Lots of good feedback here.  Mr. Jha has, once again, written a fairly good article albeit with his usual "south-first" attitude.  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why north-south states cannot be made- other than some radical tarai political groups stating so in an attempt to elicit some form of political capital.  As has been pointed out here, there is also no reason why our existing anchals, from Mechi to Mahakali, cannot be used.  Federalism or not, areas carved out based on ethnicities is a recipe for disaster- even the Maoists seem to realise this though they seem to have been forced to carry out their "ethnic state announcements" anyway to fulfill promises to the cadres. 

The closest we can get is districts based on linguistics but even this is a powder keg.  Ultimately, states in a federal structure must be economically sustainable.  Furthermore, Mr. Jha makes the mistaken assumption that these newly delineated areas will have no problems with sharing resources between one another.  Looking at India as an example, as Mr. Jha frequently tends to do, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are still fighting over precious water resources with the case dragging out in the courts.  We have enough problems without adding new ones.  Finally, as has been "elegantly" pointed out, stating that we should proceed with federalism simply because that's what has already been decided is a simpleton's approach to logic.  Though painful, we as a nation must examine every decision- even those already made.  Moving forward by simply stating, "Yo garne- kura sidyoe" is simply unacceptable. 

Mr. Jha, you write well but the content is seriously flawed.  Not to sound flippant but perhaps you should harness your considerable literary prowess for simply reporting the news as opposed to offering up political solutions.  I do enjoy reading your articles though.

When king was still in power the government used to constantly say that a new constitution was a recipe for disaster. But our politicians, media, civil society everyone ran after the Maoists and their idea of new constitution without much thought. Now we are stuck up with a can of worms, pro-federal, anti-federal, pro-ethnic, anti-ethnic, bahunist, non-bahunist and what not pointless nitty-gritty things. On the other hand, our neighbors are fully focussed on important economic questions that takes them ahead of us in leaps and bounds. Trash the monarchy as much as you like, but during its time (both pre and post 1990) though Nepal was poor but we were not so far behind our neighbors. Since 2000, however, we are being left far, far behind. Monarchy and its ideas really weren't so bad for Nepal. But politicians and their followers were so power-hungry that they made everything about it seem really evil to get to power themselves. Monarchy has been unjustly and senselessly thrown out. Monarchy needs to be restored. And its views/ideas should also be used if we are interested in building a strong, secure, stable Nepal.

This is to suresh. If it's ok to blame the monarchy for what it did 200 years ago and throw it away, why not fair to blame bahuns for the same? All these party leaders who threw away monarchy and who are the leaders of "New Nepal" are bahuns. Prachanda, Baburam, jhallu, makune, girija, sitaula whatever.. they all said monarchy screwed us for 240 years and threw it away. amazingly enough the people who advised monarchy to impose caste system and make different ethnic groups unequal in nepal were also bahuns. but blame goes to monarchy only? bahuns are the greatest 'afai boksi, afai jhakri' of Nepal. Now they gonna play victim too. the jews of asia, huh? well, there's only one thing I wanna say: as a chhetri i'm sick of being a tag-along to bahuns. bahuns take the max advantage but when time comes to place blame, it's always bahun-chhetri, bahun-chhetri. just look around you, all party leaders are bahuns. very, very few chhetris. all jornalists, media-owners, civil society leaders, judges, lawyers, senior bureaucrats, sachivs etc are also bahuns. very, very few chhetris. so bahuns take the maximum advantage, but when time comes to place blame, they always add us chhetris from behind. and when time comes to play "victim" like suresh is doing, again it's only bahun who are the victims. real truth is chhetris are the ones who have been most exploited by the bahuns. we are supposed to be their 'protectors', we have to 'dhogo' their feet as our 'gurus', and we gotta be the soldiers who give up our life to go around imposing their beliefs and systems all over the place. (basically isn't this what the monarchy did?) my message to all chhetris is just this: chhetris of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but the shackles that bahuns have put on you for millenia! and to all commenters: bahun is bahun and chhetri is chhetri. we are not the same. don't put us in same basket! 

 Nevertheless, bits of what he says is bull. The idea of communists defending culture is simply laughable. Nevertheless I have to admire what he has done,  that post is quite astute.

 Now, here are a few things that I did notice in that note that do not quite stand up to reason. Note the first paragraph, the case is built on a Hindu Monarchy setting up an extractive system.

 Funny, would someone bother getting some stats on which system of governance is not extractive if looked at with that perspective? All administrative systems flow upwards when it comes to collecting money (taxation), that money is aggregated at the center and then - according to the budget - dispersed for development. Money is utilized for administrative functioning etc, you know the works. To suggest that this was in any way to benefit a Hindu Monarchy or was a consequence of one is baloney. It was a system of governance that was designed to deliver certain goods that the rulers of the time thought was their duty to deliver.

"Nepal's various nationalities and national minorities are still developing both individually and into a single nation (which in turn is becoming part of a globalized world)."

Will someone throw some sense into this argument in the name of God - Hindu or otherwise. Various nationalities -  exactly which communist government was it that permitted various "nationalities" to survive and thrive unless it served the purpose of them staying in governance. Just a note, Chechnya was emptied and not by a Hindu Monarchy.

 Still staying with the idea of nationalities, if any of you are interested in history and more particularly in political history, please help here. Which king of Nepal actively sought to hurt a particular community, and most particularly their culture and in any way at all sought to convert them to another persuasion? Which community was displaced? Would somebody once again refer to the founding principle of Nepal and see if that helps in this argument - I am convinced it will? (I am trying to find it on the net and can't)

 Arthur constantly uses insulting word's such as braying of the monarchists to start off an argument .

 The people most opposed to federalism are the people endowed with most common sense who can see through the consequence of this, they are monarchists because god has been kind enough to grant them the brains to see life as it is. They depend on their everyday experience to understand that no political theory can ever sort out peoples problems. The way forward is not to fight the war of ideology but to fight the fight for family, security, efficiency and the idea of good, clean governance.

I found comments 11 and 14 interesting.

No doubt, bahuns are the smartest community in Nepal.No wonder, they are far ahead of other communities.I personally think they desrve it because they have proven themselves smarter than others. Hard work,simple life-styles and old culture have helped them (other communities must learn these positive attributes from them).What has also helped them is their traditional belief in the power of brains rather than brawn.

My only request to bahun brothers is it is time you started sharing with other communities, otherwise the gap will increase further with its terrible consequences i.e. sharing and inter-dependence will be in the best interest of all the communities.

There is an abundant evidence that people in Nepal share plurinational
areas and have multiple identities. Sometimes, most or large minorities
have dual identities that can relate more to one or another nationality
but very often have the same identity. This is not only due to the
presence of minorities in the nation "holder" of the larger state, but
extends to those using primordial criteria as nationalists( potential
chauvinists and the Maoists) identify with a nation that is presumably
seeking seperate identity ie political, economical and cultural
independence. A fact quite surprising when we consider the network of
group affiliations, generated by cohabitation for a long time, by
interracial marriage, by relations of friendship and interest. This
dichotomous decision which implies that the plebiscites ignores or
destroys necessarily that network.

   In this context, presumably Prashant's and others democratic idea of
"let the people decide", generates almost insoluble problems. It
requires, before presenting the issue to be voted, someone has to
decide who is the people. It is likely that this 'someone' has not been
elected democratically. Moreover, this decision is already quite
contentious. What territorial unit should be used when making the decision? Does each
municipality, the existing administrative divisions inherited
historically, the whole area claimed by the nationalists, the alleged
ethnic or linguistic map? Who can take a binding decision like that on the
drive where people can choose? Even after making this decision, "how the
vote should be binding for those living in areas where a clear majority
has decided against the will of minority? These areas can range from
administrative districts or municipalities to entire provinces, which
would mean that the wishes of nationalists on both sides would have to be
ignored. The borders more or less arbitrary, often based on natural or
historical boundaries should be agreed by politicians, forced to ignore
the preferences of many people. Moreover, can a decision as momentous as
the demarcation of a Federal State, or creating a new state, left to a
majority of 50.1 per 100 of those who vote, or at least a similar majority
of those who have right to vote, which would leave the decision largely in
the hands of those who have abstained? It has been said, and it can be
said that such momentous decisions are required qualified majorities, as
Baburam Bhattarai and Sujata Koirala were asking for in case there is
disagreement on the modality of the federal units and its essence so there
can be the establishment of a qualified majority  which will predetermine
the outcome of the referendum.

Prashant as how the concept of ethnicism is set out in Nepal, with its
classical classification of different races and casts being followed by
nationalists of both sides, democrats, and now so called leftists aka the
Maoists, I think this model of 14 autonomous provinces would further
complicate our goal to end racism in our land.  I would say: The bullfrogs
become lethargic with first cold nights. Just look at people like RRai, he
thinks that all of us have our racial tags after our names. Ours is just a
surname and not any racial tag, RRAI.

Rishav, let me try to answer your question about why Nepal is being declared a federal state: (1) The Maoists needed guerillas to fight their war (while the top leaders (mostly Bahun) all lived in hiding in India, one might add). So they allied with ethnic groups, fanning ethnic disconent, rousing ethnic hatreds, promising ethnic states and so forth so that they got enough soldiers to fight their war. (2) The other political parties wanted political power at any cost. They conveniently blamed the king/monarchy for all of Nepal's failings and went to bed with the Maoists turning a blind eye to all their activities. They didn't care abt the future consequences of their actions. They too played the ethnic card, making promises of autonomy, federalism etc. whether they meant it or not. They agreed to federalism in the CPA and Interim Const. without giving it due consideration. Ethnic groups are now only demanding what they were promised.

..A third point is worth adding: (3) Ethnic groups have learnt to distrust the political parties through bitter experience due to the parties' evident Bahun-bias. The monarchy was removed from power in 1990.  Bahun-led parties showed indifference toward ethnic grievances and aspirations after coming to power. Of all groups, the Bahuns benefitted the most in the post-90 polity. Ethnic groups are not going to be fooled again. They no longer believe that removal of monarchy and 'loktantra' under Bahun-led parties will give them full freedom. They want their own states. The parties can't backtrack on their promises - although some are looking for excuses to do so.

I don't mean to suggest that there's nothing else but politics in all this. Many ethnic groups have faced historical injustice, which has to be corrected. I fully acknowledge this. But is federalism the only way to do this? This was a question that should have been considered seriously *before* the parties decided to go to bed with the Maoists and their agenda. It is why I repeatedly say that the peace agreement was done purely for short-term political gain, not with long-term national interest at heart.

To R Rai (#22): if a certain community monopolizes access to knowledge for millenia then no wonder they end up becoming smarter than others. If, after generations of reading and learning, and telling others to go fight, make clothes or shoes, beat iron, or clean dirt, such a group is still less smart than those other communities then that would be quite unnatural indeed! No matter how poor a Bahun may be economically, socially he/she is always at the top for everywhere, in every corner of Nepal, they are the ones who have monopolized knowledge for ages and ages. Reading, writing, numeracy has been their express preserve. Even if bahun children don't get to go to school they'll still learn some basic literacy from their parents and family. They have generations of advantage over other communities. If other communities had same access to sources of learning and knowledge as they did, maybe they too would have been as smart and develop good culture like them.. such things are not just in the genes. They are developed and passed on from generation to generation. While bahuns passed down knowledge and good culture, they told others to pass down different kinds of values. For example, chhetris encourage their children to be brave and warrior-like, kamis may encourage their children to be physically strong and so on. This is because bahuns themselves set up a system where other communities were supposed to follow these other paths whereas they monopolized the path of learning and training the brain. In today's world brain-power is more important than bravery, physical strength etc. So bahuns who have been at it for ages and ages have a natural advantage over everyone else who're just catching on...

Chhetri ji and Sureshji, I think both of you love our country very much. Therefore, let us unite for the sake of our country and people ( I mean all the people who love Nepal).

There were / are honest and good monarchists. There were/are great democrats.There were/are bad monarchists. There were/are so-called democrats who only preach but do not practice.Similarly there are good leftists and bad ones.

Does not matter where on the spectrum you are, or I am. What matters is do we really and honestly care about Nepal.If we do, let us unite.

We can not change the reality that we belong to different ethnicity or castes - we are a plural country. Let us talk about what can unite us,not divide us while being proud of our identity.

I have no right to comment on the relationship between our bahun and chhetri brothers.I have very close bahun chhetri friends and family members married to bahun and chhetri.I truly and honestly wish you both and your communities well.

What is slowly but surely destroying our country is unchecked crime.

@suresh, yes, yes, we know your 'meetho boli'. always on top and lecturing others. typical bahun mentality. you think you are born to moralize and teach and preach to others.. it's easy to say 'let's forget the past, now we need to move forward' when you are on top. when you are the ones who've always got max benefit and are certain to get even more benefit in future... "govt should support each of them equally", there! that sentence shows just how much you have "learnt from this experience" and just how little you're sorry for the "bad impact" you left in society. your hollow words are exposed right there! the last thing anyone should do in naya Nepal is trust bahuns. I hope chhetris have enough brains to demand their own state like all the other janajatis who have been smart enough to do so!