Some Remarks on Cooperative Federal Structure

Photos

Some Remarks on Cooperative Federal Structure

see larger image

uploaded by haribanshjha

I happened to go through the paper “Cooperative Federal Structure – A Workable Political-economy Approach for a New Nepal” prepared by Dr. Alok K Bohara for submission to the members of the Constituent Assembly of Federal Republic of Nepal.

The paper opens up with words of appreciation by selected persons well known in Nepal like Kul C. Gautam, Devendra Raj Panday, Surya P. Subedi, and Shankar Sharma in the section on forewords.

In the paper, Bohara has developed a cooperative federal structure of twelve ethnic regional enclaves, which he grouped into four states such as Karnali, Gandaki, Koshi and Kathmandu. To him, there would be provision for State Assembly and governor for each of the state. He claims that the cooperative membership model of ethnic regions would reduce the prospects of conflicts among the states with diverse endowments. In addition, he also feels that his frame of federal structure would promote socio-economic and cultural autonomy without affecting the ethnic harmony and territorial integrity of the country.

In the proposed structure of the four states, the following results are explicit:

·        The share of people of Terai region (Kanchanpur, Kailali, Bardia, Banke and Dang) in Karnali state is 20.72% of the total population of the state (4,890,000).

·        In Gandaki state, the population of the Terai region (Kapilbastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi, Chitwan, Parsa, Bara and Rautahat) is 49.63% of the total population of the state (7,709,000).

·        In Koshi state, the population of Terai region (Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Dhanusha, Mahottari and Sarlahi) is 60.53% of the total population of the state (8,428,000).

·        In Kathmandu (NEWA) State, there is no mention of people of Terai.

However, the restructuring of the country in four states is defective from following considerations:

1. Reverse to the concept of natural boundary: The structure of the states is mostly based on vertical rather than horizontal division of the country, which is reverse to the natural boundary of ecology. Ecologically, the Terai or Madhes constitutes one region; while the hills and the mountains constitute other two regions. In the proposed state restructuring, this fundamental natural factor is ignored.

2. Ignorance of Ethnicity: Another important factor in state restructuring should be ethnicity. People with common living standard would like to be governed by themselves. Federalism becomes meaningless if this reality is ignored. The paper, on the other hand, ignores this factor as it puts people of one region say Madhesis with that of extreme northern mountain who have least of commonality among them as compared to be other parts of Terai either in terms of language, food habits or other social and economic considerations.

3. Madhesi population in Terai:  There is total lack of information on the population of Madhesi ethnic groups in any of the four proposed states. In the absence such information, the proposal for restructuring of state does not make any sense. The paper does not present picture as to what percentage of total population in the state constitute Madhesis.

4. Wrong Data: Even there is certain wrong information on the Madhesis. For example, it is shown that the Brahmins of Terai have higher per capita income than the Bahuns of hills.  This is simply because the Brahmins of Terai have been tied with Marwaris. Even if the Marwaris are tied up with Dalits, the latter would have quite higher per capita income in Nepal.

5. Tharus to be Hardest Hit: The Terai people including both the Madhesi and hill population constitute only 20.72% of the state population in Karnali and they are in small minority. Thus, even many of the Tharus who have been advocating for a separate Tharuhat state will be further marginalized if the hill population in the Terai region of Karnali is taken into consideration.  
6. Further Marginalization of Madhesis: The Terai people constitute 49.63% of the total population in Gandaki state and 60.53% in Koshi state. In the Terai, 33%  of the total population are non-Madhesis and if this percentage of population is reduced from each of the Terai regions, the Madhesis would be in minority even in Terai and would be further marginalized.
7. Resource Sharing: The author seems to be against the ethnic based federal structure of the C.P.N. (Maoists) as well as that of One Madhesh One Pradesh. He creates an impression as if One Madhesh concept is based on Pahad versus Madhesh. He questions how the destiny of the people of Humla, Jumla or Rolpa can be charted out as there is only rugged mountains. And at times, he thinks what would happen if some of the resourceful Pahad region like Limbuwan province bypass the Terai region by selling its hydropower to the neighboring Indian region and keep all its proceeds? He forgets that natural resources such as water resources and mining would be in the domain of the center and not of the state. More practical approach is needed in regard to reallocation of resources between the center and the states.

In view of some of these hard facts, the proposed structure of state obviously appears to be biased against the Madhesi population as it is ploy to keep them in perpetual minority. It looks similar to the concept of zonal distribution of the country or the division of the country into five development regions during the Panchayat system in which the Madhesis had been put into minority by joining the Terai districts with the districts of the hills and the mountain region.

Even if the states are organized horizontally, the ecological comparative advantage of the three belts can be harvested unlike the proposition of the paper.

If the concept of regions within the state structure can hold good, there is no reason why the three regions including Maithili, Bhojapur and Awadhi regions or even Tharuhat region from east to west Nepal cannot be thought of in the single Terai state as envisaged by various Madhesi political groups.

In the name of politics of compromise, the marginalization of Madhesi population cannot be justified.