The federalism agenda has been firmly established in Nepali political discourse following the success of Jana Andolan in 2006, the Madheshi Uprising in 2007 and the subsequent movements for recognition by the traditionally marginalized communities. But more than six years after the 2006 uprising which dismantled the old unitary order under a hereditary monarch, the kind of federalism best suited for the country continues to be a matter of acrimonious contestation. Traditional parties like Nepali Congress and CPN-UML want more emphasis on ‘viability’ component while carving out federal states, while the new forces in UCPN (Maoist) and the Madheshi parties believe the question of ‘identity’ should be given more importance. The older parties are accused of trying to preserve their old monopolies; the newer ones are blamed of attempting to extract revenge on certain communities and instigating divisive tendencies. It is this bitter debate on federalism that sank the old CA ship, and if workable compromises cannot be worked out, it is sure to imperil any new constitutional process as well.
There is no way the country’s two big neighbors would leave it ‘up to the Nepali people to decide’ as the potentially divisive issue of federalism in Nepal, with its greater geo-political ramifications, is being played out in this strategic location. During Maoist Chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s recent trip to the north, the Chinese are reported to have expressed their concern that federalism might invite more instability in Nepal. Beijing is clearly afraid that an ethnic model of federalism could spark fissiparous tendencies in Nepal, an alarming development next door to the restive Tibet. This is one of the reasons for China’s more visible role in Nepal in recent times, a development which undoubtedly spooks South Block mandarins long used to considering Nepal under India’s security umbrella. Likewise, New Delhi wants the division of federal states in Nepal to serve its security and regional interests. Some allege India of attempting a wholesale ‘Sikkimization’ of Nepal by instigating the Madhesh-based parties to push an ‘unviable’ federal model. The Europeans and Americans are blamed of trying to expunge their colonial guilt by backing ethnic monitories in Nepal, not to forget their pet project of ‘proselytizing Christianity’. [break]
There is no way to settle these doubts and hunches one way or the other. Nonetheless, the growing paranoia over ‘foreign meddling’ does reflect the extent to which present-day Nepal is influenced by external forces. Again, nothing surprising here: international diplomacy has been centered on ‘promotion of national interests’ since the 15th century, with powerful nation states jostling for space and influence wherever there is political vacuum. The upshots are seldom pretty. The biggest danger for Nepal is that if its political interlocutors with the outside world are deemed incapable of keeping their own house in order, foreign forces might bypass the Nepali political class to work out answers to Nepal’s problems themselves, either individually or collectively. This perception of ‘incompetence’ of Nepali political class will only grow the longer Nepali actors take to settle the federalism debate. Unless a compromise formula can be worked out in a not too distant future, more than prolonged instability might be at stake for Nepal.
Related story
Indonesia raises alert, widens danger zone around volcano
