Federal states based on caste and ethnicity is impossible for Nepal
Vikash Raj Satyal
Nepal is truly a garden of diverse language, culture, caste and ethnicity as said by Prithvi Narayan Shah and others. It is very impractical and illogical to segregate the country into federal states by racial or caste/ethnic criteria. Federalism is a political system in which ultimate authority is distributed between a central government and states or regional governments. The federal system is expected to protect the principle of due process, limiting arbitrary action by the state. In federal system – delegation of administrative authority and devolution of political power in the form of ownership is expected to be achieved. The current division of the country in 75 administrative units or districts, aiming to facilitate the administrative activities as a means of decentralization, was made in 1963. For this division some natural or geographical criteria were used. There are several criticisms on the shortcomings of the existing districts to satisfy the aspirations of decentralisation. For such inadequacies, researchers and planners have time and again proposed modified models for devolution: such as the 25 new districts coined by Dr. Harka Gurung. As the aftermath of Janaandolan II, adoption of a federal system has now become the most vibrant slogan in Nepal . Until now all of the major political parties and some independent researchers have proposed their own federal models. However, there is large discrepancy in the basis of dividing the country into federal states and in the number of proposed federal units or federal states conceived by these political and independent thinkers.
Nepali Congress (NC) has announced that the party will consider economical, social and cultural factors rather than caste and ethnicity for deciding the number of federating units as well as the nature of the future state. The Communist Party of Nepal United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) is not clear on the mode of formation and the number of states but will consider the factors such as caste and ethnicity, language, cultural and regionalism for the decision on the shape of the federal Nepal . Nepali Congress Democratic (NCD) has proposed to divide the country considering ethnicity, language and regionalism. Janamorcha Nepal has proposed a semi federal model based on self-governance on the basis of the factors such as caste/ethnicity and regions. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and Nepal Sadvabana Party (Anandidevi) are the only parties that have decided the federal structure of the country. Maoists have proposed nine states based on caste/ethnicity, population, geography and language while Nepal Sadbhavana Party has proposed five states including two Terai states in the country that they have now decided to have a single state for the whole of Terai. The CPN Maoist has proposed nine self-governing states. Ethnic activist KB Gurung proposes 11 self-governing states and six Ilakas. Kumar Yonjan of Tamang Ghedung has proposed 11 states based on caste/ethnicity, land, language, available resources and regional problems. Madhesi activist Amaresh Narayan Jha has proposed 10 states. Narahari Acharya, a central committee member of the NC, has proposed the division of the country into various federating units based on geographical variation, language and cultural specialties, natural resources, economical opportunities, population density, racial composition. Some independent development researchers have also proposed the division of the country as an input to the restructuring the state. Regional Planner/Geographer Dr. Pitamber Sharma has proposed six federal states and 19 sub-states within the six states and his division is based on the natural resource and its availability. Leftist intellectual Gobinda Neupane has proposed a division of eight states based on caste/ethnicity. Development thinker, Dr. Mahendra Lawati has proposed 13 states based on caste/ethnicity. Late Dr. Harka Gurung had proposed 25 development districts based on economical strength. Prof. Krishna Khanal, a Political Science professor has proposed 14 states.
Thus it is seen that there is no unique basis for the national segregation, however in the political arena voices for the Federal states based on racial or language is heard most prominently that have come up with the concept of Limbuwan, Tharuwan and Magarat. However, such a federation based on caste and ethnicity is not logical when one views the current population composition found in the districts. From such demographic perspectives, the major hurdle in the nature of different caste and ethnicity is that they are found very mixed and not localized. These facts can be verified from the analysis of 2001 census data as shown in the following spaces.
The 2001 census of Nepal has shown the existence of more than 100 caste/ethnicity groups in the country. However, only 7 of these caste/ethnicity groups have population more than 2.5 percent and only two of them have population more than 10 percent. There exists large caste/ethnic groups with more than 3 million heads to some very small groups having fewer than thousand heads (Table 1). This shows the existence of several minor caste/ethnic groups. Secondly, among the prominent caste/ethnic groups none have strong localized population concentration in districts so to measure from the population for that caste/ethnic group relative to their total national population that we can call the ethnic concentration (Table 2).
The 2001 census of Nepal shows that Chhetri holds about 16 percent of the total population, Hill Brahmin about 13 percent, Magar about 7 percent, Tamang about 6 percent and Tharu about 7 percent (Table 1). The smaller caste/ethnic groups include Kusunda with only 164 heads, Ptharkatta/Khuswadia 552, Yehlmo 579 and Raute 658 heads. The census shows that there are 19 caste/ethnic groups having population of more than 1 percent. This shows there are only few c aste/ethnic groups that are very large groups to be considered as highly populated caste/ethnic groups. Hence the concept of segregation of the country based on caste/ethnic ground is highly illogical. If the purpose of segregation is to bring forward the accessibility of the smaller and backward caste/ethnic groups, it will need 100s of such states. And this concept is even illogical as the concentration of caste/ethnic groups is unevenly distributed in the country which is explained in the section below.
Table 1: Distribution of some major and minor caste/ethnicity in the country
SN |
Caste/Ethnic |
Population |
Percent |
|
NEPAL |
22736934 |
100.00 |
1 |
CHHETRI |
3593496 |
15.80 |
2 |
BRAHMAN – HILL |
2896477 |
12.7 |
3 |
MAGAR |
1622421 |
7.14 |
4 |
TAMANG |
1282304 |
5.64 |
5 |
THARU |
1533879 |
6.75 |
6 |
NEWAR |
1245232 |
5.48 |
7 |
GURUNG |
543571 |
2.39 |
8 |
RAUTE |
658 |
< 0.00 |
9 |
YEHLMO |
579 |
< 0.00 |
10 |
KUSWADIYA/ PATHARKATTA |
552 |
< 0.00 |
11 |
KUSUNDA |
164 |
< 0.00 |
Source: Population Monograph Vol I, CBS 2003
If we classify a caste/ethnic group as major group of the district that occupies at least 50% of the district population then we will find (Table 2) only six such major caste/ethnic groups in the country that includes: Chhetri in 8 districts and Gurung, Tamang, Newar, Tharu and Magar each in one district. This fact is not conducive for the creation of federal states considering caste/ethnicity as basis of division. This data also infer that there is no specific conglomeration of specific caste/ethnic group but they tend to scatter evenly in different localities. This second fact can also be visualized by measuring the caste/ethnic concentration that can be defined as the total population of the caste/ethnic group in a district divided by their total population throughout the country. Now if we calculate the caste/ethnic concentration of the major caste/ethnic groups (having more than 50% population in the district) then we can find that most of them have concentration of less than 10% except for Tharu in Bardiya(13.1%) and Newar in Bhaktapur(10.1%). This shows that even among the major caste/ethnic groups the tendency of population is highly dispersed.
Table 2: Major caste/ethnic groups in their highly concentrated districts
SN |
District |
Major Caste/ethnic Group |
Total population of the district |
Population of Caste/ethnic in the district |
% of caste/ethnic in district |
Caste/ethnic concentration*
(caste/ethnic in the district divided by their national population, %) |
1 |
SALYAN |
CHHETRI |
60643 |
30435 |
50.19 |
0.85 |
2 |
JUMLA |
CHHETRI |
69226 |
43697 |
63.12 |
1.22 |
3 |
BAJHANG |
CHHETRI |
268937 |
106775 |
39.70 |
2.97 |
4 |
ACHHAM |
CHHETRI |
231285 |
123086 |
53.22 |
3.43 |
5 |
DOTI |
CHHETRI |
207066 |
109217 |
52.75 |
3.04 |
6 |
DARCHAULA |
CHHETRI |
121996 |
73254 |
60.05 |
2.04 |
7 |
DADELDHURA |
CHHETRI |
126162 |
64759 |
51.33 |
1.80 |
8 |
BAJURA |
CHHETRI |
100626 |
55887 |
55.54 |
1.56 |
9 |
MANANG |
GURUNG |
9587 |
7273 |
75.86 |
1.34 |
10 |
RASUWA |
TAMANG |
44731 |
28515 |
63.75 |
2.2 |
11 |
BHAKTAPUR |
NEWAR |
225461 |
125926 |
55.85 |
10.1 |
12 |
BARDIYA |
THARU |
382649 |
201276 |
52.60 |
13.1 |
13 |
PALPA |
MAGAR |
268558 |
136750 |
50.92 |
8.4 |
Source: Population Monograph Vol I, CBS 2003
Thus it seems that the concept of segregation of the nation considering the caste/ethnic groups is impractical and irrational. If accessibility to the headquarter is one of the problem and keeping down the administrative cost for 75 different districts is other good region for new demarcation we could rather merge few adjoining districts according to their geographical nature or road accessibility. As Nepal is still considered as an agriculture-based country we can divide it for the peculiar weather or environment or agriculture production such as – eastern tea states, citrus regions, paddy plains, maize hills, Mustard territories. If we wish to promote tourism industry we can make regions based on mountains and tourist destinations such as - Kanchanjangha, Khumbu, Annapurna sector, Mithila, Buddha, Khaptad region, Himalaya south region etc. If priorities for development are to be given for different regions we can divide it as centrally developed, eastern, least developed far western etc. Divisions based on economical capabilities as done by Dr. Harka Gurung or those based on natural resources as done by Dr. Pitambar Sharma could be more appropriate. But still they need further analysis to explain the cost or value associated with the new demarcations. Also, the boundaries of the 75 districts - as they were mainly the geographical division were very irregular and zigzag. It is often difficult to make scientific investigations with such irregular shaped areas and hence it is suggested that the newly conceived stated have more regular, preferably linear boundaries.
(The author is Research Associate/Statistician at the Institute for Integrated Development Studies, IIDS)
