Federalism, an important basis of state restructuring, has become the proverbial bone that gets stuck in the throat. It can neither be swallowed nor coughed out.
Article 295 of Constitution of Nepal-2015, the new charter, provisions for a Federal Commission to provide suggestions on state delineation.
However, this commission is in limbo after the agitating United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) made immediate re-demarcation of state boundaries its ‘bottom-line’.
The State Restructuring Committee of the First Constituent Assembly (CA) introduced a 14-province model while the State Restructuring Commission constituted as per the Interim Constitution of Nepal-2007 provisioned for two parallel models: an 11-province model and a six-province model. Neither of these competing models could, however, secure the legitimacy as they could not muster two-thirds majority in the CA.
Much earlier, the government headed by the then Prime Minister and Officiating Head of State Girija Prasad Koirala had in 2007 signed an eight-point agreement with the then Madheshi Front and expressed the state’s commitment to an ‘autonomous Madhesh province’, in what was a radical departure from the abovementioned three reports.
By the time constitution writing reached the final stage in the second Constituent Assembly, parties in the UDMF were alleging that their proposal on demarcation of provinces, inclusion in government bodies, electoral constituencies, citizenship, among other issues, were ignored. After this, most Madhesh-centric parties in the CA boycotted the constitution writing process and joined street protests instead. But the rationale behind why the CA was dissolved even though two years and three months of its ‘fixed-tenure’ remained has not been clearly established. It would, arguably, have been easier to resolve the current problems if we still had the CA’s platform.
Madheshi anger seems well placed because the so-called big parties led to the dissolution of the CA and they tried to ram a constitution down Madheshi throats. This is why the Madheshi forces had boycotted the CA. But no effort was made to seriously engage with them. The Madheshis have always felt deprived of their ‘fundamental right’, not only in constitution but also in daily life, which further alienated them from national mainstream. But this fact seems to have been ignored in the final leg of constitution making in the second CA.
I believe it was a big mistake not to create an environment for Madhesh-centric parties to return to the CA, while the new constitution was still in the process of being approved. Due to this sense of alienation Madhesh-centric parties have neither owned up new constitution nor have they fully acknowledged it. The principle of constitutionalism requires compromise on both the ‘content’ and the ‘process’ of constitution-making for its wider legitimacy.
Before the second CA got dissolved after the promulgation of the much-awaited constitution mainstream political parties had agreed to two provinces in Madhesh and five provinces in hill/mountainous regions. This happened even though most Nepalis had clearly said that they would like to convert the current five ‘development regions’ into federal provinces. Most of them were also of the belief that all the federal provinces should touch India and China. This would also allay the suspicions of our two big neighbors. I have been arguing that Nepal, sandwiched between India and China, cannot jeopardize its own national interests by overlooking the legitimate security interests of its great next-door neighbors.
There is no dispute over the provinces encompassing mountainous and hilly regions. But the agitating UDMF has not accepted two Madhesh provinces as outlined in the new constitution. They are demanding that Sunsari, Morang and Jhapa districts of Province One should also be included in future Madhesh-only province. The talks being held between the government and the agitating Madheshi Front, in this backdrop, have proven to be damp squib, even though they are touted as ‘decisive’ each time.
The prolonged dispute over federalism is detrimental for the country’s future, because many believe the issue could drive a wedge in our territorial integrity, unity and social cohesion. The provinces should be demarcated as per the aspirations of the local people, not on the lines of partisan politics. This requires new thinking and also statesmanship from our political leaders. So while revising province demarcations, the logical thing to do would be to label the contested districts as ‘disputed areas’.
Creating a new province encompassing Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Udayapur, Saptari and Siraha districts which are historical places of Tharu population would be sustainable in terms of identity and economic viability. That would also be scientific. This province could be called the Koshi Province. Moreover, if the two districts of Saptari and Siraha, which are currently included in Province Two, are merged with Koshi province, then it would not be inappropriate to restructure the current Province Two by encompassing traditionally known ‘Inner Madhesh’ areas, Udayapur, Sindhuli and parts to the south of Amlekhgunj of Makawanpur district. A separate province comprising only Jhapa, Morang and Sunsari districts could be carved out. This three-district state would have tremendous economic prospects and it will be a melting-pot of social diversity, thereby strengthening Nepali nationhood.
Similarly, in the Far West, Kailali district could be split into two ‘disputed areas’. The eastern part may then be merged with the present Province Five and the remaining western part and Kanchanpur district made parts of Province Seven—the Far-western Province. On the whole, only a federal structure that contributes to social harmony, political stability and economic equality will be viable in the long run.
But if the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be jeopardized by carving out federal units, we should ‘scrap’ the idea in the larger national interest. A sensible move would be to reach out to the people of the ‘disputed areas’ as well as Tarai-Madhesh. The democratic alternative of referendum could be exercised to determine how people in these ‘disputed areas’ choose to live and in which federal unit. Time is running out. If the ongoing Madheshi agitation is not resolved soon, it could soon take a radical turn. It might then be impossible to check.
The author, a political economist, is RPP-Nepal Central Committee Member and Member Secretary
of its Department of International Relations
sacharya139@gmail.com
Related story
Let the people decide: Nembang
_20191222200001.jpg)
