Published: March 24, 2009
Letter to the Editor
Talk of Federation a Self-Satisfying Object, Denying the Welfare of Nepal
Comments on: How to federate Nepal and Nepalese?
Response to my fellow Nepali brothers' and sisters' emails!
I have been reading emails from different people bearing different answers for the proposed research: How to federate Nepal and Nepalese?
The proposed research topic is the precious gift of our very friendly neighbor and big brother, India, which was not included in the 12 point agreement of November 2005. Had India included the idea of federation then, Nepali Congress and UML might have taken different approaches against the King Gyanendra regime. And, if India knew the Chinese were given so much space in Republic Nepal, it would have loved to stick just to replace the autocratic Monarchy as stipulated in the 12 point agreement.
It is believed Mrs. Sonia Gandhi saying to King Gyanendra that she and Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh never wished to see Nepal without the Monarchy during the 10 Janpath gathering. Please note that whenever India with the Nepali King or leaders wanted change, that invariably took place in Nepal.
The East India Company wanted Jung Bahadur Kunwar (Rana) in power (1846); India sided with King Tribhuvan/Nepali Congress to dismantle the Rana Oligarchy (1951), BP Koirala was out of power and the parliament was disbanded (1960) due to Prime Minister Nehru's excessive pressure over King Mahendra; King Birendra was forced to reestablish the multiparty system (1989) when India supported the Jana Andolan carried out jointly by Nepali Congress and the United Left Front; the success of the Jana Andolan II (April 2006) is the product of India.
To remind you all, initially the 12 point agreement was written in Hindi and translated into Nepali and English by Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai the day it was to be signed. This very 12 point agreement was signed in South Block, the root of Jana Andolan II.
This time, whoever becomes Prime Minister of India (likely, either Pranab Mukherjee or LK Adwani) is in favor of Nepal's Monarchy. In this case, if they don't require the help of communists, it is very likely India's Nepal policy will turn around.
My question is what if another political turn occurs in Nepal?
Is there any guarantee that Nepal will have a New Constitution? Writing and showing a bundle of papers called the Constitution is not that difficult. Any Constitutional expert can do that in one week. We need to incorporate the feelings of almost 30 million Nepalese. Each and every article must be debated as per the people's wish and the ground reality. One year has already lapsed just for political maneuverings without even tabling one article or preamble.
More than the political leaders, we are responsible to bring Nepal to this state. Blaming those leaders is a part of an effort to hide our own impotency. It is to be noted that we are not a failed state, we still have hope.
Nepal has tremendous natural resources that can make us stand on par with affluent nations. Just because of a remittance and halt in the so called people's war, we are doing well economically, despite the international economic slow down.
We should be more concerned with economic development which can only be achieved in peace. And this peace could be disturbed if we start demanding Nepal's divisions into 11 states, 22 states or 24 states, which the Maoists demand for their political advancement.
Any demand for federation of Nepal into states could simply be termed a politically motivated slogan, not feasible given the geographical and ethnic divisions. The federation into states is not the right answer to Nepal's peace and economic development. Rather it can invite more trouble in the future. Politically, the federation will pose more danger to the present physical structures of Nepal.
From One Madhesh One Pradesh, one more trouble erupted. Now, Tharus need their own state. From one Newa State in the valley might create a demand for three States, Patan, Kantipur and Bhadgaon. If Shrestha, Malla and Rajbhandari could reach the political echelon in these states what about other castes like Pradhan, Manandhar, Tuladhar, Amatya. They equally have the right to demand their own states. They might demand a new state where they outnumber other castes.
A more dangerous situation might erupt the day the non-Newa(r)s begin demanding a Pakhe/Parbate State in the valley because they now outnumber the Newa(r)s. Everybody wants to protect their rights. This very ground reality can explode throughout the nation. The Chhetris and Brahmans are scattered all over Nepal. Why would they accept to remain under a particular clan's State?
The federation of Nepal and Nepalese would only benefit the people with the majority numbers. They are Chhetri, Brahman, Magar, Tamang, Gurung, Tharus, some Madhesi clans and the rest will be set up for another round of revolt.
There is nothing better if the under-privileged Nepalese either men or women without distinction of Dalits, Brahmans, Chhetris, Tharus, Magars or so are given education and more opportunity for better lives through economic development. For this to happen, peace is a must. Federation of Nepal and Nepalese stands contrary to a long-lasting peace.
It will invite perennial conflict in a land of Sita and Budhha. The right to life, right to food, right to shelter and right to enlightenment are what Nepalese people really need. Talking and writing about the federation is just a self-satisfying object and denying the welfare of Nepal and the people of Nepal.
Bishal Shah
* The views of Letter writers do not necessarily reflect the views of NewsBlaze
Search News
