Tuesday, January 7, 2014
We have the political leadership we deserve
The following opinion piece was published in Republica on January 7. 2013 with the title "Like for like". The direct link to Republica is here.
Like for Like
Let us cut to the chase. We all know what they say about ‘politics’ in general, that it is a dirty game. In Nepal, politics is not just a dirty game. It is a filthy game. The players have bankrupt moralities, bulging bank accounts, no sense of obligation to those who got them elected, and no sense of ‘duty’ to serve or work for the greater good.
In recent times, a few facts have emerged out of Nepali political characteristics. When a constituent asked if he would ever step again in the constituency that elected him in Jhapa, UML leader Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli was quick to quip that he had been elected as an MP and not as a VDC secretary. If only Oli was as quick in actually doing the work he has been repeatedly elected to do, people in Jhapa would never have had to ask that question. Speaking of VDC secretaries, if Oli and his party worked even half as hard as a Nepali VDC secretary does these days in absence of elected local officials, they would have formed the new parliament by now. They barely got their PR list together after a month of the election results. We have no idea how long we should wait for them to form a government.
The politicians’ readymade quip for their less powerful constituents clearly shows the attitude they have towards the public. They see themselves as superior masters, and us as their subservient servants whose only job is to occasionally cast votes for them, and then shut up. Karl Marx was right when he said that the oppressed are allowed, once every few years, to decide which particular representative of the oppressing class will represent and repress them. It is ironic that Marxists and Leninists such as Oli enjoy Marx’s nightmare with glee.
One of the core responsibilities of a member of parliament is to “raise issues of his/her constituents”. Yes, the MP is involved in discussions and negotiations in the House, and in drafting laws and bills, but they also have an obligation to listen to the problems of people that elected them. How many times have Oli or other MPs from Jhapa raised the wild elephant issue in the parliament in order to find a solution? How about the supari crisis that farmers in Jhapa have been facing for the past few years? Community forests in Jhapa are being exploited by timber mafia while the public that takes care of the forests don’t get to consume its products. This has been a persistent issue for around two decades in Jhapa. How many times have MPs from Jhapa raised those issues in the parliament to seek solutions? It is one thing to make a smart quip to make your constituent look silly in front of the media, but entirely another to actually do what you were elected to do.
The second fact is that despite not listening to us, our politicians pretend to know us and our worries. They pretend to know what’s good for us. The Maoists deserve credit for raising issues of minorities and asking them to fight for equity and equality between all castes, classes and creeds in Nepal. However, the greed of political power got to them and they exploited the marginalized for their political gain, which I am sure they regret today. The leadership formed of upper-caste Brahmin men asked minority groups to follow them in the fight. Now, there is nothing wrong in upper-caste men leading minorities in their struggles. Many white Americans were involved in fighting for the rights of Black Americans in the 1960s. The feminist movement during the 1970s had many men as leaders and supporters. But, how many upper caste Brahmin men have led minority struggles and become wealthy in a span of six years?
The third fact is that the Rana oligarchy has returned in Nepal, and our political leaders are the New Ranas. Major parties create a High Level Political Committee, and this HLPC decides who becomes what, what is to be done, and who does that. Nepali political parties today have mastered the ‘cartel’ theory, second only to OPEC, the organization of petroleum exporting countries. The cartel of high ranking political leaderships has been making decisions as a group and deciding the fate of Nepali politics and democracy for some years now. In the past, they had decided on taking turns on which party gets the prime minister’s post. As a result of this oligarchic decision making, a person who lost from two different constituencies was able to become the prime minister. The same idea of taking turns is being floated again. Money from state coffers has been distributed to uncles, wives, nephews and sons for their vacation or mountaineering efforts. If this doesn’t remind us of the Ranas, I don’t know what will.
However, the fault lies in us. As the great George Carlin mentioned, these politicians did not come out of nowhere. They did not fall from the sky. They come from Nepali parents and families. They come from Nepali public and private schools, colleges and universities. And, not to mention, they are elected by Nepalis. We produced these politicians. We snatch money in the airport from our sisters who return from the Middle East, and then hand her over to the policeman, the protector, to rape her. We solicit bribes in broad daylight and are proud of it. We sweep our homes every morning and throw the dirt outside our walls because we are selfish and we want our homes clean but don’t care an ounce about our streets being dirty. So, the fault lies in us. We are selfish, amoral and greedy people, and we have got the political leaderships that we deserve—selfish, amoral and greedy.
Labels: George Carlin, HLPC, Jhapa, KP Oli, maoists, Marx, oligarchy, politics, Rana
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Jhapa’s refugee woes—then and now
The following article was published in Republica on January 12, 2012 with the title "In another country". The unedited version is below.
Jhapa’s refugee woes—then and now
Bhutani
refugee influx in eastern Nepal made many Jhapalis unhappy two decades ago.
Local governments were not ready to accommodate a large influx of people. As a
result, public service delivery got stretched to its limits. The incoming
group’s different cultural background brought frequent conflicts between locals
and refugees. Slowly, the locals and the refugees adjusted to the situation,
and the locals even employed refugees as cheap labor in construction and
agriculture. However, now that many refugees have started relocating to western
countries, many Jhapalis are unhappy, again.
It is
not that there were no local conflicts in Jhapa before the refugees arrived.
Arrival of Bhutani refugees and their subsequent resettlement in the eastern
camps further aggravated many social problems in Jhapa. Youth unemployment was
already a significant problem. After their arrival, the refugees provided their
labor and services for cheap since they were not legally permitted to work. Local
unemployed youths did not view this favorably, and conflict ensued.
Refugees
were also accused of bringing with them an acceptance of a culture of taking in
multiple spouses. Elders in local
communities in Jhapa disapproved of this practice among the refugees. However,
in the last two decades, the practice has seeped into local culture. As a
result, recent generations of locals in communities next to refugee camps have
also started taking in multiple wives. That has created conflict between older and
younger generations of locals in communities surrounding the refugee camps in
Jhapa.
Locals
in surrounding communities also mention that, in comparison to the local
population, the refugees were knowledgeable about medicinal herbs. They could
identify medicinal herbs and plants in the forests around the camps. Since they
were not allowed to work legally, refugees took to the forests and collected
these herbs, and sold them as a way to earn an income. As a result, locals still
accuse refugees of overharvesting local forests of essential herbs which
ultimately affects the wellbeing of the forests.
Because
their incomes were limited, refugees could not afford fuels and resorted to
getting firewood from nearby community forests. As a result, locals still accuse
them of destroying local community forests through excessive cattle grazing and
cutting trees for firewood. The illegal use of community forests’ resources created
a variety of conflicts between the refugee population and the locals. While blaming
refugees for deforestation family and friends of a refugee that died in the
camp were declined necessary wood for cremation by the locals and community
forestry groups in multiple occasions.
Life
continued in the refugee camps and in surrounding communities despite, even
amidst, various disagreements and conflicts. Slowly the two sides learnt to
live with each other. However, the locals who had failed to adapt to changing
conditions had hoped that rehabilitation efforts by various agencies, such as the
International Organization for Migration, would take care of the refugee
nuisance, thus bringing the good old peaceful times back. But, current
rehabilitation and resettlement efforts for refugees have not brought desired
peace and harmony back in the local communities. Instead, resettlement efforts
have brought new sets of problems.
There
has been an increase in intra-camp conflicts between refugees who want to leave
and those who don’t. Those who wish to leave cannot be faulted for their choice
because they have remained stateless for over two decades now with no hopes of
getting citizenship rights in Nepal. For the sake of their own future and of
their children’s, resettlement to America, Canada or Australia is an enticing
offer as it opens an opportunity of citizenship and larger rights instead of
becoming stateless citizen for who knows how many more years. Also, many have
accepted the reality that it seems highly unlikely Bhutan will ever accept them
back.
However,
a group of refugees who choose to stay behind in the camps abhor these asylum
seekers. Those who have decided to stay behind claim doing so in order to keep
fighting for their principles and rights. They believe that seeking asylum in
the west represents a win for the brutal Bhutani monarchy and a defeat for
those who champion democratic ideals. Resettlement has polarized the camp
population into factions, increasing intra-camp conflicts. Many have been hurt,
a few even killed, during demonstrations and subsequent altercations between
the two groups.
Those that
have successfully resettled in the western countries frequently send remittance
money to their friends and family left behind in the camps in Jhapa. While remittance money helps refugees in the
camps to afford essentials and luxury goods which were beyond their means
earlier, it has also fueled an increase in drug use among camp members
according to the locals in the surrounding communities. As a result, locals
accuse those left behind in camps as being “criminal” types who are going to affect
and spoil the current and next generation of locals. Such accusations have further
increased conflicts between refugees and locals.
There
are also economic impacts due to resettlement efforts. Local entrepreneurs who
had bought land and built shops by spending exorbitant amounts near camp sites
have suffered huge losses after resettlement efforts. Land and rent prices have
fallen sharply in the surrounding areas. Local youths who went for employment
overseas because they could not compete with cheap refugee laborers aren’t
coming back to work locally. So, local businesses now face difficulty finding sufficient
labor. And, so, the local communities in Jhapa, surrounding the refugee camp
sites, are back to being unhappy, again.
Labels: Jhapa, refugees, resettlement, unemployment
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]
