Conversations With Shailesh Ghimire
Paramendra Bhagat
August 2003 -

Paramendra Bhagat
August 8, 2003

Hi Shailesh. I am glad we are doing this. I look forward to this conversation. I think the web as a medium really hits home when you juxtapose it with the offline world. In conjunction, this ability to easily talk over e-mail rocks. As in, it might have made less sense if we did not have those years between us, seven years at a Kathmandu school, a ton of resultant mutual friends, the context of knowing what or where Asan is, for example. I can imagine us going at length on political issues pertaining to Nepal, and I have tried that at Sajha.com, but sometimes that can degenerate into trying to shout each other out. You and I will probably stay afloat otherwise.

And I will not be seeing Nepal in isolation. We are at the beginning end of the era of globalization, a process that will perhaps unfold for the rest of our lifetimes. You talk Nepal, you end up talking the world. For Nepal is no isolation. But then there are some issues that are very specific to Nepal, like the Maoists. But then that too has parallels in other parts of the world: violence used as a legitimate political tactic.

I would like to start out by bringing up the topic of federalism for Nepal. I am a strong proponent of it. I think a federal form of government might be the only answer to the country's great cultural diversity and eons of ethnic and regional inequities. What do you think?

First, of course, a way has to be found out out of the current triangular morass: the Maoists, the royal palace, and the parliamentary parties. It is an eery stalemate for now. I am working on this article that I will probably submit to the Nepali Times. I am outlining my suggestion in there.

I believe the number one thing is to keep violence out. And so not letting go of the ceasefire with the Maoists is a must. After that, the Maoists and the royal palace have to realize that they are in a checkmate situation. One party is not in a position to militarily defeat the other. Then the royal palace has to be open to the possibility of a republic, and the Maoists have to be open to the possibility that the people might actually vote to keep the monarchy in some kind of a referendum. And that is where the parliamentary parties enter the scene.

I believe the parliamentary parties are the royal palace's best friend. For all their complaints, they have not voiced the call for a republic. And so I think it might be best for the king to let go of Surya Bahadur Thapa, and invite an all-party government. The king might be leery because he might trust a Madhav Kumar Nepal much less than a Surya Bahadur Thapa. Madhav Nepal might change his mind and shoot for a republic midstream, the king must think.

An all party government in which all major parties participate would then deal with the Maoists. As in, okay, you want a Constituent Assembly, we will have one. We will hold elections. And the resultant body would be of a parliament that would double as the Constituent Assembly. That assembly would frame a new constitution. But the Maoists would have to lay down their arms before that, and it would give word that it would accept the resultant constitution. That it would not go back into the jungle, if the people, through popular vote, decide to retain the monarchy.

I have a feeling the monarchy will remain, though in a trimmed form, as in, bring the army totally under the parliament, recognize only the king's immediate family as the royal family, make transparent all royal assets, and so on. The activist monarchy like the kind this king has tried to play out is not going to be the model for the times to come. It might be a boring proposition to be a constitutional monarch, but it is what it is.

The monarchy remains quite a popular institution, especially amidst all the instability. Personally, I am for a republic, but I think it is for the Nepali people to decide what they want. I mean, I bid farewell to Hinduism too, in my personal life. I am officially a Buddhist, have been for a few years now. I have major disagreements with Hinduism. But most Nepalis are Hindus. That is who and what they are, by birth and by choice. And the choice is perfectly legitimate. The same applies to the monarchy. If the Nepali people wish to retain it, they may do so.

I only hope the major difference with the new constitution would be that Nepal becomes a federal state.

But change is slow coming. For example, what does Surya Bahadur Thapa mean when he says not even the king can sack him? How long will he stick around?

The three corners of the triangle show little sign of budging from their respective positions. And that rigidity might be the primary problem.

What do you think?

Shailesh Ghimire
August 14, 2003

Hello Paramendra,

I finally have had the time to think about Federalism in Nepal's context and also the time to write it down. I'd like to say a few things about globalization and the Maoists problem before talking about Federalism in Nepal. First to just comment on your thoughts regarding globalization and Nepal, I must say that Nepal is very ill prepared for globalization. I don't mean it in terms of our lack of physical development either, I mean it in terms of our outlook and our mindset. We have to change the way we think about ourselves, about our iden(ti)ty and our relationship to our neighbors if we are to embrace and benefit from globalization. That is a differnet discussion in and of itself.

As far as the Maoists problem is concerned, the lack of information transparency makes it very difficult to discern where things stand exactly. I'd (sic) don't understand why the Maoists have just been lingering along waiting for talks to resume, and I don't understand why the current goverment (read King), are delaying the whole process with useless excuses. It makes no sense at all. And I think there are things going on here that we don't know. Things brings up another point. I have talked to several Western businessmen that have gone to Nepal on various capacities (NGO consultants, RNAC plane renters etc.) and they all say that Nepali officals are EXTREMELY difficult to work with (aside from corruption), because there is no information transparency. Some of the things they have said include, they (as in Nepali officals) say one thing today, another tomorrow, you don't know where they stand on negotiation points. I think some of that is going on between the Maoist and the Palace.

Given what we don't know it is hard to say where things will go. I think both sides realize they have a stalemate. It almost appears that both sides are developing reinforcements in order to take the other by surprise. The Palace seems to have strong backing from the US, UK and Indian governments. A recent seminar held at the Heritage Foundation in the US discussed the need for the US to actively support the King in Nepal lest it go down the path of a failed state (terrorist haven). The Maoists on the other hand appear to be contacting ideological cousins in the immediate region and reinforcing their positions. To be very honest with you, I am not hopeful that there will be a peaceful solution. I think there will be outright hostilities in the next several months. But again, given the lack of information transparency, it is difficult to say.

Back to Federalism. I want to personally learn more about Federalism as an option. For example I'd like to know why countries that have federalism have adopted this form of government. Is it because of the vast geography (like in the US), or becasue of their diversity (India). I think this is important to understand, because while Nepal is small it is diverse, but if we compare it to India it is like one state. The reason why I want to understand this is because, since Federalism will create mini-governments within Nepal, it will be more expensive. Also, we don't want to replicate inefficiencies and corruption across five/six different governments.

Having said that, I think power needs to be devolved from Kathmandu towards the districts/states. Adminstration functions and powers need to be spread out and locals need to be given control over functions such as education and agriculture. However, I don't know if this would necessarily entail a Federal system of government.

On a slightly unrelated note, Nepal needs to develop a form of affirmative action program in order to provide opportunites to all the ethic groups. We need to make significant changes in our legal codes to accomodate women and their rights/views.

Finally, Nepal should be a secular state - whether we haver a monarchy or not. If we are to have free speech then that automatically goes hand in hand with religious freedom and religious freedom goes hand in hand with a secular state. You can't seperate free speech from religious freedom. If you can't talk about religion, change religions and explore religions then you end up intoxicating your people with a system they don't want!

That is it for now. I don't know if this is what you were looking for. Please let me know what you think.

Have a good weekend.

Shailesh

Paramendra Bhagat
October 25, 2003

Hi Shailesh.

Sorry, it has taken me a while to reply. I have been meaning to, but got caught in a few things, like my online business, visiting friends, and just generally working.

You make interesting observations as far as globalization and the Maoist problem go. But I would like to steer the discussion to the issue of federalism.

Nepal is not that small of a country. Three fourths of the countries are smaller populations than Nepal. It just looks small because it is sandwiched between the two largest countries. So Nepal's smallness can not be used to argue against federalism.

Federalism is about decentralization, and hence about making things simpler, removing layers of bureaucracy, making decision-making immediate and local as far as possible. I don't see how you can say a federal form of government would be more bureaucratic.

The affirmative action issue is not unrelated. That ties in with the decentralization concept. And I am glad you bring in the issue of women's rights, for South Asia is probably the most sexist part of the world today.

And I am all for the secular state thing. The democracy is only half-hearted as long as Nepal keeps calling itself a Hindu state. Not that it is even ther for now, with the parliament gone.

Hope to hear from you.