Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Federal Journeys
The following opinion piece was published today (July 10, 2012) in Kathmandu Post with the title "Federal Journeys". The direct link to Kathmandu Post is here.
In the past month, I have visited different parts of Nepal to observe focus group discussions of local political actors regarding federalism, restructuring issues, nomenclature of states, “agradhikar” (priority rights) and ethnic federalism. These focus group discussions were held in Jhapa, Janakpur and Dang. During this time, I also interacted with the local citizens in Dang, Kailali and Dadeldhura, gauging their moods regarding the current political crisis and the election announced to be held in November.
According to the grassroots level politicians in Jhapa, Janakpur and Dang, the announcement of fresh elections was not only illogical, but also insensitive coming from the current government because it was not a decision borne from national consensus. We are already risking a broader social crisis due to the failure to re-integrate the Maoists back into society on time. Also, high unemployment, over-reliance on overseas destinations for jobs, growing inflation and government inaction in reining the stalled economy has propagated the economic crisis. The political crisis—as a result of the Maoists backtracking from
the five-point agreement and the failure to deliver the constitution on time—has further fanned the already flaming crises.
The peace process has not come to a satisfactory conclusion, and the Maoists are blamed for this in all three districts. A major hindrance to success has been a section of the Maoist party that does not want to do away with its “armed force”. Maoists are also blamed for developing a hunger for staying in power by any means. They are accused of not participating in any concrete negotiations to resolve thorny issues of integration, federal restructuring and federal states’ nomenclature. In Janakpur, those that face blame are the NC, UML, pro-monarchy actors, Khas-affiliated groups and other status quo-seeking forces. That’s everyone except the Madhesis. These groups are accused of always having “problems” with the Madhesi issues and rights. However, all these political actors confessed that their respective national leaders were not striving hard enough for solutions.
Politicians in Dang claim that the failure to draft the constitution was not because of a lack of compromise or understanding, but it is linked directly with the federal restructuring issue. As it has been reported many times, national level leaders did reach a consensus on many issues. Madhesi Morcha demands that the entire Madhes be split into not more than two states. Then how is it acceptable to split the hills and mountains into more than two states? Isn’t that hypocritical? This, along with the aggressive ethnic federal state demands by the Madhesis and other ethnic groups, is the reason why the current polity could not release a constitution. It was much easier to announce fresh elections and let the next CA deal with such sensitive issues.
Despite their differences, the grassroots politicians in all three districts do not want a single ethnicity-based federal state. They also disagree on the agradhikar concept because it is un-democratic, non-inclusive and non-proportional. The proposal to have the first two chiefs of newly formed states come from dominant ethnic groups in those states flies in the face of democratic principles of elected representation. However, there is support for preferential rights and reservations for the previously oppressed and marginalised groups like Badi, Dalits, Tharus and others. The federalism design should focus on three important things: identity, geography and self-determination. That is a common demand of grassroots level politicians in all three districts.
The politicians in Dang spoke of a survey that was carried out by the CA regarding federalism design. The survey showed that most people in the grassroots level—including political actors—considered “geographic accessibility” as the most important criteria in designing the new federal states. However, this survey result has not been mentioned by the State Restructuring Committee, political parties, the CAs, rights organisations or the media. This highlights the fact that a few dominant voices have hijacked the national level debates on federal restructuring and the public has not found an avenue to voice its opinions. The overwhelming public opinion has conveniently been ignored.
My interaction with the citizens in Dadeldhura and Kailali painted similar pictures. Although people in both these districts are frustrated with the national level political shenanigans, those in Dadeldhura consider their distress futile as they know Sher Bahadur Deuba would win by a landslide in the next election. However, people in Kailali do not fancy giving another chance to the Maoists. Kailali was one of the worst affected districts in the Far-West during the Maoist conflict. The Maoists swept the district in the last election. Also, people here claim that they are now aware that all these ethnic confrontations are nothing but a ruse by the political parties to fool them. They also expect the Maoists to lose the district in the coming election.
Adding insult to injury through these crises, community activists and mediators have reported alarming complaints from villages in Kailali. Conflict-affected single mothers have come to mediators with complaints that their children are increasingly talking of exacting revenge. A teenager with a Maoist father killed by the Army wants to someday kill the army men, and a teenager with an Army father killed by Maoists wants someday to kill the “maobadis”. These young adults have not actually engaged in such sort of retaliation, but the single mothers fear that their kids could take that extra step.
There are other kinds of threats that come through different actors in these areas. For example, my interaction with ethnic activists in Dang showed that the Tharus vehemently demand a “Tharuhat” state and threaten riots if their demand is not met. Tharu activists claim that it is not an ethnic demand, but a demand for identity and protection of that identity. “Tharuhat” would recognise the culture, language and people that are indigenous to that region and have been living there for thousands of years. In addition, Tharu activists want the government to develop reparation packages for Tharus and other groups that have been oppressed for centuries.
On the face of all these emerging problems, maybe dissolving the CA was indeed an easier way out than having to handle the mess. However, we have to realise that avoidance is not the best strategy. You will not know how to slay the beast until you face the beast. Grassroots level politicians and the citizens of Jhapa, Dang, Janakpur, Dadeldhura and Kailali express similar feelings-that we should have just manned up and faced the beast when we had the chance.
In the past month, I have visited different parts of Nepal to observe focus group discussions of local political actors regarding federalism, restructuring issues, nomenclature of states, “agradhikar” (priority rights) and ethnic federalism. These focus group discussions were held in Jhapa, Janakpur and Dang. During this time, I also interacted with the local citizens in Dang, Kailali and Dadeldhura, gauging their moods regarding the current political crisis and the election announced to be held in November.
According to the grassroots level politicians in Jhapa, Janakpur and Dang, the announcement of fresh elections was not only illogical, but also insensitive coming from the current government because it was not a decision borne from national consensus. We are already risking a broader social crisis due to the failure to re-integrate the Maoists back into society on time. Also, high unemployment, over-reliance on overseas destinations for jobs, growing inflation and government inaction in reining the stalled economy has propagated the economic crisis. The political crisis—as a result of the Maoists backtracking from
the five-point agreement and the failure to deliver the constitution on time—has further fanned the already flaming crises.
The peace process has not come to a satisfactory conclusion, and the Maoists are blamed for this in all three districts. A major hindrance to success has been a section of the Maoist party that does not want to do away with its “armed force”. Maoists are also blamed for developing a hunger for staying in power by any means. They are accused of not participating in any concrete negotiations to resolve thorny issues of integration, federal restructuring and federal states’ nomenclature. In Janakpur, those that face blame are the NC, UML, pro-monarchy actors, Khas-affiliated groups and other status quo-seeking forces. That’s everyone except the Madhesis. These groups are accused of always having “problems” with the Madhesi issues and rights. However, all these political actors confessed that their respective national leaders were not striving hard enough for solutions.
Politicians in Dang claim that the failure to draft the constitution was not because of a lack of compromise or understanding, but it is linked directly with the federal restructuring issue. As it has been reported many times, national level leaders did reach a consensus on many issues. Madhesi Morcha demands that the entire Madhes be split into not more than two states. Then how is it acceptable to split the hills and mountains into more than two states? Isn’t that hypocritical? This, along with the aggressive ethnic federal state demands by the Madhesis and other ethnic groups, is the reason why the current polity could not release a constitution. It was much easier to announce fresh elections and let the next CA deal with such sensitive issues.
Despite their differences, the grassroots politicians in all three districts do not want a single ethnicity-based federal state. They also disagree on the agradhikar concept because it is un-democratic, non-inclusive and non-proportional. The proposal to have the first two chiefs of newly formed states come from dominant ethnic groups in those states flies in the face of democratic principles of elected representation. However, there is support for preferential rights and reservations for the previously oppressed and marginalised groups like Badi, Dalits, Tharus and others. The federalism design should focus on three important things: identity, geography and self-determination. That is a common demand of grassroots level politicians in all three districts.
The politicians in Dang spoke of a survey that was carried out by the CA regarding federalism design. The survey showed that most people in the grassroots level—including political actors—considered “geographic accessibility” as the most important criteria in designing the new federal states. However, this survey result has not been mentioned by the State Restructuring Committee, political parties, the CAs, rights organisations or the media. This highlights the fact that a few dominant voices have hijacked the national level debates on federal restructuring and the public has not found an avenue to voice its opinions. The overwhelming public opinion has conveniently been ignored.
My interaction with the citizens in Dadeldhura and Kailali painted similar pictures. Although people in both these districts are frustrated with the national level political shenanigans, those in Dadeldhura consider their distress futile as they know Sher Bahadur Deuba would win by a landslide in the next election. However, people in Kailali do not fancy giving another chance to the Maoists. Kailali was one of the worst affected districts in the Far-West during the Maoist conflict. The Maoists swept the district in the last election. Also, people here claim that they are now aware that all these ethnic confrontations are nothing but a ruse by the political parties to fool them. They also expect the Maoists to lose the district in the coming election.
Adding insult to injury through these crises, community activists and mediators have reported alarming complaints from villages in Kailali. Conflict-affected single mothers have come to mediators with complaints that their children are increasingly talking of exacting revenge. A teenager with a Maoist father killed by the Army wants to someday kill the army men, and a teenager with an Army father killed by Maoists wants someday to kill the “maobadis”. These young adults have not actually engaged in such sort of retaliation, but the single mothers fear that their kids could take that extra step.
There are other kinds of threats that come through different actors in these areas. For example, my interaction with ethnic activists in Dang showed that the Tharus vehemently demand a “Tharuhat” state and threaten riots if their demand is not met. Tharu activists claim that it is not an ethnic demand, but a demand for identity and protection of that identity. “Tharuhat” would recognise the culture, language and people that are indigenous to that region and have been living there for thousands of years. In addition, Tharu activists want the government to develop reparation packages for Tharus and other groups that have been oppressed for centuries.
On the face of all these emerging problems, maybe dissolving the CA was indeed an easier way out than having to handle the mess. However, we have to realise that avoidance is not the best strategy. You will not know how to slay the beast until you face the beast. Grassroots level politicians and the citizens of Jhapa, Dang, Janakpur, Dadeldhura and Kailali express similar feelings-that we should have just manned up and faced the beast when we had the chance.
Labels: Dadeldhura, Dang, ethnic federalism, federalism, Janakpur, Jhapa, Kailali
Monday, June 25, 2012
Federalism from the ground
The following article was published in Republica on June 25 with the title "The true picture: Federalism from the ground". The direct link to Republica is here.
The true picture: Federalism from the ground
A day after we missed the deadline for drafting the new constitution, I
was at a barber’s shop waiting to get a haircut. The shop had two benches
outside for people to sit and wait for their turn. The benches were occupied by
middle-aged Nepali men who, as we’d all guess, were discussing politics and
cursing the politicians for their failure to deliver the constitution.
They condemned Maoist Chairman Prachanda, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and leaders of the CPN-UML, NC and Madhesi parties. Soon, Ang Kaji Sherpa’s name popped up during a conversation on ethnic federalism. “It was gravely irresponsible of Prachanda to ask the ethnic minorities to rebel. What was he thinking? Has he lost his mind?” they discussed. These people, however, had failed to understand that all of Prachanda’s actions and words now are motivated by his ambition to become the President someday. He was only trying to muster future votes from the minorities for his presidential bid. A person who led a decade-long insurgency, and succeeded, cannot be stupid to do/say something without a reason.
They condemned Maoist Chairman Prachanda, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and leaders of the CPN-UML, NC and Madhesi parties. Soon, Ang Kaji Sherpa’s name popped up during a conversation on ethnic federalism. “It was gravely irresponsible of Prachanda to ask the ethnic minorities to rebel. What was he thinking? Has he lost his mind?” they discussed. These people, however, had failed to understand that all of Prachanda’s actions and words now are motivated by his ambition to become the President someday. He was only trying to muster future votes from the minorities for his presidential bid. A person who led a decade-long insurgency, and succeeded, cannot be stupid to do/say something without a reason.
The most heated debate was on the restructuring issue in federal Nepal.
One of the arguments was particularly compelling. ‘Suppose you are a father and
you have three sons and three pieces of land with varying quality; will you
give the best piece to one son, the good piece to another and the barren (the
worst piece) to the last one? Or, will you try to figure out a more equitable
and just distribution so that none of your children feel cheated?’
If the father does not figure out a way to scientifically distribute his land fairly amongst his children, they will not be able to live in harmony. The same is going to happen in Nepal due to unequal distribution. How can you give the entire Tarai—the most productive land in Nepal—to one group of people? Those people outside the barber’s shop had a point. For example, if Tharuhat becomes a federal state, aren’t you doing injustice to the other group of people who live in the hills and mountains in the Far-west? If Tharuhat refuses to send food, people in the hills and mountains of Karnali will starve.
Those awaiting outside the barber’s shop in Kathmandu aren’t the only people echoing such sentiments. In the past month, I have had interactions with politicians in Jhapa and Janakpur. Politicians in Jhapa believe in giving equal respect to all people in Nepal. Therefore, they reject any ethnic federalism proposal. Politicians in Janakpur want recognition and promotion of various ethnic groups in the region, but they reject designing the states based on ethnicity. They believe that proportional representation and economics should drive the federalism debate. Ethnic federalism, as it turns out, is not a demand from the grassroots.
It is essential that the federated states pay attention to geography, economic capacity and ethnic identity. Attention to ethnic identity, however, does not mean an ethnicity-based federal state but conservation and encouragement of all ethnic groups with proportional representation in politics. Also, people at the grassroots reject some claims that federalism and state restructuring in Nepal will diminish social harmony. They instead believe that such a federal structure will actually enhance the social fabric and make it stronger.
Both groups—from Jhapa and Janakpur—agree on the provision of preferential rights on resources to marginalized and deprived groups. However, the agradhikar concept is neither proportional nor inclusive and, therefore, un-democratic. On some issues like jobs and employment to groups that have been ignored in the past, agradhikar may be good. But, the proposal that the first two chief ministers of the newly federated states should be from the dominant ethnic group is not acceptable. The federal states should either decide on this issue through voting or all political positions should be determined by who wins elections. After all, we still live in a democracy and therefore, should honor democratic principles by electing representatives through elections.
If the father does not figure out a way to scientifically distribute his land fairly amongst his children, they will not be able to live in harmony. The same is going to happen in Nepal due to unequal distribution. How can you give the entire Tarai—the most productive land in Nepal—to one group of people? Those people outside the barber’s shop had a point. For example, if Tharuhat becomes a federal state, aren’t you doing injustice to the other group of people who live in the hills and mountains in the Far-west? If Tharuhat refuses to send food, people in the hills and mountains of Karnali will starve.
Those awaiting outside the barber’s shop in Kathmandu aren’t the only people echoing such sentiments. In the past month, I have had interactions with politicians in Jhapa and Janakpur. Politicians in Jhapa believe in giving equal respect to all people in Nepal. Therefore, they reject any ethnic federalism proposal. Politicians in Janakpur want recognition and promotion of various ethnic groups in the region, but they reject designing the states based on ethnicity. They believe that proportional representation and economics should drive the federalism debate. Ethnic federalism, as it turns out, is not a demand from the grassroots.
It is essential that the federated states pay attention to geography, economic capacity and ethnic identity. Attention to ethnic identity, however, does not mean an ethnicity-based federal state but conservation and encouragement of all ethnic groups with proportional representation in politics. Also, people at the grassroots reject some claims that federalism and state restructuring in Nepal will diminish social harmony. They instead believe that such a federal structure will actually enhance the social fabric and make it stronger.
Both groups—from Jhapa and Janakpur—agree on the provision of preferential rights on resources to marginalized and deprived groups. However, the agradhikar concept is neither proportional nor inclusive and, therefore, un-democratic. On some issues like jobs and employment to groups that have been ignored in the past, agradhikar may be good. But, the proposal that the first two chief ministers of the newly federated states should be from the dominant ethnic group is not acceptable. The federal states should either decide on this issue through voting or all political positions should be determined by who wins elections. After all, we still live in a democracy and therefore, should honor democratic principles by electing representatives through elections.
Ethnic division within major political parties has been blamed for the
current political stalemate. Although inclusiveness and proportional
representation is advocated by all parties, it is clear that the parties are
not practicing what they preach. The impasse on peace, federalism and state
restructuring will continue if we keep ignoring ethnic voices within the
parties. Instead of dissolving the CA, it would have been wiser to form a
re-structured polity to engage in finalizing the constitution because the fact
remains that there were many compromises and agreements anyway made during the
process. Electing a new CA may undo the agreements that have been made in
framing the constitution. However, everyone does acknowledge that national
level leaders were constrained by the Supreme Court’s decision to deny any more
extensions to the CA.
In both Jhapa and Janakpur, there is a growing distrust for national level politics and politicians. Both these groups of politicians feel that the flaming, and often violent, ethnic rhetoric has not served these regions well. They both believe in promotion of different identities but disagree on ethnicity-based federal states. More tellingly, the politicians in Janakpur confided that most of what was portrayed nationally about the demands of ‘Mithila’ was incorrect. Most such demands did not emanate from the ground. These politicians rue the fact that their dialogues at the national level have been hijacked by a handful of influential politicians and columnists writing on the issues of Madhes and Mithila. In the opinion of these grassroots politicians, these national level politicians and journalists do not reflect the real demands of people on the ground.
In both Jhapa and Janakpur, there is a growing distrust for national level politics and politicians. Both these groups of politicians feel that the flaming, and often violent, ethnic rhetoric has not served these regions well. They both believe in promotion of different identities but disagree on ethnicity-based federal states. More tellingly, the politicians in Janakpur confided that most of what was portrayed nationally about the demands of ‘Mithila’ was incorrect. Most such demands did not emanate from the ground. These politicians rue the fact that their dialogues at the national level have been hijacked by a handful of influential politicians and columnists writing on the issues of Madhes and Mithila. In the opinion of these grassroots politicians, these national level politicians and journalists do not reflect the real demands of people on the ground.
Labels: ethnic federalism, federalism, Janakpur, Jhapa
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
