Nepal's better-off as a unitary state

Federalism based on ethnicity was first proposed by the Maoists. In the past, they used the proposition to weaken the monarchy as various ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities were not happy with the Nepali-speaking, Hindu, Khas royal rulers. Now they are using it to appease and woo ethnic minorities and to outdo other parties. With similar motives on their part, succumbing to the Madhesi agitation, other political forces also jumped onto the federalist bandwagon two and a half years before federalism was incorporated in the interim constitution.

Many non-resident Nepali pundits to local academics and columnists have thrown light on various aspects of federalism. They have talked of various theoretical aspects to US, Canadian or German models to unhappy experiences of newly-federated Sudan and Ethiopia. They have even suggested numbers, names and boundaries of federal states ‘suitable’ for Nepal. Nonetheless, amidst the deliberations, basic questions remain unanswered.

There are more unitary states in the world than there are federal. Many of them are successful, inclusive and prosperous liberal democracies.

In the first place, why does Nepal, a unitary nation-state ever since its existence, need to disaggregate to a federal system, especially one based on ethnicity? A flawed and unsuccessful model apart, will it be physically possible and financially feasible to carve, form and govern ethnic states in this country? Even if created on a non-ethnic basis, what purpose will such states serve? Last but not the least, if federalism is what really people want, why not decide on its need and modalities through direct exercise of popular will such as plebiscite?

There are more unitary states in the world than there are federal. Many of them are successful, inclusive and prosperous liberal democracies. On the other hand, many federal states are marred by violence, civil war or secessionism. The present day Assam and Kashmir in India to erstwhile Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are a few examples.

People want devolution of power, so far centralized in Singha Durbar. Fine, vest local governments with as much power as possible and decentralize maximum authority to the grass-roots. There is no need to demarcate boundaries and divide the nation; unitary nation-states of Europe, Japan and Korea are better examples of devolution than many federal states.

ETHNIC STATES NOT VIABLE

Nepal is a country of ethnic diversity where no single ethnic community forms a majority in any given area. Ethnic-distribution-in-population is mixed everywhere except in some districts of Tarai where Madhesis – a community of North Indian descent – form a majority. Creation of states having identity or domination of one ethnic group will only give birth to continual inter-ethnic clashes.

Some powerful ethnic minorities are pressing hard to create states named after the symbols of their culture where they will have preferential rights over others. They argue that as ‘early inhabitants’ of the region (a claim refuted by others), their community deserves special status.

It is true that for historical reasons some states like Kashmir or Quebec were granted special powers and protection – known as asymmetrical federalism. But the above demand is different; it can only be equated with apartheid where minority rules over majority and where the state officially favors or discriminates citizens on grounds of their ethnicity or race. Morally-weak politicians are not opposing even such calls for fear of losing support of a few but powerful people.

Lately, political parties other than Maoists, primarily Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML have realized the dangers of federalism. But they lack the courage to admit their mistake, let alone backtrack. As a damage control measure, NC is now proposing geographical states stretched from Himal to Tarai (CPN-UML is still uncertain). However, states with such north-south axis will be ‘mini-Nepals’ in themselves as each will have the same mixed nationwide patterns of ethnicity and geography. Radicals, campaigning for ethnic states like Madhes, Tharuhat, Newa, Tamsaling, Limbuwan, Khambuwan, Tamuwan and Magarat, won’t accept them.

Mistakes can always be corrected. If mainstream parties who have overwhelming majority in the constituent assembly decide unanimously to abandon federalism, the oncoming disaster will be averted. But they will never do so; just the other day the Maoists declared – with an obvious aim to destabilize the present government – that they will soon announce autonomous federal states on their own. Our political parties are too partisan, self-seeking and short-sighted to unite for a larger cause.

Madhesis’ demand for autonomous state in an undivided Tarai has already polarized communities. Tharus – a sizable indigenous community living in north and inner Tarai – have rejected the idea, so have others. People suspect secessionist designs in the ‘One Madhes, One Pradesh’ demand. Even among the ethnic lobbyists, there are disputes over proposed territories. Rival groups often claim statehood in the same area. Thus, conflicts of interest among different stakeholders and resulting contradictions in their respective stands pose grave challenges to ethnic harmony and national unity, which may lead to civil war and disintegration of the country.

jeevan1952@hotmail.com