For starters, federalism is not a panacea for inclusion; enlargement and fair distribution of national pie. Federalism is a structure. You need investment and growth in education, health, accessibility, jobs and freedom to work to expand the pie, and right policies to distribute it. Federalism has not made India, Pakistan and Nigeria much inclusive in last six decades. Comparatively, a unitary United Kingdom is certainly more inclusive.
Nepal’s federalism has less to do with inclusion and more with the assertion of indentity politics. For instance, the privileged groups in the plains, BRYK—Brahmins, Rajputs, Yadavs and Kayasthas—want “One Madhesh One Pradesh” to extract more power from Kathmandu but have made public no plan to share it with unprivileged minorities. Several BRYK leaders have threatened to dismember Nepal if their demand is not granted, which indicates an external hand, rather than the noble goal of inclusion, behind this.
Still, I strongly support the federalism that can be an instrument of competitive progress and inclusion, as in the US and Brazil. These countries promote interstate competition by publishing comparative statistics in various sectors. Brazil also displays these statistics on huge hoarding boards by the roadside everywhere. States with better performance get higher federal support. Counties receive support accordingly. This competitive federalism has made the US the most advanced country and Brazil the seventh largest economy in the world. As the economic pie expanded, these nations implemented ambitious programs for inclusion.
Although ethnic federalism has a mixed record, I am not opposed to it, per se. Ethnic federalism failed spectacularly in the Soviet Union and Sudan, and is on the verge of collapse in Canada and Belgium. But India has been able to hold the union together with such federalism—so far. Ethnic federalism is feasible in countries where ethnic groups are clustered together and population overlaps are limited. Due to its overwhelming population spillover outside ethnic homelands, Nepal is not one of them.
In the hills, no ethnic state will have the majority of a dominant ethnic group due to population overlaps. For instance, the Limbus, the largest group, will have less than 50 percent population in Limbuwan. Out of Limbuwan’s six likely districts, three—Sankhuwasabha, Dhankuta and Ilam— have a majority of the Rais, a different ethnic group. These districts might prefer to join Khambuwan, a Rai state, across the Arun River. The Rais, though the largest group in their state, will be in minority overall, and two districts of Khambuwan will have Chhetri majority. Similar situation exists across the hills.
All lofty proposals die at the altar of financial sustainability. We all want to see Nepal become a Singapore or a Switzerland. But do we have the resources to realize this dream?
In the plains, the Tharus, the largest group, outnumber other ethnic groups in Sunsari in the east, and Dang and Bardia in the west. They cannot have a contiguous Tharuwan. The BRYK are spread widely, while Yadavs are located mostly between the Koshi and Rapti rivers. Hill Brahmins constitute the largest groups in Jhapa and Morang. Chitwan has more hill people than the plainspeople. The plains also have wide racial and cultural differences. The Tharus, Koches, Meches and Dhimals are Mongoliod, while the BRYK are Aryan. Muslims belong to a different civilization altogether. So the Tarai too does not have much room for ethnic states.
There is no consensus among parties and no consistent logic behind their proposals. The Maoists have proposed 14 states, the UML 10 states, and the Nepali Congress seven states. The BRYK controlled Tarai parties want the entire plains as one state. Hill tribal elite want each tribe to have its own state. Several parties do not accept federalism at all. Unfortunately, none of the parties has carefully considered the financial viability of the proposed states.
All lofty proposals die at the altar of financial sustainability. Every Nepali wants to see Nepal become a Singapore, Switzerland or the US. But do we have the resources to make such a commitment now?
The answer is no. A unitary Nepal spends more than 70 percent of its income from revenue under regular budget. Several regular expenses—for instance, fancy vehicles and thousands of liters of fuel procured by projects for ministers and secretaries and the military budget included in forestry, industry, and civil aviation—are hidden in development budget. If such expenses are included, regular budget gobbles up more than 80 percent of revenue. That leaves a paltry 20 percent for development budget.
Under a federal Nepal, the situation will be worse. While the central government must maintain its paraphernalia, albeit slightly reduced, states will have to create and fund their own legislatures and bureaucracies. A rough calculation suggests that the creation of five states will increase regular expenses by 50 percent and eat up the entire revenue. More than five states will force Nepal to borrow to fund regular expenses of central and state governments.
In view of all this, the restructuring committee has two main tasks. First, to work out an agreement on how the country should be divided: Vertically, horizontally, ethno-culturally, or combining more than one of these factors. Second, to determine the number of states based on financial sustainability. What is politically desirable is often financially unfeasible.
Polls suggest vertical states would receive the widest support. They will be easy to create. The committee could simply recommend converting the existing development regions into states, with necessary adjustments. Four would be ideal financially and five could be manageable. The main political parties should have no difficulty in abandoning their proposals and agreeing to this option. But hill tribes and the BRYK are opposed to it.
The BRYK have demanded a single horizontal state for the plains. With that logic, the country could be divided horizontally into three states—one each in the plains, hills and mountains. Financially, the state in the plains will be highly sustainable and in the hills manageable. But the one in the mountains will have to rely on the other two. Neither the main political parties nor the hill and mountain tribes will accept this proposal.
Ethno-cultural basis will lead to the creation of several states. Nepal has about 100 ethnic groups. Ideally, every one of those groups must have a state. Muslims must have their own state too, because they represent a different civilization. This option could make all minorities happy, but none of the states is likely to be financially viable and sustainable in next several decades.
The SRC could follow the hodge-podge approach of the main political parties and recommend states on different bases. It will be a marriage of convenience. But it will be a shame if the committee consisting of learned people, several with PhDs, were to recommend something that lacks consistent governing logic or defining principle behind it.
I have no doubt about the credentials of SRC members, though I am not too confident about their ability to resist political pressure. They are all educated, enlightened and have risen in society on the strength of their integrity, intellect and independence. However, when even the Supreme Court has to concede defeat on the unconstitutional extension of the Constitutional Assembly term, it is natural to entertain doubts about SRC’s ability and will to stand up to political pressure.
That the committee is headless indicates the uneasy road ahead. There will be all kinds of pressures and temptations. The far right, hankering for the good old days, will want to preserve feudalism. The far left, having stirred animosity among various groups, wants to fragment the country into little pieces so they can impose North Korean-like dictatorship. Both groups will try to impose their will by coaxing, cajoling, threatening and frightening SRC members. Politicians in the middle will peddle their influence more subtly, promising posts, positions and opportunities for business.
Temptation is more powerful than pressure. I hope the SRC members will resist them both and offer a logical and rational blueprint for Nepal’s transformation into a federal union. They must make sure the rights of the majority are protected while advancing the rights of the minority, both at national and state levels, for lasting peace and unity. On the line are the country’s future and the commission members’ reputation.
The writer is former Ambassador of Nepal to the United Nations and the United Kingdom
murarisharma@gmail.com
Related story
Desperate search for missing girls as nearly 80 dead in Texas f...
