As we near the constitution deadline the issue of federalism has gained in prominence. As the coordinator of the Janajati caucus in the Constituent Assembly how do you view this debate?
The issue of state restructuring has not entered a substantial phase yet. So far as the Janajati caucus is concerned, it has been trying to make the major party leadership understand our issues. We had promulgated a concept paper outlining our points of support and differences for the report produced by the CA’s state restructuring committee. Since we have interacted with all major and minor parties, they more or less know our issues. But these dialogues have not been very fruitful in terms of outcomes.
What are your major concerns that party leaderships have not been able to address?
None of the three main parties seems to have taken our demands seriously. For instance, the question of proper resolution of the question of the right to self-determination and autonomy has not even been seriously broached yet. I believe we provided an opportunity for the party leadership to enter meaningful debates on these issues. But I don’t think they have realized the gravity of the matter.
The major parties seem to want to resolve the issue of state restructuring through dialogue between top leaders. Will this be acceptable to the Janajati caucus?
No major party in Nepal is committed to the agenda of federalism. Not even the Maoists have been come up with a consistent policy recommendation on the issue. Federalism was never an agenda of NC and UML, especially identity-based federalism. All major decisions on federalism have been arrived at through constant prodding of janajatis and other indigenous groups as well as by the pressure exerted by the Madhesh Andolan. Since federalism is only the demand of the Madhesis and janajatis, the major parties have not shown much concern in this regard. The leadership of major parties must have thought that since they are custodians of Nepali politics, anything they decide would be acceptable to all. But if the nitty-gritty of federalism is settled behind closed doors, that would be an unfortunate situation. I request the political leadership to address issues through consultations with relevant stakeholders. Only then will the constitution be a legitimate document.
What will be the move of the Janajati lawmakers if political parties decide to issue whips on important issues in CA?
Issuing whips will not be easy. That might create an environment of revolt. We have been saying that since the lawmakers are not just representatives of political parties but equally of their community and class, they should be as loyal to the party as they should be towards their communities. I don’t think the political parties will go so far as to completely overlook the possibility of lawmakers crossing party lines.
As a leader of CPN-UML, how do you evaluate the party’s proposed federal model?
I believe CPN-UML still has the most coherent view on federalism. The 15-state model that was initially settled on by the party’s working committee on federalism was the best model. Now, the situation is that the party has neither been able to stick to the old model nor propose a new one in its stead.
The leadership of Nepali Congress and even a section within the UML is now pitching for the six to seven state models with north-south demarcation. How do you view this proposal?
Look, NC has never been serious about the federalism agenda. In UML, I believe it was Madhak Kumar Nepal who first spoke on the possibility of provinces bordering both the big neighbors. I believe that there is a big conspiracy in the proposal that all states should incorporate mountains, hills and plains. There is also conspiracy in the proposal that there should only be six-seven states as 14-15 states are unviable. These are conspiracies hatched by those who cannot openly say that federalism should not be based on identity. Some leaders are now saying that each state should border India. Others are saying, why just India, each state should also border China. At the heart of the federal agenda is honoring the suppressed linguistic, cultural and ethnic aspirations. It is not being done so that each state borders this or that country.
There are rumors that Janajati lawmakers are contemplating forming a different party. Is there a degree of truth in it?
The Janajati caucus has never thought about establishing a separate party. But regional parties are already forming in the proposed Limbuwan, Khumbuwan and other regions. This should be a lesson for the major parties. The lawmakers should not be forced to choose between their party and ethnic affiliations.
How do you address the question of capability?
The main reason we are adopting a federal setup is to prevent a social conflict. Thus identity is the main issue. The main issue related to capability is that the provincial government or local government should be accessible to the people. The other capability-related issue is that Nepal is a country replete with natural resources. There must justifiable distribution of these resources. We also have to consider economic and social aspects. But what is happening now is that the question of capability is being linked to the issue of taxation and revenues. This is an attempt to divert attention from the identity issues.
Can you enumerate the major demands of the Janajati caucus at this point in time?
First, the country should adopt a federal set up that adequately addresses the issue of identity. Second, we believe that if the number of states is comparatively higher, it will be able to address the diversity issue. Economist Vijaya Sharma believes 15 states is the most viable option for Nepal. If we look at examples around the world, 90 percent of the countries with two states have disintegrated. When a country has 3-7 states, the country is unsuccessful in 72 percent of cases. The higher you go, the more the stability. This is because if there is a large number of states, they will not be able to challenge the center politically, economically and in terms of population.
Third, while demarcating borders, linguistic, cultural and ethnic clusters should not be broken apart. Fourth, the provinces should adopt a multilingual policy for the promotion of local languages. Fifth, while the center should be strong, we believe only a model that fosters coexistence between the regional and central governments will succeed. Thus states should be adequately empowered.
Related story
Binu Gurung bagged ‘Miss Gurung International’
