Competing demands over demarcation of future federal provinces have left many questioning whether federalism project in Nepal is doomed. How can the demand for "Undivided Far West" be reconciled with the as vociferous demand for a Tharuhat province for the Tharus in the same region? And if the demand for only two east-west states in the Tarai belt is to be entertained, how will it be possible to ensure economic viability of provinces higher up with only difficult hill and mountain terrains? There are no easy answers to these difficult questions. But nor is the federal issue as intractable as some would have us believe. First of all, it is important to get some basics about federalism right. It's not just a system of redrawing old boundaries. The federalism project in Nepal is mainly aimed at correcting some disturbing historical wrongs. During the 250 years of Shah Rule, the Nepali state had systematically discriminated against certain castes and regions. The native Madheshis inhabiting the Tarai belt were treated as second-class citizens. The rich culture and tradition of Janajatis were subsumed under a forced Hindu identity. The Far-West was completely overlooked.
Such a distorted balance of power between the traditional elites and the marginalized communities could have been maintained only under the illusion that there was a divine monarch who could do no wrong for his people. But this illusion was shattered with the de facto abolition of monarchy in 2006. The veneer of 'unity in diversity' was shattered as the heretofore suppressed and marginalized sections of the society were finally emboldened to speak up about the historic injustice. The old unitary state under the traditional elite, it was rightly felt, would never be able to accommodate their aspirations. This is the often forgotten background behind the need for restructuring of the old Nepali state. If all the old district and zonal boundaries are to be retained, as some are now demanding, that defeats the purpose of federating the country. In this context, the demand for any 'undivided' district, zone or region is misguided. Only the country is indivisible; it is only right to redraw its internal boundaries as per the needs of its citizens. We had welcomed the recent six-province model in the draft constitution because it was the first time a concrete federal map had been offered through broad consensus after the second Constituent Assembly elections.
We welcomed the model also because it shattered the idea of this or that 'undivided' region. Of course, the six-province model was not flawless. But it was a good start. The draft constitution could then have been modified on the basis of people's feedback; and it would have been vigorously debated in the CA chamber. Instead, the most vehement opposition to it has come from the street. Even so, people's genuine grievances with the draft constitution must be addressed. But the top leaders should also have the guts to stand up to bullies and to disregard the suggestions that come in the way of meaningful restructuring of the old unitary state. This must happen soon, preferably by the end of this week. Recent history suggests that the longer the constitutional process drags on, the more complicated it gets.
Related story
What's keeping you sane?
