Myrepublica.com: The CA committee passed only the 14-province model of federal system to the full House of the CA for deliberations in contradiction to NC’s and other parties’ wish to forward both the models. Now what will your party do? What will be your strategy and stance in the CA?
Narhari Acharya: Both the maps - one having 14 provinces and the other having six - were founded on a single basis whereby identity and strength (economic viability) were taken as two major criteria of creating provinces.
First, we divided Nepal’s map to about 16 to 17 clusters on the basis of ethnic identity. Caste, community and language were the primary bases while culture, geographic, regional and historic continuity were the other factors. We prepared the 14-province model based on caste, community and language. The six-province model was made by looking at the same data but through the perspective of strength.
The committee received a total of 22 maps from various political parties and individual CA members. These maps were of two categories—ones that suggested three to eight provinces (12 maps) and the others that proposed 11 to 17 provinces (10 maps). The maps provided a firm ground for us to study the ethnic, linguistic, geographic bases before preparing the two federal models, which we decided to present to the full committee of 43 members. From thereon, we were looking forward to present both maps to the full House of the CA.
We took nearly one year to prepare the concepts while we hardly worked for a month to delineate the provinces and name their capitals among other tasks. It’s not a mature and reliable output as it was done hastily. We need to further study the maps. We suggested forwarding both the models to the CA for deliberations so that the 601 members could debate on the pros and cons of both models. Likewise, the people outside the CA could have discussed the proposed maps too. But the committee passed the 14-province model hastily, unwisely and injudiciously without listening to our argument. Furthermore, they too made some changes in provinces very hastily and unwisely.
- We didn’t test the models from the perspective of strength and economic viability.
- The committee passed the 14-province model hastily, unwisely and injudiciously
- Our rationale behind making relatively large provinces in the six-province model was to house autonomous zones within.
- Provinces should be carved out by experts on the basis of concepts passed by the political parties.
Myrepublica.com: Will the deliberations in the CA be limited to the 14-province model or will it be open to discussing other models too?
Acharya: It will be open. There is no compulsion to limit the discussion in the CA to the model approved by the full committee. The CA can reject the 14-province model and come up with a new one. Thus, we have registered the six-province model as a viable option for discussion. We are optimistic that the House will discuss the matter broadly. The members of the committee are very much aware that the proposed model was prepared hastily. So are many CA members from CPN-UML and even some top-level UCPN (Maoist) leaders. Therefore, there still remains room for open and broad discussions for which, I believe, they are ready. It is also known to the CA members that several technical aspects were not addressed. A technical committee, which already exists in the CA, will incorporate the issues raised in the House and forward the report along with its own feedbacks to the Constitutional Committee (CC). The CC will certainly review everything on that basis.
Myrepublica.com: Those who prefer the 14-province model have argued that since the issue of identity is the major force behind the country moving towards federalism, only this model represents people’s aspirations while the six-province model doesn’t. What do you say?
Acharya: The 14-province model has certainly tried to address the issue of identity but that model can’t represent all the 103 castes and communities listed by the government. Therefore, the argument has no strong ground. The claim that only the 14-province model represents all communities of Nepal is baseless because the six-province model is also based on the same factors. The 14-province model advocates representation of province by the largest community residing there. This overlooks the fact that wherever we go in Nepal there are mixed settlements. We must accept the co-existence of communities in every region. Even the provinces that have been named after communities don’t command a majority of the people belonging to that community. In fact, no community can claim even a simple majority in any of the provinces.
Consider the case of Jadan province, which was added by the committee very hastily at the eleventh hour. Though Brahmins, Chhetris and Thakuris make up 55 percent of the total population, the province was named after Bhote Lama community. Interestingly, their number makes up only one percent of the population there. The case is similar in the Sherpa province. The population of Sherpas is very low in that state.
Identity is not the only issue. There are altogether three factors—identity, representation and ownership. Identity alone can’t make a province sustainable. Economic viability and availability of natural resources and means are equally important. Our provinces will not be able to function independently. They will be interdependent to each other. This should be kept in mind when delineating the provincial boundaries. Carving out provinces along ethnic lines ignores this fact and can create animosity among the racial groups. Therefore, it is very risky and can render the entire federal system a failure.
Myrepublica.com: Were you and your party involved in the decision to add the two provinces in the Himalayan region and removing two provinces in the Tarai region?
Acharya: No, we were not involved in the decision-making process. Mainly Hitman Shakya of UCPN (Maoist) and Mangalsiddhi Manandhar of CPN-UML did it.
Myrepublica.com: There are arguments that the gap between the local-level and provincial government is too big in the six-province model. Do you agree?
Acharya: That is not a serious problem. First, in Nepal’s context, six provinces can’t be too big. Second, we have decided to restructure the local bodies once we go for federal system. Their size will increase. Local governments will be formed by incorporating at least three VDCs in one. And other units like wards will also function there. The village governments (Gaunpalika) and municipalities will take over the responsibilities that are currently undertaken by the district bodies. Likewise, our rationale behind making relatively large provinces was to house autonomous zones within. Had we forwarded both the models, we would have been flexible on the number as well. It can be seven or eight. Likewise, 14 provinces could have been settled for nine or eight. We were for giving space for further discussion, which is necessary to remove faults. We had at least succeeded to narrow down 22 maps to two models in consensus and we were against dividing the committee members on one model versus other. Now, CA members have been divided for and against the model passed by the committee. As we were working under pressure of the deadline, the time available for us was not enough to deal with such a serious matter.
Myrepublica.com: What about the demand to form a commission for state restructuring?
Acharya: It should have been established before the CA election was held. Had it been formed immediately after the CA election, it would have prepared its report before the CA committees submitted their preliminary draft reports. But raising this issue at this time shows the political parties’ helplessness. According to the Interim Constitution, the government has the authority to form the commission. Since the political parties, which are demanding formation of the commission are in the government leadership themselves, the people are suspicious about the parties’ sincerity. I see less possibility of the government forming a commission but it will be very appropriate if the CA itself forms a technical committee for this specific purpose. We have realized the need of such a technical body. The CA can do it.
Myrepublica.com: While looking from the point of view of economic viability, how do you analyze the two models?
Acharya: In fact, we didn’t test the models from the perspective of strength and economic viability because the work was done hastily. The 14-province model was not even discussed beyond preliminary stage of its formation. In contrast, the six-province model did consider economic viabilities more seriously. Unfortunately, the committee didn’t forward this model to the CA.
Myrepublica.com: Does that mean the provinces in the 14-province model were delineated without ensuring their viability?
Acharya: Yes. It is very likely that the provinces will be too dependent upon the center. This will eventually prevent creation of independent and autonomous states because once the provinces are too dependent upon the center for resources and means, they cannot exercise their rights independently. This is the weakest factor of this model.
Myrepublica.com: Another major issue is Madhes. All the four Madhes-based political parties have jointly and officially registered their reservation on the proposed model. What do you think is the solution regarding Madhes?
Acharya: We held broad and intensive debate on this matter. They (Madhesi leaders) also accept the fact that there is no other option than to making two provinces in the Tarai region. Their present stance is only a political posturing because they can’t easily backtrack from their earlier demand for a single Madhes state in the entire Tarai region. When asked informally, they suggest dividing up Tarai into two provinces as a pragmatic solution. They have realized that it is practically impossible to delineate the entire Tarai region as a single province.
Myrepublica.com: Do all the Madhes-based parties share this common view?
Acharya: Yes. One Madhes is not even the Madhes-based parties’ need nor is it their interest at present. It is merely a political rhetoric.
Myrepublica.com: Did the committee also discuss about shifting the nation’s capital?
Acharya: Yes, we did. It is natural to discuss about the most appropriate location of the nation’s capital while we were discussing about state restructuring. We considered an alternative location for that purpose. But we thought our study on this matter was too superficial and that it needed a more in-depth study. So, we decided to entrust this task to the central government. The government’s proposal shall be ratified by the two-thirds majority of the parliament.
Myrepublica.com: Your party objected to the Maoist-backed proposal to ensure special political right to the largest community in a province. Why?
Acharya: We have been against this proposal from the very beginning and even ceased to discuss it. But the issue was abruptly brought up during the meeting on the last day. They held a vote on this issue. First of all, the idea itself is against the basic principles of democracy because there shouldn’t be discrimination among the citizens of the country. Such a racial discrimination will lead the country toward a rule like that of the Rana regime. In any case, it is totally irrelevant as we have already ensured proportional and inclusive representation of all the communities in the society through our electoral system. Ensuring special political right to the largest community in the province will only create mutual mistrust and divisions in the society.
Myrepublica.com: How will the task of actual demarcation be accomplished?
Acharya: Provincial governments will form commissions and formulate laws as per the basic grounds set by the central government. The provision is same for the autonomous zones as well. But, they (Maoists and some other lawmakers) tried to deceive us by creating a list of 23 ethnic/indigenous groups. It has been done in the name of simple majority of 43-member committee without a proper study. All these crucial issues were finalized within 30 to 45 minutes. I have termed this act as a thoughtless and ridiculous step.
Myrepublica.com: Your party, NC, didn’t submit any model to the committee. Due to this, the committee had to extend the deadline many a times. Finally, NC objected to the models prepared by the committee. Is this becoming of the second-largest party in the CA?
Acharya: The party has submitted its concept to the committee. As far as the maps are concerned, the NC has officially stated that the parties are not the right authority to delineate the provinces. Rather, provinces should be carved out by experts on the basis of concepts passed by the political parties.
Myrepublica.com: But, wasn’t it too late already when the NC officially forwarded this idea to the committee?
Acharya: The NC’s stance has been proved right because even those parties who submitted their models have changed their maps time and again. It is natural because the parties have no expertise in this sector. Still, I agree that the NC should have come up with this idea earlier. Therefore, we (25 CA members of the party) prepared a separate model and submitted it to the committee. The lesson we have learnt is that the parties are fit only to give guidelines to experts rather than preparing maps themselves. I agree, it would have been much better, had the NC stated this much earlier.
thira@myrepublica.com
koshraj@myrepublica.com
Related story
KMC to implement 'One Ward, One Model School' program
-1200x560-1772467693.webp)
