The Road to Cultural Federalism in Nepal

The Road to Cultural Federalism in Nepal

Nepal, the newest republic of the world is in a fragile transitional phase and undergoing lots of historic changes. After overthrowing a 240 year old monarchy backed up by the notoriously brave Nepalese Army, Nepal became the newest republic of the world. While the proposal to divide Nepal into federal states is being discussed among Maoist led coalition government and other political parties, the debate about whether or not to divide Nepal into autonomous federal states with right to self-determination has deepened. With this debate, views have been polarized; one camp believes dividing Nepal into smaller states will compromise the integrity of the nation, while the other camp believes it will help in development and better governance, modeled after the most developed republic in the world, United States.

There are three major debates about the introduction of federalism in Nepal. First: should Nepal be divided into federal states or not in the first place? Second: should federal states be autonomous with right to self-determination or not, which in plain language means should the states have the right to govern their respective states independently of the federal government? Third: should the physical boundaries of those states be determined by cultural differences or should it be purely geographical? After the popular April revolution in 2006 (that overthrew the king), two other revolutions were waged in the southern plains (Madhesh) of Nepal. Both ofMadheshi revolutions’ primary demands were proportional representation and an autonomous federal state with right to self-determination. Similar demands for autonomous states have been raised by numerous other ethnic groups such asLimbuwan Liberation Front, Khambuwan Liberation Front, Madhesi Liberation Front[1], Newa Liberation Front,Indigenous Janajatis and others. These groups have issued threats to launch a full-fledged armed rebellion if an autonomous state for their ethnic population were to be denied. Hence, Nepal should have cultural federalism because dividing Nepal into states based on culture is the only way to meet the demands of the agitating ethnic groups, ensure long-term stability and build a new prosperous Nepal.

As I progress to show that cultural federalism (i.e. federalism based on ethnicity and language as in case of Nepal) is the best solution, I will proceed by considering possible alternative systems first. Broadly speaking, Nepal has three alternatives: 1) Decentralized system with local administrative units controlled by a strong, central authority, 2) Territorial Federalism and, 3) Cultural Federalism. Nepal has the experience of adopting decentralized system of governance multiple times spanning several decades, which proved to be largely unsuccessful, inefficient and ineffective. Nepal is one of the poorest nations on the Earth that faces acute shortage of basic needs such as clean drinking water and electricity for homes; this plight of Nepal testifies for futility and ineffectiveness of decentralized system in Nepal.* Nepalese countrymen spend their nights in darkness, without 16 hours of any electricity daily. Even though Nepal boasts of its tremendous potential to generate hydro-electricity, it has not been able to use even one percent of its capacity. The decentralized system prevalent in Nepal for decades can be held responsible for this underdevelopment since these potential regions were neglected merely because they were relatively far from the capital city, Kathmandu. The decentralized system is not bad of a system in itself but it does not resonate with need and current demand of Nepal.

The largest district of Nepal,Karnali which lies in far-western region of Nepal does not have any roads hitherto. Such neglected regions would benefit the most from a federal system because a federal system is the best way to ensure the optimum use of local resources. A federal system can also formulate policies conducive to regional demands and needs. For instance, the provision of building ropeways could be made a priority in rugged terrains such as inKarnali since building roads is economically and geographically unfeasible. John Kincaid serves to strengthen the above argument by pointing out that federalism provides public services tailored to the diversity of citizen and communal preferences. Nepal needs federalism because only federalism can cater to the needs of geographically and culturally diverse regions of Nepal by allowing local governments to formulate conducive and custom tailored policies for individual states.

In addition, when Maoists begun the armed resistance against the state, one of their major agendas read, “right to autonomy on regional, district and local level should be given…where [an] ethnic community has majority” (Sharma 2002). Maoists do not seem to be very positive about granting autonomy to states anymore but ethnic groups have stubbornly stuck to their demands. The opposition to granting autonomy to the individual federal states is based on the fear that the states might attempt to secede or demand even greater degree of independence in the future. The opposing group argues that this might encourage other states to do the same and weaken the federal government in the long run. Even though this argument appears true, empirical data does not support it. Indeed, federalism has proved to contain ethnic conflicts in several nations, India being a paradigm of this theory (Varshney 1998). This fear has been spread mainly by royalists who think they still have a fair chance to strike back and resume the lost kingdom if they can somehow prove political parties as a failure. Another group that supports this flawed argument is Khas Bahuns, who fear that they would have to give up their (unfair share of) power and sense of superiority under autonomous federalism. But is should be realized that denying federalism will mean further bloodshed and suffering for common Nepalese. In fact, federalism alone is insufficient to meet the needs and demands of ethnic groups; Nepal needs to have autonomous federal system with right to self-determination to ensure stability and achieve long-lasting peace.

If it is agreed on autonomous federalism, the most important question becomes how do we divide Nepal into autonomous federal states then? Should it be purely territorial, cultural (based on language and ethnicity) or mixed? For the sake of argument, let’s assume Nepal decides to adopt territorial federalism i.e. it divides Nepal into numerous states based on geography or territory, like that of the United States. Since Nepal is a multicultural, multilingual and multiethnic country, dividing Nepal into states without taking into account the culture of people in those regions would distribute the ethnic population over several states (Hutt 1991). The biggest problem that would arise in this system is that majority of ethnic groups in any of those states cannot be guaranteed. Firstly, this contradicts Maoists’ proposal which says, ‘…where [an] ethnic community has majority,…’(Sharma 2002). Secondly, not having majority would mean ethnic groups would not have right to formulate policies conducive to their region as their proposals could easily be blocked by representatives of other ethnic groups, should a conflict of interest rise. Moreover, if two groups have large presence in a state none of which have majority, there is always a high chance of confrontation. Stability in an ethnic federal arrangement can only be achieved by ensuring majority of the largest ethnic group in that region. This argument is supported by Hawkes’s statement, “The drive for greater autonomy, or self-rule, can be accommodated through a public form of government where indigenous people are the demographic majority in a region... (Vol. 53)” Territorial federalism does not ensure demographic majority of any ethnic group in a region leaving open the chance of further struggle and confrontation in the future and hence cannot be the best solution for Nepal.

Cultural federalism is a type of federalism in which states have population with homogenous culture, where culture implies language, religion and ethnicity; since Nepal has an 86% Hindu population, language and ethnicity are the only two main cultural factors. Dividing a nation solely on the basis of ethnicity might generate opposition and appear to challenge the stability of such nations. But it has to be realized that every nation’s situation is different. The United States has been relatively stable culturally and for Americans, national identity comes before other ethnic identities, but the case is not the same for Nepal. Moreover, dividing a nation solely on the basis of ethnicity is not something unheard of. Ethiopia has had a decade of ethnic based federalism by now and it has been relatively stable compared to the turbulent state it was in before ethnicity based federalism was adopted (Mengisteab 23). The biggest advantage of cultural federalism is that states can be divided to ensure majority of various ethnic groups in different states. But it should be realized that, “ethnic homogeneity is hardly possible in any territory in multi-ethnic states, due to the diversity and mixture of peoples across ethnic boundaries”, as Adeney points out in his paper on federalism in India and Pakistan; so, even though this division is not the perfect, it is the best known (10-13).

Cultural federalism meets the demands of the agitating ethnic groups, ensures their majority in respective states- a pre-requisite for long term stability and peace, and gives ample opportunities to the cultural groups to formulate policies catering to their needs. Cultural federalism also preserves all the advantages of federalism such as increased competition and innovation among states, greater responsiveness to citizen preferences and optimum utilization of local resources for development (Kincaid 53). A model to divide Nepal culturally and federally, proposed by Vijaya R. Sharma is shown below who issued this proposal after reviewing other worthy proposals including that of the Maoists (see Table 1). Sharma’s proposal divides Nepal into 15 culturally homogenous federal states with more or less similar population and percent of Gross Domestic Product shares (25-27). Even though he makes a conscious effort of avoiding ethnic names for his proposed states which is a well reasoned decision, his proposed state names ‘Hills-1’, ‘Hills-2’ to ‘Hills-10’ and similarly ‘Tarai-1’ to ‘Tarai-5’ would add to the confusion of Nepalese (V Sharma 25-27). They have had more than their share of confusion about several types of federalisms and numerous proposals to divide the country, each one claiming to be the best. Giving unique, characteristic and unmechanistic names to states without associating with any of their ethnic groups would make his proposal better and the most convincing of all.

To prevent Nepal from slipping further in anarchy, leaders need to decide on cultural federalism thereby ensuring stability and starting the marathon of nation-building. Convincing Nepalese people (who have been confused with so many proposals and ideas) that cultural federalism is the best solution is a gargantuan task, a miraculous feat that could only be achieved if all the political parties collectively endorsed it. For now, this dream of all parties collaborating for the welfare of the nation is a fantasy.

Table 1 Proposal to divide Nepal into 15 culturally homogenous states where each color represents a separate state.

Source: Vijaya R Sharma, “Comparative Study of Federation Proposals for Nepal,” Liberal Democracy Nepal Bulletin 2.2 (2007): 28.

Works Cited

Adeney, K. Regionalism, identity and reconciliation: federalism in India and Pakistan.

Paper presented at the Political Studies Association-UK 50th Annual Conference of the Political Studies Association. London, April 2000: 10-13.

Hutt, Michael. “Drafting the Nepal Constitution, 1990.” Asian Survey 31.11 (1991).

Kincaid, John. "Economic policy-making: advantages and disadvantages of the federal model." International Social Science Journal 53.167 (Mar. 2001).

Mengisteab, Kidane. “Ethiopia's Ethnic-Based Federalism: 10 Years after.” African Issues29.1/2 (2001): 20.

Sharma, Sudheer. The Ethnic Dimension of the Maoist Insurgency. Prepared for DFID. Kathmandu, 2002.

Sharma, Vijaya R. “Comparative Study of Federation Proposals for Nepal.” Liberal Democracy Nepal Bulletin 2.2 (2007): 25-28.

Varshney, Ashutosh. “India defies the odds.” J. Democracy9.3 (1998): 36-50.

---

1Madhesi Liberation Front is a joint term for all mainstream Madhesi political parties and numerous underground armed outfits claiming to be operating for liberation of Madhesh.

* It currently faces 16 hours of load-shedding (power shortage) every day.

This paper was written as an assignment for Writing Workshop under the instructor, Dr. Anthony Montalbano during Spring 2009 at Trinity University

Recent Political Developments

I was a little cut-off from the news on Nepalese politics since few days due to my own busy days in college. I am trying to catch up.

The first incident that I found really interesting was the handing over of a Maoist cadre by the Maoists themselves for persecution and facing charges in court. This is uncharacteristic of Maoists, they have been making every effort to protect their cadres from being persecuted and giving perpetrators shelter in YCL camps, another name for CBD (Crime Breeding Center) and YCL meaning Young Criminals League as pointed out by Girija Prasad Koirala. You can find the details on the story here,
Maoists agree to present cadre accused for murder at court .

If Maoists really are intending to change and this is just the tip of the iceberg then that would be the best thing that would ever happen in post-monarchial Nepalese politics. The way Maoists swamped on peoples’ hopes and optimism for a new Nepal was disappointing.

Another development concerns the activities of UN bodies in Nepal. Nepalese government, which is led by the Maoists, refused to extend the term of OHCHR-Nepal (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) beyond June 10. Nepal faces a record high violation of human rights cases where ordinary Nepalese are tortured by Maoists, armed outfits operating in various parts of the country, most notably in the southern plains and not extending the term of OHCHR-Nepal only means these cases of violation will go unreported. Not that OHCHR-Nepal was doing any job of countering the human rights violators physically, but at least it was reporting them to the general public and the media. With such cases going unchecked, no one will know how many more humans in Nepal will be tortured, abducted or killed. This move on the part of Maoists is very unnerving and points at their dishonesty to give up violence. The motive behind this move of Maoists, to any mind would be clear that Maoists still regard OHCHR-Nepal as an opposition body, a group that would impede in its functioning. The absence of OHCHR body will provide Maoists more room to be autocratic and maybe this is what they wanted. Also, the confrontation between Visiting United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and Nepalese PM Prachanda does not sound positive. UN, as a neutral body is giving remarks that it should be giving and that should be understood by Nepalese PM and Maoist supremo Prachanda. You can read the story here, Check Impunity: OHCHR Chief asks PM . Nepalese people do not want communism or socialism and Prachanda and his Maoist groups can not force this down our throats no matter how they try to hypnotize us or say it repeatedly in the media.

The mess that Nepal is in right now is not solely due to the past governments as Maoists claim repeatedly, in response to every situation that needs to be improved, ranging from shortage of electricity to ease in long-distance transportation or supply of fuels and so on. Maoists had gained popular support through Constituent Assembly elections, optimism and nationalism spirit was running high among every Nepali. There could not have any better chance to capitalize on this development. Maoists totally lost sight on this one. They let it slip. They engaged in political confrontations just like other parties did. They should have understood that other parties were trying to prove them ineffective and so they should have moved forward without turning back to try to prove to them that they are right, there was no point in engaging in a never ending argument and blame-game. Now what? What is in store for future of Nepal? Honestly I don’t know. And I would be surprised if someone would claim they know. Even Prachanda does not know what he is going to say, do or which country he is going to go next week leaving the country in a total mess. Possibly, only PashupatiNath knows it. PashupatiNath le hami sabai ko rakhshya garun…

The use of excessive force during Madhes Revolution in Nepal

The Joker in the Dark Knight said to the Batman, “They need you right now, but when they don’t, they’ll cast you like a leper!” I loved this line. This is such a blow and good analysis to what society does to you, us and everyone. They raise you to a position, they depict you as a role model and when they don’t need you, they dump you; they let you fall deep, deep in the abyss of humiliation. This is what happened to Michael Phelps recently, wasn’t it? And this was what we talked in our Writing Workshop class today as well.

The Joker’s statement has far-reaching implications and thus is a powerful statement. What happened to King Gyanendra may be termed history but the events are still fresh in Nepalese minds. He was considered as an incarnation of God when he was the king. All Nepalese kings were considered the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, the protector. Well, we as educated Nepalese knew better than to believe in such superstitions but a big chunk of Nepalese in rural areas still regarded him as God and this notion was validated when he paid a visit to some rural areas about a year before the April Revolution with massive popular support and participation. So, why was he allowed to fall and done away with? He was reduced to almost nobody from the mighty King, the commander-in-chief commanding a strong 95000 Nepalese Army, notorious for their bravery. The politics behind this is apparent to only few who truly understand the insides of Nepalese politics. To common person, it was signified as the usher of ‘Loktantra’ from cruel monarchy. But, those who know and understand know nothing much has changed for Nepalese apart from the title. Changing name from Monarchy to Republic does not change anything if people still have to face a shortage of electricity, fuels and all kinds of troubles.

The king was punished and his royal pleasures and his royal palace were taken away because he used excessive force against the agitators and the demonstrators. Less than 20 people died during the 19 day old April Revolution while 13000 died during the ten year old struggle waged by the Maoists yet King Gyanendra was posed as the ruthless dictator who had committed grave crime while Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) was welcomed with ‘pushpas’ (flowers). Why did this happen?

Gyanendra was punished because he was ruthless against the agitators but did anyone care about the atrocities and the excessive use of force during Madhesi Revolution? Only months after the popular April revolution, Madhes revolution broke out in the southern plains of Nepal. There were few similarities in both of the revolutions. First, both were for the struggle of rights and against tyranny. Second, excessive force was used in both to crush these revolutions. The king used excessive force to control the agitators which added momentum to the revolution. In Madhes too, the security forces were ordered to beat the shit out of the demonstrators and agitators. Security forces even entered the homes of many locals chasing the agitators after they dispersed. Few security forces kicked open the gates of my neighbor’s house with strong boots provided by the government and yanked my neighbor’s son out of sleep and beat him as if he were a criminal in Guantanamo. Few demonstrators had cleverly escaped but the security forces ended up beating my neighbor’s 20 year old son, giving him a swollen mouth because he had committed a felony by sleeping when the whole madhes was agitating. It did not take too many brains to understand that additional security forces from other parts of the nation were brought who were of hill-origin, to crush the agitation after the madhesi security forces had been lax in battering their own brothers.

Many madhesi security forces were sent to work in hills and hardliners were brought to fill in their positions. And, this was the work of a government that had assumed power after struggling against tyranny to ensure that people will not have to suffer or be devoid of their rights. When I look back at the Madhes revolution, the ugly faces of those in power come to me with disgust. But I wonder why the leaders who were in power during this Madhes revolution were not punished while King Gyanendra was punished severely for the same reason. Do Nepalese know nothing about the symmetry principle?

Wave of Change in Madhes, the southern plains of Nepal

Madhesis have been repressed and now that they have realized and want equal rights, Pahadi leaders, not Pahadis though, think this is unjust and rather dismiss as some sort of revolution to disintegrate the country. But Madhesis will not sit back and watch this time. We have resources. We have brilliant minds. Dim-wit Madhesi leaders just don’t represent us. Only if we had one leader, by leader I mean a leader, justice would have been done. Whole Madhes would have supported him/her wholeheartedly unlike these dim-wits, selfish, irrational leaders who cannot look beyond their own personal differences, let alone have a vision for Madhes to take Madhes forward. We need change. Change has seemed to come in the US. Let’s just hope this wave of change will strike the southern plains of Nepal too.

Brutal murder of Uma Singh was utter barbarianism

After the armed groups of Madhes (Terai) realized there was nothing to gain from pointless murders and abductions ostensibly in the name of liberation of Madhesis, they started abducting their own Madhesi brothers since the wealthy Pahadis had long left the region for the good. They started extorting money in the name of donations, ostensibly to fund their quest for Madhesis’ liberation. Uma Singh, a Madhesi woman stood tall against them. She was fearless and wanted the truth to come out in the public so that people could know what was cooking in their training camps. That was not to be. Maoists murdered anyone who stood against them during their ‘Peoples’ revoultion’. Madhesi armed outfits have based their ideology on the Maoists and so they did what Maoist principle expected them to do. They murdered Uma Singh, a journalist who spoke truth and rejected to bow against their atrocities; she was murdered most brutally and in a rather cowardly fashion. A group of 16 masked armed men entered her house and ended her life because she would not end writing the truth despite their repeated threats. But to those barbarians who murdered Uma Singh, I have to say this, “Truth always prevails. You killed one Uma, but now ten Uma will rise against you. You will be defeated.”

Armed groups of Madhesh, whose side are you on?

How hypocritical is the claim of Madhesi armed groups that they are fighting for the rights of the repressed Madhesis. Shame on those groups. You burn your own people and this is how you justify it? Loot the passengers, mostly Madhesis. Money and cell-phones of passengers, is that what you are fighting for? Spread terror among madhesis and ask for "reasonable" charities which in your definition are few hundred thousands, is this what you intend to accomplish? Bandits of madhesh. Stop calling yourselves the saviours of Madhesh.

Budding hope

I was really filled with euphoria when I came across a blog of one of the current ministers of Nepal. It was totally unexpected. Moreover, I also learnt that he has a background in engineering and has practiced so for more than 20 years. My dissatisfaction over the appoinments of the most responsible positions such as ministeries to illiterate and half-witted politicians without any background in the related field let alone sound knowledge was appeased to a great exent.

Is madhes problem solved?

it was a historic event re......
the same thing was said when the govt had struck a deal with the madhesi janadhikar forum
but happened eventualy, everyone knows
who is going to believe them this time
As a madhesi, i believe these leaders are not fighting for us madhesis
no one fights for others.......they fought for power and money which they might have got during those talks
see the maoists, they say they have fought a peoples' war......have they?.......who was it who suffered the most?.......people of Rolpa had it worst in my view
similarly, in the madhes andolan, it was the people of madhes who suffered the most.......all businesses closed......no transportation.......no income nothing......nothing to eat except for the lathis of the police
and while people were getting beaten and bullets fired through them, the madhesi leaders were having a 'chiyapan karyakram' in Baluwatar.
how can madhesi people be so dumb?

madhesi leaders' hidden motives

it ails to read the news about scores being hurt in tarai in the demos.
i think the terai leaders are waging this revolution for their own benefits
they want promotion and ministerial posts with a good bungalow and cars with few servants there. i am sure once these leaders would be promised of them, they would say this is the victory of madhesi people and the people have got their rights.
but who is here to believe them?
i would kick them hard if i could
they are the greatest enemies of the terai
when they could direct the budget and resources for the construction purposes in tarai, they didn't
they were only interested in directing them in their warm pockets.
go to the terai and you'd see that those leaders own several acres of land
here they are just pretending to be with the madhesi people , in fact they are not
leaders are those who take benefits out of peoples' revolution
see prachanda for eg. he's enjoying a good stay and life in ktm and his sons study abroad
he is havng all luxuries but his poor cadres.........

attitude of state and security officials in tarai through my eyes

the madhes crisis still looms large and the leaders they are seemed to just have meaningless talks days after days while the whole tarai is burning. the government should be held responsible for this because the govt does not listen to the demands without any pressure or any bandhs or violent actions.
while i was in Terai, my home, during the revolution, few armed police came chasing the protestors and entered their houses chasing them.
even after the doors were closed, they kicked opened the doors with the strong boots given by the govt for such purposes and severely beat all male members that they saw.
many of my neighbours who were sitting in their homes listening to their FM sets were also severly injured due to their beatings despite the fact that they were innocent.
this incident really has painted a bad picture of the security condition of tarai, the attitude of the security personnels and also the attitude of the govt.
i believe that the security personnels would not act like untamed beasts without such harsh orders from the state.