Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Divisive rhetoric on ethnic federalism debate
Kathmandu Post on May 30, 2012 published my article on ethnic federalism with the title "Where to begin". The unedited original version is below.
Divisive Rhetoric
It is true that ethnic federalism designs have worked well in countries
like Switzerland and Belgium. It is also true that such designs have not fared
well in other instances, for example: Ethiopia. The Harari people with
population of only 1.5 lakh were given an independent provincial status by the
Ethiopian government while denying a similar status to the Sadamas with
population over 45 lakhs. Maybe these half-hearted measures have been the cause
of ethnic federalism’s failure in Ethiopia.
The question then becomes: what will Nepal turn out to be if we
implement ethnic federalism? Will we go the way of the Swiss or the Ethiopians?
Switzerland and Belgium were divided into ethnic lines based on the “language” that
people spoke in a particular region. The Wallonia region in Belgium has
French-speaking population and the Flanders region has Dutch-speaking
population. In Nepal, there are a handful of regions like upper Solukhumbu,
Mustang, Dolpa and areas in Terai where Nepali is not the dominant language.
Therefore, the idea of ethnic boundaries based on language use can be exercised
in these areas.
However, rest of Nepal is not so easy to divide along linguistic lines.
Compared to Nepal, Belgium and Switzerland are homogeneous, and it was easy to
exercise language-based ethnic federalism there. In Nepal, it’s a nightmare to
even approach the basic design of it. We have so many languages. Where do you
start?
The dominant discussion these days in Nepal is along “ethnicity” lines.
Again, this sounds easier said than done. According to the 2001 census, Gurung,
Magar, Tamang, Newar and Tharu are the majority in one district each. The
remaining 70 districts in Nepal do not have a particular ethnicity as a
majority. I see two problems here. First, it is impossible to give priority
rights or “agradhikar” to one particular ethnicity in any of these 70 districts
without hurting the feelings of other ethnicities. Second, even if we consider
“soft-majority” approach, I do not know how a single Tharuhat can be realized
when districts with Tharu soft-majority like Bardia and Kailali are in the
far-west, Dang in the mid-west and Sunsari in the east. It’s the same problem
with other areas involving Magar, Tamang, Gurung, Rai and Newar soft-majority.
Ethnic federalism approaches were proposed in other countries to ensure
that progress of regional level communities is not rendered crippled by the
central government. This mostly has to do with sharing and controlling of the
resources. It ensures that the federal states are able to extract and use their
resources for their own use and benefit. It ensures the survival and development
of the regions without heavy-handed central government interventions. But,
observing the debates ongoing in Nepal these days, I clearly see that “Economics”
is not driving these discussions. It is being driven by divisive ethnic
propaganda, and not much else.
Mithila and Kochila already have flourishing agricultural and
industrial bases. They seek to gain the most with federal system. However, has
anybody spared a thought for the poor far-west? Has anyone thought out a clear
plan for its economic development? Alright, let us say the far-west gets
divided into two provinces: the Tharuhat in the plains and whatever the other
one will be called encompassing the hills and mountains. The Tharuhat will be
able to feed itself. What about the other one? What is its source of income?
What is its dominant economic sector going to be? The way I see it, the hills
and mountains in the far-west were screwed under the central government, and they
will remain screwed under the federalized system as well.
It does not help that the people in charge of designing the federal
structure are incompetent. The most logical restructuring proposal so far came
from the Maoists. The UML kept
flip-flopping from 7 to 12-state proposal. Madhesis did not care what the
design would be as long as they got a “united” Madhes with all 22 districts from
the Terai. That would have never materialized because far-western Teria
districts want to be a separate Tharuhat while Jhapa, Morang and Sunsari are
interested in calling themselves “Kochila”. And, the Nepali Congress humiliated
itself with that proposal where it elongated the Kathmandu province to touch
the Indian border in the south. Even my 3-year old nephew could see that Nepali
Congress leaders had “lost it”.
It also does not help that some of the people fighting for ethnic
federalism argue with vitriolic rhetoric and poor logic. The writings of people
like CK Lal fan the flames of divisive rhetoric in the ongoing ethnic federalism
debate. Every article is about how pahades have wronged Madhes and everyone
else. Bahuns and Chhetris are blamed for the plight and poverty of Madhesis.
Aren’t Bahuns in the far-west as poor as the Tharus there? A handful of Bahuns
and Chhetris have political power and reach. That doesn’t mean every Bahun and
Chhetri has looted the nation’s coffers and is against Madhesis. Constructive rhetoric
is absent in their arguments.
My interaction a few weeks ago with politicians at the grassroots level
in eastern Terai revealed that they agreed that equal “respect” should be given
to people from all religion, caste, ethnicity, and culture. However, they
unanimously considered the “agradhikar” approach being put forth by national
level politicians as being wrong and divisive. The group mentioned that the
reason why people overthrew the monarchy was because they were fed up with one
group of citizens—the King and his cronies—having power and control over the
resources.
Labels: ethnic, ethnic federalism, federalism
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Post a Comment