Any unitary cultural and ethnic state in Nepal is not possible
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
Do you think the State Restructuring Commission will be able to perform its duty timely and effectively?
There has been lot of politics involved in the matter of state restructuring. The current problems seem to be a consequence of this politics. In my opinion, there wasn’t a need for so much conflict. In some selected matters, disagreement between committee members and parties was unavoidable, but not to the degree as has surfaced.
Now to address your question, what the Commission will or will not do cannot be guessed as of yet. But judging from what I have seen in the media in the regard, if we are to consider that as the truth, then it seems to be a reflection of the current happenings of party politics. But this shouldn’t have been the case as the Commission should have been one that rose above party preferences, propaganda and politics, working purely as experts. What we’ve seen in the media says that there isn’t consensus within the Commission, and I guess that is because of the presence of party stances.
Other than that, even in some matters of consensus, we see debates and disagreements to have arisen. For example, on the two-tiered government, they have passed that three-tiered is unacceptable but that is different to expert opinion the world over—three tiers is the norm. It is a non-hierarchical tier. We see such a structure in South Africa. But if the debates on this on resurfacing in the Commission, then what can be said?
So how will the restructuring process progress?
I think we can hope for that the commission will devise a tentative framework that will lead to a consensus on federalism. But having seen the media reports, it looks like maybe this isn’t possible. But hopefully they will prove these reports wrong.
The Constitutional Committee had passed the 14-state model, but the restructuring commission has come up with a majority passed 11-state model. What do you make of this?
More than the number, what’s important is the basis and ideology on which the states are carved. It could be 7 states or 11 states or 10 states. Most parties are now saying 14 states is too many, and while that may be true, the job shouldn’t be focused on reducing the numbers. However taking into account basis and ideology, I think 14 states is too many. The model is supposed to be based on capacity and identity. This is confusing.
The SRC has mentioned 4/5 basis for identity and 4/5 determinants for capacity, but these haven’t been explained. For example, within capacity, it says physical infrastructure. But it is important to define what these infrastructures are and a minimum requirement should have been set. Like if you accept Jadan as a state, there is no road network. On what basis was this presented as a state? On capacity or identity? If its identity, then which identity? That’s not clear. If you look at it from a Janajati perspective, there are some Bhote Lama ethnicities there, even if in small number. Is this the basis on which the state was proposed? This needs to be clarified. That’s why parties shouldn’t have a say; they want publicity, and often that’s done through propaganda and that will change from party to party. What’s propaganda and what are substantive facts need to be differentiated. Party leaders don’t distinguish. That’s why the need for experts.
Do you think ethnic states are possible?
From my experience of travelling around Nepal, from the time before there were even any roads in the country, regardless of how you carve the states, any unitary cultural and ethnic state in Nepal is not possible. Perhaps not even possible anywhere in the world. If you do it along linguistic lines, then you can say that the eastern Tarai speaks Maithili. But Tharus speak Maithili, the muslims do as well, and obviously the Madhesis too. If you go to western Nepal, you can say that a state can be formed whereby most of its residents speak Khas bhasa. But there is no place in Nepal where there is only one ethnicity in majority and only in the two mentioned above, there is a linguistic majority. Any state to be formed in Nepal will be multiethnic and that is a truth. If you say that you want to give preference to one identity or language, then it may be able to do easy politics in the future, but it is denying the geographical and cultural truths of Nepal.
Do you have a preference for a federal model?
The way in which the federalism debate is progressing in Nepal has some dangerous overtones. I have been reading about the former Yugoslavia and read that the country was declared a federal republic during a march past. Later, people have written that it was only to be expected that it would fall apart. For us as well, many of the proposed Maoist states have just declared the names of the states on a whim. That’s why we have to be worrisome of this trend. Also, federalism is a measure to maintain unity in a place of division. Examples are cases like Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ethiopia and Belgium. The second type is for diversity management like in Switzerland or India. We have to decide which of the two we are. A divided society is one in which two groups cannot work in one way or on one platform, where one group’s representatives only govern their group. There are three presidents from three groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina that take office on a rotational basis.
In Nepal, that is not the case. We have one rule of law for everyone and political parties comprise of more than just one ethnicity. So whether federalism will lead us towards a divided society like that of Bosnia and Herzegovina or a diversity managed society is something that SRC needs to address seriously. We need a federal system that encourages the latter and that is the wish of the people too.
What about preferred number of states?
There are two models available in Nepal and for either, there is no need for more than 10 states. We don’t really need more than seven even.
Post Your Comment