Nepal, an undoubtedly diverse country with many ethnic groups, languages and religions, is now at the threshold of adopting federalism. Before the 1990’s democratic movement, Nepal had implemented a policy of ‘one nation’ to reinforce the feeling of national solidarity among all Nepali people but in that process, the diversity of its people was ignored. Consequently, the languages, cultures and religions of the ruling class became dominant and those of the marginal groups were further marginalized. Currently, there is a loud call in Nepal’s political discourse that it should adopt an ethnic- based model to represent the marginalized communities.
Recently, the State Restructuring Commission submitted two contradictory models of federalism to the government, even as a majority of the commission’s members support the ethnic-based model. The most debatable issue is whether the ethnic-based model is apt for a country like Nepal. Political scientist Benedict Anderson argues that ‘language helps to imagine a nation as a community.’ Let us suppose, Nepal is an ethnic-based federal state and there are more than two ethnic groups in each province, wherein all ethnic communities speak their mother tongue. We can easily imagine what the situation will be in a scenario like this. The value of the national language (Nepali) would get diminished with everyone speaking their mother tongue.
And further, by not having a common language, the gap among the ethnic groups within the same province would become even wider. Nationalism demands internal homogeneity and in such an ethnic- based federal state, maintaining internal homogeneity is not feasible, which in turn makes nationalism weak.
The model that Nepal will adopt would be based on the imagination of some of the political elites or ‘experts’. To maintain strong nationalism, the kind of model we adopt is very crucial. But can nationalism remain strong in an ethnic federal state? Political anthropologist Ernest Gellner argues that “Nationalism is a theory of political legitimacy, which requires that ethnic boundaries should not cut across political ones.” How can one guarantee that after ethnic federalism, the political boundary would not be crossed by the ethnic boundary?
Nepal has no visionary leadership and hence, to re-distribute resources and revenues in a way that all ethnic groups are equally represented is certainly challenging. The concerned political leaders from the ethnic communities do not seem to be worried about the possible downside of ethnic federalism. They are hardly aware of what kind of changes it would bring to Nepal, as well as its implication on the nation, national identity, and nationalism. We have no able political leadership to decide which territory would belong to whom. It shows that to be a purely ethnic federal state as well as an ethnic homogenous state is nearly impossible for Nepal.
As mentioned, the redistribution of resources and revenues would also be a great challenge for Nepal in an ethnic-based federal model. Most of the farm lands are in the Tarai whereas water resources fall in the hilly region. Further, almost all tourist areas and mountains are in the hilly region. As tourism earnings are one of the most important sources of the country’s revenue, it would matters a lot for any proposed federal state. How can redistribution with fair representation then be possible?
Unless there is an equitable distribution of resources like water resources, forests, minerals, tourism earnings, farm land, industries, sugarcane, etc there is a high risk of political conflict because an unequal economic structure would definitely cause unfair competitions and lead to inconsistencies between and among the federal provinces. The conflict caused by the unequal distribution of resources could lead the entire country to a quagmire, causing violence and destruction, and ultimately, perhaps fuelling demands for secession.
Nepal’s foremost need is to have scientific decentralization of power and resources rather than ethno-federalism. Non-ethnic based federalism would be a better alternative for Nepal as it could possibly solve the problems of all groups and Dalits and reinforce the country’s social, cultural and political structure.
The concerned experts and the political leadership should try to view the model through the lens of ‘cultural relativism’, a term coined by an acclaimed anthropologist Franz Boas. ‘Cultural relativism’ is a notion and belief that all cultures are equal; cultures itself are neither superior nor inferior. Culturally relativistic perspective reduces the feeling of ethnocentrism.
In an ethnic-based federalism model, there could be a chance of a tussle regarding cultural or religious beliefs, that is, ethnocentrism and therefore, conflict among ethnic groups may arise. Re-structuring the state from an anthropological perspective, rather than a political one, would be the best and most scientific way to steer clear of any possible conflict.
Strong nationalism demands internal homogeneity. In an ethnic federal state, such homogeneity is not feasible.
It does not seem easy for a country like Nepal to include all voices raised by various ethnic groups from different corners of the country and give them equal weight. There can be a risk of one group governing and the rest being marginalized in each ethnic province. Therefore, looking at it through the anthropological perspective, a non-ethnic based model would be more appropriate for Nepal and would help maintain a harmonious relationship among dissimilar ethnic groups. The logic of ‘cultural relativism’ can help create proper respect for other cultures and foster mutual cooperation among the communities in Nepal. So, in order to correct the historical injustices and maintain social unity and harmony, Nepal should adopt a territorial model of federalism.
The author is a social science researcher
pranjali.sapkota@gmail.com
Related story
Pharmacy owner arrested for mixing various narcotic drugs and s...
