Ethnic Federalism: Devolving power or dividing people
Federalism in Nepal always seems to bring out the passionate, polarized and populist opinions from all sides of politics. Unfortunately, the debate has been reduced to a simplistic choice between managing ethnic diversity and consolidating national unity. Instead of a scientific and objective exploration of the issue, politicians are busy selling tribal and rigid slogans to the public for their personal ambition. Sadly, we are buying it without any question and letting this tribalism take us into the darkness. It’s hard to know whether the Kathmandu politicos are having infantile-fits for having to share the political power-pie with Madhes or are genuinely concerned that this will have fatal consequences for the national unity.
No sane person can deny the widespread racism, casteism, and misogyny that exist in our societies. No one can deny the atrocious inequalities between Kathmandu and the rest of Nepal. Sadly, Kathmandu has been covering its ears singing lalala for so long whilst the oppressed are living amidst the tyranny of discriminations with no prospect for the slice of that proverbial pie.
However, I do believe the new constitution, despite all its flaws and shortcomings, can accommodate the voices of the marginalised groups. Its attempt to redress the centralisation of political power, and affirmative action for the marginalised groups such as women, Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis and minority groups cannot be ignored. At the same time, a lot of its good work has been undone by including Khas-Arya in the reservation list, by making citizenship rule unfair to women, and by not giving special attention to the extremely disadvantaged groups such as Dalits in proportional representation.
A reasonable person would agree with most of the demands put forward by Madhes. However, it’s not clear how the federal structure with “one Madhes, one Pradesh” or “one Madhes, two Pradesh” will help in the fairer distribution of state resources amongst the marginalized citizens from all of Nepal (Himal, Tarai and Pahad). One would argue that the minorities in Tarai such as landless Dalits (one of the most marginalised groups in Nepal) will not necessarily be better off in a Madhesi state ruled by the traditional Tarai landlords. Also, the federal structure with two Madhes provinces will deter if not prevent redistribution of resources from wealthy districts to the resource-poor hill districts. If Madhes leaders are standing for an equitable distribution of political power for the marginalised groups, they must also stand for the equitable distribution of economic opportunities for the marginalised provinces. This argument is not a writer’s thought bubble. A report by UNDP (Human Development Report 2014) emphasizes how uniform distribution of natural resources will help reduce regional inequality, promote inclusive development, and improve provincial independence.
Neither the Tarai leaders nor the Kathmandu politicos are explaining the basis of the demarcation lines that each has come up with. They have failed to explain how their concepts of federal structure help in fairer political representation and provincial economic viability. While Kathmandu is still snubbing Madhes leaders and refusing to hand over some of their political power, Madhes leaders are not acting like they have an equal stake in building a fairer and stronger Nepal.
Lack of intelligent and conciliatory voices among the politicians is astounding. Or perhaps, six years of federal demarcation battle has cornered current set of politicians too close to the problem to see any objective solution. Both sides might want to step back and let their representatives hash it out. If the greater political representation of marginalised groups is the bottom line for Madhes leaders, one wonders if the problem should be given to the experts who can gerrymander the constituencies without affecting the economic viability of the province. Delineating constituencies should not be as restrictive as provincial boundaries.
Having read a number of articles, twitter feeds and public forums about Madhes issues, it was disappointing to see incendiary comments mostly directed against India and a few directed against Madhes leaders. We must realise that even if the majority rule is how democracy operates, fairness is its principle. Let’s not propagate baseless rumours, hateful jingoism and hurtful hyperboles against India, Madhes and the Indians. And the media must realise that the balanced reporting does not guarantee neutrality even when sources are treated fairly since the choice of balancing sources can be distorted. If a large group of people feel the constitution has not been fair to them, their concerns must be given a platform in all National media, particularly when the government seemed to have bulldozed their way through.
Dr Anil Gautam, PhD Chemistry, was a student of global politics and holds a strong interest in global politics and the history of discrimination.
