Nepal Cannot be restructured in terms of ethnic, regional, linguistic and religious model

How have you analyzed Prachanda’s December 22 historical India bashing in Baneshwor-Kathmandu? Some interested quarters take his address as anti-nationalist yet there are some who feel that he spoke what general public believe in Nepal?

Sapkota: Let me begin with by telling you that Nationalism and People’s direct rule or let’s say some sort of democratic rule, are intertwined with each other. Similarly, People and Nationalism do have a direct relationship. A country where people are sovereign and strong, nationalism is strongest and vice versa. We cannot simply analyze Nationalism and People from two different angles. The degree of Nationalism articulates the well being of people at the very grass root level. It tells us whether people are in an empowered state or not?  You can also look the overall issue from a different perspective…that is whenever a State is feeble, Nationalism is at its lowest ebb.

My conclusion is that the exercise of peoples’ direct rule becomes weaker whenever State is governed by a puppet regime…a regime that becomes the tool of some alien power centers and forgets the wellbeing of people.

Just tell me what Prachanda said on that day was correct or incorrect?

Sapkota: Let me explain you in more details. There are two kinds of States. One is a self defined state or call it a ‘Hard State’. For example, China, India, US, France, Russia and some others fall into the Hard Category. What is so unique about these states then? The people are Sovereign in those countries. Secondly, there are semi-Character States. The decisions of the people or representatives of people in such countries depend on Hard States. They are heavily influenced by either Hard States around or by the International Community and neighbors to a greater extent. We fall into the second category. Rather bluntly speaking, Nepal is a soft state. Both China and India are superpowers or future super powers. Thus our decisions are heavily influenced by China and India. In our case first comes China & India, followed by the US and then only the international community. This is the bitter reality. Our acts reflect this soft characteristic. Thus our balancing act in itself is our development, stability, progress, unity and prestigious existence.

You still did not clarify your point but let us leave the question as it is and now concentrate on the unnatural unity between the Communists and Non-Communists. Tell me Mr. Sapkota, how you as a communist view the unity between Communists and Democrats that has brought great changes in the country?

Sapkota: I think you have asked a brilliant question indeed. There are two people to look at very carefully here in Nepal’s political history. One is late King Mahendra and the other is B. P. Koirala.

King Mahendra’s antagonism towards the so-called democratic forces and B.P’s belief that Communists believed only in revolutionary practices defines Nepali politics at best. One thing more, B.P’s theory of unity and reconciliation is nothing more than his belief that there should be no unity with the Communists rather unity should be with the feudal elements. The monarchy was at the root of Feudalism. However, Pushpa Lal believed that keeping ideological differences apart with the democratic forces the revolutionaries should forge an alliance with them. This is what we call Unified Uprising. Dr. Keshar Jung Rayamajhi, another communist however, believes that there should be no unity with democratic forces rather with the Feudal elements.

So the Feudal element is the cross-section of the Communists and the Democrats. Tell us if the sudden ouster of the root of Feudalism i.e. Monarchy, is the real cause of current instability?

Sapkota: Every struggle or an uprising has some parameters defined. The process of struggle has to set its limit…it has to bound itself in the discipline set by those parameters. Instead of providing real sketch to address real problems facing the nation, Communists and Democratic forces are found fighting with each other and their feud has come to the open.

I personally feel that a balanced and transparent evaluation must be made on the contentious issues such as that of Federalism and Governance structure. The political parties need to clearly bind themselves within certain stipulated limits. They cannot infringe upon the sovereign rights of the people. They can forward their agenda but they cannot make decisions on behalf of the people in these critical issues. Those issues need to be mandated by the people. History tells us that either one among the several parties goes for the State Capture to provide clear mandate to those contentious issues or adapt to peaceful methods to do the same.

Finally, tell us if federalism is the solution to all Nepal ailments?

Sapkota: After unification Nepal turned into a unitary State. But you may ask where the State existed as such. Yes, Nepal had devised the Three Gauda(regions) State structure. Nepal was anciently divided into three regions that provided Nepal with the shape of a real nation-state. Those were Dhankuta Gauda, Palpa Gauda and Doti Gauda. They were scientifically devised on River basin concept. Dhankuta Gauda covered Macro-Koshi River Basin, Palpa Gauda covered Macro Gandak River Basin and finally Doti Gauda covered Macro-Karnali River basin. Note that each Gauda as such is the fusion of Himal, Pahad and Tarai. And, all three geographical locations (Himal, Pahad and Tarai.) comprise of different castes, ethnicity and linguistic groups, living together since ancient times.

In 1956, Nepal was reorganized into 34 districts. Then only came Tony Hagen-international Geologist from outside who proposed Nepal to be divided into 14 Zones and 75 districts. Later, again Nepal was restructured into five development regions. All are based on decentralization of power structure in theory but that did not existed in practice.

Now talking of Federalism, let me tell you that we are still based on the principle of indivisible and sovereign Nepal. We can reorganize our internal structure several times but Nepal should remain indivisible and independent. It will always maintain the character of a Unitary State. We can devolve power and in tandem also develop new strategies to strengthen Nationalism and Sovereignty but cannot compromise on our territorial integrity. No religion, culture, linguistic group can be left out but we must ensure that we do no harm to our societal structure. We can change Nepal in this way only.

Posted on : 2010-01-13 19:32:39

Comments (1)