Recently, Nepal has witnessed the rise of hill Bahun/Chhetri ethnicity campaigns. The campaigns are directed against a proposal of federal Nepal, designed by the State Restructuring Committee (SRC) of the Constituent Assembly (CA) and by the High Level State Restructuring Commission (HLSRC), which they perceive as ´ethnic based´. While continuing with their propaganda that federalism may jeopardize the country’s social harmony, national unity and territorial integrity, Bahun/Chhetris groups have progressively changed their position in the last few years, from being ´anti-federalist´ to ´reluctant federalist´ to now advocates of ´administrative federalism´. To support their claims, new phrases like ´indivisible Chitwan´ district and ´indivisible Far-West´ region´ are being invented.
In spirit with emerging Bahun/Chhetri ethnicity campaigns, leaders of some major political parties have come up with an alternative proposal—which include retention of the existing boundary of 75 districts 14 zones and five development regions, vertical division of provincial territories, none-ethnic state names, and no preferential rights—for which they lend a tag of ‘democratic’ or ‘non-ethnic’ model. The new identity constructed on the basis of district, zone and development region will be an administrative identity. But can administrative federalism serve the purpose of Nepal’s transformation from a unitary to a federal state?
The purpose of Nepal’s transformation into a federal state is, as outlined in the Interim Constitution 2007, to end discrimination based on caste/ethnicity, language, culture, religion and region. Unequal distribution of social, economic and political powers among different caste/ethnic groups is evident from the following facts:
- Nepali society is largely organized in stratified hierarchies in which Bahuns and Chhetris are placed at the top.
- Hill high castes are in better position in Human Development Index with a score of 514 for Chhetris and 612 for Brahmins against the national average of 509. Figure of their poverty is much lower (19 percent) as compared to the national average of 31 percent.
- Hill high castes with their strength of less than one third of national population command more than two-third political power/positions.
Nepali state/government in the post-April 2006 popular uprising set a new national goal: state restructuring in an inclusive, democratic spirit; declaration of Nepal as a secular state; acceptance of multi-language policy; reservation and affirmative action for excluded groups and recognition of caste/ethnic and regional identity as a political/electoral constituency some of the steps being undertaken to usher the country towards its new destiny. Moreover, the federal project under design, it is hoped, will be a big step forward towards inclusive polity. The very notion of inclusive democracy seeks equality among social groups which inevitably calls for an end of hill high caste hegemony. In spirit with past agreements (between promulgation of Interim Constitution in January 2007 and CA election in April 2008) between the government and different social groups/political forces to frame identity based autonomous provinces, the SRC unanimously adopted five bases of identity (caste/ethnicity, language, culture, territorial/geographical continuity and historical continuity) and four factors of capability (infrastructural development, natural resources, economic interrelations and accessibility to administrative services) for constituting federal units. The HLSRC followed the path of the SRC while taking ´capability with identity´ as bases for its recommendation of 10 territorial and one non-territorial province. So, the proposal of administrative identity-based federalism, rejected by both the SRC and the HLSRC, is a reversal of a sequence of events and decisions made in post-April 2006 Jana Andolan.
The federal design as recommended by the SRC and the CA committee is ethnic in appearance, but not in essence.
Federalism provides political space at the middle, between the centre and local bodies. Administrative federalism on the other hand is aimed at retaining the status quo so far as caste/ethnic based distribution of power is concerned. In the last local elections of 1997, hill high castes captured 68 percent leadership of District Development Committees (DDCs). This will be extended to the leadership of the federal units if the present district boundaries are retained in the new federal map. Caste/ethnic demography matters since Nepal has adopted a mixed system in which seat allocated for proportional representation (PR) is filled up in proportion to size of population of caste/ethnic groups. Take the example of a proposal of six provinces—an alternative proposal entertained by both the SRC and the HLSRC in a section of their own reports—where the hill high castes make up the majority or the largest group in all four hill based provinces. Such a numerical advantage converts into political power as allowed by representation system under PR component of mixed electoral system. Moreover, the history of electoral results in Nepal show that high hill castes take up a disproportionate share of first-past-the-post (FPTP) seats. Even in the CA election, which is hailed for being more inclusive, the hill high castes were able to capture 42 percent of total 240 seats under the FPTP.
If the purpose of state restructuring is to bring a change in the present state of caste/ethnic based unequal distribution of power, it is necessary to draw provincial boundaries based on caste/ethnic settlement of target groups, which obviously requires a re-demarcation of territory of at least some districts. The SRC and the HLSRC did so in making the provinces demographically convenient for target groups. Of 10 territorial provinces recommended by the HLSRC, most are multicultural but again demographically convenient for target groups. For instance, Limbus constitute a larger group than hill high castes in Limbuwan. Creating provinces a demographically convenient manner for the target groups has multiple advantages: one, it allows national minorities to gain dominance at sub-national level; two, it helps manage social diversity through distribution of power among social groups; three, it makes irrelevant the claims of political prime rights for the dominant groups at provincial level; and four, it provides a natural outlet for sub-nationalism that emerges in course of implementation of federal system.
The proposal of identity-based federalism is criticized for being pro-ethnic. It is true that Nepali society and politics is divided between one favoring ethnic federalism and the one standing for non-ethnic federalism. The SRC and the HLSRC tried their level best to balance such claims and counterclaims. Assertion for identity is given due place in naming of provinces, in delineating provincial territories, and in providing political space to tiny Janajati groups. At the same time both the Committee and Commission took several precautionary measures to prevent the possibility of discrimination by the dominant group against the minorities at province level. Some of their recommendations regarding principle of equal rights of citizens and groups are listed below:
- Representation in provincial assembly in proportion to size of population of caste/ethnic groups;
- Representation to the Upper House of national legislature on the basis of territory, not on ethnic basis;
- Preference rights in provincial administration, not along ethnic lines but on territory basis;
- Affirmative action only for the marginalized groups (i.e. women, dalit, tiny minorities etc.) not for the dominant group of the province;
- Rights to self determination not only to the indigenous nationalities but also to other indigenous groups (hill castes) and Madheshi (omission of other indigenous group by HLSRC is a subject that needs a review);
- First right on natural resources not only to indigenous Janajatis but also to the local community; and
- Retention of Nepali language along with local language as medium of education and official language at sub-national and local level.
The federal design, recommended by the SRC and the HLSRC, is ethnic in appearance but non-ethnic in essence. It, however, certainly helps meet the objective of federalism: a reasonable distribution of power among social groups. Choice between two competing proposals—administrative federalism and identity-based federalism—is a choice of status quo vs that of change. The ball is in the court of political parties and the CA.
Finally, a question to the leaders of national parties who are advocating administrative federalism: Will they remain national leaders if they ignore ethnic and regional aspirations for political power?
Related story
This syndicated state
