their vote banks than the long term health of the country.
Above all, these proposals ignore the emerging regional economic realities and the basic principle of comparative advantage of our landscape, people, and resources. We are about to embark on a path that is full of uncertainties, that is likely to affect our future for the next several generations and this means we need to tread with extreme caution.
Our political class needs to pause and think through its decisions very carefully. The Madhesi leaders, in particular, must figure out how they can work with their counterparts in the hills to come up with a more powerful economic union that can benefit everyone, without compromising on the issue of ethnic identity. This, however, will require some ‘give-and-take’ from all stakeholders.
Nepal is a multi-cultural, multi-lingual, and multi-ethnic country and a rising demand and people’s aspiration for ethnic identity should not surprise us. Such demands are only natural, especially after in a post-conflict period. We need to forge a balance between emotions and needs of the nation, along with a long term economic vision.
This write-up will suggest a compromise proposal that follows a more balanced cooperative approach, an idea this author had presented in this newspaper a year ago. This proposal takes into account ethnic sentiments as well as our need for economic integration by harnessing diverse resource bases and comparative advantages. In essence, this cooperative model proposes four states—Karnali, Gandaki, Koshi, and Bagmati as the central Kathmandu Valley. Within each large state, three or so ethnic provinces could be formed. It must be reiterated that a complete separation of Tarai strip from the hills in forming a stand-alone province (e.g., Tharuwat or Mithila Pradesh) will have a detrimental effect on the people of Tarai in the long run.
To begin with, it makes little sense to divide our resource base while the rest of the world is moving towards forming economic communities. For example, there are 10 economic communities in Africa, seven in Asia, six in Americas, four in Europe, five in the Middle East, and there are 10 new proposals. These economic communities are coming together to form alliances to benefit from each other´s comparative advantage, resource base, and market access.
In our case, separating the Tarai plain and, for example, forming a separate Tharuwat province is not a sound economic decision. First, this 30-mile wide Tarai strip, proposed as a Tharuwat province, has a high population density, which has been increasing over the last several decades. It is also under severe agriculture constraints. With no other resources to harness, this strip of land is more likely to turn into a spatial poverty trap in the next two decades. A stand-alone hilly region, on the other hand, will struggle with food deficit. While in the short run, the hilly regions will continue to suffer, a stand-alone Tarai province is more likely to fall in a poverty trap in the long run, with many people slowly moving from the hills to the plains. Add to that the claims over the river systems and the flooding problem, and we are looking at a protracted water conflict and ethnic disharmony.
On the other hand, an ecologically balanced larger proposed Karnali state can offer much to the people of the Tarai and the hills. The hilly region and its vast valleys and terraces can be a powerhouse in producing protein through animal husbandry, whereas the Tarai can still be a bread basket. The potential of these hills to generate revenue and employment opportunities from its cash crop industries—coffee, olives, herbs, spices, and vegetables—is unlimited. The Tarai can be a processing location for various plants and industries.
Brazil has done just that by converting its hilly lands through appropriate research and development. Now, it has overtaken many traditional agro-based European countries to become the world´s agro-powerhouse. We have two of the promising markets next door—India and China—whose demand for protein and herbal products has been rising every year. China is looking to Africa to satisfy its demand. Further, a trans-Himalayan highway linking China and India is just a matter of time. An ecologically connected cohesive state can collectively benefit from this trade linkage between China and India.
Wind and hydro energy output can be shared by the people of both regions—Tarai and the hills, without a dispute over the source and the ownership of the river systems. A combined state unit will also be able to tap the vast economic potential of tourism with mountaineering, national parks and others. Similarly, the perils of flooding, soil erosion and drought could be handled collectively as a common problem. This proposed Karnali state has the potential to develop a powerful university system with branches across the ecological belts offering diverse specialties.
Importantly, the government of a larger Karnali state can leverage its collective assets and the vast water towers and fresh water reservoir in dealing with its neighbor—the vast Indian state of Uttar Pradesh with a population touching 200 million. The UP government will look to harness the untapped potential of the hills and mountains. India’s demand for fresh water is growing at an alarming rate. The Tarai and the hill should unite to protect this valuable resource, and harness it for the benefit of the people of the entire region. Meanwhile, those from Tarai need not fear any Pahadi domination, given they will have proportional representation in the state legislature.
Ethnic sentiments as well as economic integration by harnessing diverse resources and comparative advantages need to be taken into account.
Political leaders in Kathmandu have their own agenda and bargaining strategy, which is why leaders and intellectuals from the Tharuwat and hilly region need to sit down and discuss the issue in order to forge a consensus beneficial to all. Even within the larger umbrella of the Karnali state as proposed here, the Tharuwat can still maintain its Tharu identity and those from the hills needn’t give up their ethnic identity either.
The same argument applies to the other two Tarai provinces—Lumbini sub-province within the larger Gandaki state and Janakipur or Mithila province in the Koshi state. Dividing the Tarai into three sub-provinces and making each of them a part of the larger state is not going to be the end of the world. An economic unit from the mountain down to the plain will be a force to be reckoned with while dealing with the Bihar government, which is already looking to China for economic cooperation. A Koshi state will have a stronger bargaining power than a mere strip of Tarai province.
To those who are concerned about the identity issue, let us take the example of New Mexico. A sparsely populated state twice the size of Nepal has devised various indigenous laws to deal with 18 native American tribes in the state. The state has given them various rights in handling several issues like those related to culture, education and health. The state as a whole, however, is a governing unit under one umbrella of the state government catering to the three main ethnic groups—Hispanics, Caucasian Americans, and Native Americans. Thus, a governance unit comprising of the three ecological regions need not be seen as an anti-Pahadi or anti-Madhesi idea. We can all emerge winners and benefit in the long run, if we work collectively; or we can continue to struggle individually. The choice is ours.
The author is a professor of economics and the founder of the Nepal Study Center at the University of New Mexico
bohara@unm.edu
Related story
Go Stand Up!
