http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2007/others/guestcolumn/feb/guest_columns_16.php Restructuring Nepal For the federations to be successful, it is not enough to have political autonomy alone. A federation of states/units without control over and access to the most essential resources becomes similar to the Panchayat system where decentralisation was limited to the establishment of Panchayats with no fiscal authority or effective devolution of power to the local bodies. By B. B. Deoja Multiculturalism, federalism, and autonomous governance mechanisms, including the right to self-determination, are very impressive and desirable concepts. But how are these to be achieved, while at the same time ensuring an integrated and glorious Nepali identity? It is indeed a very difficult task which needs to be handled with extreme care. As per 2001 Statistics, out of 104 different races (Jat Jatis) in Nepal, each of the 46 Jatis are less than 0.1 percent of the total population, each of the 32 Jatis are less than 0.1 to 0.5 % each in population, each of the 14 Jatis are 0.6 to 2 % in population, each of the 9 Jatis are 2 to 7% in population, and the three Jatis, people of Khas origin comprise 30.01 % of the total population (Brahimin -12.74%, Chhetri -15.8%, and Thakuri1.47 %). Let us say it is possible to create 11 federal states or regions for the 11 Jatis comprising population of more than 2 % of the total population, how are other 93 Jatis to be federated? Whether the objective is to create equality and prosperity for all with zero discrimination or to just play a sea-saw game of Jat Jatis must be clearly established. Hatred and discrimination breeds even greater hatred and discrimination resulting in a loose-loose game for all. For the federations to be successful, it is not enough to have political autonomy alone. A federation of states/units without control over and access to the most essential resources becomes similar to the Panchayat system where decentralisation was limited to the establishment of Panchayats with no fiscal authority or effective devolution of power to the local bodies. Even the local self-governance of the multiparty era was limited to the local body control of less than 3 percent of the resource requirements. The net result was the development of a culture of responsibility shifting, mud slinging, opportunity-grabbing and overall negativity in the political climate. Divide and rule through the mechanism of favoritism and nepotism in the distribution of resources was the preoccupation of those holding power at the central level Self governing units or federal states without a self reliant resource base would be similar to land locked countries. No matter how much we talk about mind-lockedness rather than land-lockedness, the difficulties facing Nepal is facing due to the absence of a major resource, that is the access to the sea, should be enough to give insights into the consequences of creating more land-lockedness within the land-lockedness of Nepal, especially when we consider the rugged and infrastructure-hostile terrain of the Siwaliks and Mahabharat ranges. Since there is no likelihood of Nepal suddenly becoming rich to have enough money to adequately fund the development needs of all its regions, it is better to let the people find their own ways of resource mobilisations and optimisations with due regard to income growth and socio-economic equity. But the most difficult part of the whole concept of self rule is to design the units of self rule such that the units are reasonably equal and independent in terms of human as well as natural resources; the interest of all cultures/ethnic groups are well reflected at all levels of socioeconomic developments; the self governing units are not bogged down by mutual conflicts; the building of leadership grows from local level to the federal/central level through a responsibility assuming culture, and the danger of the disintegration of Nepal is non existent. The geographical make up of the Nepalese land mass is such that the highland-lowland interdependency is unavoidable for the preservation of the resources in each of them. Any development planning without regard to the complete highland-lowland ecosystem is bound to invite serious problems to both the land systems. Excessive population pressure in the hills leads to deforestation and de-vegetation which leads to severe soil erosion and high runoffs, which in turn results in debris flow and severe damages to the productive capacity of the land in the plains down below due to aggradations, changes in river course and lowering of water table due to low recharging of underground water table. The resulting embankments, guide bunds or other flood control measures in India in the southern vicinity of Terai plains leads to flooding and inundation of the Terai plains. Thus the limited plain land in the Terai gets subjected to pressure from both the north and the south, deteriorating the quality of land and increasing the cost of construction and maintenance of the infrastructures such as roads, bridges and irrigation canals. A positive side of the Nepal geography and terrain is that the rivers run north to south and the entire country can be divided into several (5 to 11) units of almost equal resource base each comprising of independent river system, a complete ecosystem of few hundred feet above mean sea level to several thousand feet high Himalaya, a rich blend of cultures and ethnicity, and borders with two fast growing nations in the north and the south. The interests of all the 104 Jat Jatis can be accommodated through a three tier government - Federal, Regional, and Local. Inclusiveness and empowerment can be ensured through greater opportunity (may mean as many Regional Governments as possible), and proportionate representation at all levels. Ethnic or linguistic governments would almost automatically be formed at the local level. Probably, the level of positive changes possible due to the instrument of violence, fear, hatred, and exploitation of emotional fire has already reached an optimum level and the discrepancies among regions and races have been sufficiently exposed by now. Further positive changes are only possible through a combination of full stop in violence, peaceful dialogue, adoption of problem solving approach utilising professional and scientific skills, massive infrastructure development, recognition of the dangers of excessive outside interventions, high level of service delivery, and unflinching pride in Nepal as a nation state. Let’s spread love, affection and a culture of giving. We may even float the idea of peaceful power sharing, through total denouncement of violence and physical disruptions by political parties and citizenry, and adoption of a common minimum programme for the next 5 to 10 years, whereby we may develop a culture of inclusiveness and working together at all levels and establish a base line for moving ahead equitably, unitedly and democratically. (B. B. Deoja is the Vice Chairman of Institute of Local Governance Studies (Inlogos). He can be reached at: bdeoja@wlink.com.np)