December 17, 2009
Er Krishna Aryal
It's not my analysis. It was conducted by IDA. I am told the methodology adopted for the purpose is impeccable.
I hold different sort of view on federalism which I have already made public (also uploaded in my blog). Therefore, we don't need to invest time to discuss it here.
The very problem lies in declaration of it "for publicity purposes", allowing people to call it publicity gimmick and even farce.
I again happen to hold different view with regard to COAS Katwal. I am student of law and have been working as such for almost 35 years and I happen to believe that the procedure followed by Prachanda was faulty. Without debating whether Katwal should or should not have been sacked, if PM Prachanda had recommended to the President for his sacking based on a cabinet decision, the President wouldn't have had any choice but to sack him. But Prachanda, sacked Katwal himself, I am sure based on the bad advice he had been getting, causing all this brouhaha - unnecessary and costly for the nation.
Federalism has already been enshrined in the Interim Constitution and we are bound to restructure Nepal into various provinces and it will be well neigh impossible to not to have federal structure. Therefore, simply saying that “Nepal should not be a federal state” doesn’t solve the problem. Actually this may beget more violence as UCPNM has put its prestige on line for “federal” Nepal.
On the other hand, having been studying the water resource sector in general and Nepal’s water resource sector in particular for quite a while, in my considered opinion, the optimum exploitation of water resource can only be achieved by taking a river basin approach. But this doesn’t seem to be possible in unitary Nepal – not at least from the experience so far. Further, Nepal’s future lies in her water resources and Nepal can easily be metamorphosed by achieving optimum exploitation of it in her own interest.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that we should have 3 provinces based on our three major river systems, viz. Sapta Koshi, Sapta Gandaki and Karnali. I have tentatively called them as follows: Sapta Koshi-Mechi Rajya, Sapta Gandaki Rajya and Karnali-Mahakali Rajya with Kathmandu valley and other minor river systems as federal territory and the capital. I have written an article on the subject which was published in the current issue Urja Nepal. You can peruse the full article at following webpage:
With best regards,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
From: Krishna Aryal [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 16:25
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Vedr. Declaration of autonomous states/provinces
Dear Ratna Sansar jee,
Thank you for sharing your views with me as an "apolitical" person. Restructuring of Nepal into federal states is the aspiration of the internal constitution, 10-year people's war and the mandate of the majority people/parties. I agree that there are certain sectors of people who feel uncomfortable with the idea of state restructuring. Your analyses shows more opinion inclined to "not restructuring Nepal into federal states". However, I am not sure how realiable these figures are, how many people were involved, from which geographical location were these opinions collected. As we know, Kathmandu alone does not represent the whole Nepal.
The reasons could be many for those who are dissatisfied with the UCPNM action. But a decentralised policy provides authority to the state level to decide their development. It will definately help to delop the nation more rapidly and uplift the underdeveloped sector of population/region. For the purpose, it has to be well managed locally and well coordinated centrally. The state restructuring matter is an important matter and will be finalised from the CA if the present ruling forces keep the CA alive.
Of course, a question arrives why UCPNM started announcing the federal states now before the CA approval. As it has been said by the party that the declaration is symbolic and for publicity purposes. it is to mobilise poeple for the third fase of the protest programme. They are not claiming that it has got legitimate right after declaration and it will be the final. It has come under the third fase of protest programme against the unconstitutional move made by the President on the CoAS episode on the backing of foreign and inland reactionaries. This programme is aimed at to pressurise to the ruling forces to come to the consensus in the major national issues. If they decide to walk away on their way without taking into consideration to the revolutionary force, UCPNM who has 40% CA members, UCPNM is also forced to take its own path and mobilise the people for the possible peoples revolt.
The country should be restructured, but in what basis, is a matter of discussion. The names given now by UCPNM to a ethinicity may not be a scintific way, it can be altered if necessary. But if you think another way, it is just a name given for the due respect to the suppressed people. However, it is an important matter and the final decision will be from the CA as you said by 2/3 majority if the ruling forces do not desolve CA and impose a military rule.
It is a nice apotitical discussion, continue sharing in the future as well.
--- Den ons 2009-12-16 skrev Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Fra: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Declaration of autonomous states/provinces