[Show all top banners]

openyourmind
Replies to this thread:

More by openyourmind
What people are reading
Subscribers
:: Subscribe
Back to: Kurakani General Refresh page to view new replies
 HARD FACTS :FEDERALISM
[VIEWED 11803 TIMES]
SAVE! for ease of future access.
Posted on 01-06-08 11:07 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

 

 

Hard facts about federalism


By Avantika Regmi


It’s been just a few days that the self-appointed rulers of our Motherland have arbitrarily declared her a “Federal Republic.” Maybe this terminology sounds great and conveys feelings of a rosy and prosperous future for some selected groups, but for me, personally, these words are nothing more than the death knell of my unfortunate and poor, yet so beautiful, calm and serene, my most beloved Mother Nepal. In the paragraphs below I will try to bring out the reasons why I have this strong feeling, the premonition, and the fears of this inevitable eventuality of Nepal’s death knell.


First and foremost, what does a Federal Republic mean? A federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government. A federation in turn means the composition of a number of self-governing states united by a federal government.  Alternately, a federal republic can also be defined as one in which authority is divided and shared among different units of government. Thus, theoretically, federalism is the antithesis of centralization and unification of a country. To borrow an analogy from Physics, federalism is a centrifugal force where individual units want to fly away but are held together by a centripetal force. Federalism is designed to achieve some self-rule and shared rule amongst all the constituent member states.

 

Next, an indicator of the popularity and success of Federalism would be borne by the number of existing Federal Republics. How many nations are Federal Republics? Surprisingly, there are not more than twenty Federal Republics. The most prominent ones being Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, Switzerland, and the United States. Nepal is the newest entrant to this list preceded by Iraq. Then there were the Federal Republics of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, not so long ago, which now no longer exist.

And, even more surprising, there are only five nations worldwide who unequivocally declare themselves as a Federal Republic, i.e. federalism is enshrined in their name itself: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Federative Republic of Brazil and Federal Republic of Iraq. Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal would be only the sixth explicit Federal Republic worldwide. Why do countries fear to enter this club of explicit federal republics even after declaring them to be some sort of a federation?

 

The difference between an unequivocal Federal Republic (which Nepal has become) and only having some spirit of it, but not really becoming one, can be understood more clearly by looking at the example of India. Dr BR Ambedkar, the chairman of the constitution drafting committee in India, was dead against federalism and point blank refused to insert the word “federal” in the final constitution of India (that came out in 1950). Jawaharlal Nehru was also against this whole concept – the constitution committees chaired by Nehru recommended a centralized federal model.


It is important to understand the distinction between a federal republic and a centralized federal model because the centralized federal model is not representative of a true federal system, as maximum power is still concentrated at the center with only an appearance of federalism by constituting state governments. Moreover, the refusal of Dr Ambedkar to explicitly include India as a federal republic should make one to ponder a lot and be very wary of including this word in the name of a nation.  

 

The reluctance of Dr Ambedkar and Nehru makes a lot of sense when one considers the fact that India was not formed that easily. Sardar Patel, the then home minister and strong man of India, had to often threaten and cajole the wayward Princely states and arm-twist them to join the union of India. In the end India was an amalgamation of around five hundred princely states, some even larger in spatial extent and population than Nepal (example, princely state of Hyderabad) and, moreover, all “enjoying some form of local autonomy.”

 

If the founding fathers had included the word “federal” in the constitution it would have laid the foundation for a weak center that could eventually fail to hold a nation forged together with such a great difficulty. Let me now provide the reasoning why the few nations that chose to become an explicit federal republic did so.

 

Czechoslovakia came into being in 1919 and was formed by merging two politically distinct entities - the Czech and Slovak regions. There was no force involved in this union; it was based on the fundamental concern for their mutual security. They wanted to create a bigger nation to strengthen them militarily and economically. Moreover, the Slovak region was promised some semblance of self-rule. Thus, the term Federal Republic makes sense here.


Another example is Nigeria, the only “federal” state in the whole of Africa until Ethiopia declared itself a federal state in 1994. The bringing together of various ethnically and culturally distinct regions in 1914 amalgamated the Nigeria of today. Nigeria was bequeathed a federal constitutional rule by its British colonists in 1954 after a series of demands for regional autonomy and “rights to secession.” By the time Nigeria gained independence in 1960, its three regions had already become self-governing. Thus, when Nigeria declared itself a Federal Republic in 1963 it made sense because not only had the nation already adopted a federal form of government, a decade earlier, but also its three regions had almost become independent. Thus, Nigerian leaders may have hastened to enshrine Nigeria as an explicit Federal Republic, so as to prevent the breaking apart of the nation and to consolidate the Nigerian Republic.

 

Another example, the Swiss federal constitution (promulgated 160 years ago) came into existence at the end of a civil war between Catholic and liberal cantons. In another example, in Argentina the implementation of Federalism started after rural strongmen from three provinces waged a battle after their demand that the juntas in Buenos Aires establish a federation was not met. The rural strongmen won the battle (in 1820) after which the provinces signed a treaty, that enshrined that the provinces would not be controlled from Buenos Aires henceforth, but things did not turn out the way the rural strongmen wanted after all, i.e. the Argentina of today is not an explicit federal republic.

 

Now coming to the case of Mother Nepal: did Nepal go through any danger of disintegration or war between various parts of the nation such as those of Nigeria, Argentina, or Switzerland? Or on the contrary are we in the process of creating a bigger state like Czechoslovakia? Bear in mind that all these nations became federal republics to consolidate the integrity and cohesion of their respective nation states. When we already exist as a solid unitary state what is the sense of turning it into a federal republic thereby sowing the seeds of a future weak nation?

 

Federalism is a process to increase the strength of warring or friendly nation states by coming together, and a movement in the direction of a unitary state. To break a unitary state into a federation smacks of nothing else but a mischievous attempt to weaken Nepal

 

Keep in mind that nations like Nigeria and Ethiopia declared themselves Federal Republics to placate the secessionist groups that were ready to break the integrity of the nation. On the contrary there has not been a single ethnically motivated separatist or secessionist movement that has been waged on the soil of Nepal. Nepal has been a solid unitary state for more than 200 years and that’s not a small length of time. Thus, again how on earth can any sane mind think of declaring this solid nation a “Federal” Republic and weaken it from inside? Only enemies of the nation or gullible idiots can agree to this.

 

Moreover, the stupidity of the supporters of a federal republic can be understood from the fact that this must be the only nation in modern history to declare itself a Federal Republic when time tested republic states have not dared to. Please go and ask the Indians, who presumably have blessed this move, whether they would dare to convert India into an explicit federal republic.


Of course, the merchants of destruction vehemently cry aloud that Nepal had to be declared a federal republic to undo the centuries old atrocities of the Shah-Rana rulers and the subjugation of the various ethnic minorities and indigenous groups. Thus, the premise on which this new disintegration of Nepal is taking place is along ethnic lines (ethno-federalism) and to redress the past faults. This seems to be the only issue to break the nation and the only example of modern times in which a unified solid nation is being mutilated and disintegrated to redress past mistakes.


Let me also remind you that many nations that had inserted the word “Federal” at some point of time in their history have since erased it.

 

Moreover, there is another point I’d like to address here: Where does the grand scheme of a Federal Republic fit in the context of Nepal considering its spatial extent? There is a common thread shared by most of these nations that have taken the federal path explicitly or otherwise. Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Nigeria, Russia, Switzerland, and United States (excluding Austria and Switzerland): these are all spatially humungous countries. Argentina is almost the size of India with the total area of 2,766,890 square km (8th largest nation). India has continental area of 3,287,590 square km (7th largest). Brazil (5th largest) is almost three times of the size of India. The United States is 9,826, 630 square km (3rd largest) and Russia 17,075,400 square km (the largest). Nigeria is 923, 768 square km and Germany is 357, 021 square km. On the contrary, Nepal is a tiny 147,181 square km, only larger than Austria and Switzerland. Thus, the perceived autonomous states or provinces of Nepal are going to be very-very small – reminiscent of the baieshe-chaubese rajyas of yonder years. How will these future federal states even survive? What will they do for survival? Beg India to help them against the neighbour? Even with the best of intentions India would ultimately be forced into the role of an imperial judge.


What is being sown in Nepal today as an ethno-federal state would ultimately lead to the erosion of the Nepali identity and from collective strength we would move to collective weakness; ethnic groups will fight for supremacy and our large neighbours would play one federal state against another. We will lose our independence. I beg and I pray to our short- sighted leaders and parties to forget their petty short term self-interests and goals; give up your short term calculated gains in the larger interest of the nation and roll back federalism; for this is that demon which will first break up our beloved Motherland Nepal and then devour it and make slaves of all her children to foreign powers.



------------------------------


Please post your views on this article posted on Kantipur online.


 
Posted on 01-07-08 12:50 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

This is a very gloomy portrait of the Federalism adopted in Nepal in the semblance of the neo-fascist governement which is egressing towards the self destruction. As I read while researching for the carcinogen effect of nicotine, I came across a concept, Apoptosis. This is a process which involves of the individual cells programming themselves to self destroy in event of cell injury. The cell or surrounding tissues unequivocally decide of that effect. Is this step in Nepal's part an Apoptosis, where the autonomus states, at the event of insurgence and failure to sustain the peace, decide to defect and create a more macabre horror in already grim picture?

Whoever came up with such a notion that could hold our country under such a ghastly system, I still urge in the importance of history. It should be made mandatory for everybody, so that we can learn from the mistakes made in the past.

 

 

 


 
Posted on 08-28-15 1:20 PM     [Snapshot: 949]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

I have read some opinions from pro-federalism people and I have found most of them to be ambiguous in nature and to be honest, more than assessing different aspects of federalism, they seem to pedal a hope that this will be the thing that will fix everything.

Aren't we Nepalis done with the hope pedaled by the hopeless politicans? The moaists pedaled so much hope that we forgave them for killing 15,000 innocent Nepalis. We are a hopeful bunch. We want to believe them because things are not right. We really need to take a moment to realize how feasible their empty promises are.

This really a very good article and I urge you to read and share. Fedaralism sounds good and would have been good under different context as outlined in the article, but in the context of Nepal it's a very very bad idea.
 
Posted on 08-28-15 9:26 PM     [Snapshot: 1228]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Thanks for sharing. Changed my view point completely.
 
Posted on 08-29-15 11:23 PM     [Snapshot: 1772]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Have a look, different opinion.
https://www.facebook.com/736105056480700/videos/886709421420262/
 
Posted on 08-31-15 5:47 PM     [Snapshot: 2366]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 


To the writer and OP

First, I agree with many things you have said. If we have statesmen in Nepal, we could have solved many roblems without going to federalism. But we do not have such erson, and i do not see possibility of such Person emerging in near future.

second,
nepal is made up of minorities population, statistically "khas" ( togther with baun,chhetri, thakuri, damai,kaami etc constitue about 37% ( source CIA factbook) are in majority but still less than 50%).

third,

Nepali ppl are mentally in 1950s, (I am saying not because of anything but because of their sentiments towards culture), They think that they are the heir of the culture which was established who knows when, and who knows why, but even after centuries they still want to stick with that. These type of ppl live in past, they are absorbed in their past.

third,

the so called leaders in different ethenic groups are incompetenant, they are not creative, but they want to enjoy power, till date enjoyed by other group of incompetant leaders. so, these leaders use culture, language and other sentimnts to agitate the ppl of their ethnicity.

They want to be rulled by their owns!!!!, how idiotic is that? is it possible to be ruled by owns in India and US?

So how to face this situation? how to cure false hope, how to cure fake ambition? How to satisfy ppl who are day dreaming? How to deal with ppl who are hopelessly tied with past?

Few countris had great leader to solve these problems plus at those times communication was not that omnivalent. But we dont have neither such leader nor we are leaving in a era where communication is scarced. It is very difficult to deal with such situation. 

Most democratic way to deal with such situation for us is to adat to federalism to the extent that nepal is not disintegrated.

That is why even though I agree with many things you said but I support federalism because

1. We dont have charismatic leader
2. Majority of nepalses are living with their past
3. Suppression is neither good way nor it will work in this era

ps: had no time to check grammer or spelling








 
Posted on 09-02-15 9:04 AM     [Snapshot: 2732]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

____ I have few comments.

"If we have statesmen in Nepal, we could have solved many roblems without going to federalism. But we do not have such erson, and i do not see possibility of such Person emerging in near future."

I agree with you that we could have solved many problems without going to federalism if we had competent statesmen in Nepal. If our existing statesmen could not solve the problems without going to federalism, do you really think they are competent enough to drive the country into federalism? You say you support federalism because we don't have charismatic leader. In order to bring proper and effective federalism into Nepal, we need charismatic and competent leaders, otherwise the end result is going to be worse than the current existing conditions. 

Federalism would have been good for the country if the leaders were competent and not corrupt. But we have seen time and again that no matter what system of government is placed, the leaders are the same. The same politicians who have become arabpati abusing the democracy cannot be deemed competent to lead the country into federalism. 

It is common knowledge that discrimination is wrong and that we need to provide more support for the marginalized and the underprivileged. A proper federalism could possibly help in that area provided there is an effective plan in place, and provided that the people planning it can be trusted. 

Having been disappointed and fooled multiple times by these same politicians, I fail to see how people can still hope that they will be doing something right for the country without putting their own selfish interests first?

Knowing the state of politics and politicians in Nepal, federalism will only be an excuse for the current batch of corrupt and incompetent politicians to appease more of their cronies and supporters by creating a whole new slew of political positions into which they can put thier own people so they can suck the country more dry, and play along their own vested interest, and the interest of their masters.

So in my opinion, federalism is not a good idea till we have competent leaders. Installing federalism in a country is like performing a surgery, you do not want incompetent people to perform a surgery like that. 

 
Posted on 09-04-15 12:22 PM     [Snapshot: 2985]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 


Knowingly or unknowingly lots of nepalese are in favour of Federalism. If we dont go to Federalism many pppl will blame 'khas' community for destroying the nation, which is not true.

Maoist sold dream 'Federalism is the ultimate cure', which is not true either, but still lots of nepalese beleive in that, Many Nepalese which previously were in favour of federalism learned lesson after nepal theortically enetered into Federalism back in 2063. But significant number of nepalese still beelive in that dream..

So, if we dont go to Federalism there will be a unnecessary friction in the society which could be derogatory to the country.

It is also true that many nepalese do not have access to the politics in Kathmandu, because of education, transport and communication and economical situation, Once they have provincial states. Problem of communication, financial ( they dont have to come to expensive kathmandu to have their say), transport will be solved to much extent. Then many problems ( multiculturism, inclusive government, lower cast inclusion,womens right etc) which central governt is facing now will be the problems of local government too. provincial government will be forced by proviancial poulation ( which usually difficult for them to do in central govenment because of afformentioned reasons). Once these things are in provincial government It will be easier to do in central government.

Secondly, the mentality " Federalism is the cure of every problems' will also erode from people ( those who still beleive in it ) once they realised there is no significant change in common mans life.Once this is realised he blame game will stop. Like after 10 yrs in federalism many ppl realised that.

Then ppl will realise that culture, language, religions are not as imortant as financial statues, then infight among different cultural, religious and linguistic groups will also die down ( but not 100 %).

And federalism does not necessaailry mean disintigration of Nepal.

Yes offcourse whatever I cure I said can be achieved without going to federalism if we have

1. Charismatic leader or
2. lots of money

we dont have both

we Nepalese are ppl who learn lesson only when we suffer, so let ppl experience proviancial system and learn lesson from it.

silver lining

I do not beleive Federalism is the cure of everything but hey, it is just my beleif, few things which I believed turned out to be wrong. So let this be wrong too.

Nepal may progress a lot in federalism because of competition among different provincial states

that is why I support federalism


Last edited: 04-Sep-15 02:29 PM

 
Posted on 09-08-15 10:48 AM     [Snapshot: 3150]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

_____ I have already outlined the practical reasons behind not supporting federalism. Your points are based on ideal scenario which is not the case in Nepal. If everything was ideal then we would not even need to be considering federalism at this point. Even the concept of democracy was ideal when we 'got' democracy, but sadly due to less than ideal scenario of Nepali politics, democracy has not be able to yield much positive impact in the country. Now, politicians are trying to say 'federalism' will solve the problems just like they did decade ago. After a decade of 'democracy' the general population of Nepal have realized that mostly politicians have been impacted positively, and the rest of the people are poorer and less well off than before. Now, these same politicians are saying 'federalism' will solve the problems, and people really believe that it will solve anything, instead of creating more problems? The following post by Shiva Prakash is noteworthy in questioning Federalism.

संघीयता किन ?



कुनै कुरा शुरु गर्नु अगाडि किन शुरु गर्ने भन्ने प्रश्न आउँछ । ‘किन’ले सही उत्तर पाएपछि मात्र ‘कसरी’ले उपाय खोज्न थाल्छ । ‘किन’ले उत्तर पाएन भने ‘कसरी’ स्वतः प्राणहिन हुन्छ । 

जर्मन दार्शनिक फ्रेडरिक विल्हेम नित्से (१८४४–१९००) ले त्यसै भनेका हैनन्– ‘किन भन्ने जानियो भने, कसरी भनेर बाँच्न पनि जानिन्छ ।’ 

‘किन र कसरी’लाई यदि कुनै रोगसँग तुलना गरेर हेर्ने हो भने रोग दबाएर हुँदैन, उपचार गरेर निको पार्नु पर्छ । तब मात्र मान्छे स्वस्थ हुन्छ । त्यस्तै अर्कालाई बुझाउन नसक्नु भनेको आफूले नबुझ्नु पनि हो । आफूसँग कति ज्ञान छ भन्ने ज्ञानको अज्ञानता पनि हो । तर बुझ्नु र बुझाउनुभित्र कुटिलताले गुँड लगाएको छ भने बुझेकोले नबुझे जस्तो गर्छ । अरुलाई बुझाउँदा गलत तरिकाले बुझाउँछ । अहिले संविधानको हलो संघीयताले अडाएको छ । किन ?

देशले संविधान किन पाएन भनेर सोध्दा उत्तर व्यक्तिपिच्छे फरक छ । यसको अर्थ देशको राजनीतिले असल शिक्षक पाएको छैन । जसलाई राजनीतिकै भाषामा नेता भनिन्छ । के साँच्चै देश नेताबिहिन छ त ? किन ?

यदि नेता हुन्थे र थाह हुन्थ्यो भने सबैबाट उस्तै उत्तर आउँथ्यो तर, यो प्रश्न दिन–प्रतिदिन पेचिलो बन्दै गएको छ । किन ?

कारण समान्य छ– संघीयता ‘किन’ भन्ने सबैभन्दा पहिलो प्रश्नको उत्तर नै खोजिएन । संघीयताका बारेमा बहस–छलफल, क्रिया–अन्तरक्रिया केही भएन । आवश्यकता, औचित्य र सम्भाव्यता तथा विकल्पहरुको खोजी गरिएन । विज्ञहरुको राय, सल्लाह, सुझाव लिइएन । किन ? किन ‘किन’ भन्ने प्रश्नलाई दबाइयो । 

अहिले त्यही ‘किन’ भित्रभित्रै पाकेर बल्झिदैछ । ‘किन’ले उत्तर नपाएपछि ‘कसरी’ले उपाय निकाल्न सकेन । संविधान बनेन । 

उपचार शुरु नै नगरी कोमामा कोचिएको ‘किन ?’ ले अहिले अर्को प्रश्न उमारेको छ– संघीयताका सैद्धान्तिक आधार के ? किन खोजिएन ? नयाँ नेपालकालागि नयाँ संविधान बनाउन छानिएका ६०१ मध्ये कतिले बुझेका छन– संघीयता ? र, कतिले बुझाएका छन् जनतालाई ? हामी कस्तो संघीयता चाहन्छौ ? कति र कस्ताकस्ता छन् संघीयताका मोडल ? हाम्रो देशको आकार, आयतन, आय र जातीय विविधता, सामाजिक सद्भाव, सँस्कृति र परम्पराका लागि कस्तो संघीयता आवश्यक छ ? वा छ कि छैन ? किन मौन छन् यी प्रश्न ? 

भारत र पाकिस्तानको संघीयता फरक छ । अमेरिका र अष्ट्रेलियामा फरक फरक संघीयता छन् । यीभन्दा स्विट्जरल्याण्ड र बेल्जियमको फरक छ । १५ प्रान्तमा टुक्रिएको युरोपको एक सानो देश बेल्जियम अहिले किन संघीयताबाट फर्किन खोज्दैछ ? किन ? 

विश्वका २५७ देशमध्ये किन २७ मा मात्र संघीयता छ ? किन ? 

यी मध्ये सफल, असफल कति छन् ? सफलताका कारण के हुन् ? असफतलाका के हुन् ? यी २७ सँग हाम्रा समानता र असमानताहरु के के छन् ? हामी सफल हुन सक्ने र नसक्ने आधार र तथ्यहरु के के हुन सक्छन् ? खोजिएन, किन ? भोलि संघीयतालाई धान्ने आर्थिक स्रोत के हो ? कति राज्य बनाए अनुमानित प्रशानिक खर्च कति हुन्छ ? त्यस्तो संघीयता धान्न सकिन्छ कि सकिंदैन ? जवाफ छैन, किन ? 

राजनीतिक समस्या ढिलोचाँडो समाधान हुन सक्छन् तर, जातीय र धार्मिक अन्धतालाई राजनीति बनाइयो भने समाधान नपाउन सकिन्छ । कथित जातीय र वर्गीय मुक्ति तथा धार्मिक नारा दिएर नेपालीलाई जातजाति, धर्म र क्षेत्रमा विभाजन गरेर नेपाल कतै गृहयुद्धमा त धकेलिदैन ? सोचिएको छैन, किन ? 

संघीयताको असफतलासँग जोडिएका जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र धार्मिक कलहले कङ्गो, बुरुण्डी, सोमालिया, इथियोपिया, नाइजेरिया, रुवाण्डा, सुडान, अफगानिस्तान, इराक, सिरियालाई कहाँ पुर्‍याएको छ ? हामीमा त्यो दर्दनाक नियतीको प्रवेश हुन सक्ने, नसक्ने कारणहरु के के हुन सक्छन् ? त्यहाँ कसरी भयो ? छैन खोजिनीति, किन ? ती देशमा जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र धार्मिक युद्धका कारण करोडौं मानिसको हत्या भै सकेको छ । जाति र धर्मका नाउँमा जिउँदै जलाउनेदेखि खसीबोका काटे जसरी मान्छेका घाँटी छिमल्ने र रेट्ने काम भएका छन् । 

संघीयताका नाउँमा जातीय र धार्मिक कारणले भएको मानव विनासका दुःखद कथालाई खै कतिले अध्ययन गरेका छन् ? आफूलाई हैन, देश र जनतालाई केन्द्रमा राखेर हर्ने हो भने संघीयताको आवश्यकता र ढाँचा के हो ? खै यी सबैको बारेमा लेखाजोखा ? खै बहस, चर्चा, छलफल ? खै जनतालाई जानकारी ? ६०१ सभासद्हरुले कति बुझेका छन् यी कुरा ? हौवा र भावनामा बगेर भविष्य निर्धारण गर्नु भनेको आत्मघातलाई आत्मसात गर्नु हो कि हैन ? जातीय भेदभाव समाप्त हुनु पर्छ भन्ने फेरि जातीय राज्य भन्ने ? खै यसमा छलफल ? मान्छेको पहिचान जात हो कि मानवता ? 

२१ औं शताब्दीमा राज्यलाई जात, धर्म र क्षेत्रका आधारमा भागवण्डा गर्दा मान्छेको पहिचान बाँकी रहला कि नरहला ? एउटा जातिका नाउँमा एउटा राज्यको नामाकारण गरियो भने बाँकी जातिको पहिचान के हुन्छ ? मानौ काठमाण्डौं खाल्डोलाई नेवा राज्य बनाइयो, भोलि त्यहीं अर्को जातिले अर्को राज्य माग्दै मान्छे गिंड्न थाल्यो भने के गर्ने ? नेपालमा अहिले १४० भाषा बोल्ने १२४ जातजाति छन् । उदाहरणका लागि अरु जातिलाई राज्य दिंदा राउटे, मुसहर, बाँतर, धिमालले किन नपाउने ? यसको सौद्धान्तिक आधार के ? कुनै पनि राज्य जात, धर्म, क्षेत्र र सँस्कृतिको पक्षपाती हुनु हुन्छ कि हुदैन ? विभेद त्यहींबाट शुरु हुन्छ कि हुदैन ? खै ज्ञानचक्षुको प्रयोग ? 

जनताले बुझ्ने गरी संघीयताका विषयवस्तु र परिभाषा किन कसैले दिएनन् ? किन ? नदिनुको कारण नबुझेको, नजानेको हो कि अरु केही हो ? कि आफूले नबुझे पछि अरुलाई बुझाउन नसकेको हो ? कि बुझीबुझी कुटिलतापूर्वक गलत तरिकाले बुझाइएको हो ? संघीयतालाई किन व्यक्तिपिच्छे आफ्नै अनुकुल उरालिएको छ ? जातीयताको ‘फण्डा’ लाई एमाओवादी समेतले अजेण्डा किन बनाएको छ ? राजेन्द्र महतोहरु, जो दोस्रो संविधानसभाको निर्वाचनमा आफूले बेहोरेको हारलाई भारतको हार भन्छन् तीसँग एमाओवादीको गर्धन जोडिनुले के संकेत गर्छ ? कमरेड पुष्पकमल दाहालका बारेमा त थाह छैन तर डाक्टर कमरेड बाबुराम भट्टराईलाई त्यसो गर्न कुन विवेकले दियो ? 

‘विदेशी शक्तिहरुको फोन आइरहन्छ, हामीप्रति उनीहरु आश्वस्त छन्’ भन्ने जस्ता अभिव्यक्ति दिदै किन हिंडेका छन् दाहाल ? यसको अर्थ के ? लाठी देखाएर जातीय राज्य घोषणा गराउने बलमिच्याइँ एमाओवादीको सैद्धान्तिक विचलन मात्र हैन वैचारिक स्खलन हो कि होइन ? 

हुन त माओवादभित्र जातिवाद घुसाउनु भनेको हात्तीका कोखमा गधाको गर्भ भने जस्तै हो । संघीयता भनेको बहकाउ हैन, आवेग हैन । संघीयतालाई कुनै पनि दलले दलीय राजनीतिको तुरुप सम्झिनु महामूर्खता हुने छ । संघीयता ‘किन’ भन्ने प्रश्नको सही उत्तर खोजे मात्र ‘कसरी’को आधार पनि भेट्न सकिने सम्भावना हुन्छ । समय अझै छ । 

अस्तित्ववादी लेखक अल्वर्ट कामु (१९१३ अल्जेरिया–१९६० फ्रान्स)ले भनेका छन्– मान्छेले मर्नभन्दा बाँच्नकै लागि बढी साहस गर्नु पर्छ । तर एमाओवादी बाँच्न डराइरहेछ । कारण– संघीयता ‘किन’ भन्ने प्रश्नको उत्तर नखोजी उसले संघीयता र संघीयताभित्र पनि जातीयतालाई तुरुपका रुपमा प्रयोग गरेर ‘कसरी’लाई उसले यी ‘यसरी’ भनेर लाठीमुङ्ग्री देखाउन थालेको छ । ती लाठीमुङ्ग्री भोलि उसैमाथि बज्रिनेछन् । 

यहाँ संघीयताको बिरोध हैन, एक सार्वभौम नागरिकाका हैसियतले आवश्यकता र औचित्यको खोजी हो । ‘किन’ भन्ने प्रश्नलाई अझै दबाइयो भने भोलि यो घाउ झन् पिलिएर ‘ब्रष्ट’ हुन सक्छ । त्यतिबेला पीपको महानदीमा को को बग्छ थाह छैन । 

- See more at: http://www.himalkhabar.com/?p=95565#sthash.6TK4Vzut.OMaCKYfr.dpuf

 


Please Log in! to be able to reply! If you don't have a login, please register here.

YOU CAN ALSO



IN ORDER TO POST!




Within last 60 days
Recommended Popular Threads Controvertial Threads
TPS Re-registration case still pending ..
मन भित्र को पत्रै पत्र!
Guess how many vaccines a one year old baby is given
अमेरिकामा बस्ने प्राय जस्तो नेपालीहरु सबै मध्यम बर्गीय अथवा माथि (higher than middle class)
Why Americans reverse park?
They are openly permitting undocumented immigrants to participate in federal elections in Arizona now.
Driver license help ASAP sathiharu
Travelling to Nepal - TPS AP- PASSPORT
ढ्याउ गर्दा दसैँको खसी गनाउच
TPS Reregistration and EAD Approval Timeline.......
lost $3500 on penny stocks !!!
nrn citizenship
Morning dharahara
Susta Susta Degree Maile REMIXED version
Elderly parents travelling to US (any suggestions besides Special Assistance)?
कल्लाई मुर्ख भन्या ?
जाडो, बा र म……
Changing job after i-140 approval
Is this a progressive step?
Nepalese Students Face Deportation over Pro-Palestine Protest
NOTE: The opinions here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com. It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it. - Thanks.

Sajha.com Privacy Policy

Like us in Facebook!

↑ Back to Top
free counters