Manjushree Thapa - Kanak Mani Dixit dohori. (Note to FB friends, I/m importing a debate from Twitter because of length required to answer Manjushree Thapas queries found in attached image). @manjushreethapa from tone & tenor of yr queries, we seem to disagree most on what Maoists represents, which feeds into federalism. My reply herewith: + my views against Bahun ‘barchaswa’ in politics, state administration, education and media are consistent, but do not feed into the questions you have raised vis-à-vis federalism. + you must explain your understanding of ‘identity based federalism’. If it means political prior rights, I am opposed mainly because it would invite discord in regions of mixed habitation. + federalism – has to be designed to bring prosperity to the people, which will ipso facto help the protection of identity and cultural diversity, which is Nepal’s specificity and pride. Provinces based on economic-geography can effectively protect/promote identity in different parts, given demographic spread. The ‘Bahun barchaswa’ will end in both provinces and Center. + Defining federalism through fixing number of provinces seems back to front. First you must firm up relationships between provinces and province-center, ensure ‘equalisation’ of resources, and then move to numbers and demarcation. + One should not label ‘anti-federalist’ anyone who challenges ultra-populist proposals. + Someone (not me) may be ‘anti-federal’, but questioning federalism vis-à-vis existing local government does not equate to being anti-Janajati or anti-Madhes. + Nepali state should promote inclusion through continuous and variegated effort, also through effective and viable provinces, rather than creating ceremoniai provinces and a strong Center through directly elected President (Maoist agenda). Cultural identity/vibrancy is to be promoted through localised democracy (including provinces), education (incl. dual language policy), media/communication, entertainment, archiving, IT localisation/leapfrogging, etc. May sound boring, but pluralism and democratic functioning/evolution is healthy. + On federalism re Tarai-Madhes, I fear creation of plains-specific provinces will exclude plains (with larger volume of poor citizens) of the hill resources. + It’s been 16 years since local government elections was held. They need to be conducted immediately so people on the ground have representation. Those lobbying for ‘identity’ and plains-specific federalism are opposing local body election, and so unaacountability and corruption has entered the capillaries. + Maoists did not introduce the federalism agenda, it was the Madhes Movement. Give credit where its due. + On Maoists - my ‘antipathy’ (your characterisation) is directed not at the cadre, but the top leaders. They started an armed conflict when we needed social revolution, picking up the gun against a parliamentary system. They introduced great ‘bhautik’ brutality countrywide, and the state responded with terror and scorched earth policy. Maoists have derailed our economy for nearly two decades now and prevented employment generation, which has forced poorest of a resource-rich country to leave for India/Gulf/Malaysia. BRB and PKD are not the social vanguards you seem to think, they simply rewrote recent history to take credit for what had been done by others over painstaking decades (political parties, administrators, educators, activists, INGOs, NGOs, community leaders). I do not believe you have to destroy the old in order to build anew. We would have been a mid-level developing country by now without the ‘peoples war’ and ‘transition’, all of which starting 1996. The Maoists have also made us weaker as a nation-state by consorting with Indian intelligence agencies and Chinese financiers, playing the communal card, preventing normalisation of the economy after 2006, etc. + On regularising the 2006 Interim Constitution – if you do not want country to remain in continued limbo in case the new constitution is obstructed, you have to have an alternative. One such could be adopting Interim Constitution because it is a document accepted by all sides, incorporates federalism, ‘inclusion’, republic, and separation of church-and-state. Why is stupid or inappropriate to plan scenarios for potential distabilising crisis, why must this be seen as anti-constitutional? + ‘Inclusion’ has become a code word used as a battering ram against those one does not agree with. True inclusion will happen through reservations/affirmative action for the weakest and most marginalised communities, and (among others) creating viable provinces that guarantee economic growth, help in wealth creation, with activists and state ensuring equitable spread of the wealth created. Nepal is readymade to make ‘federalism’ and ‘inclusion’ real. + The reason people like myself worked to bring the Maoists above ground in 2005-06 was never because one agreed with their ideology – it was because average 7-8 citizens were dying every day due to the conflict. That the Maoists cheated thereafter is another matter. My own focus is on the pain of the conflict victims (of both state and Maoists).
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 01:45:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015