MATTER OF WILL: CHHERING YONZON ETHNIC FEDERALISM We can create a viable future for federal Nepal by drawing important lessons from history. The need of the hour is to eradicate suspicions and hatred towards one another in a diverse country like ours. At this critical period, only inter-community dialogue at people-to-people level can erase mutual suspicions. Regrettably, the CA members have failed to do so. Frankly, the Khas group feels that ‘ethnic federalism’ would empower Indigenous (mulvasis) and the former second class subjects. On the other hand the Indigenous (mulvasis) believe that ‘administrative federalism’ will only defragment the centralized rule and create half a dozen Singha Durbars, thereby keeping them as excluded as before. The non-territorial groups (Dalits, Muslims) feel insecure because they believe their aspirations are being ignored. The Madhesis are viewed as opportunists who may turn the table and impose economic embargo over other hilly provinces if their ‘One Madhesh, One Pradesh’ demand is honored. In order to quell this mutual suspicion, we need to ask ourselves some soul-searching questions: 1) What do we exactly mean by ethnic state (jaatiya rajya)? 2) If historic identity-based provinces do not work in multiethnic countries then how come it’s thriving in India, the world’s largest democracy and Switzerland, a federal nation much smaller than Nepal? 3) Is linguistic identity based federal model followed by Switzerland and Indian ethnic states? 4) Was one language-one religion-one culture set up followed by Shahs, Ranas and then Panchayat for last 250 years in a diversely multiethnic nation like ours also a manifestation of ‘ethnic state’ the other way round? 5) Is West Bengal/Punjab in India an ethnic state or rather a state for every domicile citizen with only the name based on heritage and linguistic identity? 6) If highways, airports, dry ports, border points of entry/exit, taxation and revenues are controlled by the central government then why does one hilly province feels threatened by a Tarai province? 7) If vertical north-south model covering all three terrains is required for federal feasibility, how come mountain states like Arunachal Pradesh/Sikkim (miniscule federal provinces) thrive today? The worldwide federal experience shows that ‘administrative federalism’ only works in a demographically homogenous country like Australia; it helps devolve power from the center to regions and promotes administrative efficiency (hence their neutral provincial names: Northern Territories, South Australia, etc). Even United States, a fairly homogeneous society, out of respect named its provinces based on historical heritage of the indigenous natives dwelling in those regions (i.e. North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho, etc). Are those provinces ethnic states? Are the Senators and Governors there only from a particular community? Definitely not. The political ideological spectrum runs from extreme right to the extreme left. In between there is the centrist school. The center-right leaning Nepali Congress and extreme rightist outfits like RPP seem averse to historical heritage-based federal model, misidentifying them for ethnic state (the 11 provinces of majority SRC members). In fact the rightists and paradoxically even the leftists (Chitra Bahadur KC) oppose the very concept of federalism. Here are a few ways to carve out a viable federal model for Nepal. Well, its people who aspire for a political system and governance; not the mountains and rivers. Hence the names of provinces based on indigenous population (i.e. Dakota) even in a homogeneous society like the US. Unfortunately, the NC and the far-rightists still seem to sub-consciously support Mahendra-mala indoctrinated ‘one language-one religion-one culture’ instilled by Shah rulers 250 years ago. They unknowingly reflect dearth of open minded, liberal and progressive outlook in the changed political scenario. They seem unable to grasp the benign and harmless nature of the term ‘Limbuwan’ as much as ‘Oklahoma’ stands today in federal US (with historical heritage the sole criterion for demarcation of states) nomenclature. Ironically it was the extreme leftists in the Maoists who propagated the idea of federalism based on historical heritage and linguistic identity that was prevalent in medieval Nepal well before Prithivi Narayan Shah sallied forth on an invasive unification campaign from his kingdom in Gorkha. India tried ‘administrative federalism’ in early 1950s but soon realized that it would not work in a culturally pluralistic and heterogeneous society. The result was linguistic riots as one group felt frustrated and under-represented vis-à-vis others. Later on they opted for states based on historic heritage and linguistic identity (i.e. Punjab, Gujarat, etc.). This made for cohesive social bonding as people felt wanted and heard as a province. However this does not mean other groups inside any state were discriminated. A linguistic majority group dominant in a province should not have any political privileges. The constitution’s inclusive institutions shall make all communities living in a province (whether majority or minority) equally identified and represented. Some of the measures that can be put in place to ensure inclusively (for example the state of ‘Limbuwan’ treating non-Limbu and Limbu communities alike) are: 1) A proportional representation electoral system; 2) Linguistic equality; 3) Constitutional protection of minority rights; 4) Centralized constitutional courts for judicial review; 5) Reservation policies and quotas; 6) Affirmative action policies; 7) Community autonomy inside the federal framework; and 8) Secularism. (Glass; Linder; Lawoti et al) These mechanisms eliminate or prevent: a) social exclusion b) cultural discrimination c) economic inequality d) political domination—for all communities in countries like Switzerland and India that have adopted historical heritage and linguistic identity as the basis for federalism. Yet another measure to ensure functional federalism are provisions on 1) ‘Territorial federalism’ say for territorial groups like Tamang, Limbu etc., but also 2) ‘Non territorial federalism’ inside every territorial federalism’ for non-territorial groups like Dalits, Muslims, Khas etc. 3) ‘Group sub-autonomy’ for small concentrated groups (e.g. Hyolmo, Kusunda) and 4) ‘Special privileges’ for extremely marginalized miniscule groups (e.g. Rautey, Chepang etc). It is the rejection of federalism and group autonomy with the resultant denial of aspiration and identity of diverse cultural groups that invites insurgency and secession movements. Take Sri Lanka where the LTTE waged a bitter civil war for 27 years or the ongoing Tamil struggle against the Sinhalese majority; or South Sudan with its Christian majority; or East Timor with the majority of Portuguese speakers—these communities never felt included in the national mainstream and eventually seceded. To the contrary, New Delhi, all of 2,000 kilometers away from Nagaland (consisting of people of totally different race, culture, religion, language and values to the mainstream Indian populace) has nonetheless managed to preserve its sovereignty over the Naga territory through astute federalism and group autonomy. Brazil, Canada and New Zealand practice ‘sub group autonomy’ which is a socio-political state institution that safeguards the rights and identity of every minority or non-territorial group inside a linguistically identified state such as, say, Tharuhat or Limbuwan. To make Nepal multi-lingual lessons can be drawn from experiences of India, Switzerland and Singapore. The language medium could be bi-lingual at the centre with English and Khas Nepali being brought to use while multi-lingual policies can be adopted in federal provinces with Khas Nepali and one predominant regional language used at the legislative council (i.e. Tamang in Tamangsaling). But, at the same time, all the other minority languages in the provinces will be safeguarded through ‘sub autonomic’ units. In other words the future legislative assembly in federal capitals should be like a mini UN General Assembly. This is the second of a two-part article on ethno-federalism by the author, a medical doctor by profession. The first part was published on Feb 19, 201
Posted on: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:35:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015