Nation is above individuals and parties

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Political course in the country has recently taken a new turn. The situation changed especially after the State Restructuring Commission (SRC) submitted its report to the government with its recommendation on federalism and its model. The SRC report has created further controversy instead of providing an acceptable solution to this pressing political and national issue.

Opinions are sharply divided on federal model and number of federal states. It had earlier been expected that the SRC would provide an expert opinion rising above the partisan interest and agenda. But it failed to live up to popular expectation but came up with more partisan agenda. The high level panel failed to arrive at common point and submitted two separate reports with conflicting views on the principal issues mainly on the number of federal provinces and their territorial jurisdiction. The SRC was composed of nine members, who were nominated on parties’ quota instead of their competence, qualification and previous experience.

Now the issue on state restructuring has gone back to square one and parties again are scrambling to restructure the state as per their agenda. There are some inherent weaknesses and flaws in the formation of the Commission. In the first place, parties chose their loyalists rather than independent experts on the basis of parties’ quota. Since the SRC members were appointed on the basis of their loyalty to parties, it was foolish of us to expect independent and professional result. We, thus, reaped what we had sown.

After the report of the SRC was submitted, a new kind of political deadlock has surfaced in the country. The parties have their own stance on this issue and they are not going to make any compromise. Earlier the Madhesi parties had opposed the formation of the SRC. The report of the SRC proved that Madhesi parties were right as they had said that the state restructuring was a political issue which should be resolved politically in consultation among the parties. If the SRC had come up with a single report, it would have been acceptable to all.

Now, no political party is happy with the report of the SRC. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are unhappy because the majority report of the SRC has recommended federal states on ethnic line. These two mainstream parties are demanding federal provinces not on ethnic line but based on economic viability. The Madhesi parties are unhappy because the SRC did not recommend one single Madhes province. The Madhesi parties have been demanding one single Madhes province from east to the west. The UCPN-Maoist is relatively more contended with the SRC report. But the Maoists, too, are not fully satisfied with it as the SRC has not been clear on the issue concerning the right to self-determination. As far as ethnic communities are concerned, most of the ethnic groups are not also happy. Sherpas have already condemned the SRC report as Sherpas were denied of their separate state. The Brahmins and Chetris together constitute 30 per cent of the total population of the country. But they do not have any particular area as their province. A non-territorial province has been recommended for dalits who constitute almost 13 per cent to the total population of Nepal. Dalits are also not satisfied with the non-territorial state that the SRC has recommended. Thus, the SRC has opened up Pandora’s Box in Nepal’s political sphere more than ever before, which is not likely to be resolved easily.

One likes it or not Nepal must go for a federal structure. Although the issue of federalism was decided without debating its pros and cons, Nepal can no longer remain a unitary state. Political parties have already made commitments for federalism and they cannot go back to old unitary system. Moreover, the Interim Constitution has also defined Nepal as a federal democratic republic. Thus, there is no going back from federalism. Federalism is the creation of sub-states within a unified state. This is a system that distinctly divides authority between the centre and the provincial units. The federal provinces are granted autonomy to decide on everything except foreign policy, defence, monetary policy and other issues clearly defined by the constitution. The federal structure and demarcation of authority between the centre and the federal provinces must be clearly defined by the constitution. Thus, this issue must be sorted out before a new constitution is written. Any delay in taking decision on the nature of federalism, federal structure and the jurisdiction of the centre and the federated states would also delay the constitution writing process.

This issue has to be sorted out as early as possible in order to speed up the process of constitution writing, which must be completed in the next four months. Given the seriousness and its repercussion in the national politics, social, economic cultural life, the issue concerning federalism needs to be thoroughly discussed at every level and section of the society. But the decision was taken by the parties to go for federalism in haste without thorough and detailed debate and study. As a result, federalism has been interpreted by different political forces and ethnic groups and individuals differently. The Maoists raised the issue of ethnicity-based federalism, which encouraged different ethnic communities to demand their autonomous federal provinces. There are more than one hundred ethnic and indigenous groups and nationalities in Nepal and it is not possible and practical to grant them autonomous federal provinces to all ethnic communities. The Madhesis thought that they would get a single Madhes state with the right to self-determination. In practice, one single Madhes from right from the eastern border to the last western point of Nepal is also not feasible. The area east from Sunsari is no longer dominated by Madhesi population. The people from hill origin are in majority in Jhapa. Even eastern part of Sunsari district does not have predominant Madhesi population. Take the example of Dharan. This is a city entirely dominated by hill-ethnic communities like Kiratis and Limbus. Similar case maybe with western Terai. Chitwan is entirely not dominated by Madhesi population and so is Rupandehi. Nawalparasi also has mixed population. Moreover, there are differences of opinion among different Terai ethnic groups on one single Madhes state. Tharus are the oldest and largest ethnic community in Terai. But Tharus are opposed to the one-single Madhes concept but demand a separate Tharu province in the western Terai. Similarly, there are many ethnic groups in Madhes who are also not happy with the one-Madhes state.

The Brahmins, Chhetris and Dalits, who together constitute almost 43 per cent population, are against the very concept of federalism. According to them, the federalism is not feasible in a small country like Nepal. They are of the view that genuine decentralization and the concept of local self-governance would best suit in Nepal. Given the diverse opinion on federalism, the parties have failed to feel the pulse of the people. So has done the SRC.

Federalism is a concept of empowering local people. The way we are adopting federalism, we are creating many unitary states within a country. If we have to make federalism a genuine and functioning one, there has to be clear-cut definition on rights and authority of the center, federal provinces and local units in the federal provinces. A clear-cut division of jurisdiction, rights and authority of villages/municipalities, districts, provincial government and central authority must be incorporated in the constitution that alone would make federalism more functioning. The other issue that may create more controversy and problem is the ‘right to self-determination’. The parties which have been championing the right to self-determination must clarify to the people what this terminology would mean and why they want the right to self-determination. Right to self-determination is normally granted when a nation is created by unifying the different states. The case of Nepal is different. We are going for federalism from a unitary system and right to self-determination is absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.

Neither political parties nor the SRC were able to clarify and address these issues, which shows that they simply lack competence and knowledge about the very concept of federalism and its repercussions in the society. Since the SRC failed to come up with an acceptable report, the issue has again gone to the court of the political parties. Federalism is the most important national issue that has touched every citizen of this country. The parties now have to take the national opinion and sentiment into consideration while taking final decision on the state restructuring. If we make a slight mistake, we may not be able to correct. Thus, parties must act responsibly and cautiously. We must understand that country is above individuals and parties. Thus, decision must be taken in such a way that the national interest, national sovereignty and territorial integrity may not be in jeopardy.