If we are simply able to piggy back on this dynamism, there is no reason why we should not be able to achieve the same growth momentum. But for this we need to keep our political house in order and that means promulgating a constitution that is based on participation, inclusion and substantive equality to all citizens under a democratic framework. Thus, the binding constraint in the upliftment of the Nepali people at this point of time is politics and it should naturally receive our attention.
THE DEBATE
In the conceptualization of Nepal´s new politics that would launch a frontal attack on past discriminatory attitudes, behavior and practices against the Adivashis/Janajatis, Madhesis, women and even more so the Dalits and other marginalized communities, state restructuring has been a major issue. It has generated a lot of debates and political passion.
As a part of the new political structure, it has been generally agreed upon that the country will move from a unitary to a federal structure. But the form and content of the federal system is not yet finalized. However, one important point that we have to be clear about before we proceed in our discussion is that a federal structure for Nepal is not an objective: It is only a means to the objective of institutionalizing inclusive politics and the empowerment of the masses. In the past we failed on this front. We did adopt the theme of decentralization but in practice the ruling elites, whether in the Panchayat or the parliamentary era, ignored it.
Of course, there are people who say that we can achieve inclusion and empowerment without federal structure and they site many examples of unitary states that have been successful in achieving a transformation of the socio-economic system. There is strength in this argument but Nepal has embarked on the federal route and now we just have to make sure that we use this instrumental structure in a way that leads to the evolution of a strong national-state, a concept that Professor TK Oommen (Jawaharlal Nehru University) uses in distinguishing it from a nation state. In simple language, the choice for us is not a melting pot model but a salad bowl model where each ethnic community retains its own identity and continues to be an important part of the total whole, based again on the important values of inclusion and substantive equality under a democratic framework.
It is without a doubt that we did have a salad bowl model with a certain structure of holism even under Jung Bahadur Rana´s regime but it was based on,what Professor John Gray (University of Adelaide) in his paper has labeled, a socio logic of hierarchical differentiation that maintained a feudal structure for the benefit of the few. It is this structure that has to change.
As a new instrument of social change, federalism in the national state context can be expected to generate both centrifugal and centripetal forces. Wisdom and political skill requires that we do not allow the pendulum to swing wildly in either direction and the balance must be maintained if federalism is to succeed. It is, on this point that we see a lot of debates and differing opinions. On this score there is a tendency among some in the academic circles to label and even doubt the intention of anyone who does not agree with your logic as some ‘prehistoric remnant determined to derail the present.’
A federal structure for Nepal is not an objective: It is only a means to the objective of institutionalizing inclusive politics and the empowerment of the masses. In the past we failed on this front. We did adopt the theme of decentralization but in practice the ruling elites, whether in the Panchayat or the parliamentary era, ignored it.
ETHNIC FEDERALISM
On the nature of the federal structure, Professor Chaitanya Mishra (Tribhuban University) in his article tells us that ethnic struggle at the core is a demand for substantive equality by a more articulate and urban focused generation. It has to be understood in the context of changing production relations from feudalism to capitalism with both global and local dimensions. With this perspective he flatly goes on to conclude that ethnic federalization will lead to civil conflict and even a distinct rightward shift in politics. He points out that "once the principle of ethnic federalization is accepted, there will be no justification not to ´award´ provinces to specific ethnic groups". Professor Gray in his paper also seems to follow this trend with the assertion that ethnicity provides a weak socio logical basis for national unity.
Professor Dr Mahendra Lawati (Western Michigan University), on the other hand, advocates ethnic federalism. He argues that Nepali state has always been based on ethnicity and has been ruled by a minority which meant the Khas community and some upper caste Newars while all other ethnic groups all across the country were ignored. This brings the question of what our academic pundits mean by a federal structure based on ethnicity. This point has not been seriously discussed on and analyzed. So far, the debate seems to be focused primarily on the name of the state.
Nepal is a land of ethnic minorities, and it includes the Khas as well. The minority characteristic of Nepali ethnic distribution is actually an advantage because it has been shown in conflict studies that in countries where there is one majority ethnicity group the chances of conflict tends to be high in comparison to countries where no ethnic group has an absolute majority. In this sense, just because we name a state after the largest ethnic minority should not be much of a concern, as long as the economic, political and cultural rights of citizens living in or outside the state are fairly guaranteed under the federal constitution. Do we really have to worry about the name of the state so much as long as various linkages binding the states into a unified whole that is the nation, is properly spelled out in the constitution?
Even when it comes to the name, Nepalis are fortunate to have cultural symbols that bind different communities living in a district or region. Take for example, Nuwakot district that I represent in the parliament. About 35 percent of the population is Tamang while the rest come from other communities. But there are many cultural/ religious symbols that are common to all communities.
The name Tamsiling-Gosaikunda is one such option. Gosaikunda is revered by Tamang, Chhetris, Bahun, Newar or for that matter, almost all other communities as a holy place. Given this reality perhaps a name that would be acceptable to all would be to name the state Tamsaling-Gosaikunda. It would probably satisfy the Tamsaling as well as the non Tamsaling groups. Politics is the art of the possible, and I think instead of being apprehensive about the naming of the state on ethnic lines we could think of creative accommodation of this nature.
Writer is the co-chairman of the Rastriya Janasakti Party. The above essay is the first part of the two part series of the remark made at an international symposium on Ethnicity and Federalism organized by Tribhuwan University on April 22-25, 2011
prakash_dr@hotmail.com
Related story
Book review: Analyzing political economy of federalism in Nepal
_20230205122050.jpg)
_20191222200001.jpg)
