Bhariyadai,

तपाईको शुभकामनाको भारी स्वीकारें । धन्यवाद बन्धु !

*** *** *** *** *** ***

Bhikhaari,

I take your advice very well.

My purpose is not to vilify Maoist model.

In fact, I think if we remove ethnic dimension from the model, it could be a very good starting point to do what I call a puzzle game to come up with a territorial scheme that satisfies as required the fundamental principle of new Nepal (we can compile these principles stated in various ways, but to me, it’s the following: Every citizen of Nepal is born equal; every identity and culture is dignified equal).

Theoretically, a large number of good combinations (of land and population) is possible and I am aware of several brilliant combination proposed by various scholars. We can pick any of them, recombine them if we like, and they are all good.

My purpose is not to contribute in that.

My purpose is rather to search for the initial practical basis for searching a suitable combination. These bases, as goes without saying, should be addressing all current grievances and all fears about future.

Unfortunately, that part is the least touched by most of the scholars working with the problem.

मेरो चुत्थो प्रयास त्यतातिर केही योगदान दिन सकिन्छ कि भन्ने हो ।

I have introduced some ideas (I must admit they are in very coarse form) which I think do address the genuine grievances (of past exclusion) raised by the ethnic federalists as well as the hope/wish/fear of others (inclusion of subalterns, social harmony and more priority to economy rather than to the politics of symbolism and so on).

My idea basically is more decentralization (more empowered and resourced LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ) such that the sub-centralization (REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS) become less relevant.

One logical backup for this idea comes from our own experience of the evolution and success of local governance vis-à-vis regional and central governance. I have put this idea in the following model.

More later.

Nepe