Expectedly, the critics of this model have never been so passionate. Newspapers are filled with articles warning how “careful” we need to be in making this decision, and how ethno-lingual federalism will be a big mistake. This model doesn’t even have a strong political support. Many important politicians, if they could have their way, would perhaps never support any form of federalism, and certainly not ethno-lingual kinds.
Not surprisingly, there are talks going on about a High Level Commission on state restructuring. There are also talks about postponing the decision on the nature of federalization i.e. its boundaries and powers after the proclamation of the new constitution! This gives you an idea of the vision these visionaries have on how Nepal should be governed in the future. This also gives you an idea of how strong they are in making tough decisions.
Why is it that this form of federalism arouses such strong passions among its critics? Why is it that politicians of all major parties unite when it comes to sabotaging a genuine transfer of power to historically marginalized groups in the country? To understand this, one needs to put oneself in the shoes of a Nepali-speaking upper caste of the country.
So far, Nepal’s administration has been in the grip of the Nepali-speaking upper caste. Ethno-lingual federalism such as the 14-province model recently passed will loosen this grip.
With provinces demarcated along ethno-lingual lines, the possibility of a Nepali speaking person winning the election as the chief of a province will decrease—especially in the short run, where voters are likely to vote along ethnic lines.
Ethno-lingual federalism will give a platform for the marginalized groups to organize better and oppose any systematic discrimination from other groups.
To the non-political Nepali-speaking members of the community, suddenly there will be more competition for government jobs. These ethno-lingual units may have their own language as their official language and the Nepali-speaking population may have to learn another language to compete for provincial level administrative jobs. This will also result in more competition for favors from the state. There will be increasing numbers of Janajatis, Madhesis and Tharus who will also have close relationship with the chief ministers or the “head honchos” of the society. In short, the matters of state will start to slip from the grip of the Nepali-speaking elite. It is this reluctance to loosen the grip that results in passionate oppositions.
Unfortunately, the critics of this model rarely admit their displeasure at giving up power, and have opposed such federation mainly on the following grounds: (i) That it may lead to disintegration of the country, (ii) that these units will not be economically independent. Such oppositions are unfounded.
Besides giving boost to different cultures and languages of Nepal, ethno-lingual federalism will give a platform for the marginalized groups to organize better and oppose any systematic discrimination from other groups or from the central government. With less discrimination against any of these states, the chances of disintegrating will be lower, not higher! Consistent with this common sense, academic research based on studies of a large number of countries also shows that ethno-lingual demarcation actually helps in keeping different communities together. The examples of India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan also convey the same message.
That ethno-lingual demarcation will lead to uneven distribution of natural resource and hence unequal prosperity of our citizens is also unscientific. It is impossible to predict the long-term economic value of natural resources with reasonable accuracy. What good does it do to fight over what is inside a black box when we do not know how much the contents are worth? What is certain, though, is that an environment conducive to harnessing resources will bring prosperity. Ethno-lingual federalism may actually help in this regard. It will take away the striking rod of identity-politics to garner votes. It will compel politicians to look for better ways—like better governance.
Over a century ago, it was the bravery and wisdom of the forefathers of Nepali-speaking upper caste that saved this land from being a territory of the East India Company. Today, we need their magnanimity and wisdom to save the country from identity-related conflicts that may last for decades. We need this community to loosen their grip with grace.
(Writer is an Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at Texas A&M International University in Texas, US.)
680anand@gmail.com
Related story
Who is right, who is wrong on Nepal-India battle of maps?
