The way to do it
Useful Links
» A new way to read online, exact replica of your daily and magazine
» For all you tweety fans out there!
» Allows you to find only those news from any date you choose!
» Search any news/ articles by author/ category/ date/ keyword
I have been arguing that the main political problem of drafting the new constitution is that of dividing the nation into desirable, agreeable and viable federal units. The country has been pledged a federal structure which is irreversible, but the main political parties have stayed far away from an agreeable solution. Demands have been emerging for the creation of federal units mainly on the basis of geography, ethnicity and linguistic differentiation. Various political parties have declared diametrically different views about the federal structure. In this context, it may be worthwhile to initiate a debate on the various prospects and practical limitations of creating a viable federal structure. With this view in mind, some limiting aspects have been enumerated hereunder.
In geographic terms, the claim for proportional representation by the population size will have the most drastic consequences. The more populous sections of the country are the more developed ones, and the less developed sections are also the less populous ones. Some districts in the remote areas have a smaller population than a small municipality in the Tarai districts. If the size of the present population is the determining factor in deciding the constituencies, these districts, like Manang or even Mustang, will have no representation unless combined with Dolpa. Such a combination of remote areas to satisfy the claim of the more populous sections of the country will lead to further aggravation of the already backward areas of the country. That, of course, is not the objective of restructuring the state. The remote areas should not be denied the right to representation.
Conversely, if the population of Manang is regarded as the deciding population size for a constituency, districts in the Tarai or the Kathmandu Valley will have as many constituencies as there are villages in the remote district. This will mean an unsustainable increase in the number of national constituencies. This should not also be the objective of restructuring. As of now, there are 75 districts as units of the government. The aim of restructuring is to make it smaller in number but more representative in character. That will be achieved when the Constituent Assembly (CA) makes the final draft of the new constitution. As a solution, there should be a national consensus as to the size of the population in accordance with the geographic make of the country. The principle of a minimum of one representation per district irrespective of the population should be decided, but a ceiling on the number should also be decided for the more populous ones.
The ethnic questions raised as the basis of restructuring the state are justified to the extent that all ethnic groups should be fairly or equitably represented in the national decision making bodies. But the claim that the state should be restructured and federated purely on the basis of ethnic composition is neither practical nor logically supportable. There are over 100 ethnic groups and sub-groups in the country. Some of the ethnic groups have a large and viable population for making the numerical base of a federal unit, but their distribution is not concentrated in such a contiguous spread that cohesive units could be created for single ethnic communities. The ethnic structure is a mixed type all over the country. In fact, Nepal is a country of minorities; and the creation of particular community units will be faced with the problem of discrimination at each level. There is no homogeneous ethnic group at any level.
It is a fact that the so-called higher caste people have mostly benefited from the power of the state until now, but they have no homogeneous local base. So is there no homogeneous region for any other group. There may be a simple majority of some large ethnic groups in some regions, like the Limbus in the far eastern hills, Rais in the mid-eastern hills, Gurungs in the central western hills or Magars in the further western hills. But there are other ethnic groups in substantial numbers in each of these regions. Creating state units on ethnic considerations will not be the end of the present socio-political problems, but rather the beginning of new problems.
The linguistic problem is not dissimilar from the ethnic problem. In fact, the linguistic demand has been made with the same logic as the ethnic demand. Both will have the same or similar consequences. In some cases, it is worse. There will be communication problems between units and among several ethnic groups living in the same units. The latter situation will trigger internal conflicts between communities speaking different languages.
Similarly, there is no homogeneity in the Tarai claim of solidarity. Not only are the Tarai groups different from the east to the west, in terms of language or geography, but also in their social hierarchy. There is greater conspicuous caste discrimination in the Tarai communities than in the hill communities. The Tarai high caste people have not shown any sign of accommodating the Tarai untouchables whom they not only despise but also suppress and torture with all the violent means available. The Tharus are considered to be the indigenous community, but the Tarai elitist leaders have kept a respectable distance from them. So, there are several parts and parcels of what is said to be Tarai sentiments. The suppressed Tarai communities are more dissatisfied with their immediate elite leaders or high castes than the hill people.
In the recent agitation led by some Tarai leaders, there has emerged a new discrimination against the hill people living in the Tarai. There were a few but influential people of hill origin living in the Tarai in the past who cashed their influence in terms of political power. But, in recent times, there has been a drastic change in the make-up of the migrants in the Tarai. It is mostly migrants from the lower strata of society that have come down to the Tarai in search of viable sources of livelihood. They are mostly landless and homeless. Most of these people have settled along either side of the east-west highway or to the north of such alignments. Such migrants constitute an integral part of the Tarai population and their number is significant. They do not fall under the category of hill rulers or oppressors. Unless these people are taken into consideration, the Tarai problem is ill defined. So the Tarai call for a separate status is not a fully considered solution.
To conclude, a mix of criteria will have to be judged for the division of the nation into federal units. The most important consideration should be the viability of the federal units after they are created. The state or any part thereof will require supportable resources to sustain itself.
knsad66@yahoo.com
Post Your Comment