Majority answered ‘don’t know’ to the question “how good or bad will be the condition of the country when switched-over to a federal system?” While 26 percent said the country will disintegrate, 18 percent were of the opinion that it will weaken and 12 percent replied that inter-ethnic strife will ensue. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of respondents chose NOT to answer the question “what should be the basis of the formation of federal states”. Nine percent felt that a new geographical division is required while 4 percent opined that the existing administrative divisions into zones and districts may be used for federalization as well. 5 percent answered ‘don’t know’; however, only 7 percent were in favor of ethnocentric demarcations. Yes or No to federalism was to be judged by a weighted average of scores between 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum). It stood at 3.8 percent in favor of federalism (not necessarily the ethnocentric one). Only half of even those who voted for Maoists stood for federalism of any kind.
The findings speak for themselves. However, propositions of some political forces/parties in this regard are not in tune with the feelings and expressions of the majority of people— both who speak and remain silent. Among the pro-federalism forces, Maoists are in favor of ethno-lingual states where as Madhesi parties are focused on an undivided Madhes province as they are not much interested in the type of federal states elsewhere in the country. Nepali Congress has, after a long silence (or indecisiveness?), come out against ethno-centric federalism while CPN-UML is still confused and full of inter-contradictions on the issue. Most of the smaller parties including the two communist ones – Rastriya Jana Morcha Nepal and Nepal Peasants and Workers Party – are opposed to ethnic federalism.
Barring Maoists, almost all national parties/forces are aware of the dangers ethnocentric federalization would bring to the nation but they fear to speak the truth lest it will antagonize the vocal and powerful ethno-lingual pressure groups.
The latter have been aggressively lobbying for ethnic states where ‘agradhikar’ (right to rule and exclusive or preferential rights over the natural resources of the state) along with right of self-determination will be reserved for their communities. On the other hand, Khas, the single largest ethnic community that represents one-third of the population, have rejected the notion of ethno-centric federalism outright through their huge mass rallies in Kathmandu, Pokhara, Bhairahawa, Far West and other parts of the country last year.
Meanwhile, ‘experts’ have been prescribing in donor/INGO-funded symposiums the modes of executive, legislative and judicial structures that will fit in the future federal set-up, some “intellectuals” are angered at the too much focus (both for and against) on ethnocentric aspects only and too little on other aspects of federalization; similarly, some are busy in imparting their ‘knowledge’ in op-ed columns of newspapers on everything from healthcare and education systems to jurisdictions of fiscal and monetary institutions to the structure of an Upper House to tiers of judiciary that may be compatible to a federalized regime. However, amidst this entire hullabaloo, some very basic questions remain deliberately unanswered or suppressed.
A nationwide survey, perhaps the first of its kind, carried among cross-section of population and regions shows that very few people are in favor of federalization, especially the one based on ethno lingual considerations.
Is federalization, especially the ethnocentric one, with provisions of agradhikar and right to self-determination, really warranted or worth the risks involved in it to social fabric and national unity? What suddenly has made it the best alternative for a unitary state like ours that has successfully upheld its independence and sovereignty ever since the nation-state came into being? If ethnocentric federal states are keys to preserve and promote the “so far suppressed” identity of different ethnic groups, why are the Khas and another 90-odd marginalized communities without states while some small but privileged and socio-economically well-off groups will have separate states of their own? If, on the other hand, federalization is for uplift and empowerment of the oppressed people, why 2 million Dalits (both Khas and Madhesis) – the most deprived of all communities – figure nowhere in the proposed federal map of the parties, including that of the Maoists? Isn’t agradhikar for some 10 minorities out of the centesimal of communities both big and small that exist in the country apartheid in itself albeit in a new form?
Isn’t the history of ethnocentric federalization full of failures or catastrophic results all over the world, from the erstwhile Soviet Union and Yugoslavia to Sudan, Nigeria and so on? How and why Nepal alone will have any distinct or different experience should she pursue the same path? Aren’t centralization of power and unitary system of governance two entirely different things wrongly equated in this country and all we need is devolution to grassroots communities through decentralization to municipalities and villages instead of a mere shift of power from Singha Durbar to new power centers in provincial capitals? Why Madhesis want the whole of Tarai to be a single undivided state but Tharus, who also live in the same territory, want the belt to be dissected into more than one parallel piece while other political parties want even more fragmentation of the same region (one citing ‘homogeneity’ and the other ‘heterogeneity’ of socio-cultural-ethnic-geographical factors as reasons to support their contradictory claims)? Why so many double standards? Why are there sharp differences between various ethno-lingual groups with regard to the proposed territories and boundaries of their self-proclaimed states despite the assertion of each that their claims are based on historical evidences? (After all, facts of history should have been one for all). How, in a mosaic of mixed ethnicity like ours, is it possible to carve state for one ethnic group in any given area without inviting the wrath of every other community that has been living there since centuries? Won’t ethnic states created on the basis of arbitrary interpretations of history of self-serving groups invite fierce inter-ethnic clashes that will eventually disintegrate the country into tiny baise-chaubises?
Unless answers to these vital and fundamental questions are properly analyzed and found, discussions on the nitty-gritty of a future federal structure or the micro-management of various sub-systems under a federal system will be like putting the cart before the horse. We can have plenty of such deliberations, but first let the 28 million Nepali people, and not only the disgruntled group of ethnic elites that was defeated during the national unification drive of Prithvi Narayan Shah, express their desire for federalism, preferably through a direct exercise of will like plebiscite. Let people’s mandate decide everything from unitary-ism to federalism and their respective modes.
jeevan1952@hotmail.com
Related story
On ethnic federalism
