Tuesday, February 28, 2012


According to Elazar (1987) federalism is a “combination of regional self-rule for some purposes and shared rule for others within a single political system so that neither is subordinate to the other has been applied in different ways to fit different circumstance.” Whereas Finer (1961) opines “A federal State is one in which part of the authority and power is vested in the local areas while another part is vested in the central institution deliberately constituted by an association of the previously independent local areas.” He also adds that “Neither has the right to take away power and authority belonging to the other.”

Montes has defined federalism as “a system that accommodates both self-rule (of the constituent unit) and shared rule (at the federal level)” (Ilago and Montes 2006). Watts (2006) lays down the essential characteristics of federation as “they are composed of two (or more) orders of government operating within a constitutional framework, with one order providing shared-rule through common institutions for certain specified purposes and with the other order (or orders) providing regional or local self-rule through the governments of the constituent units for certain specified purposes.” John Kincaid (Griffiths 2005) rightly opines that “federalism, then, can be said to be both a structure and a process of governance that establishes unity on the basis of consent while preserving diversity by constitutionally uniting separate political communities into a limited, but encompassing, polity.”

Federalism has yet to be defined from Nepal’s perspective, which will be enshrined in the constitution to be promulgated by CA. However, Nepal has already been “declared a federal, democratic, republic” upon abolition of monarchy in May 2008 by amending the Preamble of Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 (by the fourth amendment to it). Similarly, in Article 33(d) it has been specified that an inclusive, democratic and progressive restructuring of the State shall be undertaken to eliminate the existing form of centralized and unitary structure in order to address the problems related to women, Dalits, indigenous tribes, Madheshis, oppressed and minority communities and other disadvantaged groups, by eliminating class, ethnicity, language, gender, cultural, religious and regional discriminations” as the obligations of State.

Article 138 (1) of the Interim Constitution has stipulated that “to bring an end to discrimination based on class, ethnicity, language, gender, culture, religion and region by eliminating the centralized and unitary form of the State, the State shall be made inclusive and restructured into a progressive, democratic system.” There was no mention of word “federal” at the time of proclamation of Interim Constitution in January 2007. It was amended for the first time in June 2007 to insert the word “federal” in Article 138 (1) to enunciate that “the State shall be made inclusive and restructured into a progressive, democratic federal system.”

In Article 138 (2) there is provision for formation of a “High Level Commission” “to make recommendations for the restructuring of the State”. But, according to Article 138 (3) “The final decision relating to the structure of the State and federal system shall be made by the Constituent Assembly.” However, such a commission is yet to be constituted.

Interestingly, the rationale for adoption of federalism in Nepal was only provided by the Fifth Amendment to the Interim Constitution which envisaged it “in order to address the concern of Madheshis, indigenous people and other marginalized groups which have been suffering for long due to centralized State” by adding Sub Article (1A) to Article 138 in December 2008.

Ordinary citizenry have yet to understand and/or comprehend federalism. Some people view it as the panacea for all ills like marginalization, exclusion, etc. and also for salvation women, Dalits, indigenous tribes, Madheshis, oppressed and minorities. But mere spinning off of a number of constituent units (states or provinces) with autonomy and right to self-determination is unlikely to treat/cure such ailments and the likelihood of disenchantment amongst the populace due to failure to redress such issues is high.

According to a survey conducted by Interdisciplinary Analysts (IDA) (Sharma 2010) only 50% of the respondents answered in affirmative when asked if the respondent has “heard about unitary and federal systems” while the percentage was only 32.4% in July 2009 and 16% and 23% respectively in 2006 and 2007; indicating that with the passage of time larger section of the populace are coming to hear about it. Of the people who have responded this year to have heard about it, the average rating for support for federalism was 3.8 only (10 being fully support and 0 for no support). However, having heard about it and plugging a number for support is different by a magnitude with understanding the manifestations and ramifications of it. On the other hand Lawoti (2005) opines that “there may be potential for identity movements with possibility of violence” in view of the increased awareness about exclusion in the marginalized ethnic groups if Nepal doesn’t restructure on ethnocentric (ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural) lines. However, according to the survey result quoted above, 53% expressed their ignorance as to what will be the result of restructuring on ethnocentric lines, while 26% opined that the country could disintegrate as a consequence; 18% and 12% respectively opining that “country will be weakened” and “there will be ethnic conflict”.
Similarly, 50% of this year’s survey respondents expressed their ignorance as to how the state should be restructured while 18% opined that Nepal shouldn’t go federal. Only 7% supported restructuring on ethnocentric lines that has been recommended by the concerned Committee of CA.

In any case, Anderson (2008) is right in saying that “Federalism is not always best, and there is no best version of federalism. Federalism seems particularly suited to democracies with very large populations or territories or with highly diverse populations that are regionally concentrated. Over time, federalism requires a significant part of the population to have a sense of identity with the whole country, as well lively and engaged political communities at the regional levels.”

The views about federalism ranges from outright opposition to its adoption, demand for restructuring on ethnocentric lines and opposition to restructuring on ethnocentric lines, etc. CA’s Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power has come up with a proposal for the purpose which will have to be adopted by the two-third majority of CA. However; it is unlikely that this proposal will pass the muster in the CA as a number of political parties hold opinion divergent to this recommendation and, therefore, it is unlikely that this recommendation will find a place in the future constitution.

Under Rule 66(3) of the Constituent Assembly Rules, 2008, a 43-member Committee for Restructuring of the State and Distribution of State Powers was formed in December 2008. It recommended, in January 2010, creation of 14 states; (a) 10 states on the basis of identity [viz. (i) Limbuwan, (ii) Kirat, (iii) Sherpa, (iv) Tamsaling, (v) Newa, (vi) Tamuwan, (vii) Magrat, (viii) Jadan, (ix) Lumbini-Awadh-Tharuwan and (x) Mithila-Bhojpura-Kochi-Madhesh] and (b) 4 states on the basis of capability [viz. (i) Sunkoshi, (ii) Narayani, (iii) Karnali and (iv) Khaptad)]. For the purpose of delineation of state on the basis of identity, the Committee recognized that a person has plural identity at the same time and it may be (a) ethnic group, (b) cultural group, (c) geographical and regional continuity and (d) historical continuity. Similarly, the capability criteria has been taken to be the manifestation of (a) interrelationship with capabilities and economy, (b) conditions of development infrastructure and possibilities, (c) availability of natural resources and (d) accessibility.

An important feature of the State restructuring was to accord prioritization to the main ethnocentric group of a particular region based on whose identity a particular state was conceived for a certain period; which has been variously described as positive discrimination, affirmative action, preemptive right, et al. But this could result in relegating other ethnocentric groups in such states to second class citizenry. Moreover, minority could end up ruling over the majority as the main ethnocentric community enjoy majority in none of states proposed on these lines.

In the meantime Unified Communist Party of Nepal (UCPNM) came up with a proposal for 12 states which results in the annexation of territories of (i) Sunkoshi and (ii) Narayani states by the neighboring ones, in the draft constitution it unveiled in May 2010. Surprisingly, the 14-state recommendation of the Committee, under the convenership of UCPNM stalwart, was based on the idea floated by UCPNM earlier. Meanwhile Nepal Workers and Peasants Party (NWPP) has put forward its proposal for 14 provinces more or less based on present 14 zones (NWPP 2010); indicative map in Appendix 3. Other political parties seem to lack clarity in this respect but are rooting for the formation of the High Level Commission under Article 138 (2) of the Interim Constitution to come up with a recommendation.

The author of this report has proposed 3 provinces (Shrestha, 2009) on the basis of three main river systems (basins): (i) Sapta Koshi-Mechi, (ii) Sapta Gandaki and (iii) Karnali-Mahakali (map with proposed 3 states in Chapter 5) with an eye on ensuring optimum exploitation of Nepal’s hydro resources without causing any problem of second class citizen or minority rule over the majority.

Under the universally accepted principle of right to natural resources each Nepali citizen bred and brought up in any part of the country is entitled to equal right to the available natural resources of the country in any part of the country. For example, a Nepali living in the concrete jungle of Kathmandu valley is entitled to right to the trees, plants, woods, wildlife, herbs, etc. of any forest anywhere. However, after the country is divided into different provinces under the federal system, complexities over sharing of natural resources is certain to arise as evidenced by what transpired in Nar valley of Manang district. People there, for example, unfortunately belaboring in the mistaken belief that the right to harvest ‘Yarsagumbu’ (a medicinal herb) in the district is in their exclusive domain, killed seven unarmed, innocent people from Gorkha, hunting for this herb, in cold blood in 2008. This incident has revealed that with the imminent implementation of federal structure people have started subscribing to the idea that people of one province will not get anything from the other province. Therefore, it is high time to analyze the negative impacts of adoption of federalism.

Some people take water resources only as hydropower forgetting that this natural resource can be instrumental in meeting basic need for livelihood along with the need for adequate pure and healthy drinking water, as well as its use in sanitation, irrigation, fisheries, water transport, tourism based on water sports and industrial use; besides the electricity generation. Basically failing to see and comprehend the water-food-energy nexus.

The concern is with regard to if there will be any obstacle in the optimum exploitation of this resource, its effective management and usage of it for the benefit/betterment of Nepal and Nepali people under federal structure? In case of obstacles, how should they be resolved? How could it be addressed? What issues should get special attention while adopting federalism? How could people’s participation be made more meaningful and inclusive for equitable access to and utilization of water resources while ensuring equitable sharing of benefits? What kinds of decisions on water resources will result in the maximum benefit of the country and the people? It is essential to have serious thoughts and extensive discussions on this matter.

Despite being one of the natural resources, the nature and form of utilization and benefiting therefrom in the case of water resources is entirely different from other natural resources. It is necessary to identify the existing differences between water resources and other natural resources in the context of the federalism. By involving themselves and working as entrepreneurs local people can benefit directly from natural resources like land, forests, herbs, wildlife, minerals, etc. through collection, utilization and other forms of use i.e., harvesting fruit from trees and by cultivating land, collecting herbs, etc. Water resources, however, cannot be utilized in this manner. At the micro level local people can benefit from micro irrigation schemes, micro hydropower plants, tourism based on water sports and other cottage and small industries. But the benefit from water resources can only be maximized by ensuring its optimum exploitation which is likely to be hindered by fragmentation of the country in very small units in the name of federal structure. People are already discussing division of water resources under federalism which is premature without its optimum exploitation.

Drinking Water: There has been an age old practice of buying a source of water of one village by another village. After twenty years of conception of the idea of diverting water from Melamchi River of Sindhupalchowk district through underground tunnel into Kathmandu Valley to resolve the drinking water problem of the capital city, the contract for the execution of the project was concluded last year. Although, this will deprive the local people from using the water of this river, traditionally used by them, no arrangement has been made to recompense them for being deprived as such. In the meantime, local people have been putting forward various demands for compensation, including sustained source of income for them. However, it will not be possible to make arrangements for such sustained source of income by hiking the cost of drinking water for consumers. If source of this project is to lie in one autonomous constituent unit with right to self determination (proposed Tamsaling state) while the consumers in another state, the complexity of this project will get compounded.

Water is an essential “commodity” for human beings; also for plants and other land and aquatic/marine wildlife. Water has also become a product for sale like other commodities. The tap water also bears a ‘price’ because of the stance taken by multilateral financial institution with respect to water supply utilities. The water sold in plastic bottles, jar or similar vessels and tankers has become a profit making business rather than a service oriented activity.

It was heartrending that about 500 Nepali citizens had to lose their lives untimely last year due to the outbreak of diarrhea/cholera, mainly in Rukum and Jajarkot districts of Mid-west region (and several districts of Far-west region), which was caused by lack of potable drinking water and sanitation facilities. In this backdrop, people feel that it has become imperative, to incorporate a clause in the constitution declaring access to potable water supply in adequate quantum and also for sanitation facilities as one of the fundamental rights.

Hydropower as an industry does not recognize any political boundary; manifest in electricity being electron that travels through a transmission network freely. However, implementation of a large hydropower project may mean economic prosperity for some, but it also entails several negative, socio-economic, impacts on the local people, including on indigenous populations. We have numerous examples where local people living in the vicinity of the large hydropower project sites do not have access to electricity even for lighting their homes after them having suffered to have the project built in the area

From the perspective of production and use, even though the Western development region produces the highest quantum of electricity (about 330 MW) in the country, it consumes only half of what it produces. However, the Eastern development region consumes 20 times more electricity than what it produces (14 MW). The Central development region consumes a little more than its production (277 MW). Probably far western development only a little more than what it produces (less than 1 MW). Such a scenario exists because of higher electricity demand in certain areas due to (a) higher density of population and (b) concentration of industrial belts (Sunsari-Morang, Bara-Parsa and Rupandehi-Nawalparasi) and (c) for extraction of ground water for water supply and irrigation. Whereas, hydropower project sites are mainly concentrated in the mid-hills which are sparsely populated, with not much of industrialization.

Currently there is no debate with regard to which region is producing or not producing and which region is consuming more than it produces. Even if the existing five development regions are to be declared as the five provinces, this type of happy sharing will not be possible. Simple issue like pricing can spin out of control and provinces with more generation capacity can shut off power if the price is not right. There is even a possibility that if India is to buy at a higher rate, then a province could choose to export it rather than supply to other provinces (keeping them starved for energy).

Prioritizing Consumption: Regarding the utilization of water resources, the Section 7 (1) of Water Resource Act, 1992, categorizes drinking water including for water for domestic use, irrigation, and agriculture based utilization like animal husbandry and fishery with first, second and third priority, respectively, whereas electricity generation rates fourth priority. However, after the implementation of hydropower project, the priority of the Water Resources Act will be superseded by the license granted which will entitle the hydropower project water in a specific quantum thereby rendering the priority ranking of the law irrelevant.

Following the implementation of a hydropower project, the local people living in the upstream reaches of a river will not be able to undertake projects to irrigate new land because of the project’s water rights. The project’s electricity production will decrease if the quantum of water available to the project is reduced, and consequently, project’s revenue too will decrease; thereby rendering the project unfeasible. In order to avoid this, the Rule 20 of the Electricity Regulation guarantees specific quantum of the water to the licensee in accordance with the license. If, for example, the Upper Karnali Project is launched, the people of Jumla district will be denied of the opportunity of developing new irrigation schemes from the water of the Tila River. Thus, it is clear from the existing laws that even though irrigation is the second priority, the implementation of hydropower project will have negative impact on the amount of water guaranteed by the license and, in such a situation, above mentioned priority will be limited to paper. In effect the Electricity Regulations, which has a subsidiary status to the Water Resources Act, has curtailed the right of people provided by the Act.

No one is unfamiliar with the incidents when, due to lack of rain, farmers have broken drinking water pipeline to irrigate their field during the plantation season, which trigger extreme scarcity of drinking water in the densely populated areas, like Kathmandu valley. Even though drinking water deserves first priority people have been denied the right to drinking water. This may have been a simple happening in the unitary system but it could lead to serious incident in the federal system.

It has been said that the water of Yangri and Larke Rivers of Sindhupalchowk district will be channelized to supply drinking water to Kathmandu Valley in the second and third phase of Melamchi Project. It may create problems if water is supplied to Kathmandu Valley and other areas from the rivers where the hydropower project has already been implemented or construction work is underway. Thus, necessary provision in the new constitution is not made to deal with such issues prior to adopting federalism, the country may be embroiled in serious disputes later on.

There is also ultra-modern use of water resources, which is associated with the hydrogen economy. Hydrogen and oxygen gases can be separated through electrolysis of the water. The technology to use hydrogen as energy has already been developed. When the cost of this technology comes down, the hydrogen energy could be used for cooking as well as to operate vehicles and industries. The use of this technology may also contribute significantly to Nepali economy through trading in carbon offset. Adequate production and supply of oxygen to hospitals of the country will also save foreign currency used for oxygen import. But prior right established by a project in the downstream reaches of a hydropower project will preclude any such activity in the upper reaches of a river.

Additionally, hydrology of a river depends on how well the watershed in the upper reaches is maintained. In the absence of a system of compensation for environmental services, e.g. eco-compensation, projects could suffer if project site and upper reaches of the project are to be under the jurisdiction two different constituent units.

Dewatered area in the River: Diverting river water through canal/tunnel for the hydropower project may create a situation similar to Marshyangdi project, wherein a specific stretch of river becomes devoid of any water. If the electricity produced in one constituent unit is to be utilized in another then the local people are not likely to agree to the construction of the hydropower plant, and the possibility of producing the targeted amount of electricity also becomes slimmer.

A hydropower project with reservoir produces more negative externalities than by a RoR project. Whereas a PRoR project like, Kali-Gandaki A, which collects daily river flow has less negative externalities compared to the Kulekhani (storage) project, which stores water all year round. Apart from submerging land, forests (including wildlife), tourist site, temple and local infrastructure, the construction of the reservoir results in involuntary relocation of people. But such a project also generates high quality peak-in power.

Downstream Benefits: However, a storage project, if built as a multipurpose project, results in positive externalities in a number of ways in addition to the hydropower it generates. The water stored in the reservoir will become available in the downstream areas in the form of augmented/regulated flow in the dry season. This will not only avail water for drinking and sanitation purposes, but also for dry season irrigation, animal husbandry and fisheries, industrial uses of water, etc. With the water flowing in the lower riparian area even during the dry season, the watershed along the river will improve and benefits could be reaped by using the river for navigation and recreational purposes. Moreover, construction of reservoir will also control floods and landslides in the downstream areas during the rainy season.

According to the official record, Nepal has nearly 4 million hectares of arable land (more than one-third Terai). Of which only 500,000 hectares (less than 13 percent) has some irrigation (that too only during the rainy season) yielding only one rainy season crop, if the rainfall is good. Crop production suffers if the rain is inadequate or late, triggering famine. By implementing multipurpose projects in the mid-hills, food security can be achieved which will also promote cash crop and help increase cropping intensity (at least three crops a year or more).

If Nepal’s Terai is become a separate constituent unit/s, the possibility of reaping downstream benefit as such will diminish as building reservoirs in the upper reaches of a river will inundate the constituent units in the upstream areas entailing submergence of land and displacement of local people. Similarly, constituent units in the upper reaches of a river will be constrained by their inability to use water for consumptive uses if a project is built in the lower reaches of the river. Typically, if the official proposal of the committee of CA is adopted, for example, it will be difficult to build projects on Sapta Koshi river as, large tracts of land will be submerged in Sunkoshi and Kirat provinces, Sherpa province will not be able to use the water for consumptive purposes (including going to hydrogen economy) and Mithila-Bhojpur-Madhesh province will stand to benefit from augmented/regulated flow.

Further, the construction of a dam for a hydropower project is not possible in the plains. It is possible only in the hilly area; with river valleys to store water, entailing involuntary relocation of the inhabitants. However, there is not enough land for resettlement of the displaced people in the hills because of lack of habitable lands. Good land is available in the plains where the resettlement of the displaced people may be deemed to disturb the ethnocentric balance of the area as various constituent units are being planned on these lines. The Tharus of the Western Terai have already refused to let the people displaced by the West Seti Project to resettle in their area. In sum, after the delineation of separate constituent units, the people of the upstream constituent unit will lose their right to consumptive use of the water, people of constituent unit in the project site will lose their land and also be displaced by project construction which will provide electricity to consumers in other constituent units and irrigate land in the constituent units in the lower riparian. In such a scenario it may not be easy to have a project implemented.

Additionally, rivers have been used to delineate most of the districts, administrative zones and development areas of Nepal from time immemorial. However, the two constituent units on the two banks of a particular river tend to have different aspirations, needs and priorities, which too may result in disputes as regards harnessing hydro resource. The CA committee too has used rivers delineate various provinces. In the example cited above Sunkoshi and Kirat provinces may not be able to agree as to how best to harness Sapta Koshi River, which mostly delineates the border of these two provinces.

Provincial conflicts: As Nepal is about to adopt federalism, the disputes over sharing river waters in the neighboring countries of India and Pakistan should serve as an eye opener. There exists dispute between Punjab and Haryana over sharing river water. Likewise, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan are involved in a dispute over Narmada project. Similarly, the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over Cauvery project is still hanging fire. Pakistan too isn’t immune from the disease. The dispute between Punjab and Sind provinces over whether or not to implement Kalabag project has yet to be resolved.

Long before the discussion on federalism began Nepal already has had a bad track record in terms of benefitting from trans-boundary rivers, through treaties on Koshi, Gandak and Mahakali. In future disputes between two constituent units could weaken the State and result in Nepal losing further.

According to Section 3 of Water Resource Act, the ownership of the water resources available in Nepal is vested in the State. In this backdrop, subsequent to restructuring of the State questions are likely to arise as to whether the ownership should lie at the central, provincial or local levels. Some are already demanding that resources within a constituent unit should be in the ownership of that particular constituent unit, which could impede optimum exploitation of the resource.

Similarly, highly emotional debate has been generated by the issue of division of “hydro resources”. This becomes particularly difficult as a number of constituent units are being proposed to be delineated using rivers as the boundary. This will not only render division of the resource a tricky affair, but optimum exploitation too will become problematic.

The ideal course will be to ensure optimum exploitation and focus on sharing benefits; ranging from benefiting from opportunity to invest to benefiting from end use of electricity for industrialization, employment generating activities and income generating activities, energizing agriculture sector (using electricity for irrigation, for storage agricultural produce, agro-processing etc.), royalties revenue, etc. (in the case of multipurpose project, from the augmented/regulated flow, from water way, from increase in tourism related activities, etc.).

Besides, as looking to benefit from royalty reflects rent seeking attitude, all concerned should focus on using electricity to benefit from industrialization and employment generation thereby. In any case, royalties will go to the owner of “hydro” resources and if the ownership is to vest in the respective constituent units, then there will not be any division issues. However, if the ownership vests at the center, then royalty revenue will constitute one of the revenue sources that will be shared based on a formula under fiscal regime.

In any case, it has been proposed to incorporate a provision in the draft constitution to constitute a “National Natural Resource Commission” which will be reposed with the responsibility ranging from ensuring optimal exploitation to settling disputes between the constituent units and between center and constituent unit.

There are five distinct phases in the history of Australian water management. Only the second phase commenced with federation in 1901 and the final phase, commencing in 2007 heralded use of political deal making allowing Federal Government to create the agenda over water in the States. Compared to this, Nepal hasn’t even attained infancy in this matter; Nepal’s’ federalism is still in the conception phase and we could learn quite a lot from Canadian experience.

In Argentina “regarding hydroelectric uses, the source or fall is a resource that is separate from the land, which is owned by the province wherever it may be located. Therefore, the receipt of a royalty corresponds to the province.” Some people in Nepal are recommending that large and mega hydropower projects should be under the jurisdiction of the center, medium and small hydropower projects under provincial level and mini, micro and pico hydro at local level. This will not only pose impediment in the optimization of hydro resources but also create unnecessarily high number of disputes as a particular hydropower site may be deemed a specific size and could be optimized at a very high level (300 MW upper Karnali project is actually a potential site for 4,180 MW storage project).

The situation of Nepal is comparable with Canada to an extent as she faces special challenges as a federal state in managing its vast water resources, many of which are transjurisdictional in nature, shared either with the United States or amongst Canadian provinces and territories. Therefore, Nepal is in a position to learn quite a lot from Canadian experience.

The Federal Constitution of Ethiopia provides that the water resources of the country are publicly owned and that the Federal Government has the overall mandate to determine the administration and management of the utilization of the waters that are inter-regional and trans-boundary in nature while Regional States have the mandate to administer the water resources within their respective States in accordance with federal laws. This structure, however, may not enable optimum exploitation of hydro resources.

The experience of Germany may not have any relevance for Nepal as Germany is required to abide by “EC Water framework Directive” whereas there is nothing as such under SAARC.

Dr Goldface opines that in Nigeria “The three levels of government, Federal, State and Local Government, share responsibility for water resources management. Thus, leading to fragmentation, duplication and lack of inter-sectoral coordination with each segment pursuing its own independent water agenda. The salient features of water resources management in Nigeria include: weak data base, fragmented responsibility and weak institutional framework among others. Because of the fragmented and uncoordinated approach to water management issues, the regulatory and monitoring machinery within the water sector in Nigeria is diverse, diffused and weak.” Nepal should learn from this experience not fragment the authority and responsibility regarding hydro resources.

In South Africa the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) enables the establishment of Catchment Management Agencies which is supposed to ultimately take responsibility for all activities required to enable and support water resources regulation, including authorizing the use of water and ensuring that water related activities are performed in accordance with the Catchment Management Strategy. However, the water sector has not been particularly effective at pragmatically implementing these sentiments nor making them operational. Whereas in USA, state water allocation laws are regularly subordinated to wide-ranging federal laws concerning navigation, fish and wildlife, and environmental protection as well as national defense. Nepal needs to emulate success story of latter and be enriched from lessons learnt in South Africa.

Chapter 4 of the report submitted to Forum of Federations, part of which was published by FoF.

No comments: