District Consolidation
Thesis And Anti-Thesis

By Mukti Rijal

THE capital city is always abuzz with seminars, workshops and meetings. Some seminar workshops are really useful and specific enough while others end up with dismal note. Recently there was a discourse organised in one of the hotels of the capital city where one could notice tremendous enthusiasm, manifest sense of purpose and living curiosity among the discussants. The speaker was Dr. Harka Gurung and the organizer of the event was Society for International Development Nepal Chapter. The theme of the discussion was fragile districts: futile decentralisation. A galaxy of intellectual elites, planners and development ideologues rarely seen in the seminar going circuit also attended the programme. As the subject of the discourse was very interest rousing and critical those with stakes- intellectual and applied- on development, governance and decentralisation could not but get tempted to attend such interaction.

Prof. Biswakeshar Maskey, president of the Society for International Development Nepal Chapter set the tone for discussion as he articulated ‘ Hyper mobility of capital and information pits one layer of governance against another for investments and resource allocation that limits the capacity of the local self governance units to carry out autonomous policies in the social and economic spheres. The question before us is: what are the right ways of organising local governance and development? How are public goods to be provided? What are the options in terms of capability and sustainability of institutions?’ Dr Harka Gurung in his presentation provided an outline of the decentralisation related efforts in Nepal and said that the power sharing is contingent on the relative strength of the contending parties. In case of Nepal the centre is too pervasive and districts too weak without economic viability. Dr Gurung in his paper circulated among the discussants putforth ‘On an average a terai district was 10.9 times more resourceful than a mountain district. Sample of four districts by elevation zone shows much contrast in both income source and total internal internal revenue. This ranges from Rs 75,000 for Bajhang (mountain) to Rs 21.6 million for Kailali (Terai). Dr Gurung writes in the paper ‘ Higher the elevation of the district, greater the dependence on grant. Thus, the DDCs are utterly dependent on central grant even for their district adminstration. Decentralisation of authority to such entitties without fiscal autonomy has been an exercise in futility. Of the seventy five districts sixty four are in deficit. Among the four districts with a deficit exceeding Rs 2000 million, Doti, Surkhet and Dhankuta have regional offices. Twenty nine districts have a deficit of Rs100-150 million range. Most of these are hill and mountain districts. Five Terai, four hill, three mountains and one inner terai district has a deficit of less than Rs 100 million. Bara has the lowest deficit of Rs 13 million. Only eleven out of the seventy five districts are surplus. These include seven terai, three hills and one inner terai. Based on these data and other substantiation Dr Gurung proposed that the districts should be consolidated and their numbers should come to twenty five. Though Dr Gurung has been advocating for consolidation of the districts for long, this time the debate has spilled on to public discourse , comments and scrutiny. It is to be noted that the Dr Gurung emphasised on the need to make districts viable from economic point of view in an interview he had given to Sunday Despatch -the English weekly of the Gorkhapatra Corporation some years ago which has already gone out of publication. Dr Gurung talked to the Decentralisation Bulletin of the Institute of Governance and Development about the rationale why the number of the districts should be curtailed for consolidation. Similarly, Dr Gurung argued for Pachhis Zilla Ko Nepal (Nepal of twenty five districts) in one of the lead articles published in Himal- the prominent vernacular fortnightly. Dr Gurung thus seems steadfast and consistent in his proposition.

Dr Gurung’s proposition provoked appreciative and critical comments from the elites and scholars present in the event. Dr. Badri Prasad Shrestha-former vice chairman of the National Planning Commission- argued that the economic basis can not be the only criteria for district consolidation. He contended that the revenue from the Biratnagar customs should not be calculated as the exclusive income for the Morang district to prove economic viability. That is the national income. He said physical resource base, economic integration, equitable development, interdependence and interaction merit consideration. Dr Bal Gopal Baidya cast his doubts on the proposition saying how feasible would be the consolidation of the districts from political point of view. Reduction of the districts may not entail tightening on the expenditures. Mr Bihari Krishna shrestha termed the proposition for district consolidation as too simplistic and such a reductionist approach goes against diversity.

Dr, Jagadish Chandra Pokharel-incumbent National Planning Commission member-pleaded that the increase in size does not automatically lead to increment in revenue growth and remarked that no one can say about what should be the ideal size of the districts. It differs from context to context. Mr Shailendra Kumar Upadhyaya stressed on the need to give consideration to cultural, ethnic and linguistic factors while mulling over the issue of district consolidation. Durgesh man Singh argued that there was a trend of making local units smaller in India and elsewhere. Proposition on the district consolidation may not be worthwhile. Dr Purna Kant Adhikari talked at length about the manifestation of the centralist tendencies and said that there should be reining in on them. Dr Parthibeswor Timilsina argued that efficiency, effectiveness and participation not the size should be the central criteria.

Dr Harka Gurung’s thesis has provoked discussion and it is time this should be furthered. It is very difficult to say whether redemarcation of the district is an insurance for decentralisation but the issue needs to be discussed. The debate would add new perspective to decentralisation in the country.

Other Stories

• What Ails Nepalese Bureaucracy
• Taking Out An Insurance Policy