http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=2663
Concept of Federalism
Federalism is that form of government where the component units of the political organization participate in sharing powers and functions in a cooperative manner though the combined forces of ethnic pluralism and cultural diversity, among others, tend to pull their people apart
–Tamuno
In Nepal, people have misconception about federation. It is thought that federal structure is suitable only for large countries. There is a misjudgment prevalent among political leaders that because of its small size Nepal cannot accommodate federal system and therefore this system is not necessary here. However, demographically Nepal occupies 40th position among 227 countries in the world.
Characteristics
More than 100 countries have shown that federalism minimizes violence, insurgency where as unitary structure are more apt to exacerbate ethnic conflict (Frank S. Cohen:1997)
Federal structure has been applied mainly in places of diversity where it is believed that as far as practicable a certain area should be granted political autonomy. Diverse cultural and linguistic sections of Switzerland and Belgium can be cited as an example. Both the countries, which are far smaller in population and area than Nepal, have followed federal form of government.
Federal make-up of governance imparts a greater degree of autonomy and minimizes conflict among different sections and groups. This form of governance has helped establish peace in such places as Baraks of Spain, Moro of the Philipines, Miskito of Nicaragoa, the Chittgaon hill of Bangladesh, and Ethiopia. Similarly, India has managed ethnic and linguistic conflict by creating separate states such as Andhra, Gujarat, Punjab, Hariyana, Jharkhanda, Arunachal, Mijoram, and Chattisgarh. By providing equal dignity and rights to all the minority and marginalized, federal structure has resolved conflict peacefully. It has been seen that rather than causing civil war, conflict or secession federal form of government has ensured stability, established sustained peace, and strengthened social unity in many countries. India, Malaysia, and Switzerland can be cited as an example
Challenges of Federation in Nepal
Historical evidence shows that many a time federal system has failed in solving national problem and chaotic situation. This system might incur a massive expenditure in maintaining parliamentarian and administrative section. In those countries where there is insufficient resource and means federal form of governance might suffer from the lack of sufficient budget. In case of different governments in the centre and province, there might not be proper coordination and cooperation between the two. Such anomalies contain the seed of conflict.
Political parties are unnecessarily apprehensive of the fact that federalism might lead to the disintegration of the nation. They also argue that federal structure will also cause additional financial burden towards maintaining administrative expenditure. No any ethnic or linguistic group is in absolute majority in any region. It is also seen that political democratization process might be overshadowed due to the issues of ethnicities, language and culture. Most of the time great politicians, businessmen and administrators think in a unitary fashion. Likewise, federal system cannot be said to maintain or ensure social conduciveness. Events in Spain, France, Russia and Yugoslavia proved this fact. Federal structure might also weaken national unity and specially, in case of conflict between and among the federal states the situation of law and order might worsen extremely. Because of the presence of one particular ethnic majority in a particular region, other minorities might be marginalized. In no part of the country is any particular ethnic group in absolutely the majority position and in this case there is the possibility for the minority to ascend to power, which can be opposed by the majority. Pakistan, Yugoslavia and Russia are the examples. In Russia, the Russian were in the majority that took decision in their favor. Similarly, in Yugoslavia the Serbs were predominant and so for fear of being wiped out by the majority, other marginalized groups sought independence. .
Formal Concept of Federalism in the Nepalese Context
On January 15, 2007 the interim legislation was formed and enacted in Nepal. Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum protested fiercely for not being included in this legislation. To address the demand of the people of Madhesh, PM Koirala, supported by the 8-party alliance, made a theoretical commitment for the federal form of state mechanism. By making necessary amendment in the constitution to authorize his announcement, it was decided that Nepal should be made a federal state.
Needs of Federal State
Armed and communal conflicts take place because of the political exclusion of a large social group. Federal structure minimizes such exclusion and enhances political participation and role. The government formed to take care of a particular group for its common benefit will definitely address structural conflict and violence. Federal structure allows the state power to reach the minimal unit of state mechanism. This automatically establishes mechanism to resolve conflict on the permanent basis. Identity-based issues like culture, ethnicity are given due recognition by the state. This helps a great deal in eradicating communal feeling and conflict.
At the local level, native people have full access to regional resources. Federal form of government enables and expands scope of the people of grass-root level to enjoy the full fruit of democracy. This also ensures and safeguards the rights of all groups of people by ending ethnic and religious discrimination through decentralization. To allow the resources to reach the grass-root people federal system is effective form of governance. Apart from imparting status and recognition to all ethnic, linguistic and regional groups, federal state structure guarantees the overall participation of the common people in the development and democratic process.
Types of Federal Forms
Although the government has decided to go for republic structure, no clear draft has been charted out in this direction. Even though there are different bases for federal structure such as regional, linguistic, ethnic, semi federal and full autonomy, the 8-party is yet to decide which one is appropriate for the country.
Possible Federal System
In Nepal federal state should be made on the basis of geography. Keeping the population, geography, language, ethnic group in view there should be between 15 to 20 federal states in Nepal. Before taking decision about federal system in the country, a wide ranging debate should be launched. The debate should justify three important questions about federal system: why, where, and for whom. In Nepal four levels of political or administrative division should be adopted. The division includes: central government, provincial government, district Municipality or village Development Committee, and local government. In the case of selecting provincial capital or district headquarters, all the concerned people and stakeholders should be consulted. In such issue it will be decided whether the authority will be given to the centre or referendum will be conducted to decide this.
Executive Power
Until the fate of monarchy is decided it is hard to say what type of system is appropriate in the country. However, if we are to adopt presidential or parliamentarian system, executive chief president or prime minister should be selected on the basis of direct election, first past the post system. The executive chief will have the full authority in forming and appointing the cabinet according to his own discretion. There will be a provision to remove the executive chief from his post by 2\3 majority on the impeachment basis. During the impeachment procedure, the parliament should be presided over by the Supreme Court judge. Should there arise any controversy regarding the jurisdiction between the parliamentarians and the executive chief, there should be a provision to settle this through referendum in which case the 51% majority will finalize the matter.
(The article above is the excerpts from the views expressed by the author at a seminar on Analysis of the Need, Challenges and Bases of Federal Structure, facilitated by Shrawan Sharma, Executive Director, CESOD)
2008-01-08 21:00:15
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
‘Federalism wrong path for Nepal’
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=133764
Kantipur Report KATHMANDU, Jan 9 2008 - Politicians and legal experts here Tuesday said the decision of the government and the major political parties to restructure the nation as a federal state could be the beginning of Nepal's disintegration.
Legal expert himarjunAcharya, speaking at an interaction organized by the National People's Front (NPF) in the capital, claimed that by embracing federalism the country would be heading in a completely opposite and wrong direction.
"There are three clear reasons for adopting federalism: to create a strong nation by unifying scattered states; to unite states that are on the verge of separation; and to liberate states from a colonial power," Acharya said.
Hence, he added, there is no relevance and logic for adopting a federal system in Nepal's case. "We are trying to bring about the disintegrate of a nation that is already united and organized," he said. "This can be the most dangerous thing for national integrity." According to him, Nepal could have been structured as a federal nation before its unification by King Prithvi Narayan Shah. "There is no country in the world that could avoid disintegration after transforming itself from a unitary to a federal structure," he claimed.
Criticizing the idea of the right to self-determination being raised from certain quarters, Acharya stated that after being conferred this right any state could opt to secede and then might go on to join another country. He was of the opinion that opting for a federal model on the basis of ethnicity would be the biggest political blunder.
Acharya also claimed that though the slogan of the April Movement was for inclusive democracy, later the leaders translated the term "inclusive democracy" into "federal democracy" as per their own convenience.
Dila Ram Acharya of NPF presented a paper prepared by Mohan Bikram Singh, General Secretary of CPN-Masal.
"Lately, apart from a federal system, voices are being raised for right to self-determination and right to secede. This will clear the way for disintegration," Singh's paper said.
He accused the seven political parties of adopting a federal system largely due to Indian pressure rather than on the basis of their own conscience.
‘UN representatives
transgressing mandate’
Acharya also said that many statements made by United Nations representatives in Nepal are contrary to the UN's norms and standards. "Some UN officials are frequently found to be saying that the madhesi and other communities should be given the right to self-determination," he said, adding, "Such statements by UN representatives are against UN norms."
Posted on: 2008-01-08 21:17:24 (Server Time)
Kantipur Report KATHMANDU, Jan 9 2008 - Politicians and legal experts here Tuesday said the decision of the government and the major political parties to restructure the nation as a federal state could be the beginning of Nepal's disintegration.
Legal expert himarjunAcharya, speaking at an interaction organized by the National People's Front (NPF) in the capital, claimed that by embracing federalism the country would be heading in a completely opposite and wrong direction.
"There are three clear reasons for adopting federalism: to create a strong nation by unifying scattered states; to unite states that are on the verge of separation; and to liberate states from a colonial power," Acharya said.
Hence, he added, there is no relevance and logic for adopting a federal system in Nepal's case. "We are trying to bring about the disintegrate of a nation that is already united and organized," he said. "This can be the most dangerous thing for national integrity." According to him, Nepal could have been structured as a federal nation before its unification by King Prithvi Narayan Shah. "There is no country in the world that could avoid disintegration after transforming itself from a unitary to a federal structure," he claimed.
Criticizing the idea of the right to self-determination being raised from certain quarters, Acharya stated that after being conferred this right any state could opt to secede and then might go on to join another country. He was of the opinion that opting for a federal model on the basis of ethnicity would be the biggest political blunder.
Acharya also claimed that though the slogan of the April Movement was for inclusive democracy, later the leaders translated the term "inclusive democracy" into "federal democracy" as per their own convenience.
Dila Ram Acharya of NPF presented a paper prepared by Mohan Bikram Singh, General Secretary of CPN-Masal.
"Lately, apart from a federal system, voices are being raised for right to self-determination and right to secede. This will clear the way for disintegration," Singh's paper said.
He accused the seven political parties of adopting a federal system largely due to Indian pressure rather than on the basis of their own conscience.
‘UN representatives
transgressing mandate’
Acharya also said that many statements made by United Nations representatives in Nepal are contrary to the UN's norms and standards. "Some UN officials are frequently found to be saying that the madhesi and other communities should be given the right to self-determination," he said, adding, "Such statements by UN representatives are against UN norms."
Posted on: 2008-01-08 21:17:24 (Server Time)
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Listen! Don't Go for 'Federal Republic'
It will break up Nepal-- a federal republic will. It will hasten disintegration, and it will ultimately lead to the erosion of the Nepali identity, says AVANTIKA REGMI
Source - http://www.nepalmonitor.com/2008/01/listen_dont_go_for_f.html
It has been just a few days since the self-appointed rulers of our Motherland arbitrarily declared her as a “Federal Republic.” Maybe this terminology sounds great and conveys feelings of a rosy and prosperous future for some selected groups, but for me, personally, these words are nothing more than the death knell of my unfortunate and poor, yet so beautiful, calm and serene, my most beloved Mother Nepal. In the paragraphs below, I will try to explain why I have this strong feeling, the premonition, and the fears of this inevitable eventuality of Nepal’s death knell.
First and foremost, what does a "Federal Republic" mean? A federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government. A federation in turn means the composition of a number of self-governing states united by a federal government. Alternately, a federal republic can also be defined as one in which authority is divided and shared among different units of government. Thus, theoretically, federalism is the antithesis of centralization and unification of a country. To borrow an analogy from Physics, federalism is a centrifugal force where individual units want to fly away but are held together by a centripetal force. Federalism is designed to achieve some self-rule and shared rules amongst all the constituent member states.
Next, an indicator of the popularity and success of Federalism would be borne by the number of existing Federal Republics. How many nations are Federal Republics? Surprisingly, there are not more than twenty Federal Republics. The most prominent ones being Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, Switzerland, and the United States. Nepal is the newest entrant to this list preceded by Iraq. Then there were the Federal Republics of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, not so long ago, which now no longer exist.
And, even more surprising, there are only five nations worldwide who unequivocally declare themselves as a Federal Republic, i.e. federalism is enshrined in each of their names: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Federative Republic of Brazil and Federal Republic of Iraq. Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal would be only the sixth explicit Federal Republic worldwide. Why do countries fear to enter this club of explicit federal republics even after declaring them to be some sort of a federation?
The difference between an unequivocal Federal Republic (which Nepal has become) and only having some spirit of it, but not really becoming one, can be understood more clearly by looking at the example of India. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the constitution drafting committee in India, was dead against federalism and he point-blank refused to insert the word “federal” in the final constitution of India (that came out in 1950). Jawaharlal Nehru was also against this whole concept – the constitution committees chaired by Nehru recommended a centralized federal model.
It is important to understand the distinction between a federal republic and a centralized federal model because the centralized federal model is not representative of a true federal system, as maximum power is still concentrated at the center with only an appearance of federalism by constituting state governments. Moreover, the refusal of Dr. Ambedkar to explicitly designate India as a federal republic should make one to ponder a lot and be very wary of including this word in the name of a nation.
The reluctance of Ambedkar and Nehru makes a lot of sense when one considers the fact that India was not formed that easily. Sardar Patel, the then home minister and the strong man of India, had to often threaten and cajole the wayward Princely states and arm-twist them to join the union of India. In the end, India was an amalgamation of around five hundred princely states, some even larger in spatial extent and population than Nepal, and, moreover, all “enjoying some form of local autonomy.”
If the founding fathers had included the word “federal” in the constitution, it would have laid the foundation for a weak center that could eventually fail to hold a country forged with such a great difficulty together. Let me now provide the reasoning why the few nations that choose to become explicit federal republics did so.
Czechoslovakia came into being in 1919 and was formed by merging two politically distinct entities - the Czech and Slovak regions. There was no force involved in this union; it was based on the fundamental concern for their mutual security. They wanted to create a bigger nation to strengthen them militarily and economically. Moreover, the Slovak region was promised some semblance of self-rule. Thus, the term Federal Republic makes sense here.
Another example is Nigeria, the only “federal” state in the whole of Africa until Ethiopia declared itself a federal state in 1994. Bringing together various ethnically and culturally distinct regions in 1914 amalgamated the Nigeria of today. Although a federal republic in spirit, the nation did not declare itself as a “Federal Republic” until 1963. Various waves of separatist and secessionist movements that had started at the very outset of its inception failed to waver the resoluteness of the Nigerian state till the successful breakaway of South Cameroon state. This breakaway state became part of the present nation of Cameroon in 1961. Nigerian leaders then hastened to enshrine Nigeria as an explicit Federal Republic so as to consolidate the Nigerian Republic and to give the separatists some semblance of autonomy, and to prevent further breaking apart of the nation.
Another example, the Swiss federal constitution (promulgated 160 years ago) came into existence at the end of a civil war between Catholic and liberal cantons. In another example, in Argentina the implementation of Federalism started after rural strongmen from three provinces waged a battle after their demand that the juntas in Buenos Aires establish a federation was not met. The rural strongmen won the battle (in 1820) after which the provinces signed a treaty enshrining that the provinces would not be controlled from Buenos Aires henceforth, but things did not turn out the way the rural strongmen wanted after all, i.e. the Argentina of today is not an explicit federal republic.
Now coming to the case of Mother Nepal: did Nepal go through any danger of disintegration or war between various parts of the country such as those of Nigeria, Argentina, or Switzerland? Or on the contrary, are we in the process of creating a bigger state like Czechoslovakia? Bear in mind that all these nations became federal republics to consolidate the integrity and cohesion of their respective nation states. When we already exist as a solid unitary state, what is the sense of turning it into a federal republic thereby sowing the seeds of a future weak nation? Federalism is a process to increase the strength of warring or friendly nation states by coming together and it is a movement in the direction of a unitary state. To break a unitary state into a federation smacks of nothing else but a mischievous attempt to weaken Nepal.
Keep in mind that nations like Nigeria and Ethiopia declared themselves as Federal Republics to placate the secessionist groups who had been waging war for decades on end. On the contrary, there has not been a single ethnically motivated separatist or secessionist movement that has been waged on the soil of Nepal. Nepal has been a solid unitary state for more than 200 years and that’s not a small length of time. Thus, again, how on earth can any sane mind think of declaring this solid nation a “Federal” Republic and weaken it from inside? Only enemies of the country or gullible idiots can agree to this.
Moreover, the stupidity of the supporters of federal republic can be understood from the fact that this must be the only nation in modern history to declare itself as a Federal Republic when time tested republic states have not dared to. Please go and ask the Indians, who presumably have blessed this move, whether they would dare to convert India into an explicit federal republic.
Of course, the merchants of destruction vehemently cry aloud that Nepal had to be declared a federal republic to undo the centuries old atrocities of the Shah-Rana rulers and the subjugation of the various ethnic minorities and indigenous groups. Thus, the premise on which this new disintegration of Nepal is taking place is along ethnic lines (ethnofederalism) and to redress the past faults. This seems to be the only issue to break the country and the only example in modern times where a unified solid nation is being mutilated and disintegrated to redress past mistakes.
Let me also remind you that many nations that had inserted the word “Federal” at some point of time in their history, have later erased it.
Moreover, there is another point I’d like to address here: Where does the grand scheme of Federal Republic fit in the context of Nepal, considering its spatial extent? There is a common thread shared by most of these nations that have taken the federal path explicitly or otherwise. Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Nigeria, Russia, Switzerland, and United States (excluding Austria and Switzerland): these are all spatially humungous countries. Argentina is almost the size of India with the total area of 2,766,890 square km (8th largest nation). India has a continental area of 3,287,590 square km (7th largest). Brazil (5th largest) is almost three times the size of India. United States is 9,826, 630 square km (3rd largest) and Russia 17,075,400 square km (the largest). Nigeria is 923, 768 square km and Germany is 357, 021 square km. On the contrary Nepal is a tiny 147,181 square km only larger than Austria and Switzerland. Thus, the perceived autonomous states or provinces of Nepal are going to be very-very small – reminiscent of the baieshe-chaubese rajyas of yonder years. How will these future federal states even survive? What will they do for survival? Beg India to help them against the neighbor? Even with the best of intentions India would ultimately be forced into the role of an imperial judge.
What is being sown in Nepal today as an ethno-federal state would ultimately lead to the erosion of the Nepali identity and from collective strength we would move to collective weakness; ethnic groups will fight for supremacy and our large neighbors would play one federal state against another. We will lose our independence. I beg and I pray to our short- sighted leaders and parties to forget their petty short term self-interests and goals; give up your short term calculated gains in the larger interest of the nation and roll back federalism; for this is that demon which will first break up our beloved Motherland Nepal and then devour it and make slaves of all her children to foreign powers.
Avantika Regmi can be reached at avantikaregmi@aim.com. The veiws expressed here are author's own.
Source - http://www.nepalmonitor.com/2008/01/listen_dont_go_for_f.html
It has been just a few days since the self-appointed rulers of our Motherland arbitrarily declared her as a “Federal Republic.” Maybe this terminology sounds great and conveys feelings of a rosy and prosperous future for some selected groups, but for me, personally, these words are nothing more than the death knell of my unfortunate and poor, yet so beautiful, calm and serene, my most beloved Mother Nepal. In the paragraphs below, I will try to explain why I have this strong feeling, the premonition, and the fears of this inevitable eventuality of Nepal’s death knell.
First and foremost, what does a "Federal Republic" mean? A federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government. A federation in turn means the composition of a number of self-governing states united by a federal government. Alternately, a federal republic can also be defined as one in which authority is divided and shared among different units of government. Thus, theoretically, federalism is the antithesis of centralization and unification of a country. To borrow an analogy from Physics, federalism is a centrifugal force where individual units want to fly away but are held together by a centripetal force. Federalism is designed to achieve some self-rule and shared rules amongst all the constituent member states.
Next, an indicator of the popularity and success of Federalism would be borne by the number of existing Federal Republics. How many nations are Federal Republics? Surprisingly, there are not more than twenty Federal Republics. The most prominent ones being Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, Switzerland, and the United States. Nepal is the newest entrant to this list preceded by Iraq. Then there were the Federal Republics of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, not so long ago, which now no longer exist.
And, even more surprising, there are only five nations worldwide who unequivocally declare themselves as a Federal Republic, i.e. federalism is enshrined in each of their names: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Federative Republic of Brazil and Federal Republic of Iraq. Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal would be only the sixth explicit Federal Republic worldwide. Why do countries fear to enter this club of explicit federal republics even after declaring them to be some sort of a federation?
The difference between an unequivocal Federal Republic (which Nepal has become) and only having some spirit of it, but not really becoming one, can be understood more clearly by looking at the example of India. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the constitution drafting committee in India, was dead against federalism and he point-blank refused to insert the word “federal” in the final constitution of India (that came out in 1950). Jawaharlal Nehru was also against this whole concept – the constitution committees chaired by Nehru recommended a centralized federal model.
It is important to understand the distinction between a federal republic and a centralized federal model because the centralized federal model is not representative of a true federal system, as maximum power is still concentrated at the center with only an appearance of federalism by constituting state governments. Moreover, the refusal of Dr. Ambedkar to explicitly designate India as a federal republic should make one to ponder a lot and be very wary of including this word in the name of a nation.
The reluctance of Ambedkar and Nehru makes a lot of sense when one considers the fact that India was not formed that easily. Sardar Patel, the then home minister and the strong man of India, had to often threaten and cajole the wayward Princely states and arm-twist them to join the union of India. In the end, India was an amalgamation of around five hundred princely states, some even larger in spatial extent and population than Nepal, and, moreover, all “enjoying some form of local autonomy.”
If the founding fathers had included the word “federal” in the constitution, it would have laid the foundation for a weak center that could eventually fail to hold a country forged with such a great difficulty together. Let me now provide the reasoning why the few nations that choose to become explicit federal republics did so.
Czechoslovakia came into being in 1919 and was formed by merging two politically distinct entities - the Czech and Slovak regions. There was no force involved in this union; it was based on the fundamental concern for their mutual security. They wanted to create a bigger nation to strengthen them militarily and economically. Moreover, the Slovak region was promised some semblance of self-rule. Thus, the term Federal Republic makes sense here.
Another example is Nigeria, the only “federal” state in the whole of Africa until Ethiopia declared itself a federal state in 1994. Bringing together various ethnically and culturally distinct regions in 1914 amalgamated the Nigeria of today. Although a federal republic in spirit, the nation did not declare itself as a “Federal Republic” until 1963. Various waves of separatist and secessionist movements that had started at the very outset of its inception failed to waver the resoluteness of the Nigerian state till the successful breakaway of South Cameroon state. This breakaway state became part of the present nation of Cameroon in 1961. Nigerian leaders then hastened to enshrine Nigeria as an explicit Federal Republic so as to consolidate the Nigerian Republic and to give the separatists some semblance of autonomy, and to prevent further breaking apart of the nation.
Another example, the Swiss federal constitution (promulgated 160 years ago) came into existence at the end of a civil war between Catholic and liberal cantons. In another example, in Argentina the implementation of Federalism started after rural strongmen from three provinces waged a battle after their demand that the juntas in Buenos Aires establish a federation was not met. The rural strongmen won the battle (in 1820) after which the provinces signed a treaty enshrining that the provinces would not be controlled from Buenos Aires henceforth, but things did not turn out the way the rural strongmen wanted after all, i.e. the Argentina of today is not an explicit federal republic.
Now coming to the case of Mother Nepal: did Nepal go through any danger of disintegration or war between various parts of the country such as those of Nigeria, Argentina, or Switzerland? Or on the contrary, are we in the process of creating a bigger state like Czechoslovakia? Bear in mind that all these nations became federal republics to consolidate the integrity and cohesion of their respective nation states. When we already exist as a solid unitary state, what is the sense of turning it into a federal republic thereby sowing the seeds of a future weak nation? Federalism is a process to increase the strength of warring or friendly nation states by coming together and it is a movement in the direction of a unitary state. To break a unitary state into a federation smacks of nothing else but a mischievous attempt to weaken Nepal.
Keep in mind that nations like Nigeria and Ethiopia declared themselves as Federal Republics to placate the secessionist groups who had been waging war for decades on end. On the contrary, there has not been a single ethnically motivated separatist or secessionist movement that has been waged on the soil of Nepal. Nepal has been a solid unitary state for more than 200 years and that’s not a small length of time. Thus, again, how on earth can any sane mind think of declaring this solid nation a “Federal” Republic and weaken it from inside? Only enemies of the country or gullible idiots can agree to this.
Moreover, the stupidity of the supporters of federal republic can be understood from the fact that this must be the only nation in modern history to declare itself as a Federal Republic when time tested republic states have not dared to. Please go and ask the Indians, who presumably have blessed this move, whether they would dare to convert India into an explicit federal republic.
Of course, the merchants of destruction vehemently cry aloud that Nepal had to be declared a federal republic to undo the centuries old atrocities of the Shah-Rana rulers and the subjugation of the various ethnic minorities and indigenous groups. Thus, the premise on which this new disintegration of Nepal is taking place is along ethnic lines (ethnofederalism) and to redress the past faults. This seems to be the only issue to break the country and the only example in modern times where a unified solid nation is being mutilated and disintegrated to redress past mistakes.
Let me also remind you that many nations that had inserted the word “Federal” at some point of time in their history, have later erased it.
Moreover, there is another point I’d like to address here: Where does the grand scheme of Federal Republic fit in the context of Nepal, considering its spatial extent? There is a common thread shared by most of these nations that have taken the federal path explicitly or otherwise. Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Nigeria, Russia, Switzerland, and United States (excluding Austria and Switzerland): these are all spatially humungous countries. Argentina is almost the size of India with the total area of 2,766,890 square km (8th largest nation). India has a continental area of 3,287,590 square km (7th largest). Brazil (5th largest) is almost three times the size of India. United States is 9,826, 630 square km (3rd largest) and Russia 17,075,400 square km (the largest). Nigeria is 923, 768 square km and Germany is 357, 021 square km. On the contrary Nepal is a tiny 147,181 square km only larger than Austria and Switzerland. Thus, the perceived autonomous states or provinces of Nepal are going to be very-very small – reminiscent of the baieshe-chaubese rajyas of yonder years. How will these future federal states even survive? What will they do for survival? Beg India to help them against the neighbor? Even with the best of intentions India would ultimately be forced into the role of an imperial judge.
What is being sown in Nepal today as an ethno-federal state would ultimately lead to the erosion of the Nepali identity and from collective strength we would move to collective weakness; ethnic groups will fight for supremacy and our large neighbors would play one federal state against another. We will lose our independence. I beg and I pray to our short- sighted leaders and parties to forget their petty short term self-interests and goals; give up your short term calculated gains in the larger interest of the nation and roll back federalism; for this is that demon which will first break up our beloved Motherland Nepal and then devour it and make slaves of all her children to foreign powers.
Avantika Regmi can be reached at avantikaregmi@aim.com. The veiws expressed here are author's own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)