Excerpts:
Myrepublica.com: We have two maps in hand. First, would you tell us what the strengths and weaknesses of the 14-province model are?
Dr Mangal Siddhi Manandhar: We in the CA committee discussed for a whole year mainly on the federal concepts. We took identity as the primary basis of our federal system during our conceptual discussion. Therefore, the concepts we discussed during the time was oriented toward the 14-province model. Another important alternative basis was strength. Strength means economic viability. Setting up a state becomes meaningless if that can’t be economically viable. Therefore, we took it as an alternative basis. Thus, identity was the primary basis while strength being an alternative basis. Therefore, the main strength of the 14-province model is that it addresses the issue of identity, which has been a strong demand in recent years.
Myrepublica.com: What are its weaknesses?
Dr Manandhar: Maybe it’s the number. One can say that there are too many provinces in this model. But addressing the agenda is more important than the number. The other model can’t address the issue of identity. We know very well that Nepal is a country of mixed communities. Everywhere we find mixed settlements. At the same time, we also find there are some communities who are in fairly large numbers in certain places. The argument that says only the community in majority can have a separate state is not right because no community is in majority in the whole country. Though no community holds majority in a particular area of the country, several ethnic groups are in fairly large number when the numbers are added up from across the country. To address this issue, the 14-province model is more appropriate.
Myrepublica.com: What are the strengths of the six-province model?
Dr Manandhar: The main focus of this model is creating less number of provinces and making them viable. But just because we in the subcommittee came up with this model does not mean that we deem it appropriate. As we found two types of thoughts in the committee and failed to create a single model agreeable to all, we decided to prepare the two models representing both the spirits and present it in the full committee. The subcommittee didn’t say that both the models are fit. We prepared two federal models after we failed to agree on one.
In the six-province model, there is a problem as well. We have already decided to go for three-tiers of governance—central, provincial and local. In this model, the gap between the provincial government and the local bodies will be too big as there are big provinces. Even other CA committees have finalized their preliminary draft reports as per our decision to adopt the three-tier government system.
Myrepublica.com: One major issue in state restructuring is Madhes. What are the options in discussion to settle the Madhes agenda that is a major issue in state restructuring? Will the entire Tarai region finally be made a single state; will it be divided into two or more states?
Dr Manandhar: The entire Tarai region can never be made a single state. Lately, even Madhes-based leaders, who earlier led movement for a single Madhes-state, have said that the Madhes issue can be addressed by creating at least two provinces comprising the Tarai districts. At the same time, we should keep in mind that Chitwan is a unique district. No Madhesi community is there. Tharu community is in minority. Communities from hilly origin are in majority. Geographically, the district divides the Tarai region. Therefore, in 14-province model we have categorized it as a mixed province. Therefore, some CA members have said that Chitwan shouldn’t be forcefully included in the Madhes region while Madhes-based leaders argued that it naturally should be in the Tarai province. On the other hand, Tharu leaders claim the Tarai region as Tharuhat. They even don’t accept the existence of Madhes in the country.
In such a context, some members argued to delimit the states on a linguistic basis: Bhojpura, Maithili, Birat, Lumbini and Tharuhat. Other members were for taking basis of communities saying that the linguistic facts and figures keep on changing overtime. We agreed on this proposal put forth by subcommittee member JP Gupta. We agreed to take the communities as a major basis (for Madhes) assuming that it may help forge consensus. When we followed communities, we found that most of the communities in Jhapa and Morang districts are Pahadi (hill) communities. Either there are ethnic, indigenous or pahadi communities. The Madhesi communities are in very less number. Then we couldn’t include the parts in Jhapa and Morang districts in Madhes province. But Madhesi leaders argue that all the southern belt be automatically included in Madhes region. They are also demanding that Chitwan be included in Madhes. But we can’t do this without certain grounds.
See, the concept of Madhes itself is a new notion. It hasn’t been defined yet. We have no survey about how many people claim themselves as Madhesis. We know that there is a large population, who identify themselves as Madhesis. But we don’t have concrete data on that. The indigenous communities, Tharus and even Muslims, don’t prefer to call themselves as Madhesis. The government needs to define it. Moreover, even the census done around 10 years ago didn’t examine the number of Madhesis. Despite that, we have agreed on the concept of Madhesi. So, discussions are underway.
Myrepublica.com: What were other rationales used while delimiting the states?
Dr Manandhar: The two models didn’t come out just out of the blue. We studied the clusters of all the communities which have more than one percent of the total population and of the languages spoken by more than one percent of the total population. We found 14 independent groups while studying the clusters. It is based on the data what we have. After that, we delimited the provinces while keeping several pragmatic aspects in mind. We also took economic strength as a major factor for viability. For instance, there was no town in Tamuwan. Then, we included Pokhara in Tamuwan, because there must be at least one town in a state. The settlements of the communities across the country led us to creating 14 provinces. Some provinces proposed in the maps have a mixed nature. Neither any ethnic/indigenous community nor a linguistic group has a dominant presence in the provinces. Most of the mixed provinces have relatively strong presence of either Brahmins or Chhetris.
Myrepublica.com: The discussion underway in the CA committee is merely conceptual. How will it be implemented on the ground while demarcating the provinces?
Dr Manandhar: I think a technical team needs to be entrusted with the implementation part. The deadline to promulgate the constitution is only a few months away. So, we can’t do this. What we can do here at this time is to delimit the provinces in maps. Later, a commission or a committee can demarcate the provinces on the ground on the basis of the maps passed by the CA.
The argument that says only the community in majority can have a separate state is not right because no community is in majority in the whole country.
Myrepublica.com: Madhes-based parties have already expressed their reservations. Do you think that other political parties will own these models?
Dr Manandhar: See, there will always be some individuals who will object the ideas. In our (UML) party’s case, the 14-province model is in many respects similar to the map presented by our party, which was endorsed by the party’s standing committee. Likewise, the Maoist proposal is also akin to the model. The NC didn’t submit any map to the committee. This model has tried to address the issue of identity and the strength as well. Once implemented, it will work.
Myrepublica.com: What about the demand of Himalayan communities?
Dr Manandhar: A genuine concern has been raised that the whole Himalayan region has not been represented with its identity in the model. Besides the large geographic region, they have their own distinct culture, language and identity. But when we studied the cluster, we found that the communities in the Himalayan region don’t make up even one percent of the total population. Many members in the committee are positive to their demand. We have taken it seriously and the discussion is underway.
Myrepublica.com: Don’t you think that it will encourage other groups to demand separate states. Can you keep on adding the number?
Dr Manandhar: It’s a genuine argument. Others may follow the suit. But their demand is also valid because there is no representation of the whole region. Several provinces have been proposed in the hilly region. So is the case in Madhes. A single ground of population can’t be justified in case of the Himalayan region. Therefore, we need to take both population and geography into consideration while delimiting the states and making representation. We are under discussion about the serious question of how to tackle if the number keeps on adding.
Myrepublica.com: Some of the proposed provinces are too tiny. Can they be economically viable?
Dr Manandhar: To some extent, size and viability are related. But it doesn’t apply everywhere. In the 14-province model, Kathmandu (Newa) is the smallest state. It has neither jungle nor sufficient water. But if you look at the trend of revenue collection, the government of Nepal collects nearly 42 percent of the total revenue from Kathmandu alone. Therefore, size can’t be the only ground on which to judge. Other states can also have their own means to collect revenue. We have seriously studied this factor while delimiting the states.
Strength is always relative. During the Cold War, we had heard that there were arguments in international forums that some tiny countries like Nepal couldn’t be independently sustainable.
Myrepublica.com: There are arguments that the census done some 10 years ago does not properly reflect the present situation and that the work based on its data might be faulty. Do you agree?
Dr Manandhar: That’s a reality. But we have no choice. We have pointed out that the census is incorrect in many places. If we don’t use it, there is no other alternative for us. We have to use it because we have to start the work and can’t wait any longer.
Myrepublica.com: What are the challenges in implementing federalism in practice?
Dr Manandhar: It’s been taken more sentimentally. Federalism should have been taken as a means to lead the country towards economic prosperity and every sector should have been prepared to face the new challenges. At present, it’s been taken more as an issue of identity and sentiments. It will eventually create a problem. While some other groups are aggressively presenting federalism as a means to disintegrate the country, inviting racial conflicts and chaos. These extreme positions are unfortunate aspects.
thira@myrepublica.com
Related story
New BMW models in Nepal
