Issue 42, June 2012 FIELD BULLETIN Federalism discourse in three districts in the Eastern Tarai Background When the draft Interim Constitution of Nepal became public in December 2006 it prompted protests from many quarters, most notably Madeshis and Janajatis. The document was prepared by the Seven Party Alliance (SPA)1 and the Maoists, without broad consultations with other actors, in particular the Madhesi and other ethnic groups. Madhesi civil society groups, like the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF), the Nepal Sadbhawana Party (NSP) as well as Madhesi parliamentarians across party lines demanded explicit commitment to federalism, an electoral system which would have had a greater percentage of seats allocated on the basis of proportional representation and redrawn electoral boundaries. This would, in their view, have been a more equitable system.2 Despite the objections, the Interim Constitution was passed by the legislature‐parliament on January 15, 2007. Immediately, the MJF and the NSP organised protests demanding the amendment of the Interim Constitution and the establishment of the entire Tarai as one single province. The protests quickly spread across the Tarai and turned violent in many places.3 In response to the protests, then Prime Minister G P Koirala appeared on TV and addressed the nation twice, on January 31st and on February 7th, 2007. He guaranteed federalism, a redrawing of electoral boundaries again based on population, and the representation of Madhesis and other minority groups in elected bodies and other state organs. Protests and violence persisted and only died down after the legislature‐parliament passed the 1st amendment to the Interim Constitution on 12 April 2007. The amendment calls for the State to be ”democratic and federal”, but there was no clear commitment to ‘One Madesh’.4 After recurrent protests from January 2007 to February 2008, numerous agreements were signed between the Government of Nepal and Madhesi and other agitating ethnic groups, which assured a mixed system of elections5 and assured a federal republic through constitutional amendments. On the one hand, these agreements helped create the political climate necessary for elections, which, in the face of such concerted Madeshi protests, might otherwise have been postponed 1 The seven‐party alliance which signed the twelve‐point agreement consisted of NC, UML, Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandi Devi), Nepali Congress (Democratic), Janamorcha Nepal, NepalWorkers and Peasants Party and United Left Front 2 The interim constitution (Art. 63(3)) provided for a 425‐member constituent assembly with 205 elected by a first‐ past‐the‐post system (FPTP), 204 elected by proportional representation and sixteen “distinguished persons” selected by the interim council of ministers. Madhesi groups’ basic objection was that electoral constituencies are not delineated by equitable population representation. 3 NEPAL: IDENTITY POLITICS AND FEDERALISM, Asia Report No199 – 13 January 2011. International Crisis Group 4 Interim Constitution, Art. 138(1) 5 Two kinds of electoral systems were adopted for the Constituent Assembly election: (a)First Past the Post System‐ (FPTP): The system in which the one leading in the vote count is elected. (b) Proportional electoral process: A proportional election is the one where voting takes place for political parties, considering the entire nation a single election constituency. Seats are allocated based on the votes received by the political parties. Parties have to submit the list of candidates prior to the election. Federalism discourse in three districts in the Eastern Tarai indefinitely. On the other hand, it increased the expectations of many ethnic groups who laid claims on territories which often overlapped or were in direct competition with each other, a dynamic which, in 2012, has posed serious challenges to the peace and stability of Nepal and has had a direct impact on both the peace process and the drafting of the new constitution. The details of the different claims by various groups, are further discussed in the subsequent sections of this field bulletin. Elections for a Constituent Assembly (CA) were held in April 2008, forming a 601 member CA. Since then, deliberation on state restructuring has continued within and outside the CA. This field bulletin looks at how this debate took place specifically in Jhapa, Morang and Sunsari districts6. It describes the interests of the various groups agitating on the federalism issue and examines the potential for conflict between them. The bulletin does not attempt to detail or describe the internal politics of each of the groups. Rather, it maps some of the major actors in the Eastern part of the country, as well as their positions in relation to federalism, and attempts to describe some of the underlying dynamics of their competing claims. The findings are based on interactions with local level political party leaders, civil society members, community members and various ethnic outfits active in those districts. Discourse on a federal Nepal A number of proposals for a federal Nepal have been presented by different political parties and individuals and have certainly been a principal source of contention in drafting the new constitution. Initially, the proposals mainly fell into two broader categories. One category of proposals suggested a purely territorial subdivision of the country with no regard to socio‐cultural diversity, but based rather on other criteria, such as economic viability, access to international borders, natural resources or reference to previous administrative arrangements in Nepal, such as the larger ‘Morang’ or ‘Chitwan’ units which existed under the Panchayat system. The other category comprised proposals suggesting a socio‐cultural subdivision based on ethnic identity. At a later stage, most parties, groups and opinion‐makers put forward some ‘mixed’ models combining both elements of identity and viability. As no agreement could be reached on the weightage to be given to these various elements, these ‘mixed models’ were also not enough to bring the political parties to a consensus by May 27. Against this overall backdrop of the nation‐wide debate on federalism, federating the Tarai has proved particularly difficult with conflicting demands driven by various interest groups and political parties. It is important to note that the competing claims in the districts, as described below, have had a direct impact on the national level debate and the national level debate has fed back into the dynamics of the districts of the Eastern Tarai. The CA Thematic Committee on State Restructuring passed a 14 state model in November 2010 by majority voting, envisaging two Tarai provinces, of which one would include districts from Jhapa to Parsa in the east and the other the districts from Nawalparasi to Kanchanpur in the west, leaving out Chitwan, incorporated into a ‘Narayani Province’ in between the two proposed provinces.7 No consensus could be reached. On November 22nd, 2011, the State Restructuring Commission (SRC) was formed to advise the CA on the federal issue. It too could not produce a consensual proposal on federating the Tarai, just as the Thematic Committee before it. 6 These three districts are similar enough in terms of demographic attributes, political dynamics and geographical features to warrant being analyzed together. This, however, does not in any way imply on opinion on their future in a federal Nepal. 7 Restructuring of the State and Distribution of State Power Committee: Report on Concept Paper and Preliminary Draft, 2010 Page 2 of 8 Federalism discourse in three districts in the Eastern Tarai The majority of the SRC floated an 11 province model in which the Tarai is similarly divided into two provinces with the exception of Chitwan now being included in the eastern province. This proposal did not meet with wide acceptance and prompted protests across the country, particularly the Far Western region on its release in early 2012. The minority of the SRC, on the other hand, proposed a six‐state model in which Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Chitwan and Kanchanpur would be excluded from the Tarai provinces.8 Some observers felt that this proposal, in its own way, was a type of ethnicity‐based federalism as the districts mentioned have high proportions of Pahadi population and the proposal to detach these districts from any other Tarai provinces was seen by some as an attempt to safeguard the interests of that population. The proposals also varied on the degree of autonomy to be provided to the future provinces. Currently most discussions at the national and local level seem to concentrate on the delineation of provincial boundaries and the names of proposed provinces and there does not seem to have been much public debate on issues such as the relationship between the states and the centre, the form of governance within the provinces or even the rights of various populations within these proposed states. As the CA and constitution drafting process were key to the discussion on federalism (and resolving tensions around it), the dissolution of the CA on 27th May 2012 has added new dynamics to the whole debate; common people as well as political parties and ethnic groups are uncertain about the future of federalism, and, for that matter, the political process by which it may or may not be realized. Given that there was, in the end, no constitution, the tensions around federalism remain unresolved and unaddressed. At the time of writing there is an absence of any formal institution to deal with these deliberations and it is likely that various groups described in this Field Bulletin will resort to various forms of protest to push for their demands. As illustrated below, many of the political actors lobbied in the Constitution drafting process specifically on the interests of their respective ethnic groups (e.g. Khambhus, Limbus, Tharus, Chettri Samaj Nepal), either through political parties or through protests outside of the CA, with the political debate at times assuming a communal aspect.