Now, the most important task before us is to debate the pros and cons of both the models by involving not only the political parties but also experts and members of the civil society to come up with a structure that is agreeable to the vast majority. This is crucial before two-thirds majority in the CA endorses the final model.
As we see it, both the models have their own merits and demerits. The model that proposes carving out 14 states addresses the demand of ethnic groups and looks inclusive. However, the question that arises is: Does it make sense for a poor country such as Nepal to incur huge administrative costs on the parliaments and bureaucracies of 14 states? How viable is it economically to carve out so many tiny states? Won’t states as small as Newa or Birat be compelled to depend on the center defeating the whole idea of federalizing them? Similarly, the model that proposes six states makes sense in administrative terms. It also addresses the demand of those advocating for an anti-ethnic model. However, is the model inclusive enough? With so many ethnic groups fighting vigorously for their identify and representation, isn’t the model unfair to them?
In the next few months, these are exactly the questions that need to debated intensely by political parties and their leaders, experts, civil society and all the stakeholders. The idea is to agree on a model that is representative of the sentiments of the majority of Nepalis. Having said that, we understand that it is impossible to narrow down on a model that will satisfy everyone. But the idea is to keep on moving ahead. The model approved by the CA need not be unalienable. When there is a genuine demand and need in the future for newer states or, say, for merging two states into one, it can always be incorporated by amending the constitution.
Related story
'Spider-Man: No Way Home' Gets Special Hardcover Making-Of Book
-1200x560-1772467693.webp)
