In Nepal, the power structure remained highly centralised all through the history. Except for the intermittent period between 1959 and 1960 and then after the political change of 1990, power remained monopolised by small elite families of certain specific caste and geographical area. There was very little space left for the excluded and marginalised communities such as Madheshis, Dalits, indigenous people and many other caste groups of Terai, hill and the mountain region to have participation in power structure, in the decision making process and in influencing national policy. Social inclusion and justice remained a hollow cry for many in the country.

Under the 240 years of unitary system of governance, there was hardly any effective move to remove unequal sharing in power structure. National wealth could not be properly distributed among the ecological regions and so the regional disparities widened. Therefore, provision was made in the Interim Constitution 2007 to eliminate discrimination based on class, caste, language, gender, culture, religion and region; for which federal structure was preferred.

It is, however, ridiculous why the government that entered into agreement with the United Democratic Madhesi Front, including SP, MJF and TMDP on 28 February 2008 for the establishment of "Autonomous Madhes" state with the right of self determination created controversy by signing six-point deal with the Tharuhat Joint Struggle Committee (TJSC) on March 14, 2009. The government agreed with TJSC to amend the ordinance on reservation by delisting Tharus and other indigenous groups from Madhesi category and recognized them as separate ethnic identities.

The main Madhesh-based political parties, including MJF, TMDP and Sadbhavana Party protested the move to replace the term Madhesh as incorporated in the interim constitution as they found in it a design to neutralise the Madhesh movement. Jaya Prakash Gupta, co-chair of MJF explicitly said, "Any new agreement should not wipe out the achievements of Madhesh movement."

As per the provision made in the Interim Constitution 2007, the government formed high-level State Restructuring Commission (SRC) chaired by Ganesh Man Gurung to provide suggestions on restructuring the state as per the wishes of the people of different castes, languages, religions and regions.

However, in certain quarters it is feared that the right to self-determination if given to the states in Nepal might ultimately disintegrate the country. Such fears are based on the examples of disintegration of countries like the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. But there is a widely perceived view that the right to self-determination given to a state does not necessarily lead to the disintegration. On the contrary, there are countries which disintegrated in the absence of such right to determination. UCPN-M's president Pushpa Kamal Dahal in this regard has rightly said that the right to divorce does not necessarily lead to divorce between husband and wife. Similarly, the right to self-determination does not lead to disintegration of nation. In most of the cases, it is rather a binding force. In Nepal's case, such fears are, therefore, baseless.

Federal Structure

The main agenda of the 601-member CA has been to draft and finalize federal constitution. By and large, the people voted to power only those political parties which adopted federalism as one of its basic agendas. However, the political parties in CA are still divided about the criteria for constituting the federal units, number of federal units to be formed and division of power between the centre and states.

Among the different political parties, the Maoists have come out with the idea of forming 13 provinces, including Kirat, Tamang, Newar, Tamuwan, Magarat, Tharuwan, Jadan, Khasan, Bjohpuri, Kochila and Mithila; of which four states are envisaged to be in Terai.

The Communist Party of Nepal (UML) is in favor of federal states based on ethnicity, linguistics, culture, history and geography, but it is opposed to the concept of formation of single Madhes state. Its federal model constitutes 15 provinces with provisions for autonomous zones within such provinces. The 15 proposed provinces of the party include: Birat, Limbuwan, Kirat, Mithila, Bhojpura, Sunkoshi, Tamsaling, Newa, Tamuwan, Magarat, Gandaki, Khaptad, Karnali, Tharuhat and Lumbini.

The NC's model of federalism is based on vertical rather than horizontal division, which is reverse to the concept of “natural ecological boundary” of Nepal. Nepali Congress President G.P. Koirala has made it clear that the only viable line for dividing the country into federal states would be the ones drawn from north to south and not from east to west. He felt as if dividing the federal units against his desire was like disintegrating the country. Therefore, he added, "I will not, and none should compromise when it comes to national sovereignty, and let me make it loud and clear that any force which wants to disintegrate the country will have to walk over my dead body." However, the TMDP in its press statement immediately opposed Koirala on the ground that his advocacy for north-south division of the states was against the agreement that he had signed with the Madhesh-based parties for the formation of Madhesh Pradesh with right to self-determination.

Essentially, the north-south approach for the formation of federal states is too simplistic version of the stereotype division of the country into 14 zones or five development regions under the Panchayat system. It does not recognize Terai or Madhesh as one single state. As such, in certain quarters it is treated as violation of core economic principle of division of labor based on specialization as mentioned below.

Demarcation of States

“A group of highly-regarded intellectuals and journalists have championed the idea of having federal states similar to the five development regions we have today. They argue that their model will allow for homogeneous division of resources (i.e. Mountains, Hills and Terai) in all the provinces. This, they argue will make sure that all states are equally divided in terms of resources and have all they need for sustainable development. This logic is too simplistic. For one, this will hurt specialization. For example, when a state consist of only the plains, it is easier to specialize in grains produced in those regions. Second, development has more to do with how you use resources for productive use. Also, research shows that ethnically-homogeneous societies have greater social capital and make more efficient use of their resources. So, even from a purely economic standpoint and ignoring political realities, demarcation similar to the existing five development regions may not be the best one”. Anand Jha, "Linguistic Federalism"

Moreover, the MJF, Nepal wants federal states to be based on geography, ethnicity, linguistic, social, cultural, population and economic sustainability. It favours single Madhesh Autonomous State with right to self-determination. The same is the stand of Sadbhavana Party for the formation of single Madhesh Autonomous State. 

The TMDP is also in favor of single Terai-Madhesh Autonomous State with right to self-determination for the purpose of ending internal colonization. It wants Madheshis to remain in majority in such a set up. It also wants population census to be conducted before the states are restructured. It envisions that the comparative advantage of the three ecological belts could be harvested better if the states are organised horizontally.

NC and UML maintain status quo position in regard to the sharing of power between the centre and the states. Both these parties advocate for centrally controlled Nepal. On the other hand, the MJF and TMDP want a strong state with whole lot of power in the states except issues concerning foreign relations, monetary and security issues.

On the whole, most of the political parties agree that the federal government at the centre should have under its jurisdiction all such sectors as national defense, foreign affairs, monetary policy and development of infrastructural facilities like the railways or airlines. The state governments, on the other hand, should have under their jurisdiction internal security, maintaining law and order, education, health care, family welfare, housing, social security, agriculture, irrigation, power, public works, etc. (Paper presented by the author at a CETS/FES Seminar recently held in Kathmandu.

Comments (3)

Benefits of federalism have been hinted at but what about the costs? which state wil have to bear most of the brunt? Please tell us?

Commented by David in London - November 9, 2009 @ 7:36 AM

lack of abilities can not be replaced by changing the structure. if there are capable people to take charge, there is no need to change state structure. otherwise, federalism will also do nothing.

Commented by oqsl - November 7, 2009 @ 4:05 PM

Dear Professor Jha, Thank you very much for your nice and neutral analysis. Prof. Jha, do you also offer or prescribe any potential module of federalism? Please try to bring potential module along with the analysis that how you manage east to west long diversified Madhes if the upcoming constitution allow the demand of “one madhesh-one Pradesh”

Commented by Krishna Hari Pushkar - November 7, 2009 @ 10:18 AM

Post Your Comment

* Name
* E-Mail
*
* Security code
* Comment