Discussions with common people at the local level on issues of restructuring, inclusiveness, form of government seem pragmatic because the people neither express any trace of resistance/rigidity nor antipathy out of prejudice. They just wish for the social harmony based on centuries-old co-existence of different ethnicities, religions, communities and groups to continue. They are aware and alert towards this. In some places, people see the danger of disintegration of the country if federalism is not supported by all. Everybody seems positive on federalism except the leaders and activists of Rastriya Janamorcha Nepal, with their only concern being that federalism should be “handled” properly.

At the moment, Nepali society is divided in the discourse and discussion along “this and that view, thought, secular and religious, this and that caste”. The issue of federalism is being limited to the opposing viewpoints among the divided groups. Nobody owns the issue. This is hurting the cause of federalists and benefiting those opposing it. Therefore, the federalists should be pave the way towards it by being aware of and alert to the dangers present.

State restructuring

People at the local are also divided along similar lines to the central leadership of the parties and civil society, and intellectuals. While some expressed views similar to their mother party lines, others also talked about frustrations, hardships and shared experiences of working at the local level. The people of Hemja in Kaski stated that if there is state restructuring, economic condition should be considered as important criteria. In a meeting at Sami Chautara in Hemja on 2 December 2008, the local party representatives, teachers, social workers, women, Dalits expressed a variety of opinions. They agreed that most of the wars and violence had been committed in the name of religion or ethnicity and/or over economic resources. They feared that the future states might be involved in disputes over resources as well and expressed the need to be alert to this end and move ahead with caution.

The country is become divided over whether states should be based on ethnicity or not. Krishna Nepali from Hemja has to say on this, “Nepal is a country of mixed populations of different nationalities. No single nationality has a majority in the present districts and zones of Nepal. If ethnic states are made, the majority in the state will be occupied with only forming the government and ensuring its longevity. For example, if this region is made Tamuwan and Gurung are given prior rights, they might drive out others. There have been activities to psychologically pressurise the hill migrants to return to the hills. Therefore, it will be better to make the present development regions into states.”

Min Bahadur Thapa from the same village is energetically working for the welfare of the Chhetri. He only joined the Chhetri Samaj (Chhetri Society) after other castes/ethnicities advocated ethnic states and started lashing out against them. However, he is against ethnic, regional, and linguistic states. He says, “It is more appropriate to restructure states based on population instead of ethnicity, regions, or language”. Otherwise, he says that Chhetris, who have majority in six out of the present 14 zones, will also seek recognition with rights.

There has been no agreement on the demands for “One Madhes, One State”, and there have been claims and counterclaims between those who are for and against it. Two journalists Purna Basnet and Ajit Tiwari had interacted with the local people in Sapahi, Janakpur the birthplace of Sita, in the second week of December 2008. People were found to be divided similar to Hemja. Some advocated for “One Madhes, One State”, while others maintained that the Pahad (hills)-Tarai relationship should not be broken. However, there was clear agreement that Nepal will not survive without mutual support of Pahad and Madhes.

Surya Narayan Yadav, headmaster of BP Koirala High School from Sapahi, birth place of President Ram Baran Yadav, near Janakpur town and predominantly Maithili-speaking area, was not in favour of a separate Mithila state. Arguing that creating states based on ethnicity and language might invite communal violence, he said, “If Mithila and Tharuhat states based on ethnicity and language are created, the cordial warm friendship from Tarai to mountains will be broken. Therefore, states should be regional.” Immediately, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum activist Satya Dev Yadav countered that his party will not give up the demand of “All Madhes, One state”. Forum activist Yadav reasoned that there is no alternative to three separate states of mountains, hills, and Tarai.

We met with representatives of 1.1-million strong Muslim population to understand their views on the demands ethnic states with right to self-determination in a hotel in Bagbazar on 21 February 2009, where journalists, professors, lawyers, justices, businessmen, ambassadors, leaders from the Muslim community were present. When we asked, “What are your views on ethnic states?”, their unanimous response was, “We are not for ethnic states because it will not be good for Nepal”.

According to Muhammadin Ali, lawyer and chairperson of Legal Research and Advice Centre, the Muslim community is not for any ethnic- or religion-based states. Ali said, “We are alert that the country should not disintegrate in the name of federalism. There is increasing fear of disintegration from the mountainous and Tarai regions”. He suggests three states each in Pahad and Tarai and two in the mountains to avoid this eventuality. However, he believed that while doing so, we should not forget the interrelationship between the mountains, Pahad, and Tarai. Former ambassador to Saudi Arabia Hamid Ansari asserted that religion should also be a basis for restructuring as Hindus, Muslims, Christians, or other religion followers will not abandon their religious ways. Hindus go to Banaras and Panchdham on pilgrimage, Christians Vatican, Buddhist Lumbini, Muslims Mecca Medina. Ambassador Ansari says, “Every religion has some place of pilgrimage; therefore, secularism does not mean end of religious way of life. Hence, if this issue is not included in the agenda of state restructuring will invite problems”.

How should state restructuring be carried out? Should there be ethnic states or not? What does the large population of Muslims in five Tarai districts think of “All Madhes, One State”? We asked these questions to Supreme Court Justice Tahir Ali Ansari. He expressed his views more as a Nepali citizen rather than the Honourable Justice he is. Justice Ansari, who has travelled from Mechi to Mahakali and from north to south and seen various customs, culture, traditions, mentioned that all of these are different from one place to another. The issues of Seti and Mahakali are not the same as Rapti and Lumbini, and Lumbini’s is different from Narayani and Bagmati. Similarly, the issues of Narayani differ from Koshi and Mechi. In such context, Justice Ansari said he could understand where the demand for “One Madhes, One State” came from, which is not feasible. He further added, “The country should not be restructured into many units under federalism and it should not be ethnic federalism. In the whole of Nepal, every nationality itself can be a minority. In broader nepali context, Chhetri, Bahun, Newar, Rai, Kirant, Muslim are all minorities”. People from the remote hills, plains of Tarai, and mountains all share the safe fear of disintegration if there is ethnic federalism.

Form of government

Another issue at the centre of discussion is form of government. Even after two and half years of CA elections, there has been no agreement among the top leaders of political parties on the form of government. The CA is also divided whether the prime minister or the president should have executive authority. There has been no settlement yet. While some want prime ministerial system, others presidential. It is not only Kathmandu that has been divided on this issue, even the citizens of remote villages are divided and confused.

UCPN(M) local activist from Hemja Madhav Sharan Poudel wants a powerful president who will be directly elected. But secretary of Aama Samuha (mothers’ group) from the same place wants prime ministerial system. She adds, “I think prime ministerial system is better than presidential system, where women can also become president like in India”. She finds support in Krishna Nepali, member of Mukti Samaj (freedom society). According to Nepali, there would not have been a Dalit president in India if there had not been an executive prime minister there. Therefore, to ameliorate the conditions of women, oppressed, Janajati, minorities or the weak, prime ministerial system is more appropriate than presidential system.

When journalist Sudarshan Ghimire reached Doti-Dipayal on 22 February 2009, he was told by the teachers, employees, businessmen, traders, and socio-political workers about the issues to be included in the new constitution: “Tarai-Pahad should not be divided”. But they were also divided on the form of government just like elsewhere. While some strongly stood in favour of executive president with rights, others wanted prime a minister elected from the parliament. Some also favoured directly elected prime minister. In teacher Purna Joshi’s words, “we have the experience of the failure of majority rule and minority opposition. This does not ensure development; instead time is wasted on formation of government and trying to bring it down. Therefore, presidential system is good.” In contrast to this view, Laxmi Roka Magar, who had resettled in Doti from Rolpa, felt that directly elected prime minister is better. She argued that if the intention of the leadership is corrupt, then however good a system, it does not matter.

Marichman Tamang, a teacher from Kakani in Sindhupalchok, wants prime minister elected from the parliament. He feels that there will be no one correct a mistake made by an executive president. But in the prime ministerial system, if the prime minster errs, the president can take over.

Inclusive/access of all to state

The indigenous Janajati, Dalit, Madhesi, Muslim communities wish to see their recognition in the new constitution. They have been demanding a guarantee in the constitution of inclusiveness and participation as they have been excluded for centuries by the state.
In the 21 February 2009 interaction with the well-informed individuals of the Muslim community, the chairperson of Muslim Journalists Associate Rahamatulla Miya said, “We basically want recognition. The state should not practice discriminatory policies after the new constitution like the former regimes. There should be constitutional guarantee on reservation and Muslim Personal Law”.

In the meetings and talks with indigenous Janajati, Madhesi, Muslim, and women groups, one finds a common thread; they all say the inclusion should not be left out. The issue of inclusion, though incipient for a long time, has become a major one after the elections to the Constituent Assembly. It has gained a kind of a momentum. In the process of meeting people from remote regions, in a meeting in Kakani, Sindhupalchok, on 19 March 2009, the people were enthusiastic about issues to be included in the new constitution. Though their opinions differed on state restructuring, naming them, and form of government, there was unanimity on the issue of inclusion. They seemed to concur on the need by the state to include backward nationalities and communities in the various organs of the state.

According to the secretary of local Sat Dhara Yuba Jagaran Club (youth club) Munsing Pakhrin, it is necessary to provide reservation to Dalits, indigenous Janajati, women, Madhesi and other backward communities. Otherwise, people will not perceive the change. Pakhrin said that there should be reservation in education, healthy, administration based on population. Agreeing with Pakhrin, another youth from the same village Surya Tamang said, “Inclusion should not be left out of the new constitution because everyone is familiar with this, and leaving this out now would be a big disaster”.

Rajendra Yadav from Sapahi said that the rights of Musahar, Tatma, Khatwe, Dusadh, Chamar, and others should be mentioned in the new constitution, while Muslim Salim Safi said expressed the view that the constitution should be written by including the recognition of women, Dalit, Muslim and others.
There were also voices for positive discrimination for those people from excluded communities and regions. After visiting different places in the country, well-informed and educated people support, instead of division along “a state for this group and that”, there should be a policy of positive discrimination to include those excluded from the mainstream.