Who said federalism?

The erasure of monarchy in Nepal was quite a surprise for a number of reasons.

For one it was the lineage of someone who had united petty kingdoms of largely feudalistic nature into a national identity. Not to forget Prithvi Narayan Shah is even now still talked of and we Nepalis like to talk of his statement of Nepal being a yam between two boulders.

Secondly, monarchy was at the top of the nation for most of the last near three hundred years, and in the least had a firm base in the bureaucracy and a strong influence in the military institution of the country. Moreover the king had the status of the Hindu lord Vishnu not only in formal announcements but also in the mentality of the majority of the rural masses.

Thirdly the Nepali monarchy being the only Hindu king (thus making Nepal the only Hindu kingdom in the world) Nepal was and still is at the centre of attention of radical and non-radical Hindu organisations worldwide who believe in strengthening religious identity in a world dominated more and more by silent growths of religious polarisation. For an emerging superpower India, still largely dominated at the political leadership by people calling themselves Hindus and declaring muslim Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. as the cause of the all worldly problems, the existence of a Hindu monarchy under it's shades was a symbolic representation of power in South Asia.

...and still monarchy was erased from Nepal.

Fair enough. The issue of deleting monarchy was brought in and pushed by the Maoists who in their own words succeeded in bringing the then establishment on its knees and even won popular elections. So if one adds these up, one could say that the monarchy was released with the voice of the majority of the population. That said, a much fairer approach would have been to ask the people individually and let them decide. Frankly asking them- "Should we keep the king or kick him out of the system?" and collecting the opinions of people rather than letting the constituent assembly that appears more and more like a herd of untrustworthy, ambiguously-speaking, power-hungry people decide for the people.

Anyway, it is conceivable that many people (at least among those who were lucky enough to make their voices heard) were not happy with the king and his ways. Especially the latest king. The news of his son driving wildly in congested streets and killing someone, the mysteries behind the palace massacre and the failure of the king to make a believable statement to the incidents, past history of his being involved in the Namita-Sumita case, and other cases of smuggling etc...all these had added up to a bitter feeling of the people towards the institution of monarchy itself. With the Maoists wanting to see something palpable as a result of their decade long war, and with the corrupt political faces and structures also riding on the anti-monarchy waves of time, erasure of monarchy became inevitable. All problems in Nepal till then were declared to be because of the monarchy and monarchy was erased. We all celebrated with enthusiasm and were made to believe that now the monarchy is gone everything will automatically get better.

Whether things have gotten better or not is a different issue and not the topic of this discussion. But as if removal of monarchy and therewith its social and political influences were not a big deal to gett o terms with, the same old politicians (most of whose records of corruption are not difficult to find) and the governance-inexperienced Maoist leadership which for a positive did in fact lead people in desperation, but on the negative side was very ineffective (ten years and over ten thousand dead, the country full of weapons, the chaos afterwards- an absolute political failure unless they declare their aim was to bring about this state of anarchy) brought about the idea of a federal structure in Nepal without asking the people, without even talking to them, without holding enough discussions. This is a fatal blow to democracy.

Here is why.

No I am not saying federalism would be a fatal blow to democracy in our country. But the way it has been brought out as an issue is. If we go back to the basics, democracy simply means giving major issues to the people to decide. And nowhere do I feel that we have been asked if we want federalism. Rather the political centres in cooperation with their "intellectual circles" came up with the idea and each one of them has actually in their mind frame split the country into federal units. Oh what fantasy is this? Now let's be honest. We all know what these intellectuals have contributed to our failed nation, don't we?

Not only did they not ask people about the issue but are now making people fight against each other in support of this or the other way of dividing the country. And guess what? We have been thrown dust in the face and we have in fact started advocating for this or the other party's model of dividing the country depending on which political party we sympathise or which one would give my son or your uncle a job. Now this is a terribly undemocratic practice. And I would like to urge all of us to please seriously think about the issue. We need to learn to stand up above individual and family interests in order to preserve democracy in the country. If I decide to follow Mr. Parmananda Jha's anti-supreme court activity because he is from the Madhes, and you decide to continue protesting in the streets saying the president needs to be removed, I don't suppose we will be going much longer as a nation. What do we think?

Let us discuss issues. Let us talk about issues based on our understanding and not based on what political parties that we "have been supporting since generations" say. Let us be objective and ask our leaders to be objective.

And for now, for all the seriousness behind the issue, let us ask ourselves- who said federalism? Should the people not be explained what federalism is, and asked whether they want it?

raktim.nepali@gmail.com