E-Kantipur

FEB 02 -

The State Restructuring Commission (SRC) was formed in the hope that it would be able to bridge the deep divide between the political parties’ on federalism and come up with a model on state restructuring that would be acceptable to all. It was hoped that the experts nominated to the SRC would work in an atmosphere of calm deliberation, somewhat distant from the passions that inflame partisan politics. This has not come to pass. Rather, it is now clear that the members of the SRC brought the passions raging in Nepali society into their deliberations. As the documents submitted to the prime minister on Tuesday indicate, the debate on federalism has, in fact, regressed. Both sides held on to positions more rigid than the political parties in discussions in the Constituent Assembly (CA). Their reports are due to be submitted to the CA today for further debate.

The majority faction of the SRC, which has proposed an 11-state model for instance, has only offered a token compromise in reducing the number of states from 14. In other ways, they have taken an even harder stance than lawmakers from the Maoists and the Madhesi parties in the CA. For example, these parties had been previously willing to compromise on the issue of priority rights and the right to self-determination. Their proposed map has offered a two-state solution to the Madhesi demands for a separate state, along with eight ethnic provinces and one non-territorial Dalit state. But because the two states in the Tarai touch border with one another, and because no other state has access to the border with India, the map will only serve to fuel suspicions among the non-Tarai forces, that such a model could isolate the hill states. From both the trade and commerce, as well as from territorial sovereignty perspectives, the model raises some grave questions. Couple that with the right to self determination, which has also been passed by majority, and the combination only gives more credence to lurking fears. Fears of succession, threats to national sovereignty and the feelings of an economic noose cannot be dismissed as mere hill paranoia.

International experience should offer us some light.

India’s federal model doesn’t allow for the right to self determination and neither does the US model.  In fact, most federal countries around the world do not, and given our country’s volatile situation, if the right to self determination is given, it should be with a clause that limits its scope.  The positioning of states, the right to self determination, along with the provision for the undemocratic and unpopular political priority rights at the local level, and only two tiers of governance, will rightly face the most criticism in the CA. The outcome is that the reports of the SRC have not taken forward the debate on federalism. Now it is up to the leaders to do so. They should however realise that short term benefits will not outweigh the long-term possible conundrums that a selfishly carved country could create.

Posted on: 2012-02-02 09:04

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.