संविधानसभामा रहेका विषयगत समितिमध्ये राज्यको पुनर्संरचना र राज्यशक्तिको बाँडफाँड समितिले सबैभन्दा ढिला प्रतिवेदन तयार पार्‍यो २०६५ साल मंसिर ३० गते ४३ सदस्यीय समिति गठन गरिएको थियो। यसको एक महिनापछि पुष २९ गते एकिकृत नेकपा माओवादीका सभासद् लोकेन्द्रबहादुर विष्ट मगर समिति सभापतिमा निर्वाचित भए। राज्यको पुनर्संरचना र राज्यशक्तिको बाँडफाँडबारे समितिमा करिब १३ महिना छलफल भएपनि सहमति हुन सकेन। सहमतिका लागि गरिएका बारम्बारका प्रयासहरु असफल भएपछि अन्ततः समितिले २०६६ साल माघ १० गते संविधानसभामा प्रतिवेदन पेश गर्‍यो।

केन्द्रीकृत राज्य प्रणालीलाई पुनर्संरचना गरी सोही अनुसार शक्तिको बाँडफाँड गर्ने काम आफैमा चूनौतीपूर्ण हो। यो कुरा यसकारण पनि चुनौतीपुर्ण हो कि पुनर्संरचनका आधार र विषयहरुबारे दलिय मतभिन्नता मात्र होइन, एउटै दलभित्र समेत सहमति छैन। संरचनाको खाकाबारे संविधानसभाको सबैभन्दा ठूलो दल माओवादी एउटै अडानमा रहन सकेन। निर्वाचन अघि सार्वजनिक गरेको खाकालाई माओवादीले त्यसपछिका दिनमा पटक–पटक परिवर्तन गर्योद।

एमालेका नेताहरु पनि राज्य पुनर्संरचनाबारे एउटा स्पष्ट खाकामा सहमत भएनन। पार्टीले एउटा प्रस्ताव अघि सार्योक भने मंगलसिद्धि मानन्धर, शंकर पोखरेल, राजेन्द्र श्रेष्ठ लगायतका नेताहरुको फरक फरक प्रस्ताव रह्यो। छलफलका क्रममा एउटा पार्टीभित्रबाटै फरक फरक प्रस्ताव आउनु नराम्रो भएपनि नेताहरुले अघि सारेका प्रस्तावलाई पार्टीले कसरी लिन्छ र पार्टीको प्रस्तावलाई नेताले स्वीकार गर्छन वा गर्दैनन् भन्ने चाहिं महत्वपूर्ण पक्ष हो। एमालेमा फरक–फरक मत रहेपनि पार्टीको प्रतिवेदनबारे खासै विवाद रहेन।

यता नेपाली काग्रेसमा राज्यको पुनसंरचनाबारे नरहरि आचार्य, गोविन्दराज जोशी लगायतका नेताहरुले आ–आफनै प्रस्ताव अघि सारे। पार्टी उपसभापति गोपालमान श्रेष्ठको संयोजकत्वमा गठित कार्यदलले राज्य पुनसंरचनाको स्पष्ट खाका तयार पार्न सकेन। संविधानसभा राज्य पुनर्संरचना समितिले बारम्बार आग्रह गर्दा पनि का“ग्रेसका तर्फबाट यस विषयमा आफनो पार्टीको धारणा लिखित रुपमा पेश भने गरेन।

राजनीतिक दलहरुबीच सहमति नहुँदा र अन्तरिम संविधान अनुसार अघि बढन खोज्दा पनि यस समितिका काम प्रभावित हुन पुग्यो। अन्तरिम संविधानमा राज्यको पुनर्संरचनाका लागि सुझाव दिन नेपाल सरकारले एक उच्चस्तरीय आयोग गठन गर्ने प्रावधान छ। र, सोही प्रावधान अनुसार २०६६ साल वैशाख १४ गते गणेशमान गुरुङको अध्यक्षतामा पनुसंरचना आयोगको गठन पनि गरियो। आयोगको कार्यक्षेत्र, कार्यविधि, आयोगको सदस्यको प्रतिनिधित्व र पूर्णताका बारेमा उल्लेख नभएपछि र दलहरुबीच विवाद भएकाले यस आयोगले काम गर्न सकेन। यतिसम्म कि आयोग अध्यक्ष गुरुङले नियुक्ति नै लिएनन्।

संविधानसभाको समितिभित्र राज्य पुनसंरचनाबारे छलफल गर्ने तर आयोग बनाउन ढिला गर्ने, आयोगलाई काम गर्न सक्ने वातावरण तयार नपारिदिने र आयोगको प्रतिवेदन नआइकन राज्यको पुनर्संरचनाको खाका तयार पार्न हुन्न भन्ने वहसले अन्यौल सिर्जना गर्योय। खास गरी काँग्रेसका नेताहरुले राज्य पुनसंरचना आयोगको प्रतिवेदन नआई संसदीय समितिले प्रतिवेदन तयार गर्न हुँदैन भन्ने आवाज उठाउदै आएका थिए। यति हुँदाहुँदै पनि समितिले १ सय १३ वटा बैठकमा छलफल गरी प्रतिवेदन तयार पार्यो।

केन्द्रीकृत स्वरुपको अन्त्य

समितिले तयार पारेको मस्यौदा प्रतिवेदनको प्रस्तावनामा राज्यको पुनर्संरचना र राज्य शक्तिको बाँडफाँड किन गर्न आवश्यक छ भन्नेबारे प्रष्टाउने प्रयास गरिएको छ। प्रतिवेदनको प्रस्तावनामा ‘देशमा विद्यमान वर्गिय, जातीय, क्षेत्रिय, लैङ्गिक तथा समुदायगत समस्याहरुलाई समाधान गर्न एकात्मक तथा केन्द्रीकृत स्वरुपलाई अन्त्य गर्दै नेपाललाई पुर्ण लोकतान्त्रिक समावेशी सहितको समानुपातिक संघीय गणतन्त्रात्मक शासन प्रणाली स्थापना गर्न अग्रगामी पुनसंरचन गर्नु पर्ने भएकाले’ भन्ने उल्लेख छ।

त्यस्तै ‘संविधानद्वारा प्रदत्त आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार सहितको पहिचान र सामर्थ्यमा आधारित स्वायत्त, स्वशासित तथा अधिकार सम्पन्न प्रदेश, स्थानीय तह तथा विशेष संरचना निर्माण गरी केन्द्रमा निहित शासन शक्तिलाई संघ, प्रदेश, स्थानीय तह र विशेष संरचनासम्म बाँडफाँड गरी शान्तिपूर्ण, स्वाधिन, धर्म निरपेक्ष, समतामुलक र सम्वृद्ध नेपालको निर्माण गर्नुपर्ने भएकाले, सबै जाति, क्षेत्र, लिङ्ग एवं समुदायको राज्यशक्तिको परिचालन गर्ने अङ्गहरुमा समानुपातिक प्रतिनिधित्व एवं अधिकार पाउने व्यवस्था गर्न बाञ्छनिय भएकाले’ भन्ने कुरा पनि प्रस्तावनामा उल्लेख छ।

मस्यौदा प्रतिवेदनमा संघ, प्रदेश, स्थानीय तह, विशेष संरचना, स्वायत्त क्षेत्र, सुरक्षित क्षेत्र, विशेष क्षेत्र, राज्यशक्ति, सूचीको छुटा–छुटटै परिभाषा गरिएको छ। संघको परिभाषा गर्दै प्रतिवेदनमा भनिएको छ, ‘संघ भन्नाले संघीय संरचनाको सबभन्दा माथिल्लो तहको रुपमा रहने संघीय तह सम्झनुपर्छ। यस शब्दले संघीय नेपालको विभिन्न प्रदेशहरु, स्थानीय तह र विशेष संरचनाको समष्टिगत स्वरुपलाई समेत जनाउँछ।’

यसैगरी प्रदेश भन्नाले संघीय इकाईमा विभाजन गरिएको नेपालको संघीय एकाईको क्षेत्र र स्वरुप सम्झनुपर्ने, स्थानीय तह भन्नाले प्रदेश अन्तर्गत स्थापना हुने गाउँपालिका तथा नगरपालिकालाई सम्झनुपर्ने, राज्यशक्ति भन्नाले राज्यको कार्यपालिका, व्यवस्थापिका र न्यायपालिका सम्बन्धी अधिकार सम्झनुपर्ने भनी मस्यौदा प्रतिवेदनमा परिभाषित गरिएको छ।

प्रतिवेदनमा संघीय नेपालको तहगत संरचना संघ, प्रदेश तथा स्थानीय गरी तीन तहको हुने उल्लेख छ। संघ र प्रदेशमा व्यवस्थापिका, न्यायपालिका र कार्यपालिका रहने व्यवस्था छ। स्थानीय तहमा प्रादेशिक कानून अन्तर्गत विधायिकी, कार्यकारिणी र न्यायीक अधिकार रहेको एक निर्वाचित परिषद् रहने व्यवस्था गरिएको छ।

चौध प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव

संघीय नेपालका लागि १४ प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव गरिएको छ जस अनुसार लिम्बुवान, मिथिला–भोजपूरा–कोच–मधेश, किराँत, सुनकोशी, शेर्पा, ताम्सिलिङ्ग, नेवा, नारायणी, तमुवान, मगरात, लुम्बिनी–अवध–थारुवान, कर्णाली, जडान र खप्तड रहेका छन्। पहिचान र सामार्थ्यलाई प्रदेश निर्माणको मूख्य आधार मानिएको छ। ‘पहिचानको आधार अर्न्तगत जातीय/समुदाय, भाषिक सांस्कृतिक, भौगोलिक/क्षेत्रगत निरन्तरता एवं ऐतिहासिक निरन्तरता रहेका छन्। आर्थिक अन्तरसम्बन्ध र सामार्थ्य, पूर्वाधार विकासको अवस्था र सम्भावना, प्राकृतिक साधन र स्रोतको उपलब्धता र प्रशासनिक सुगमतालाई सामर्थ्यको आधारको रुपमा लिइएको छ।

प्रदेशको नाम हेरफेर गर्नुपरेमा सम्बन्धीत प्रदेशको प्रादेशिक व्यवस्थापिका को दुई तिहाइ वहुमतको निर्णय प्रादेशिक सरकारको सिफारिसमा संघीय व्यवस्थापिकाको दुई तिहाई वहुमतले अनुमोदन गर्नुपर्ने प्रावधान पनि समितिले अघि सारेको छ। यस्तै प्रदेशहरु एक आपसमा गाभिन तथा थप नयाँ प्रदेशको रुपमा निर्माण गर्न परेमा वा प्रादेशिक सिमानालाई एक आपसमा मिलाई हेरफेर गर्न परेमा सबन्धीत प्रादेशिक व्यवस्थापिकाको दुई तिहाई वहुमतको निर्णय भई प्रादेशिक सरकारको सिफारिसलाई संघीय व्यवस्थापिका को दुई तिहाइ वहुमतले अनुमोदन गर्नुपर्ने व्यवस्था छ। संघीय व्यवस्थापिकामा दुई तिहाइ वहुमत नपुगी अनुमोदन गर्न नसकेमा सम्बन्धीत प्रदेशहरुमा जनमत संग्रह गर्न सकिने प्रावधान पनि प्रतिवेदनमा उल्लेख छ।

प्रस्तावित प्रतिवेदनको धारा (४) बमोजिमको मूल संरचनाको अतिरिक्त कुनै प्रदेश भित्र एक जाति/समुदाय वा भाषिक समुदायको बाहुल्य भएको वा सघन उपस्थिति रहेको क्षेत्रलाई स्वायत्त क्षेत्र कायम गर्न सकिने प्रावधान पनि छ। संघीय नेपालको मुल संरचना चाहिं संघ, प्रदेश तथा स्थानीय गरी तीन तहको हुने उल्लेख छ। यस अतिरिक्त अल्पसंख्यक रुपमा रहेका जाति/समुदाय, सास्कृतिक क्षेत्र, लोपोन्मुख र सिमान्तकृत जातिहरुको संरक्षण र सम्बर्द्धन गर्न कुनै क्षेत्रलाई संरक्षित क्षेत्र कायम गर्न सक्ने प्रावधानलाई प्रतिवेदनमा समेटिएको हो। प्रदेशभित्र पिछडिएका तथा आर्थिक र सामाजिक अवस्थाबाट पछाडि पारिएको क्षेत्र वा विषयगत क्षेत्रको विकास गर्न कुनै खास भौगोलिक क्षेत्रलाई विशेष क्षेत्र कायम गर्न सक्ने व्यवस्था प्रस्ताव गरिएको हो।

अधिकारको बाँडफाँड

प्रतिवेदनमा संघ, प्रदेश, स्थानीय तह, विशेष क्षेत्र अर्न्तगत हुने स्वायक्त क्षेत्रको अधिकारलाई स्पष्ट पार्ने प्रयास गरिएको छ। संघ अर्न्तगत रक्षा र सेना, केन्द्रीय वल, केन्द्रीय वैंक, वित्तिय नीति, विदेशी अनुदान, सहयोग र ऋण रहने व्यवस्था छ। यस्तै केन्द्रीय दुर सञ्चार, रेडियो फ्रिक्वन्सीको बाँडफाँड, टेलिभिजन, हुलाक, भन्सार, अन्तशुल्क, मूल्य अभिवृद्धि कर, संस्थागत आयकर, राहदानी, भिसा, पर्यटन दस्तुर, सेवा शुल्क दस्तुर केन्द्रका लागि राखिएको छ।

प्राकृतिक श्रोतबाट प्राप्त रोयल्टि, केन्द्रीय निजामती सेवा व्यवस्थापन, केन्द्रीय तथ्यांक, केन्द्रीय स्तरका ठूला विद्युत, सिचाई र अन्य आयोजनाहरु तथा परियोजना पनि केन्द्र अन्तर्गत नै राख्न प्रस्ताव गरिएको छ। केन्द्रीय विश्वविद्यालय, केन्द्रीय पुस्तकालय, केन्द्रीय स्वास्थ्य नीति, संघीय व्यवस्थापिका, संघीय कार्यपालिका सम्बन्धी मामिला, अन्तराष्टिय व्यापार, विनिमय, बन्दरगाह, क्वारेन्टाइन, अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय तथा अन्तर राज्य हवाइ उडडायन, विदेशी तथा कुटनैतिक मामला र संयुक्त राष्टसंघ सम्बन्धी काम पनि केन्द्रले हेर्ने व्यवस्था छ।

अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सन्धी, सुपुर्दगी, अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सिमाना व्यवस्थापन, राष्ट्रिय रेल तथा राष्ट्रिय लोकमार्गको व्यवस्थापन, राष्ट्रिय गुप्तचर तथा अनुसन्धान, सर्वोच्च अदालत/संवैधानिक अदालत, नागरिकता, राहदानी, भिसा, अध्यागमन सम्बन्धी कानून, आणविक उर्जा र अन्तरिक्ष सम्बन्धी कार्यहरु पनि संघको अधिकार क्षेत्रमा राखिएको छ। त्यस्तै युद्ध र प्रतिरक्षा, हातहतियार, खरखजना कारखाना तथा उत्पादन सम्बन्धी, नाप–तौल, खानी उत्खनन, बीमा नीति, फौजदारी कानूनको निर्माण, बौद्धिक सम्पत्ति पनि केन्द्रको मातहतमा रहने व्यवस्था छ।

निर्वाचन आयोग, राष्ट्रिय मानव अधिकार आयोग, अख्तियार दुरुपयोग अनुसन्धान आयोग, लोक सेवा आयोग, राष्टिय महिला आयोग, समानुपातिक समावेशी आयोग, दलित आयोग, राष्ट्रिय योजना आयोग, आदिवासी जनजाति आयोग, मधेशी आयोग, अति अल्पसंख्यक, सिमान्तकृत र पिछडिएको क्षेत्र उत्थान आयोग र मुस्लिम आयोग सम्बन्धी अधिकार पनि संघको अधिकार सूचीमा समावेश गरिएको छ। संघ, प्रदेश, स्थानीय तह तथा स्वायत्त क्षेत्रको अधिकारको सूचीमा वा साझा सूचीमा उल्लेख नभएको कुनै विषयमा तथा संविधान तथा कानूनमा नतोकिएको विषय केन्द्र मातहत नै रहने समितिको प्रस्ताव छ।

प्रदेशका अधिकार

प्रदेशको अधिकार क्षेत्रमा प्रादेशिक मुल कानून, प्रहरी, प्रशासन र शान्ति सुरक्षा, बैंक तथा वित्तिय संस्था जस्ता विषयहरु छन्। साथै केन्द्रको सहमतिमा वैदेशिक अनुदान र सहयोग, रेडियो, एफएम, टेलिभिजन, व्यक्तिगत आयकर, सम्पत्ति कर, व्यावसायिक कर, मालपोत, पारिश्रमिक कर, घर जग्गा रजिष्टेशन शुल्क, सवारी साधन कर, मनोरञ्जन कर, विज्ञापन कर, पर्यटन, कृषि आयमा कर र सेवा शुल्क दस्तुर प्रदेशको अधिकार क्षेत्रभित्र रहने समितिको प्रस्ताव छ।

प्राकृतिक श्रोतबाट प्राप्त रोयल्टी, प्रदेशिक निजामति सेवाको व्यवस्थापन, प्रादेशिक स्तरको विद्युत, सिचाई आयोजना एवं अन्य आयोजना तथा परियोजनाहरु, विश्वविद्यालय, उच्च शिक्षा, पुस्तकालय, संग्राहलय, स्वास्थ्य सेवा, प्रादेशिक व्यवस्थापिका, स्थानीय सरकार सम्बन्धी र विशेष संरचना सम्बन्धी अधिकार प्रदेशको रहने प्रस्ताव समितिले गरेको छ।

अन्तर प्रादेशिक व्यापार, प्रादेशिक हवाई सेवा, प्रादेशिक रेल्वे र प्रादेशिक लोकमार्ग, प्रादेशिक अनुसन्धान व्युरो, विद्युत आयोजना, सिंचाई आयोजना, प्रादेशिक अदालत, पारिवारिक अदालत, बाल अदालत, नागरिकता र राहदानी व्यवस्थापन, प्रादेशिक स्तरका आयोगहरु, भूमि व्यवस्थापन, जग्गाको अभिलेख र मालपोत निर्धारण गर्ने अधिकारलाई पनि प्रदेशको क्षेत्राधिकारमा समेटिएको छ।

खानी अन्वेषण र व्यवस्थापन, बीमा व्यवस्थापन र सञ्चालन, भाषा, संस्कृति, लिपी र धर्मको संरक्षण र प्रयोग, प्रदेश भित्रको वन जङ्गल, जल उपयोग, कृषि तथा पशु विकास, कलकारखाना, औद्योगिकरण, व्यापार–व्यवसाय, यातायात, अल्कोहलिक पदार्थ उत्पादन, निर्माण खरिद बिक्री, पुस्तक तथा छापाखाना र गुठी व्यवस्थापनमा पनि प्रदेशको अधिकार रहने समितिको प्रस्ताव छ।

के– के छन् साझा अधिकार?

संघ र प्रदेश एक अर्कोसँग सम्बन्धीत विषयलाई साझा अधिकारको सूचीमा राखिएको छ। ‘साझा सूचीको प्रयोगका लागि संघ तथा प्रदेश दुबै तहले कानून निर्माण गर्न सक्छन्। यसरी निर्माण गर्दा संघ र प्रदेशको कानून बा“झिन सक्ने भएकोले संघीय व्यवस्थापिकाले साझा सूचीको विषयमा निश्चित मार्गदर्शन वा विधायनको आधारभूत सिद्धान्त, मान्यता र ढाँचाको निर्माण गर्ने र सो आधारमा प्रादेशिक व्यवस्थापिकाले आवश्यक कानून निर्माण गर्न सक्ने गरी यो व्यवस्था गरिएको छ’, मस्यौदा प्रतिवेदनमा उल्लेख छ।

साझा अधिकारमा फौजदारी र देवानी कार्यविधि र प्रमाण र शपथ, आवश्यक वस्तुको आपूर्ति, वितरण, मूल्य नियन्त्रण, गुणस्तर र अनुगमन, राज्यको सूरक्षासंग सम्बन्धीत विषयमा निवारक नजरबन्द, कारागार तथा हिरासत व्यवस्थापन र शान्ति सुरक्षालाई संघ र प्रदेशको साझा अधिकारमा राखिएको छ। यसैगरी जलमार्ग, सञ्चार माध्यम सम्बन्धी, पारिवारिक मामिला, भूमि नीति, वीमा, उद्योग तथा खनिज र भौतिक पुर्वाधारलाई पनि साझा अधिकारका रुपमा राख्नुपर्ने प्रस्ताव समितिको छ। क्यासिनो, चिठठा, सवारी साधन अनुमति, पर्यटन, खानेपानी तथा सरसफाई लगायतलाई पनि समितिले साझा अधिकार भित्र समेटेको छ।

स्थानीय तह र स्वायत्त क्षेत्रका अधिकार

स्थानीय तहको लागि नगर प्रहरी, सामुदायिक प्रहरी, संहकारी संस्था, एफएम सञ्चालन, स्थानीय कर, सेवा शुल्क दस्तुर, पर्यटन शुल्क, विज्ञापन कर, मालपोत तिरो, प्राकृतिक श्रोतबाट प्राप्त रोयाल्टि, स्थानीय सेवाको व्यवस्थापन, स्थानीय तथ्यांक र अभिलेख संकलन, स्थानीय स्तरका विकास अयोजना तथा परियोजनाहरु, प्राथमिक र माध्यमिक शिक्षाको अधिकार स्थानीय तहमा रहने प्रस्ताव छ।

यसैगरी आधारभुत स्वास्थ्य र सरसफाई, स्थानीय बजार व्यवस्थापन, स्थानीय सडक, स्थानीय अदालत, मेलमिलाप र मध्यस्थता, नागरिकता, राहदानी वितरण र अभिलेख व्यवस्थापन, घर जग्गा धनी पूर्जा वितरण, कृषि तथा पशुपालन, बृद्ध, बृद्धा, अपाङ्ग, महिला, एकल महिला र अशक्तहरुको व्यवस्थापन, बेरोजगारको तथ्यांङ्ग संकलन, कृषि प्रसारको व्यवस्थापन, सञ्चालन र नियन्त्रण, जन्म मृत्युलगायतका व्यक्तिगत घटना दर्तालाई पनि स्थानीय निकाय अर्न्तगत राख्नुपर्ने समितिको प्रस्ताव छ।

समितिले अधिकार बाँडफाँडका क्रममा विशेष संरचना अर्न्तगत स्थापना हुने स्वायक्त क्षेत्रको अधिकारको सूची पनि प्रतिवेदनमा उल्लेख गरेको छ। विशेष संरचना अर्न्तगत रहने स्वायत्त क्षेत्रहरुको स्वशासन र स्वायत्तताका लागि संविधानद्वारा अधिकार सूचीकृत गर्न आवश्यक पर्ने र सो सूचीको आधारमा स्वायत्त क्षेत्रले आफ्नो क्षेत्र भित्र लागू हुने गरी कानून बनाइ नियमित गर्न यो व्यवस्था गरिएको समितिको तर्क छ। स्वायत्त क्षेत्रले बनाउने कानून प्रदेशिक कानूनसँग बाझिन सक्ने हु“दा बाझिएको अवस्थामा स्वायत्त क्षेत्रको कानून स्वतः निष्क्रिय हुने समितिको प्रस्ताव छ। प्रहरी, सहकारी संस्था, एफएम रेडियो, व्यवस्थापन सञ्चालन र टेलिभिजन, स्वास्थ्य सेवा, सडक, विद्युत आयोजना, सेवा व्यवस्थापन लगायतका विषयलाई विशेष संरचना अर्न्तगत स्थापना हुने स्वायत्त क्षेत्रको अधिकारको सूचीमा राखिएको छ। यसरी समितिले संघ, प्रदेश, स्थानीय तह र स्वायत्त क्षेत्रका अधिकारका साथै साझा अधिकारसमेतको व्यवस्था गरेर भावी संघीय संरचनामा सन्तुलनको व्यवस्था कायम गर्ने प्रयास गरेको छ।

विभिन्न तहगत संरचनाको अधिकारहरुको बाँडफाँड सुची

प्रदेशको अधिकार

• प्रादेशिक मूल कानून
• प्रहरी, प्रशासन र शान्ति सुरक्षा
• बैंक तथा वित्तिय संस्था, सहकारी संस्था , केन्द्रको सहमतिमा वैदेशिक अनुदान र सहयोग
• रेडियो, एफ. एम, टेलिभिजन
• व्यक्तिगत आयकर, सम्पत्ति कर, व्यावसायिक कर, मालपोत,पारश्रमिक कर, घर जग्गा रजिष्ट्रेशन शुल्क,
• सवारी साधन कर, मनोरञ्जन कर, विज्ञापन कर, पर्यटन, कृषि आयमा कर, सेवा शुल्क दस्तुर
• प्राकृतिक श्रोतबाट प्राप्त रोयाल्टि
• प्रादेशिक निजामती सेवाको व्यवस्थापन
• प्रादेशिक तथ्याङ्क
• प्रादेशिक स्तरका विद्युत, सिंचाई आयोजना एवं अन्य आयोजना तथा परियोजनाहरु
• विश्वविद्यालय, उच्च शिक्षा, पुस्तकालय, संग्रहालय
• स्वास्थ्य सेवा
• प्रादेशिक व्यवस्थापिका, स्थानीय सरकार सम्बन्धी र विशेष संरचना सम्बन्धी
• अन्तर प्रादेशिक व्यापार
• प्रादेशिक हवाई सेवा
• प्रादेशिक रेल्वे र प्रादेशिक लोकमार्ग
• प्रादेशिक अनुसन्धान व्युरो
• विद्युत आयोजना, सिंचाई आयोजना
• प्रादेशिक अदालत, पारिवारिक अदालत, बाल अदालत
• नागरिकता र राहदानी व्यवस्थापन
• प्रादेशिक स्तरका आयोगहरु
• भूमि व्यवस्थापन, जग्गाको अभिलेख र मालपोत निर्धारण
• खानी अन्वेषण र व्यवस्थापन
• वीमा व्यवस्थापन र संचालन
• भाषा, संस्कृति, लिपी र धर्मको संरक्षण र प्रयोग
• प्रदेश भित्रको वन जङ्गल,जल उपयोग
• कृषि तथा पशु विकास, कलकारखाना, औद्योगिकरण, व्यापार व्यवसाय,यातायात, अल्कोहलिक पदार्थ उत्पादन, निर्माण खरिद विक्रि
• पुस्तक तथा छापाखाना
• गुठी व्यवस्थापन

साझा अधिकार

• फौजदारी र देवानी कार्यविधि र प्रमाण र शपथ (कानूनी मान्यता,सार्वजनिक कार्य र अभिलेख र न्यायिक प्रक्रिया)
• आवश्यक वस्तुको आपूर्ति, वितरण, मूल्य नियन्त्रण, गुणस्तर र अनुगमन
• राज्यको सुरक्षासँग सम्बन्धित विषयमा निवारक नजर बन्द, कारागार तथा हिरासत व्यवस्थापन र शान्ति सुरक्षाको व्यवस्था
• एक प्रदेशबाट अर्को प्रदेशमा अभियुक्त, थुनुवा र कैदीको स्थानान्तरण
• पारिवारिक मामला (विवाह, सम्पत्ति हस्तान्तरण, सम्बन्ध विच्छेद,लोपोन्मुख, टुहुरा, धर्मपुत्र, उत्तराधिकार र संयुक्त परिवार ) सम्बन्धी कानून
• सम्पत्ति प्राप्ति, अधिग्रहण र अधिकारको सृजना
• करार, साझेदारी र एजेन्सी सम्बन्धी
• टाटपल्टेको र दामासाही सम्बन्धी
• औषधि र विषाधि
• आर्थिक र सामाजिक योजना, परिवार नियोजन र जनसंख्या नियन्त्रण
• सामाजिक सुरक्षा र रोजगारी, ट्रेड युनियन, औद्योगिक र मजदुरका हक अधिकार र विवाद सम्बन्धी कार्य
• चिकित्सा, कानूनी र अन्य पेशाहरु
• घटना तथ्याङ्ग जन्म मृत्यु दर्ता
• जलमार्ग
• संचार माध्यम सम्बन्धी
• पूरातत्व, प्राचिन स्मारक र संग्रहालय संरक्षण सम्बन्धी
• उद्योग तथा खनिज र भौतिक पूर्वाधार
• क्यासिनो, चिठ्ठा, सवारी साधन अनुमति
• अग्नि तथा प्राकितिक प्रकोप नियन्त्रण र राहत तथा पूनर्निर्माण
• पर्यटन, खानेपानी तथा सरसफाई
• चलचित्र, सिनेमा हल सम्बन्धी
• वीमा
• गरिबी निवारण र औद्योगिकरण
• वैज्ञानिक अनुसन्धान, विज्ञान प्रविधि र मानव संसाधन विकास
• अन्तरप्रादेशिक रूपमा फैलिएको जङ्गल, जङ्गली जनावर, चरचुरुङ्गी, हिमाल, राष्ट्रिय निकुञ्ज तथा जल उपयोग
• राष्ट्रिय तथा अन्तरप्रादेशिक पर्यावरण व्यवस्थापन
• भूमि नीति

स्थानीय तहको अधिकार

• नगर प्रहरी, सामुदायिक प्रहरी
• सहकारी संस्था
• एफ. एम संचालन
• स्थानीय कर (सम्पत्ती, घर बहाल, सवारी साधन कर आदि), सेवा शुल्क दस्तुर, पर्यटन शुल्क, विज्ञापन कर, मालपोत तिरो
• प्राकृतिक श्रोतबाट प्राप्त रोयाल्टि
• स्थानीय सेवाको व्यवस्थापन
• स्थानीय तथ्याङ्क र अभिलेख संकलन
• स्थानीय स्तरका विकास आयोजना तथा परियोजनाहरु
• प्राथमिक र माध्यामिक शिक्षा
• आधारभूत स्वास्थ्य र सरसफाई
• स्थानीय बजार व्यवस्थापन
• स्थानीय सडक/ग्रामीण सडक/कृषि सडक
• स्थानीय अदालत, मेलमिलाप र मध्यस्थता
• नागरिकता, राहदानी वितरण र अभिलेख व्यवस्थापन
• घर जग्गा धनी पूर्जा वितरण
• कृषि तथा पशुपालन
• बृद्ध, बृद्धा, अपाङ्ग, महिला, एकल महिला र अशक्तहरुको व्यवस्थापन
• बेरोजगारको तथ्याङ्क संकलन
• कृषि प्रसारको व्यवस्थापन, संचालन र नियन्त्रण
• जन्म मृत्यु लगायतका व्यक्तिगत घटना दर्ता

स्वायत्त क्षेत्रको अधिकार

• प्रहरी
• सहकारी संस्था
• एफ.एम रेडियो व्यवस्थापन, संचालन र टेलिभिजन
• प्राथमिक, माध्यमिक शिक्षा, पुस्तकालय र संग्रहालय
• स्वास्थ्य सेवा
• स्वायत्त निर्वाचित परिषद
• सम्पत्ति कर, व्यावसायिक कर, घर जग्गा रजिष्ट्रेशन कर,
• सवारी साधन कर, मनोरञ्जन कर, पर्यटन सेवा शुल्क, मालपोत, पारिश्रमिक र कृषि आयकर
• प्राकृतिक श्रोतबात प्राप्त रोयल्टी
• सडक
• विद्युत आयोजना, सिंचाई आयोजना र अन्य विकास योजनाहरु
• नागरिकता/ राहदानी व्यवस्थापन
• जग्गा अभिलेख/घर जग्गा धनी पूर्जा
• खानी अन्वेषण र व्यवस्थापन
• भाषा, संस्कृति, लिपी र धर्मको संरक्षण
• प्राकृतिक स्रोत साधन र तिनको उपयोग
• कृषि, पशु विकास, व्यापार व्यवसाय
• सेवा व्यवस्थापन
• तथ्याङ्क र अभिलेख संकलन
• अदालत
• प्रादेशिक सरकारले तोके बमोजिमका अन्य अधिकारहरु

Political parties, rights activists and organisations, and experts have all forwarded their own models of state restructuring, and there have been claims and counterclaims on the suitability their models. In addition, there have been criticisms to others’ models. Those advocating administrative federalism oppose ethnic federalism, and proponents of ethnic federalism criticise those advocating regional federalism. Even among the proponents of ethnic federalism, there are disagreements regarding delineation of the provinces, which seems natural in a country with many ethnicities and nationalities and impossibility of ethnic federal provinces for every one of them.

In the census of 2058 (2001), there are particulars of more than one hundred groups of various castes and ethnic groups. Nepal is a country marked by ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity. So people ranging from Chhetri with a population of 3.5 million to Kusunda with a population of just 164 are residing in Nepal. Not a single nationality, Janajati or language group has a majority (Khanal 2061:3). In terms of population, Chhetri is the largest group that constitutes 15.8 % of the total population while the second largest group is Bahun with 12.74% of the population. Besides, the ethnic groups of Magar, Tharu, Tamang and Newar each comprise around 5% of the population . There are altogether 18 castes and ethnic groups that make up 1% of total population . Rest of others constitute less than 1 % of the population each (Khanal 2061:3).there are 31 ethnic and caste groups with more than 100,000 population, which is 0.5% of the population, with 53 caste and ethnic groups having less than 50,000 population and among them 19 have less than 5000 population (Sharma 2008:10)

The district-wise scenario is also similar. In most of the districts, no caste or ethnic group enjoys majority. “Out of the 75 districts, Chhetris are in majority in 9 in districts while Magar, Tharu, Tamang, Newar and Gurung have majority in one district each, adding up the total number of districts where one caste/ethnic group is in majority to 14”(Khanal 2061:6). In 61 districts, no single group has a majority.

State restructuring based on ethnic majority districts is also difficult “because no ethnicity has majority in more than one district. It is only Chhetri who have majority in 9 districts; however, Chhetri being a caste cannot be a basis for an ethnic province. Similarly, there will be problems in districts with no ethnic majority (Manandhar et al. 2065:16). In addition, there are problems with ethnic majority districts as well.

“Of the four Tharu-majority districts, only two Bardia and Kailali are contiguous. The other two Dang and Sunsari are not only not contiguous but also far apart. Kanchanpur does not have Tharu majority. Sunsari in the east simply cannot be in a Tharu province. Kaski though it is adjacent to Gurung majority district does not fall into one. Magar-majority districts are in two separate parts: Rolpa, Baglung, Myagdi and Pyuthan one side, and Nawalparasi, Tanahu and Palpa on the other. Rai-majority Ilam district cannot be placed in the same as other contiguous districts of Dhankuta, Solukhumbu, Khotang, Bhojpur and Sankhuwasabha” (Manandhar et al. 2065:17).

Similarly, it is a fact that no ethnic group in Nepal has dense settlement in Nepal. “There are 72 ethnic groups who are not a majority in any VDC and 37 groups do not constitute a significant group in any VDCS” (Sharma 2008:19). Even a village without ethnic diversity is hard to find, let alone a region. Caste and ethnic people are living in harmony even in small villages. However, attention should also be given to the pattern of settlement, migration as well as socio-economic relations. “………. because of centuries‑old settlement pattern, migration as well as socio-economic relations, structure, it is not only difficult to categorise any territory as a place of origin of one caste/ethnic but this can also became a subject of dispute. To analyse any caste/ethnic group on the basis of geographical boundary alone will be inappropriate, and this will be always wrong (Khanal 2061:5)

At the same time, some ethnic organizations including the Maoist have put forth the proposals of the concept of ethnic autonomy. There are people who call these proposals as unscientific. The idea of ethnic provinces proposed by the Maoists has a danger of giving birth to another form of discrimination and separatist movement. “In the ethnic regions proposed by the Maoists…………. no particular ethnic group commands a majority. They are not found in substantial numbers even in a small geographical area. In Nepal there is a reality of the presence of such type of mixed settlement in one hand, while on the other hand there is equal probability of the rise of another form of discrimination and rebellion because of the system of one particular ethnic group ruling over others” (Pun Magar:32).

Moreover, some have termed the issue of ethnic regions raised by the Maoists as a suicidal move. “In our country, there are approximately 100 cases/ethnic groups and it is not possible to create separate regions for them all. All the ethnic groups have been sharing common sentiments during the time of hardship and prosperity and all Nepalese are woven in one common economic life and have been struggling against foreign dominance. So the demand of ethnic region/state is not only inappropriate for us but will also be suicidal” (Shrestha 2062:18).

The Maoists-proposed ethnic-regional federalism is basically ethnic federalism. There are 101 ethnic groups, but they are talking about granting ethnic autonomy to only seven ethnic groups while, according to them, other ethnic groups will be granted semi-autonomy. Semi-autonomy is authority delegated from above. On the other hand, they (Maoists) are talking of granting separate states to groups having less population than Bahun, Chhetri and Dalits but not to these groups. So there is a possibility of opposition against this proposal from the major ethnic groups themselves.

“[…..] it is clear that in a country like our, importance should be given to ethnic/caste unity and not differences. Creating any state for a single caste, Janajati, or minority will endanger the rights of other communities and will have an adverse effect in the harmonious relationship. Ethnic autonomy can be granted to a substantial population in any local place. However, ethnic states or federalism is not appropriate in case of Nepal” (Singh, 167).

Apart from this, the Maoists proposal is also erroneous in terms of population. For instance, in the Maoist-proposed Magarat, Magars constitute only 23.51% of the population and Gurungs only 18.39% in Tamuwan. In Tamsaling, the population of Tamangs is 30.81% while the population of Tharus in Tharuwan is no more than 22.53%. The situation in other ethnic regions is also similar.

It is not only the Maoists’ but other ethnic federalism models fallacies. In some proposals, no thought seems to have been given to geography while seeking a population majority. Yet, the proposed provinces will not have the ethnic majority. For example, in the proposal of Mangal Siddhi Manandhar, Limbus only constitute 25.98% in Limbuwan and Rais number 33.99% in Khumbuwan. Newars number 26.65% in Newa, Magars 35.61% in Magarat, Tharus 28% in Tharuwan. Similarly in the far east, Bahuns make a majority at only 29.63%. Mithila is the only region where more than 50% are Mithila speakers. In some proposed ethnic provinces, the ethnic communities almost constitute 50% of the population; 49.52% Tamangs in Tamsaling, 48.43% Gurungs in Tamuwan, and 46.33% Chhetris in Khasan.

The Tamuwan proposed by Manandhar encompasses villages of Dolpa and Dhading, which means a resident from Baseri in Dhading will have to cross four proposed provinces to reach Dolpa. Should administrative convenience, natural resources and economic feasibility be ignored in the name of ethnic pluralism? Surely not. Of course, Manandhar has said that in the age of transportation and communication, geography should not be the deciding factor. However, Nepal still has not reached the level of infrastructure in communication and transportation as claimed by Manandhar, and it will not be easily done in the future also.

In the regions/states proposed by K B Gurung, there is no majority of concerned caste/ethnic group. For example, in the Limbuwan autonomous region, the population of Limbu is only 31.61% whereas the population of other indigenous/ethnic population is higher at 35.25%) and Bahun/Chhetri constitute 25.63%. In the Khumbuwan autonomous region too, the population of Rai is only 26.95% while other indigenous/ethnical nationalities and Bahun/Chhetri constitute 32.04% and 30.14% of population respectively. In Tamsaling autonomous region, the population of Bahun/Chhetri is more than that of Tamang. The situation in the regions of Newa, Tamuwan and other proposed autonomous regions is not different to that of Tamsaling. Therefore, in the autonomous regions put forth in the proposals of state restructuring on the basis of ethnicity the caste/ethnic groups for whom the system of rule is intended are not in significant numbers compared with other caste/ethnic groups.

“Centruies–old migration in the hills and to Tarai in the last few decades has led to many small minorities in large ethnic areas. This has resulted in ethnic diversity even in single ethnic majority areas. […therefore] in the majority of ethnic units, the largest ethnic group will be a minority” (Sharma 2008:83).

Ethnic restructuring proposals show that it will lead to one group ruling over the others, and the fact they this might lead to another form of discrimination and invite conflict cannot be discounted. Maoist central committee member Dev Gurung, however, claims that they have divided the regions on the basis of indigenous people residing there. The ethnic group who are oppressed until now will assume the leadership of rule while others participate in the structure we have proposed. Whether it will be scientific or not is a matter of difference from class viewpoint. Ours is a policy to establish the oppressed group in state regime and to displace the oppressor group”, says Gurung .

There are also international examples of ethnic federalism not being long-lasting. There is no saying that there will be acceptance when there is no absolute majority of the rulers. Once ethnic provinces are established, other people might also go for their own movements, and this might lead to increasing number of provinces.

“Beginning with three federal states, Sudan’s journey has led to 26 states and on the verge of disintegration. [….] stagnation of Ethiopia is mainly due to federalism, especially ethnic federalism. [….] the experience of Ethiopia, Sudan, Nigeria and Congo teach us that ethnic federalism can lead to state dissolution. In Nigeria, three ethnic states were proposed for cheap publicity as in our country and three were created in 1963. In the next few days, there was a demand for another one and this eventually led to 36 provinces. Today, Nigeria is 159th poorest country in the world, and everyday sees ethnic violence” (Acharya 2065:173).

In the case of Nepal, the Maoists during the conflict had followed the strategy of giving administrative rule to any group, Janajati or language group with substantial settlement in an area. This decision was taken when they were not only suffering losses at the hand of Nepalese army but their cadres were also deserting them. They were forced to raise provocative/attractive regional and ethnic issues to attract the masses to their cause. An act of compulsion then has started to put them in a difficult position now.

The Maoists proposal of dividing Madhes into various provinces has caused dissatisfaction among its Madhesi leaders. Matrika Yadav, former head of Madhesi Mukti Morcha (Madhesi Liberation Front) and others have already quit the party. And remaining Madhesi leaders have started talking about a single Madhes. However, the latest Maoists proposal has divided the Madhes. Thus, there is contradiction between the Maoist party policy and its leaders on state restructuring.

References:
Acharya Narahari, States democratization , Kathmandu 2062
Kandel, Pushparaj, Meaning of state restructuring: question of political context and federalism Kathmandu: Asia Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2063
Khanal Krishna, Restructure of the State: a proposal Kathmandu: Nepal Contemporary Study Center, 2061
Khanal Krishna Federal State Structure: Principles and Practices 2063 Chait.
Khadga Narayan, Changes in States Restructures; A concept. States Restructures in the contest of Nepal, Sitaram Tamang pages 261-266, Kathmandu, Samana Publications 2062
Gurung K B, Indigenous Janajati Rights and States Restructures, States Restructures in the contest of Nepal, Sitaram Tamang pages 85 – 108, Kathmandu, Samana Publications 2062
Gurung Harka, Ideas of decentralization, pages 181-189, Kathmandu, Himal Kitab December 2006
Giri Pradip, Debate:Nepali states restructure, Mulyankan Monthly Asar 2062
Tamang Sitaram, States Restructures in the contest of Nepal, Sitaram Tamang, Kathmandu, Samana Publications 2062
Tamang, Parshuram, Democracy and states restructure: Necessity, Concept and design, States Restructures in the contest of Nepal, Sitaram Tamang pages 57 – 84, Kathmandu, Samana Publications 2062
Thapa, PariPresent states restructure inclusive democracy and recognition of multicultural identifications, States Restructures in the contest of Nepal, Sitaram Tamang pages 85 – 108, Kathmandu, Samana Publications 2062
Nepal Government, Interim Constitution of Nepal 2063, Kathmandu: Legal Books management Committee, Law and Justice ministry, 2063
Neupane, Govinda, Ethnic aspect of Nepal: Social Structure and possibility of partnership, Kathmandu: Center for Development Studies Nepal 2005 AD
Neupane Govinda, Multiethnic Federal State and Inclusive democratic ruling system, States Restructures in the contest of Nepal, Sitaram Tamang pages 259 256, Kathmandu, Samana Publications 2062
Pun Magar, J B, Ethnic autonomy: a sweet poison, Himal, year 13 issue 10, Pages 32 -34, 2060
Pokhrel, Shankar, Constituent assembly, states restructure and inclusive democracy, Kathmandu: Nepal trade Union Federation (GEFONT) 0263
Mishra, Vhaitanya, Local self-governance and political density, Mulyankan (Mangsir- Pus) Pages 39 -40, 2062
The NCP UML’s concept about restructuring of the state, Kathmandu: Central Committee NCP UML, 2063
Lawati, Mahendra, Question of states restructure and inclusive democracy, States Restructures in the contest of Nepal, Sitaram Tamang pages 229 – 248
Kathmandu, Samana Publications 2062
Sharma, Pitamber, Regional model of independent Nepal, Mulyankan bi-Monthly (Saun Bhadau) Pages 29- 36, 2063
Shrestha, Rajendra, States Restructure and bases of inclusive democratic , States Restructures in the contest of Nepal, Sitaram Tamang pages 9 – 56, Kathmandu, Samana Publications 2062

राज्यको पुनर्संरचना र राज्यशक्तिको बाँडफाँड समितिमा राजनीतिक दलहरुले आ–आफनै प्रस्ताव पेश गरेका छन्। बैठकमा एकिकृत नेकपा माओवादीले सेती महाकाली, लामा/भोटया, थारुवान, भेरी कर्णाली, मगरात, रिडी, तमुवान, नारायणी, तामसालिङ्ग, नेवा, मधेश, तामाकोशी, शेर्पा, किराँत, लिम्बुवान, विजयपुर, कोचिला प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव गरेको थियो।

एमालेले लिम्बुवान, किराँत, विराट, मिथिला, भोजपुरा, सुनकोशी, ताम्सालिङ्ग, नेवा, तमुवान, मगरात, गण्डकी, लुम्बिनी, थरुहट, खप्तड र कर्णाली प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव गर्‍यो। मधेशी जनअधिकार फोरमले तराई क्षेत्रलाई समग्र मधेश एक प्रदेश र अन्य क्षेत्रलाई अर्को प्रदेशको रुपमा अघि सारेको थियो। तर, त्यसको नामबारे भने प्रष्ट पारेको थिएन। नेपाल सदभावना पार्टीका सभासद् अनिल कुमार झाले थरुहट स्वायत्त प्रदेश क्षेत्र, अवधि स्वायत्त क्षेत्र, भोजपुरी स्वायत्त क्षेत्र, मैथली स्वायत्त क्षेत्र र कोचिला स्वायत्त क्षेत्रको प्रस्ताव पेश गरेका थिए।

नेकपा मालेले कर्णाली, सेती महाकाली, वागमती, सगरमाथा, जनक र लुम्बिनीको प्रस्ताव गरेको थियो। यसैगरी नेपाल मजदुर किसान पार्टीले मेची, कोशी, सगरमाथा, जनकपुर, वागमती, नारायणी, गण्डकी, अन्नपूर्ण, लुम्बिनी, राप्ती, भेरी, कर्णाली, सेती र महाकाली प्रान्तको प्रस्ताव गरेको थियो।

नेकपा एकिकृतले खसान, पश्चिम खसान, थरुहट, तमुवान, मगरात, अवध–भोजपुरी, तामाङ्गशालिङ्ग, नेपाःमण्डल, लिम्बुवान, खम्बुवान र मिथिला–थारु प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव गरेको थियो। राष्टिय जनमुक्ती पार्टीले लिम्बुवान, खम्बुवान, मिथिला, भोजपुरा, तामाङ्ग हयुल, नेवा, लुम्बिनी, तमुवान, मगरात, खसान, थारुहट र दलित प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव गरेको थियो।

नेपा पार्टीले सुदुरपश्चिमाञ्चल प्रान्त, मध्यपश्चिमाञ्चल प्रान्त, पश्चिमाञ्चल प्रान्त, मध्यमाञ्चल प्रान्त र पूर्वाञ्चल प्रान्तको प्रस्ताव गरेको थियो। नेपाली जनता दलले खप्तडभुमी गणराज्य, कर्णाली गणराज्य, वुद्धभूमी गणराज्य, पृथ्वी गणराज्य, मञ्जुश्री गणराज्य, सीताराम विराट गणराज्य र भृकुटी सगरमाथा गणराज्यको प्रस्ताव गरेको थियो।

राष्टिय प्रजातन्त्र पार्टीले सात प्रदेश र १९ वटा उपप्रदेशको प्रस्ताव गरेको छ। रापपाले पेश गरेको प्रस्तावमा सेती महाकाली, कर्णाली, भेरी राप्ती, गण्डकी, वागमती, जनक र कोशी मेची प्रदेश थिए। समाजवादी प्रजातान्त्रिक जनता पार्टी नेपालले १४ प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव गरेको थियो। जसमा लिम्वुवान प्रान्त, खुम्वुवान प्रान्त, नेवार प्रान्त, तमुवान प्रान्त, मगरात प्रान्त, भेरी प्रान्त, कर्णाली प्रान्त, सेती महाकाली प्रान्त, राजवंशी प्रान्त, मिथिला प्रान्त, भोजपुरी प्रान्त, अवधि प्रान्त र थारुवान प्रान्त थिए।

मधेशी जनअधिकार फोरम नेपाल (लोकतान्त्रिक)ले एक स्वायत्त मधेश प्रदेश भित्र दुई उपप्रदेशको प्रस्ताव अघि सारेको थियो। पहाड र हिमालको क्षेत्रबारे स्पष्ट खाका अघि सारेन। क्षेत्र र पहिचानको आधारमा निर्धारण गर्ने भनेर खुल्ला छोडिदियो। पुर्वदेखि पश्चिम तराईसम्ममा स्वयत्त मधेश तराई प्रदेश हुने भन्यो। यस प्रदेशभित्र पश्चिम उपप्रदेश र पूर्वी उपप्रदेश रहने खाका फोरम लोकतान्त्रिकले अघि सारेको थियो।

नेपाली काँग्रेसका सभासद् नरहरि आचार्यले जनसंख्या, जाति र क्षेत्रफलको आधारमा दुईवटा विकल्प पेश गर्नु भएको थियो। पहिलो विकल्पमा छ वटा प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव पेश गर्नु भयो भने दास्रोमा १३ वटा प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव गरेका थिए। नेकपा एमालेका सभासद् मंगलसिद्धि मानन्धर, शोभा श्रेष्ठ र पुष्पा शर्माले १२ वटा प्रदेशको खाका सारेका थिए। उनीहरुले लिम्बुवान, खुम्बुवान, मिश्रित सुदुरपूर्व, मिथिला प्रदेश, नेवा, ताम्बासिलिङ, मिश्रित पश्चिम, तमुवान, मगरात, थरुहट र खसान प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव गरेका थिए।

नेकपा एमाले सभासद् लक्की शेर्पाले १३ प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव सारिकी थिइन। जसमा लिम्बुवान, किराँत, ताम्सालिङ, कोचिला, मिथिला, नेवा, शेर्पा, वुद्ध, तमुवान, मगरात, थारुहट, कर्णाली र महाकाली प्रदेश थिए। यसैगरी एमालेका अर्का सभासद् शंकर पोखरेलले १५ प्रदेशको प्रस्ताव अघि सारेका थिए। जसमा खप्तड, भावर, कर्णाली, राप्ती, लुम्बिनी, कालीगण्डकी, अन्नपूर्ण, नारायणी, काठमाडौं, सिम्रौनगढ, सुनकोशी, जनकपुर, कोशी, तमोर र विराट प्रदेश थिए।

मधेशी जनअधिकार फोरमका सभासद् सर्वदेव ओझाले ९ प्रदेशको अवधारणा अघि सारेका थिए। ओझाले तराई मधेश, लिम्बुवान, किराँत, नेवा, ताम्सालिङ, तमुवान, मगरात, भेरी कर्णाली, सेती महाकाली खप्तड प्रदेशको खाका राज्यको पुर्नर्संरचना र राज्य शक्तिको बाँडफाँड समितिमा पेश गरेका थिए।

भिन्न मत

समितिको निर्णयप्रति राज्य पुनर्संरचनासमितिमा झण्डै दुइ दर्जन भिन्न मत पेश भए। राप्रपा सभासद् प्रतिभा राणाले प्रस्तावनामा उल्लेख धर्म निरपेक्ष शब्द हटाउन सुझाव दिएकी छिन्। उनले धर्म निरपेक्षबारे जनमत संग्रहबाट मात्र टुङ्गो लगाउनुपर्ने आफ्नो मत रहेको स्पष्ट पारेकी छिन्। नेकपा एकिकृत माओवादी सभासद् पूर्णप्रसाद राजवंशीले झापा, मोरङ्ग, सुनसरीलाई मिथिला भोजपुरा प्रदेशमा राखिएकोमा असहमति प्रकट गरेका छन्। ती क्षेत्र कोचिला भुमि भएको जिकीर गर्दै उनले झापा, मोरङ्ग र सुनसरीलाई कोचिला प्रदेश नामाकरण गर्नुपर्ने तर्क गरेका छन।

नेकपा संयुक्तका सभासद् चन्द्रदेव जोशीले समितिले गरेको सिमाङ्कन तथा नक्साङ्कन प्रति असहमति जनाएका छन्। उनले मध्यपश्चिमाञ्चल र सुदुर पश्चिमाञ्चल क्षेत्रलाई टुक्राएर ४ प्रान्तमा विभाजित गर्नु उचित नभएको तर्क दिएका छन्। ‘त्यसबाट त्यस क्षेत्र पुनः एकपल्ट आर्थिक रुपमा कमजोर, राजनैतिक रुपमा शोषित, तथा त्यस क्षेत्रमा बसबोबास गर्ने आर्यहरु विभाजित तथा कमजोर पार्ने काम गरेको छ। यसका साथै कञ्चनपुर जिल्ला, कैलाली जिल्लाका पहाडीहरुको एक टोली रुपमा बसोबास गर्ने क्षेत्रलाई थारुवानमा मिलाएको छ,’ जोशीको भनाइ छ।

मधेशी जनअधिकार फोरमका सभासद् जयप्रकाश गुप्ताले प्रदेशको संख्या, सिमाना र क्षेत्रबारे फरक मत पेश गरेका छन्। ‘समग्रतामा भन्नुपर्दा नेपालमा राज्य पुनर्संरचनाका लागि : १) क्षेत्रीय उत्पीडनलाई समाप्त पार्न सक्ने संरचना, २) भौगोलिक एकरुपता वा निरन्तरता कामय राख्ने, ३) समान प्रकारका जातिगत सघनता वा अन्तरआवद्धताको रक्षा गर्ने, ४) ऐतिहासिक तथा सामुदायिक विशेषतामा जोड दिने, ५) साँस्कृतिक सघनताका क्षेत्रलाई एकै ठाउँमा राख्ने, ६) भाषिक सघनताका क्षेत्रहरुलाई एकै ठाउँमा राख्ने, ७) समान प्रकारको उद्यमशिलता वा आर्थिक क्रियाकलाप र ८) प्रशासनीक सुगमता मुख्य आधार रहने यस समितिले निश्चित गरिसकेको छ। तर, यी सब मान्यता र स्वीकारिएको तथ्यहरुको विपरित प्रस्तावित प्रदेशहरुको संख्या, सिमांकन र नामकरणको सूची तयार गरिएकाले मलाई अमान्य छ’, गुप्ताको फरक मतमा उल्लेख छ।

नेपाल मजदुर किसान पार्टीले प्रदेश र विशेष संरचना क्षेत्र अन्तरगत जाति वा भाषिक बाहुल्यताको आधारमा राजनैतिक अग्राधिकार हुनेछ भन्ने व्यवस्था हटाउनुपर्ने, समितिले सिफारिस गरेको १४ प्रदेशको प्रस्तावको खाका लगायतमा असहमति व्यक्त गरेको छ। र, संघिय राजधानी दाङ हुनुपर्ने मजदुर किसान पार्टीको प्रस्ताव छ।

नेकपा माओवादी सभासद् अमर बहादुर गुरुङ्ग र सावित्रा गुरुङ्ग दुराले गोर्खा जिल्लाको ३२, लम्जुङ्ग जिल्लाको २२, कास्की जिल्लाको १४, पर्वत जिल्लाको ३८, स्याङजा जिल्लाको ३३, तनहुँ जिल्लाको ३४ वटा गाविसलाई नारायणी प्रदेशमा पारिएकोमा असहमति व्यक्त गरेका छन्। ‘…प्रस्ताविक भूगोलहरु तमुवानमा पार्नु पर्ने एतिहासिक आधार, आर्थिक सहजीवनको आधार, सामाजिक, सास्कृतिक सम्बन्धको आधारको दृष्टिले तमुवानको साझा राष्ट्रियताको रुपमा रहेको हुँदा तमुवान भूगोलमा पार्नुपर्ने मत हाम्रो रहेको छ’, उनीहरुको फरक मतमा उल्लेख छ।

नेपा राष्ट्रिय पार्टीले नेवा राज्यको सिमाङ्कनप्रति भिन्न मत पेश गरेको छ। एमाले सभासद् शान्तादेवी चमारले दलितको जनसंख्या २० प्रतिशत किटान गरी राज्यको सम्पूर्ण अंगमा सहभागिता र अधिकारको ग्यारेन्टी गर्नुपर्ने भन्दै फरक मत दर्ज गराएकी छिन्।

नेकपा माओवादी सभासद्हरु सावित्रा गुरुङ्ग दुरा, अमर बहादुर गुरुङ्ग, पूर्णप्रसाद राजवंशी, छिमी लामा, ओनसरी घर्ति मगर, इन्द्रजित थारु, सन्तोषी विक, शरदसिंह भण्डारी, प्रेमबहादुर तामाङ र भरतप्रसाद शाहले प्रतिवेदनको धारा ७ को उपधारा १ मा उल्लेखित वाक्यांशको सट्टामा ‘संविधानको धारा ४ बमोजिमको तहगत संरचनाको अतिरिक्त कुनै प्रदेशभित्र आदिवासी जनजाति वा भाषिक वाहुल्य भएको वा सघन उपस्थिति भएको क्षेत्रलाई स्वायत्त क्षेत्र कायम गरिनेछ’ भन्ने वाक्यांश लेख्नुपर्ने बताउदै फरक मत पेश गरेका छन्। माओवादी सभासद्हरुले प्रतिवेदनमा स्वायत्त क्षेत्र वा संख्यात्मक अनुपात नपुग्ने आदिवासी जनजातिको हकमा संघ तथा प्रदेशको नीति निर्माण तथा कार्यान्वयन गर्ने तहमा कानून बनाइ अनिवार्य प्रतिनिधित्वको सुनिश्चत गरिनेछ लगायतका प्रावधान समावेश गर्नुपर्ने बताउदै फरक मत पेश गरेका छन्।

नेपाली काँग्रेसका सभासद्हरु आरजु देउवा राणा, उमाकान्त चौधरी, गोपालमान श्रेष्ठ, मोहम्मद अफ्ताव आलम, नरहरि आचार्य, नवीन्द्रराज जोशी, सूर्यमान गुरुङ्गले विना तयारी, अन्त्यन्तै हचुवा, हतार र आग्रहपूर्ण तरिकाबाट समितिको प्रतिवेदन आएको भन्दै भिन्न मत पेश गरेका छन्। ‘संविधानसभाको पूर्ण बैठकमा पहिचान र सामर्थ्यका आधारमा तयार पारिएका १४ र ६ प्रदेशका नक्सा दुवै प्रस्तुत गरी छलफल गरिनुपर्दछ। यसलाई सबै आधारबाट परिपक्क र धानिन सकिने किसिमले विज्ञ र प्राविधिकज्ञहरुबाट थप अध्ययन गरिनुपर्छ। अवधारणामा स्वीकृत क्षेत्रको जातीय अनूसुची नितान्त हचुवाका भरमा र केवल प्रचारात्मक प्रयोजनका लागि बनाइको स्वायत्त क्षेत्रको जातीय अनुसूची नितान्त अव्यवहारिक र जातीय द्वन्द्व एवं पारस्पारिक अविश्वास जन्माउने कार्य भएकाले संघीय सरकारले तोकेको मापदण्ड अनुसार प्रदेशले बनाउने विज्ञहरुको आयोगले सिफारिस गरे बमोजिम गर्ने व्यवस्था कायम गर्नुपर्छ’ उनीहरुको फरक मतमा उल्लेख छ।

समिति प्रतिवेदनमाथि सदभावना पार्टीका अनिल कुमार झा, तराई मधेशी लोकतान्त्रिक पार्टीका महेन्द्र प्रसाद यादव, मधेशी जनअधिकार फोरम लोकतान्त्रिका रामजनम चौधरी र सर्वदेवप्रसाद ओझा, एमालेका महेश चौधरी, शंकर पोखरेल, माओवादीका प्रेमबहादुर तामाङ्ग, नेकपा मालेका निलम केसी, राष्ट्रिय जनमोर्चाका सन्तबहादुर नेपाली, एमालेकी सीताकुमारी पौडेल, माओवादीका धु्रव आङ्गदेम्बे, विश्वभत्त दुलाल, सन्तोषी विश्वकर्मा, चन्दा देवी राम, छिमी लामाले पनि भिन्न मत पेश गरेका छन्।

निष्कर्ष

राज्यको पुनर्संरचनाविषय नेपाली राजनीतिमा निकै विवादास्पद विषय थियो। राज्य पुनर्संरचनागर्ने विषयमा दलहरु सहमत भएपनि त्यसको आधार किटान नभएको अवस्थामा राजनीतिक दलका मात्र होइन, नेता अनुसार समेत प्रस्तावहरु अघि सारिए। छलफलमा क्रममा विभिन्न प्रस्ताव सार्नुलाई सकारात्मक रुपमा लिनुपर्छ। र, संविधान निर्माण प्रक्रियामा नेताहरु पार्टीको निर्णय भन्दा माथि उठेर काम गर्न सकेनन भन्नेलाई यस समितिका सभासद्हरुले गतिलो जफाव दिएका छन्। उनीहरुले निर्धक्का साथ आफ्ना दृष्टिकोण र विचारलाई समितिमा राखे। केही सभासद्हरु जातियता, क्षेत्रियता, पार्टीको राजनीतिक दर्शन र वैचारिक पक्षबाट प्रभावित नभएका होइनन, तैपनि समितिमा नेताहरुले विवेक पनि प्रशस्तै प्रयोग गरेका छन्। आफुले अघि सारेका प्रस्तावको पक्षमा वहुमत नभएको अवस्थामा उनीहरुले फरक मत दर्ज गरेर भएपनि आफ्ना अडान पेश गरे। निकै जटिल विषयमा पनि मिहिन रुपमा छलफल गर्ने वातावरण पार्नमा सभापति विष्टको भूमिका महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका रह्यो। राजनीतिक दलहरुबीच कयौ विषयमा असहमति हुदा हुदै पनि संघ, प्रदेश, स्थानीय तहका अधिकारहरु छुटटाउने काम गरिएको छ। एक अर्कोसंग सम्बन्धित हुने विषयलाई साझा अधिकारको रुपमा पनि प्रस्तुत गरिएको छ। तर, संघ, प्रदेश, स्थानीय निकायको अधिकार उल्लेख गरिएको छ, सोही अनुसार सहज रुपमा कार्यान्वयन गर्न भने धेरै चूनौतीहरु छन्।

Among the thematic committees in the Constituent Assembly, the Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power was the last to submit its draft report. The Committee was formed on 15 December 2008 and UCPN (M) CA member Lokendra Bista was elected its chairperson on 13 January 2009. Even after 13 months of discussion on state restructure structuring and distribution of state power, no consensus could be achieved. After repeated attempts at consensus, the Committee submitted its draft to the CA on 24 January 2010.

To restructure a unitary state and distribution of power itself is a challenging task. It was challenging not only because there was no consensus on the basis of restructuring but there is no consensus within the parties. The largest party in the CA, the UCPN (M) did not hold on to one stand on the draft of the future structure. It changed its views several times from its stated stand in its manifesto and commitment papers before the CA election.
The UML leaders could not agree among themselves on a draft of the structure. The parties proposed one model while its leaders like Mangal Siddhi Manandhar, Shankar Pokharel, Rajendra Shrestha and others proposed a different model. While it reflects poorly that different proposals come from within the same party, what is important is how the party takes the dissent proposals and whether the leaders accept the party proposal. The dissenting views within the UML did not affect the party proposal.

The NC leaders including Narhari Acharya and Govinda Raj Joshi advocated their own proposals. The party task force on restructuring under vice-chairperson Gopal Man Shrestha could not come up with a draft. Despite repeated requests from the Committee, the NC could not submit its written views states restructuring.
The lack of consensus among the parties and the attempt at following the Interim Constitution also affected the Committee’s work. There is a provision in the Interim Constitution for formation of a state restructuring commission, and on 27 April 2009, the State Restructuring Commission was formed with Ganesh Gurung as its chairperson. However, the Interim Constitution is silent on the Commission’s working area, procedures, and the number of its members and representation, which, combined with disputes among the parties, rendered the Commission pointless, so much so that its Chair Gurung refused appointment.
The situation was made complicated by the talk of restructuring within the Committee but delays in forming the Commission and its working procedures, and by the refusal to draft of state restructuring without the report of the Committee. In particular, the NC leaders were of the view that there should be no report without the report from the Committee. Despite this, the Committee prepared the report after holding discussions in 113 meetings.

End of the Unitary Structure

The Committee has tried to justify the need for state restructuring and distribution of state power in the preamble of the report to the CA. The preamble of the report states the restructuring is needed “to solve the prevailing issues of class, caste, regional, gender, and community by ending the unitary structure of the state and transforming Nepal into a progressive democratic, inclusive and proportional federal republic”.

The preamble further specifies the need, “for establishing independent, autonomous, and sovereign provinces, local-level and special structures with constitution-given right to self-determination and based on identity and capacity, by distributing the authority exercised by the centre, to create peaceful, sovereign, secular, equitable and prosperous Nepal, desiring representation and rights of all castes, regions, genders, and communities in all structures of the stated”.
The draft report defines federation, state, local level, special structures, autonomous region, protected area, special area, state authority, and categories. It defines federation thus, “federation should mean the highest level of the federal structure. This word denotes the combined form of the federal Nepal and its states, local levels, and special structures”.

Similarly, it defines state as a unit and form of federal Nepal, and local levels refers to village development and municipal development councils; state authority signifies the executive, legislative and judiciary of the state. The draft states three structures at federal, state and local level. There is a provision of executive, legislative, and judiciary at the federal and state level. At the state level, there is a provision for an elected council with executive, legislative, and judicial authority.

14-state model

A 14-state federal model has been proposed with the following states: Limbuwan, Mithila-Bhojpura-Koch-Madhes, Kirant, Sunkoshi, Sherpa, Tamsaling, Newa, Narayani, Tamuwan, Magarat, Lumbini-Awadh-Tharuwan, Karnali, Jadan, and Khaptad. Identity and capacity have been taken as the main basis. “The basis for identity includes ethnic, language, cultural, geographic/regional continuity and historic continuity. Capacity denotes the economic interrelationship and capacity, status infrastructure development and possibility, availability of natural resources and means, and administrative convenience.”

The Committee has proposed that to change the name of a state, a two-thirds majority of the federal parliament will have to approve on the recommendation of the two-third majority of the state parliament. Similarly, two-third majority approval is needed for merging two states, carving a new state, or redefining borders after the recommendations of two-third majority from the respective states. There is a provision for state referendum on these issues if the recommendations do not get two-third majority in the federal parliament.

In the Article 4 of the draft report, there is a provision to form autonomous regions within the states where there is an ethnic/community or language majority or substantive settlement. However, the basic structure of federal Nepal will be federation, states, and local level. The proposal also includes the provision of creating protected areas for minorities, cultural areas, endangered and marginalised communities for their promotion and development. Special geographic regions will be created for backward areas and/or economically and socially backward areas.

Distribution of authority

The report has also tried to clarify the powers of the federation, states, local levels, special areas and other autonomous regions. Defence and army, central force, central bank, fiscal policy, foreign aid and grants and loan will be under the purview of the federal authority along with central telecommunications, allocation of radio frequencies, television, postal service, customs, inland revenue, value-added tax, institutional tax, passport, visa, tourist fees, and service taxes.

Royalties from natural resources, management of central civil service, central bureau of statistics, centre-level hydropower, irrigation, and other projects will also be under the centre. Central university, central library, central health policy, federal parliament, federal legislative-related issues, international trade, foreign exchange, ports, quarantine, international and interstate aviation, foreign and diplomatic relations and United Nations-related issues will be handled by the central authority.
International treaties, extradition, international border management, management of train and highways, national secret service and investigation, Supreme and Constitutional Courts, citizenship, passport, visa, immigration laws, nuclear power and space flights also fall under the federal authority. In addition, war and defence, arms and munitions factory, department of measurements, mining, insurance policy, criminal laws, and intellectual property will be under central authority.

The authority related to the Election Commission, National Human Rights Commission, Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority, Civil Service Commission, National Women’s Commission, Proportional Inclusive Commission, Dalit Commission, National Planning Commission, Indigenous Janajati Commission, Madhesi Commission, Commission for Betterment of Minorities, Marginalised, Backward Areas, and Muslim Commission are also under the federal authority. Any issues not listed under the authorities of the federal, state, local-level, and autonomous or not defined by the constitution or laws fall under the purview of the central authority.

Authority of the States

The state constitution, police, administration and peace maintenance, banks and financial institutions fall under the under the authority of the states. The Committee has also proposed that under the agreement with the centre, the states can levy and oversee foreign aid and grants, radio, FM, television, personal income, property tax, business tax, land tax, labour tax, house registration fee, vehicle tax, entertainment tax, advertisement tax, agricultural income tax, and service tax.
Royalty from the natural resources, state civil service, state-level hydropower, irrigation and other projects, universities, higher education, libraries, museums, health service, state parliament, and authority of local-level and special areas fall under the state authority.

Interstate trade, state aviation, state trains and highways, state investigation bureau, electricity projects, irrigation project, state court, family court, children’s court, management of citizenship and passports, state-level projects, land management, keeping of land records and levying land taxes are under the authority of the states.
Mine exploration and management, insurance management, protection and use of language, culture, script, and religions, management and use of state forests, water resources, development and agricultural and animal husbandry, manufacturing industries, industrialisation, trades, transportation, production of alcoholic substances and sale, books and publishing, and trust management also fall under the state authority.

Common list of Authority

The issues relating to the relationship between the federation and the states has been listed under the common list. “Federation and states can enact laws for use by both. The laws so made can be in contradiction of both federal and state laws so there is a provision for defining the basic principles, values and structures of the common list and based on this state parliaments can enact necessary laws,” states the draft report.

Under the common list, criminal and civil law procedures, evidences and oath, supply and distribution of necessary goods, price control, quality control and supervision, protective custody related to defence of the state, management of prisons and detention centres, peace fall under the common list of the federal and state authority. Similarly, the Committee has proposed that waterways, media related, family issues, land policy, insurance, industries and mines, and physical infrastructures should be under the common list. Casinos, lottery, vehicle license, tourism, drinking water and sanitation are also proposed to be included the common list.

Authority of Local Level and Special Areas

Local levels have authority over municipal police, community police, cooperatives, FM transmission, local tax, service tax, tourist fees, advertisement fees, lax tax, royalty from natural resources, management of local services, keeping of local statistics and records, local-level development projects and programmes, primary and high school education.

In addition, basic health and sanitation, local market management, local roads, local courts, reconciliation and mediation, citizenship and passport distribution and record keeping, distribution of house/land ownership, agriculture and animal husbandry, management of old and elderly, disabled, women, single women and vulnerable, data collection of unemployed, management and control of agriculture extension, maintenance of personal details like birth and death records fall under the authority of the local level.

The Committee has also listed the authority of the special areas to be set up as autonomous areas. The Committee argues that this provision is there for the constitution to delineate their authority for autonomy and self-governance and regulate the areas within the authority grated thus. The Committee has proposed that in case of contraction of laws of the state and the autonomous areas, the laws of the state will automatically supersede. Police, cooperatives, management of FM radio and televisions, health service, roads, electricity projects, services fall under the authority of the autonomous areas under the special areas. Thus, the Committee has tried to define the authorities of the federal, state, local-level, and autonomous areas, and a list of common authority enjoyed by federal and state structures.

The List of Authority of Different Levels
Authority of States

1. state constitution
2. police, administration and peace
3. bank and financial institutions, cooperatives, and foreign aid and grant with the approval of the centre
4. radio, FM, televise
5. personal income, property tax, business tax, land tax, labour tax, house/land registration fee, vehicle tax, entertainment tax, advertisement tax, agricultural income tax, service tax
6. royalty from natural resources
7. state civil service management
8. state bureau of statistics
9. state-level electricity, irrigation projects and other programmes
10. university, higher education, libraries, museums
11. health services
12. state parliament, local governments, and special structures
13. interstate trade
14. state aviation
15. state trains and highways
16. state investigation bureau
17. hydropower project, irrigation project
18. state court, family court, children’s court
19. management of citizenship and passport
20. state-level commissions
21. land management, land records and valuation of land tax
22. mines exploration and management
23. insurance management
24. protection and promotion of language, culture, script, and religion
25. utilisation of state forest and water resources
26. development of agriculture and animal husbandry, industries, industrialisation, trade, transportation; production and sale of alcoholic drinks
27. books and publishing
28. guthi/trust management

The Common List

1. criminal and civil law procedures and evidences and oath (legal norms, public works and records and judicial process)
2. supply, distribution, price control, quality control and supervision of necessary goods
3. defence-related protective custody, prisons and detention centres management, and peace
4. extradition of accused, person in custody, prisoners from one state to another
5. laws concerning family issues (marriage, property transfer, divorce, endangered, orphans, adopted children, heir and united family)
6. laws regarding property acquisition, requisition and rights
7. contracts, partnerships, and agency related
8. bankruptcy and insolvency
9. medicines and pesticides
10. economic and social programmes, family planning and population control
11. social security and employment, trade union, rights of industries and labour related works
12. medicine, legal, and other professions
13. vital statistics, birth, death records
14. waterways
15. media related
16. archaeology, ancient monuments, and museum related
17. industries, minerals, and physical infrastructure
18. casino, lottery, vehicle license
19. fire and natural disaster control and relief and reconstruction
20. tourism, drinking water and sanitation
21. films, cinema halls related
22. insurance
23. poverty alleviation and industrialisation
24. scientific research, technology, and human resources development
25. interstate distributed forests, wild animals, birds, mountains, national parks and water usage
26. national and interstate environment management
27. land policy

Authority at Local Level

1. municipal police, community police
2. cooperatives
3. FM radio transmission
4. local taxes (property, land rent, vehicle tax, etc.), service tax, tourism tax, advertisement tax, land tax
5. royalty from natural resources
6. management of local services
7. local statistics and records collection
8. local-level development projects and programmes
9. primary and high-school education
10. basic health and sanitation
11. local market management
12. local roads/rural roads/agricultural roads
13. local court, reconciliation, and mediation
14. citizenship and passport distribution and records management
15. distribution of land ownership certificate
16. agriculture and animal husbandry
17. management of old, elderly, disabled, women, single women, and vulnerable
18. data collection on employed
19. management and control of agricultural extension
20. records of personal details like birth, death

Authority of Autonomous Regions

1. police
2. cooperatives
3. FM radio management and television
4. primary and high-school education, libraries, and museums
5. healthy services
6. independent elected councils
7. property tax, business tax, house/land registration fee, vehicle tax, entertainment tax, tourism fee, land tax, labour and agricultural income tax
8. royalty from natural resources
9. roads
10. electricity project, irrigation project, and other projects
11. citizenship/passport management
12. land records and certificate of land ownership
13. mine exploration and management
14. protection of language, culture, script, and religion
15. natural resources and their utilisation
16. development of agriculture and animal husbandry and their trade
17. services
18. statistics and records collection
19. courts
20. other state-sanctioned authority

Voices for inclusive state structure have been raised from every part and region of the country. The political parties have brought out their models of federal and inclusive state with economic and social transformation in their election manifestos during the Constituent Assembly election. However, the issue demand for federalism is not new in Nepal.

The first voices for demands of federalism in Nepal were raised around 2008 BS by Kula Nanda Jha of Tarai Congress. In 2015 BS, Raghu Nath Thakur made written submission for federalism. Madhes Mukti Andolan (Madhes Liberation Movement) had also raised the issue in 2024 BS. In later times, Nepal Sadbhawana Council had accepted federalism in 2040 BS. However, the credit for making federalism a household concept, taking it to the public and going for its exercise goes to the Maoists (Shrestha 2065:23-24).

Federalism only gained currency in the last four/five years 50 years after first being raised. In 2060 BS during the conflict, the Maoists brought the idea of dividing the country along with ethnic and regional autonomy into nine autonomous republic provinces: Kirant, Madhes, Tamang, Newa, Tamuwan, Magarat, Tharuwan, Bheri-Karnali, and Seti-Mahakali. After the Maoists entered the mainstream, the Interim Constitution Drafting Committee has also forwarded the same nine autonomous provinces. Of the nine, Kirant, Madhes, Tamang, Newa, Tamuwan, Magarat, Tharuwan are based along ethnic lines and other two Bheri-Karnali and Seti-Mahakali along geographic lines.

For the CA elections 2008, the Maoists have revised their previous concept. Their manifesto proposes the possibility of restructuring the state along ethnic, geographic feasibility, linguistic base, economic feasibility into 11 autonomous provinces and further sub-regional provinces or units (UCPN (M) Commitment Paper 2064:21). Among these, Seti-Mahakali and Bheri-Karnali are based on regional basis, and Magarat, Tharuwan, Tamuwan, Newa, Tamsaling, Kirant, Limbuwan, Kochila and Madhes are based on regional identity. Within Madhes, Mithila, Bhojpura and Awadh have been proposed as sub-provinces based on linguistic basis (UCPN (M) Commitment Paper 2064:21).

This proposal was a revision of the conflict-period concept of nine autonomous provinces. Then proposed Kirant province has been divided into Limbuwan and Kirant, and Kochila has been proposed to be carved out of Madhes province. Chitawan which had been put in Madhes has been included in Tamsaling. Furthermore, within Madhes, Mithila, Bhojpura and Awadh were proposed as sub-provinces based on language. The Maoist proposal seems to have been in reaction to the Madhes and Limbuwan movements.

However now, the Maoists have submitted a 13-province model to the Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power. But on September 3, 2009, Maoist leader Dev Gurung proposed 13 autonomous provinces and four centrally administered geographic regions. Of these, 11 are based on oppressed ethnicities and two oppressed regions. Tharuwan, Madhes, Magarat, Tamuwan, Tamsaling, Newa, Kirant, Limbuwan, Kochila, Sherpa and Bhotela are based on oppressed ethnicities and Seti-Mahakali and Bheri-Karnali are based on oppression regions. Ridi, Tamakoshi, Narayani and Bijayapur have been proposed as centrally administered geographic regions as other castes outnumber the oppressed ethnicities in these regions.

The Maoists have proposed to establish ethnic autonomous zones and protected villages for endangered communities within the provinces. Thus the Maoist proposal on federalism is basically an ethnic and regional one.

[….on federalism] we believe that the more scientific and practical basis is ethnic and regional identity. It is necessary to understand that by ‘ethnic’ we mean common language, common geography, common economy and a group of people with similar history and culture or ‘nationality’ and not ethnicity or race or caste. Also, attention must be paid to the fact that there will be sub-national units within a province and liberation of one ethnicity should not be at the cost of other nationalities, and rights of minorities should be ensured in provinces with mixed nationalities (UCPN (M) Commitment Paper 2064:20).

The 11th General Convention of the Nepali Congress had decided to go for restructuring of the state and inclusive democracy. “State restructuring has been necessary to change the centralised structure by making changes in the present political culture and character of the state to realise democracy. The Nepali Congress realises that it is necessary to democratise the state by providing full rights and autonomy to the people for political participation based on equality”, it is said in the concept of the Nepali Congress, “the Nepali Congress will take concrete steps to move towards doing home works to hold comprehensive discussion about the practical aspects of restructuring. The state should be restructured in such a way as to reflect ethnic and regional diversities in the state mechanism and power.”

Referring to the various discriminations existing in Nepali society, the political proposal and working direction paper further states, “Inclusive democracy should get rid of discriminations and it is necessary to have reservations in the state mechanism itself to ensure participation and economic and social equality and justice. Nepali Congress will strive to work towards achieving inclusion”.

The Nepali Congress formed a task force under the coordination of central member Dr Rambaran Yadav to design a model of state restructuring. Since then, Dr. Yadav has gone on to become the first president of the republic Nepal. The task force was supposed to provide a model of scientific restructuring based on economic, social and cultural relationship. However, it did not achieve much.

The Nepali Congress (Democratic) which had splintered from the main Nepali Congress had also followed the mother party on issues of state restructuring. It had decided to go for representative federal democratic model of state restructuring.

“It has been decided that from the present centralised and unitary state, there will be move towards democratic representative processes,” states the proposal paper of then Nepali Congress (Democratic), “it instructs the central committee and leadership to study the various models of federalism in practice such full federalism, semi-federalism, regional federalism, and keeping in mind Nepal’s multicultural, multilingual, multiethnic, multi-religious social, economic, and physical structure, to take the lead in initiating dialogue on citizenship, electoral system, relationship between the centre and provinces and interrelationship between the provinces, and to reach consensus on models of restructuring.”

The proposal further states, “to find a long-lasting solution to the present violent conflict; to further the achievements of the historic 1990 people’s movement; to develop an inclusive process to give access and guarantee in the state to the Dalits, women, Janajati and Madhesi; to promote the slogan of common Nepal of mountains, hills and Tarai for peace and good will, it is necessary to move away from unitary and centralised government system”. It was the concept of the party that federal democratic system was needed to include Dalits, women, Janajati, and Madhesi who have no access to the state.

Nepali Congress and Nepali Congress (Democratic) merged in Bhadra 2064 (September of 2007). During the CA elections, it proposed federalist democratic republic based on pluralism. Regarding the bases for federal provinces, its manifesto states, “The bases for provinces will be Nepal’s national integrity; geographic location and feasibility; population; natural resources and economic feasibility; interrelationship between provinces; language, ethnicity and culture majority, and political and administrative feasibility” (Nepali Congress 2064:11).

The manifesto also about guarantees to recognise the unique characteristics of Madhesi of Tarai, Janajati of the hills, Dalits and others in the federal structure (Nepali Congress 2064:12). Though it has envisioned central, provincial and local government structure, duties and authorities, it is mute on the number of provinces. It has decided to wait until the suggestions of the people, opinions of the experts and recommendations of the State Restructuring Commission.

CPN (UML) had presented its concept about states restructuring in Srawan 2063 (2006). It had specified bases for federalism in the concept. “State’s character will be based on federalism and ruling system will be based on the structure of autonomy where duties and rights are clearly divided among the centre, region and local agencies,” it said in the concept, “Geographic situation, population and settlement of ethnic groups, use of mother language and other languages, mix of cultures, administrative accessibility, socio-economic interrelation, availability of means and resources and historical aspects will be the bases while dividing political and administrative units.” Although the UML has prepared its concept about restructuring of the state, it does not seem to be comprehensive and clear. Even if some bases have been specified in the UML’s concept, issues like how many regions and how to form regions have not been mentioned in detail. This was approved by the twelfth seating of the central committee of the party. The party had entrusted the then central committee member and now party secretary and permanent member Shankar Pokharel to prepare the detailed models of restructuring after concurring with experts. That report was included in the manifesto of the party.

UML had stated its bases for federal restructuring in its election manifesto. It had stated that restructuring would be on the based on characteristics of ethnicity, language, culture and geography. The manifesto states that ethnic concentration, language affinity and cultural characteristics, historicity and geographic distinctiveness should comprise any one entity (UML 2064:20).

While delineating the federal provincial and local unit borders, geographic location, population and ethnic settlements, use of mother tongues and others, cultural characteristics, administrative accessibility, econo-social inter-relationship and capability and feasibility, availability of natural resources and history will be taken into account. The names of such units will recognise their ethnic, lingual, cultural and historical identity (UML 2064:20).

Even through UML came up with the bases for federal structures, it did not provide the numbers and models of restructuring. It stated that there should be consensus on determining federal provinces and on the basis of recommendations of the restructuring commission.

Thus, the parties have provided different bases and models of federalism. Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (Nepal) has demanded the Tarai be a single autonomous political and administrative province in the state restructuring. “We think we will only be free of the internal colonialism the present state system only when there is a ‘unified’ Tarai-Madhes. In the changed population of the Madhes, there will be no single majority of Madhesi community in the fragmented provinces.” States the Forum manifesto. It further adds, “The premeditated attempt to mislead the Madhesi people by naming Kochila, Mithila, Tharuwan, Tharuhat, Bhojpura, Awadh in the Madhes will not in the long run be free of the control and decisive influence of the non-Madhesi ruling class”. Its manifesto mentions that their demand for a Madhes state is not for an ethnic Madhesi state but instead is for a regional one.

Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party in its manifesto has stated that it is in favour of an administratively unified and Tarai-Madhes autonomous unit. “Only unified Tarai-Madhes will free us of prevailing internal colonialism. In the changed transformation of population in the Tarai, none of the Awadh, Tharuhat, Bhojpura, Mithila and other Madhesi provinces will be free of the decisive influence of the non-Madeshis,” states the manifesto, “therefore, the area from Kanchanpur to Jhapa should be established as an autonomous region.” The party manifesto gives it rationale for a single autonomous region for there is geographic uniformity, cultural and language affinity, similar climate, agriculture as the backbone of economy, identity of being similarly oppressed and colonialised, unity of feeling and purpose in the struggle for respect and dignity

Rastriya Prajatantra Party has said the restructuring should establish an inclusive, participative and just state by ending centuries-old discriminatory practices based on caste and gender, problems in language and culture, oppression and inequality. It has said that the constitution should enshrine the role of the central government to look after the economic and fiscal policy, foreign policy, defence, sovereignty, communication, foreign trade, and development, maintenance and management of projects of national importance, while the provincial governments should be allowed to function autonomously. The number of provinces should be based on the recommendations of a high-level commission which should also include experts.

Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) has said that while delineating provinces, nationalities, language and cultural uniformity, similar historical background, and geographic convenience will be taken into account. “The issue of sustainability of provinces based on economic resources, production, and tax base should be looked into,” its manifesto states, “federal provinces will increase the administrative expenses and the issues of additional expenses should be taken seriously. Economic sustainability will be the chief measure of federal restructuring.” Its manifesto recommends five to seven provinces including centrally administered regions.

Nepal Communist Party (Unified) has stated that “ethnic-regional principle and autonomy will be the chief basis of federalism”. Nepal Majdur Kisan Party (Nepal Workers and Peasants Party) has state that it would be practical to turn the present zones into provinces.

With the exception of Rastriya Janamorcha, all the other parties with representation in the CA have accepted federalism in their manifestos. It has opposed federal government system. It advocates establishment of unitary government system based on democratic decentralisation and local autonomy and governance. It is the only party opposed to federalism with four members in the 601-member Constituent Assembly.