Federalism in Nepal : Too many models too little solution

Professor Lok Raj Baral

Nepal Center for Contemporary Studies

The Maoist proposal that came in the wake of insurgency consists of nine Autonomous Regions, six of which are based on ethnicity and three on territoriality. Ethnic-based regions are:

1.                 Kirat Autonomous Region;

2.                 Tamang Saling Autonomous Region;

3.                 Tamuwan (Gurung) Autonomous Region;

4.                 Newar Autonomous Region;

5.                 Magrat Autonomous Region;

6.                 Tharuwan Autonomous Region; and

The three territorial regions are: Madhesh, Bheri-Karnali and Seti-Mahkali Autonomous Regions.

According to the Maoist plan, the autonomous regions would maintain control over local land, forest, mountain, tourism, public land, religious places ,rivers, lakes, minerals, agro-based small and mid-sized industries, inter-regional trade, local internal security, education, literature, language, culture, regional communication just to mention a few. The Maoist’s Roadmap on ‘Nationalities and Regional Questions’ enumerate the functions of autonomous regions. Except the People’s Army, foreign relations, finance, currency, measurement, communication, international trade, large scale industries and big hydroelectric projects, all other sectors shall fall under the jurisdiction of the autonomous regions. “In case of areas of mixed communities, or if there are other nationalities in the autonomous area of particular nationality, there shall be representation of all in the local state power on a proportional basis”. Regional autonomy would be granted to Karnali and Seti-Mahakali regions as these regions are under perpetual oppression and are backward. Similarly, separate autonomous regions would be granted to the Tarai (Madhesh), though what would be geographical boundary or how many regions would be created out of the present Tarai is not clear.

The Maoist Autonomous Regions which are mostly ethnic based, but too, lack rationale for their identity.

The Kirat Autonomous region, for example, is composed of 48 percent Rai and Limbu. The other ethnic groups and Hill caste groups have respective percentage of 14.6 and 37.2 that surpasses the size of Rai and Limbu. Language-wise also, 57.4 percent people have Nepali as their mother tongue as against the 29.4 Rai and Limbu and 13 percent other ethnic groups. Moreover, the Rai and Limbu have their own respective languages and internal divisions (more so in case of Rai) thereby defying the justification for creating Kirat Autonomous region. Other Regions do not also provide a sound justification. The Tamsaling which is considered to be Tamang dominated area is composed of 42.8 percent Tamang, 15.3 percent other ethnic groups and 41.7 percent Hill caste groups.

The Newar Autonomous Region has 43.9 Newar, 11.1 percent other ethnic groups and 44.9 percent high caste groups (Brahmin/Chhetri).

The Tamuwan Autonomous Region of Gurung is composed of 23.8 percent Gurung, 17.9 percent other ethnic groups and 53.7 percent hill high caste groups.

The Magarat Autonomous Region consists of 35.7 percent Magar, 12.4 percent Dalit, and 51.7 percent hill Brahmin and Chhetri.

The Tharuwan Autonomous Region has 47.6 percent Tharu, 12.7 percent others and 39 percent hill Brahmis/Chhetri.

The Madhese Autonomous Region has 28.8 Tarai castes (including dalits), 17.1 percent Tarai ethnic groups, other 26.9 percent and Hill Brahmin/Chhetri 26.9 percent. Maithili, Bhojpuri and Awadhi speakers constitute 69.9 percent people, while the Nepali is spoken by 25 percent. The rest are 4.3 percent.

In the Bheri-Karnali Autonomous Regions, Hill Brahmin/Chhetri constitutes 67.5 percent, Dalit 12.5 percent and Ethnic groups l2.9 percent.

In the Seti-Mahakali region, the Hill Brahmin/Chhetri dominates the area with 85.7 percent and, Dalit 14.2 percent, 98.3 percent people speak Nepali.

Thus, only two autonomous regions, Bheri-Karnali and Seti-Mahakali areas are homogenous from demographic and language points of view. The other regions based on ethnic composition are highly heterogeneous.

Various other models offered by both academics and activists are either the responses to the Maoist division of the country along ethnic lines or come as alternatives for autonomous regions or “centralized federalism”.

It has now been clear that the past divisions of the country along zonal and district lines cannot meet the needs of today’s Nepal. So the reduction of 75 districts to 25 as proposed by the late Harka Gurung and the allocation of funds for making them viable units can hardly meet the need of people’s demand. Pitambar Sharma has reduced the size of political/administrative regions into six regional units (Pradesh) but has raised serious doubts about the creation of autonomous regions or federalism. Resources and distribution of ethnic population are taken as problems.

However, taking the recent aspirations of people, such views are not likely to address the political agenda as put forth by various hill ethnic groups and the people of Madhesh. Perhaps, they could have been appropriate a few years ago when these groups were not politicized to the extent of demanding an autonomous region. So districts to be created only from financial point of view are not sufficient, though mobilization of economic resources would perennially remain as one of the important aspects of federalism.

A host of other persons have developed certain models, some of which differ from the Maoist model of nine-fold division and some stick to the ethnic-based division proposed by the Maoist party. Narhari Acharya, K.B. Gurung, Pari Thapa, Kumar Yonjan, Govinda Neupane, Bhavani Baral, Chaitanya Mishra, Shankar Pokhrel, Krishna Khanal, Mahendra Lawati, Kumar Yonjan Tamang, Rajendra Shrestha and Amresh Narayan Jha and Amresh Kumar Singh follow both the territorial and ethnic divisions without providing enough grounds for creating a federal or decentralized state. And such divisions have been done on three grounds:

1.                  Ethnic population, land and territory;

2.                  Linguistic territory or cultural domination; and

3.                  Oppression on the basis of territoriality

From religious point of view, Nepal is predominantly a Hindu state though the country has now embraced secularism in order to satisfy various minority groups. Thus, Nepal does not fit into other South Asian countries because all groups belonging to the state are minorities except in religious term with about 81 percent Hindu population. The Buddhists constitute 10 percent population though the Hindu considers Buddhism as an offshoot of Hinduism. Religious tolerance and synthetic cultural tradition has never allowed Nepal to become a country of religious bigotry. It was due to this reason that even while making Nepal a secular state, people in general have accepted it without being swayed by a small-mobilized section of people bent on whipping religious sentiment. Yet, the Hill ethnic groups of Tibeto-Burman origin, now called janjatis, oppose the distorted Hinduism which has had been used by the Hindu rulers since the last two hundred and thirty eight years.

Nepal is really a multiethnic country because there is no single majority community that can dominate the country if the existing disparities between the high caste and other groups are reduced. National Foundation For development of Indigenous/Nationalities has described Nepal as “a multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural and multi-religious country. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990 has accepted such diversity. According to the Task Force on indigenous people, people not belonging to the caste hierarchy (Hindu varnashram) and having no definite role in the modern politics and governance but having distinct cultural identity along with their own language, culture, religion, custom and who claim themselves as janjatis belong to the category of janjati. Newar was initially in the list of janjati, but leaders of this community opted out from it, for Newar is one of the enterprising communities and are better placed in different professions.

There are 101 ethnic and tribal groups and the Brahmin and Chhetri , who are now the major target of other deprived sections of society, especially from the hill ethnic communities, for being perennially dominant and discriminatory, constitute only 30.89 percent of the total population, while the other Madhese and hill ethnic groups and the Muslim form 70 percent. The hill dalit group, which is divided on the basis of occupation, is 7.11 percent. Like other hill caste groups, the dalits are divided into Goira and thar. The ethnic communities belonging to the Mongoloid group including the 5.48 percent Newar are 27.52 percent with 28 percent share in the total national population. The Madhese group that is constituted by 30 groups has 15.24 percent shares. The Madhesh dalit has 11 communities with 3.98 percent share. The Tarai (Madhesh) caste group has 15 communities and constitutes 12.38 percent of tile national population.

Among the various ethnic groups, the Muslim has 4.27 percent population. Gender-wise, the women constitute 50.04 percent population.

How different communities who are minorities from national demographic perspective are dispersed across the country can thus be seen. Of the 75 districts of Nepal, Chhetri is in nine districts, Magar, Tharu, Tamang, Newar and Gurung respectively become majority communities in 14 districts. Among the hill caste and hill ethnic groups, they are in a majority in 28 districts each, while the Madhese communities in 8 and Janjati in one district are in a majority. Among the remaining 10 districts, hill and

Madhese communities are in majority in three districts each and in four districts, no hill and Madhese communities are in a majority. As it has been said that “ethnic activists in Nepal increasingly point out that a minority is running a multiethnic nation”.

Given the dispersed demographic and ethnic structures, lack of linguistic basis and the geographical features of the country, ethnic, language and size of the population alone cannot form the basis of federalism.

[Excerpts; Paper presented at a “Friends for Peace” organized workshop on, “Discourse on Inclusion in the context of federalism”, 28 April 2007]

Post your Comment here

TERMS OF USE:The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any persons) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).


  •         
  •          





  •  
I agree

Comments

  • Posted on - 2010-01-28    by     Nripesh
  • What nepal is not understanding is the zest of federalism. Federalism is a very good ideal to decentralize the power very effectively. Nepal is a poor and very small landlocked country. There is no neeed of the starting of the expensive federal system in Neapl. However, I presume that it is a conspiracty of Maoist to arise civil war and consolidate themselves. Maybe we are for federalism because of the success of the states and India, but the states of those big countries are as big as Nepal. Also as Professor Lok Raj says, there is strict rules in those contries. Nepal can't satisfy any of the condition required for federalism and we must take heed from Britain for unitary system. The budjet of our country also can't support federalism for sure!
  • Posted on - 2009-12-28    by     Dhruba Pd Dahal
  • See, north to south division is the only most flavoured division of the states. Making divisions in any other way would not solve present crisis of the country and our country will suffer more. We need to start looking from others eyes rather than your experience and idea. Do not try to rule on us, the people's era has begun.
  • Posted on - 2009-10-07    by     Naya_Nepal
  • According to the work "Nepali Rajniti ma Adhekhai Sachai"(Hidden facts in Nepalese Politics) by Gopal Gurung,many of the original Mundhum practice was banned during the Rana government and all sort of Kirati documents were burned and destroy which the office used to call Jatiya nasta bivag. Do anyone have any idea about this?
  • Posted on - 2009-09-22    by     jamesbond
  • Nepal was a peaceful country and we will make it forever .There was dominance of brahmins and is. ma pani brahmin nai ho. tyo ta pahile dekhi chali ayeko kura ho brahmin,chettri haru le padnu parcha ani limbu janjati haru le aru aru kam garnu parcha bhanera..ho yo sochai lai sudarnu parcha. tara ahile des tukrayera, bibhina thau ma dherai kota haru rahera des banaune bhanchan. ma euta student ho maile medical ko entrance diye mero ekdmai ramro number ayo, tara maile payina kina bhane janjati ko bahnera euta kam number le payo. maile obviously ris utcha.. ho huna janjati le pani bhana sakchan ki uni haru ko padne environment ramro thyena ani uni haru le ramro number nalyako bhanera tara tini haru lai direct doctor jasto thulo position ma seat diyera rakhna bhayena. pahila dekhi nai school , high school ma kota haru rakhera aru jastai capable banaunu paryo. ani jo talent cha tesle deserve garcha....khuta natekna sakne lai pahilai daurauna bhayena pahile hidna sikaunu parcha ani afai daurinchan. I ma ethnitically neutal all I want is peace and prosperity in nepal.Ma bharkar euta student, malai nepal ko politics bare dherai taha chaina,tara yo mero sochai ho ra yesma kehi naramro ramro bhetnu bhayo bhane please suggest garnu hola...
  • Posted on - 2009-09-09    by     tamil
  • where is for brahmins?
  • Posted on - 2009-08-20    by     Nokhi Ram Bhandari
  • Nepal being a small, land lock country as well as a poor country first of all our country cannot effort the rule of federalism. As now other words are comming to divide in the ethenic model. In nepal more over 100 ethenic group are living. if federalism will held in thenic model there should be more over 100 states which our country cannot effort. Next other thing is that moist a large party taking sound to divide in ethenic mode which is surely take the country into civil war between the group. For nepal federalism is nit possible.
  • Posted on - 2009-05-14    by     x
  • i agree with safal ghimreji. baralji, u r dividing the country and erasing whatever nationhood has been achieved in past over 200 yrs. any re-drawing of maps on communal lines will stoke tribal feelings that outsiders can and even greedy insiders can use to create a very long lasting civil war. the onus of such bloody civil war will lie only on the heads of likes of u, who either live in some la-la land or delibrately, to gain short term political center stage, are pointing towards the path of unraveling of nepalese nation-hood. After ur proposed re-drawing of regions, i think there will b no stopping of balkanization of nepal. nepal will cease to exist, what will exist in its place will only b indian leaning terai, tibet leaning/lost mountain belts and warring hill region. if genuine development is desired. then stop pouring so much energy and resources into- renaming the country, new anthem, etc. etc. and first and foremost invest in good education. not the biased type education, but good solid education. Then democracy will take care of the development. I also think that build some flexiblility into the constitution as it is being written now, so that in future a more educated and informed nepalese citizens can tie the loose ends and give itself a good solit constitution.
  • Posted on - 2009-03-01    by     janajati
  • If no ethnic models then should be inclusive. All big three parties are dominated by elite caste (brahmin) and they are leading and holding the parties. Even chhetri are being suppresed in New Nepal.If it continues, then question will be arised why brahmins are against the ethnic division, either they want to rule like this or they don't want to see other ethnic groups to come up in leading role.
  • Posted on - 2009-01-06    by     safal ghimre
  • no ethnic model can do justice to new nepal, it should be based on resource division...a big NO to ethnic division...it wud encourage new sorts of bloodshed...thanks for ur article sir...
Related News