Dr Pitamber Sharma

Geographer and Regional Planner

There are hydrological, demographic (migration) and economic (trade) linkages between the highlands and the lowlands. Ideally speaking, the most appropriate geographical delineation of states – which takes into account the distribution of natural resources – would be the one that follows the river basins because this would allow the complementary development of unique resources.

 

The interim constitution says that the states, once created, must be autonomous. To ensure such autonomy also in the economic field, the states must have ample resources. How do you see the feasibility of such economic autonomy of the proposed states?

Being self-reliant will depend on the number of states and the criteria on which they will be created. In Nepal, autonomy is interpreted only in the political sense. It is often forgotten that political autonomy remains circumscribed in the lack of economic autonomy. If a state or province has to rely on the centre for all its development needs, how can it exercise autonomy in political or economic decision-making? All states may not have all the resources. However, care should be taken that each state is carved, as much as possible, in a way that it has at least some basic resources to complement its development efforts. There are 14 states proposed by the Constituent Assembly’s state restructuring committee. Many of these proposed states are simply not viable economically or politically. I believe that in Nepal we still have enough scope to design states as planning units. The foresight we show today will make it easier to deal with the problems of tomorrow.

 

What would be the appropriate geographical delineation for distribution of natural resources among the new states?

Nepal is a country with enormous geographical and topographical diversity. This diversity in many ways has determined the type and distribution of natural resources. The Terai plain as well as the Inner Terai are rich in agricultural resources. This area also has a unique wildlife. Similarly, the hills and mountains are rich in biodiversity resources, hydro power, nature- and culture-based tourism resources etc. The element that links and complements the geographical diversity between the hills and the plains is the hydrological system – the major river basins of Nepal. There are hydrological, demographic (migration) and economic (trade) linkages between the highlands and the lowlands. Ideally speaking, the most appropriate geographical delineation of states – which takes into account the distribution of natural resources – would be the one that follows the river basins because this would allow the complementary development of unique resources. However, we do not live in an ideal world. While natural resource endowment is important, equally important are the historic aspirations of the diverse communities that inhabit the different regions. These aspirations also need to be addressed in the formation of states. Nepal’s move from a unitary state to a federal one is dictated in many ways by these aspirations.  

In a country like Nepal, the crux of the issue of federalisation is that the development in one geographical and resource region has to complement the development of another region. That is the basis on which the resources need to be considered in designing federal states.

 

Some political parties are strongly raising the demand for states based on ethnicities. How challenging will it be to manage and distribute the resources along these lines instead of geography- and resource-based states?

The political discourse on federalisation in Nepal has been dominated primarily by the issue of ethnicity. Not much attention has been paid to the attributes of an ethnic state, or even what comprises an ethnic state. Some people are scared of the word ethnicity altogether. The reality is that ethnicity makes a significant difference in the lives of people. Nepal has 100 designated ethnic groups according to the 2001 census. And there are 92 languages spoken in the country. Major ethnic/caste groups in Nepal have their territories of traditional habitation. The groups have settled continuously, are relatively concentrated, and have a significant and dominant, if not majority presence in particular areas. This is true for all large and small aadibasi and janajati groups and the Chhetris. However, the dalits do not have their own distinguished geographical territory or a separate identity by virtue of language. This is in spite of the fact that they comprise the third largest ethnic/caste group and the most marginalised population in Nepal.
 

If all major ethnic groups in Nepal were to have their own states, it would be an enormous challenge to manage and distribute natural resources. Ethnic boundaries rarely coincide with resource boundaries. Even macro watershed would be divided among different ethnic domains. All hydropower resources would be in the domain of hill/mountain ethnic groups, with none in the Terai. The capacity of ethnic states to deal with the issues of mitigation and adaptation to climate change would be extremely limited. It is because this would require a coordinated watershed level response. 

 

Do you think that the redistribution of resources may ignite resource conflict after the formation of new federal states?

As I have mentioned earlier, much would depend on the criteria used in the designation of states, and of course the number of states created. The experience of other countries show that conflicts over control, regulation, use, benefit and maintenance of resources, particularly water, are among the common conflicts resulting from federalisation. Constitutional provisions are therefore made for arbitration and resolution of such conflicts. (Highlight.) The redistribution of resources is ensured mainly through inter-governmental transfers. However, to assure that the central government has enough resources to offset imbalances between the states, some clarity is required with respect to the share of local/state revenue going to the central treasury.

 

So, you think the 14 states proposed by the CA’s State Restructuring Committee is not practical?

The idea of 14 states proposed in the draft report of the Constituent Assembly’s State Restructuring Committee, in my view, is neither rational nor appropriate. For a country of Nepal’s size, 14 states will be too many. If ethnicity is the only criteria considered for the designation of states, I see no justification for at least four of the proposed states. Jadan has a population of 50,000 while Bhotes comprise only 1.2 per cent of Nepal’s population. Sherpas total only 90,000 people and a mere 21 percent of Nepal’s total Sherpa population live in the proposed state. Additionally, Sunkoshi and Narayani have as mixed a population as any other ethnic state. One of the major problems with the report is that it does not lay down any principles for states’ formation. For example, when does an ethnic group merit the status of a state as opposed to an autonomous region within a state?   The report does not provide answers to these kinds of questions.

 

Running and maintaining the state affairs is a costly proposition. How would the states help in mobilising resources for the nation while meeting their own recurring costs?

At present, only nine among the 75 districts are in a position to generate revenues that go beyond meeting their recurrent expenditures. In other words, if all the proposed states of Nepal are to be in a position of meeting their recurrent expenditures and generate a surplus, it is basically from the revenue from these nine districts that will have to be somehow apportioned among the states. As I said earlier, inter-governmental transfers will have to play the key role in maintaining the financial viability of the states. Inter-governmental transfers should ensure that (a) all expenditure assignments of the states can be met through these grants and (b) that it should also provide the basis for basic long-term investments required for mobilising resources. In Nepal’s case, for example, the states falling under the current mid and far-western regions will need massive investments from the centre for at least 10 to 15 years, by which time they could be self-sustaining. Investments by the centre on key infrastructures in the state will remain crucial. One of the problems that the state governments in poorer states will have to face is the flight of capital as capital flies out from low-yielding states to high-yielding states. A situation can easily arise where the poor states become poorer while the rich ones become richer. This will emerge as a big challenge in the management of federalism. The success of the federalism enterprise may as well lie in the extent to which they are enabled to mobilise resources. 

 

What may the reason that there is no meaningful debate taking place on state restructuring and the form of federal system?

The political parties are ignoring the most critical and operational issues of federalism. It was Maoists who raised the issue of the federal republic and turned it into a national agenda, and they did it right. The rationale for the federal republic was to break, once and for all, the shackles of a feudal, overtly centralised, monarchic, predatory state. This was a historic achievement. For the first time in nearly two-and-a-half centuries, it set the stage for redefining and reimagining Nepal. But the Maoist perception went astray because of taking ethnicity as the sole basis for federalisation. As a result, the question of resources, development and meaningful devolution of power remained ignored. The two other major political parties – the UML and the Nepali Congress – are still taking time to fully own the idea of a federal Nepal. It is evident from their reactive approach to the whole issue, so much so that their official positions are not yet clear. The Madhes based political parties too made the federal agenda their main political plank. But they only took it as far as it challenged the colonial flavour of the policies of the hill-centred Nepali state vis-a-vis the Madhes. The ‘one Madhes, one state’ slogan was raised as a vehicle for economically circumscribing the hills and making it a hostage of the Madhes, however defined. The ethnic dimension is critical and important but no less important is the issue of dealing with poverty, exclusion, and in a fundamental sense, the mode and meaning of development. The two issues are no doubt linked but one cannot be a substitute for the other.
 

Thus the debate has centred on issues of identity and emotion rather than the more substantive issues of strategy and resources for development. I believe that once the dust settles and the states come into being, development will once again emerge as the agenda around which politics will revolve.  

 

What should be the main objective of federalism in Nepal’s context?

The objective of federalism in Nepal should be the creation of a prosperous country which will benefit all, irrespective of ethnicity, caste or class. The rational for federalism in Nepal has to rest on three premises. The first is the recognition of the ethnic, linguistic, cultural and regional identity and aspirations of the diverse population groups that inhabit Nepal. For over two centuries, the Nepali speaking, upper caste hill dwellers following the Hindu faith namely Bahun and Chhetri enjoyed the privileged patronage of the Nepali state. Shared ownership of the state requires that progressive ethnic, cultural and regional identities are given due recognition. The second is to facilitate rapid, equitable and inclusive development so that livelihoods of all, and particularly of the vulnerable, marginalised and disadvantaged groups, can be rapidly improved. This requires that adequate attention is paid to natural and human resources that can provide the basis for equitable and inclusive development. The third is to decentralise and devolve power to the lowest possible level so that the roots of a truly participatory and accountable democracy are strengthened.