Nepali History: A Note for PowerPoint Presentation

Govinda Neupane

1.     Timeline

Neolithic tools found in the Kathmandu Valley and in Shivalik area in Nawalparasi indicate that people have been living in the Terai and in the mountain regions for at least 30,000 years.

30,000 BCE to 900 BCE: Nomadic tribes/ Primitive tribes/Herders (Gopal/Mahishpal, cow/buffalo herders)

900 BCE to 250 CE: Kirats (Yalakhom, in western and eastern hills and Kathmandu valley, 1118 - 1225 years), Kapilvastu/Koliya, Videha, Mithila and Kichakdesh (Terai)

300 CE to 1100 CE: Lichchhavi/Thakuri/Rajput (central Terai, Kathmandu valley), Kirats (Eastern hills), Magars (western hills), Terai (eastern & western Terai?)

1100 CE to 1768/1800 CE: Mallas (Kathmandu Valley, near western hills), Khasas (Khasan and also Baishi & Chaubisi principalities in western hills), Kirats (Eastern hills and far eastern Terai), Magars (Magarat, Makwanpur in mid-western hills and central Terai).

1769- 1950: Shaha/Rana's dynastic rule/ absolute monarchy (Nepal)

1951 - 1960: Parliamentary system with Shah Monarchy.

1961- 1990: Panchayat system/Shah King's authoritarian rule.

1990 - 2003: Parliamentary system with constitutional monarchy.

2005-2006: Shah King's direct rule

2006 - Onward: Republican system/transition to democratic system with elected Constituent Assembly/legislator parliament.

2.     Governance systems

Kirats: Primitive Tribal Republic/chiefdom (primitive monarchy)/ monarchies/semi-autonomous monarchies/ unitary/loosely centralized rule.

Kapilvastu/Koliya: One of the earliest confederations of South Asia was that of the Shakya clan/tribe, whose capital was Kapilvastu, Nepal. It had loosely federated system of tribal governance.

Lichchhavi/Thakuri/Rajput: Feudal monarchy/unitary/centralized system of governance.

Khasan/Baise/Chaubise: Feudal monarchy/unitary/centralized system of governance.

Magarat: Chiefdom/republic/feudal monarchy (out of many Magarats, in one there was a strange system of selection of the king. The selection of the king of Liglig principality was done through running in a particular day. He, who reached at Ligligkot first by running fast, was crowned as king.) /unitary/centralized system of governance.

Mallas: Monarchy/unitary/centralized system of governance.

Shah/Ranas/Panchayat: Monarchy/unitary/centralized system of governance.

Parliamentary system with monarchy: Representative democracy with constitutional monarchy/unitary/centralized system of governance.

Federal Republic (proposed): Representative democracy/federal/decentralized system of governance.

3.     Local Institutions/Common Community Social Instruments

Panchali: There were local bodies called 'Panchalis' to settle minor disputes and to carry out the public utility services. This was the beginning of local self-government and local democracy in Nepal.

Guthi: Guthi was a social organization that used to maintain the social order of Newar society. Presently, most of the Guthis are defunct. In the past, Guthis were most powerful social organizations, which resolved conflicts, insured social harmony, provided social safety- net in situations of extreme difficulties such as deaths and insured social and religious functions were observed..

Bheja: Magars have an informal cultural institution, called Bheja. Bheja was reponsible to perform religious activities, organize social and agriculture-related festivities, bring about reforms in traditions and customs, strengthen social and production system, manage resources, settle cases and disputes and systematize activities for recreation and maintain social solidarity. 

 Nangkhur: Tamangs had a traditional cultural organization, which was called Nangkhur. This organization helped them to continue cultural practices and strengthen collective community bond.

Chumlung: Chumlung was a social organization of the Limbu indigenous ethnic group.

Nogar: Nogar is some sorts of agricultural cooperative of the Gurung people.

Dhikuri: The Thakalis were known as business group and "Dhikuri" was their indigenous cooperative institution.

Katuwal system: Under the Katuwal system, a person was assigned with the responsibility of conveying important messages to all the villagers in a village. The Katuwal, a communicator/messenger, used to beat a drum to grab people's attention and convey the message orally in loud voice. Most of these communicators/messengers belonged to the Dalit community. (This system is still in practice in many villages in mid-western hill districts.)

Panchayat: Village assembly organized under five elders, who functioned as juries to resolve local conflicts and guided to build or maintain local facilities including foot trails, water systems, irrigation canals, etc. This was the most important participatory mechanism for local decision making. During King Mahendra's authoritarian rule, he borrowed the traditional social instrument, corrupted it and made this community social asset sounding as a negative instrument. 

Local bodies/village/ town assemblies:  In 1961, the government constituted Tribhuvan Gram Vikash Boards at district level and assigned the task of local development. Afterward, the government created elected local bodies as village/town/district Panhayats, which were renamed as Village Development committees/Municipalities/District Development Committees after 1990.

4.     Democracy in Nepal: Initiation and Development

Ancient - 1950

Kapilvastu/Koliya: Primitive Federated system of governance was introduced, first time in South Asia. This system created favorable environment for consultation/participation.   Though, it was imperfect and had no mass participation in governance, but it provided some mechanism that was new in that time.

Magarat: There were several small principalities, which functioned independently. Some principalities had very strange system of selecting/electing the ruler. The Liglig principality had the system of organizing a marathon, which was open for all to compete. He, who came first, that person, was declared a ruler. This was a unique system of election, but it was participatory and open.

Kirat: After the agreement with the Gorkha rulers, the Kirats accepted autonomy. It preserved the KIPAT system of land ownership and also there was a sharing of revenues between the central government and Kirat autonomous entity. Six parts out of 16 parts (of the total revenue collected) had to go to the central government, whereas 10 parts could be utilized locally by the Kirat political entity. This arrangement gave birth to the idea of federal system with autonomous provisions. 

The above three example and the traditional/local institutional instruments discussed above provided basis for democracy in Nepal. Hence, participation, consultation, federation and autonomy were in practice even before 1950, though in limited area and with limited scope. 

1951 - 1960

There was a mass political movement, which successfully dethroned the infamous Rana regime and introduced the parliamentary democratic system, first time in Nepal. The general election organized first time elected a representative government.

1961 - 1989

The Shah king Mahendra staged a coup and snatched all political power by dissolving the parliament.  The Shah dynasty ruled for 30 years. However, the Shah Kings also were compelled to organize election for a rubber stamp legislative assembly.  They too had to show some form of democracy, though shamefully. But, the people continued their struggle and compelled the Shah King to accept the multiparty parliamentary system by retaining his ornamental role as constitutional monarch in 1990.

1990 - 2005

Once again, there was multi party system. The representative government came to power through a general election. The parties and their leaders discredited as many among them were corrupt. The constitutional monarch of the time thought that that was the opportune moment to snatch power once again. He dismissed the multi-party government and took over all powers.

2005-2006

The people came out on the street. The Maoists, who were involved in a fierce armed struggle against the government for about 10 years, joined hands with the agitating parliamentary parties and the King tasted the bitter pills. 

2006 - Onwards

After relinquishing active role, the monarchy was initially suspended and finally abolished by an elected Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly debated on writing a new constitution for Democratic Federal Republic of Nepal for four years, failed in its job, was dissolved and another election for the assembly is presently being organized.

Inclusive Federal Model in Nepal: A Gateway to Social Harmony and Economic Prosperity

-         Govinda Neupane

The issue of state restructuring would resurface prominently as one of the major issues of debate. The supper-structure of a state mechanism is very difficult to design. In this design phase in Nepal, there are major debates going on, particularly, in the form of government and state structuring.  Now, I will just focus on state restructuring. 

1. Nepal has three geographical regions – mountains, hills and southern plain called Tarai.
2. It has three major river systems – Koshi (this includes Nepali side of Mechi river system and part of Bagmati river system), Gandaki (includes part of Bagmati river system) and Karnali (this includes part of Nepali side of Mahakali/Sharada river system).
3. Nepal is divided into 75 administrative districts within 14 zones and these zones are again regrouped in five development regions.
4. It has four major nationality clusters. They are as mentioned below.

·         Khas-Aryans (with sizable population of Dalits) in north-west,

·         Mangol-Kirats or Janajatis in north-central (from Rolpa-Rukum to Dolakha-Ramechhap) and north-east regions,

·         Newars in Kathmandu valley, and

·         Madhesis in the southern plains of Tarai. 

There is no consensus about the definition and classification of nationalities. Hence, some people say that there are hundreds of them. I argue that we have five nationalities. They are Khas-Aryan, Mangol-Kirat or Janajati, Madhesi, Newar and Dalit. [i]

Unitary system and federal system

Among Nepali political forces, scholars and activists, we could see two divisions, in the first place, regarding the structure of governance. They are as below.

a) Unitary system of governance that decentralizes power as much as possible to local bodies.  

b) Federal system of governance by carving out relatively powerful states or provinces within the national boundary. 

Probable disintegration of Nepal is one among the major concerns of the supporters of unitary system. They believe that federal structure will invite conflicts and India will play one against the others. Also, too much power at the hands of state would make Nepal weak. They argue that federal system increases administrative expenses tremendously and make it financially not viable in a small country like Nepal. 

1. Regarding the first logic, I argue that, now, we have become a sponsored regime in a unitary system of governance. No worse could happen than this in a federal structure. There could be more upward pressure in a legitimate way to strengthen national sovereignty. Several provinces could alert the government at the center not to go against national interests. The states or provinces could play vital role in safeguarding the interests of Nepal together.
2. Regarding the second argument that Nepal would be weak as India will play one against the others. This is nothing other than suspecting the loyalty of the people of Madhesi nationality. This is the product of Pahadi (hill) mind set, that too the reminiscent of Mehendraite ultra-nationalism. The people of Madhesi nationality are equal children of Mother Nepal as Pahadis are. We should not allow bringing such communal flavors into our national life.
3. The administrative costs may go up or not, we do not know for sure. However, speeding up the tempo of development, mobilizing resources effectively and using these resources judiciously, and many more could come up. We should see things in a dynamic realm not in a static world. Change brings hundreds of positive and negative factors into play and the society moves on.
4.  There is no ground for the apprehension that the country will be fragmented and the states will try to be separate independent entities. This is just the ruling Khas-Aryan nationality's apprehension as they think that it is their BIRTA (land gifted by some kings/rulers to them). That is the product of a sick mind.

The geographical, river system and existing administrative division models understand Nepal just a part on earth. But, for me, that part of land and the different types of people who inhabit there combined together is Nepal. If you do not include people, their culture, their history and their aspirations, then you certainly fail in designing a governance system that could be sustained for a long period of time and also that could deliver. The geographical model, the river system model and existing administrative division model do not consider the cultural diversity factor and the aspirations of people in a multicultural society. 

Finally, I do not see any valid reason that proves that federalism would harm Nepal. Hence, I stand for federalism.

Proposed models of federalism

Now, I will examine and propose, which model of federalism would work for Nepal.

There are four models.

·         Ethno-Geographical model, example includes the proposal that pleads for "One Madhes, One Pradesh".

·         River system model that proposes three to five states.

·         Existing administrative division model with some adjustments with just disbanded divisions such as 14 zones. This model proposes to convert five development regions into five provinces or 14 zones to be converted into 14 provinces. Alternatively, there were proposals to reorganize the existing 75 districts into 25 and make provisions for decentralization of powers to local governments as much as possible. (This model was initially proposed by Dr. Harka Gurung but he proposed this model long ago, when federalism had not caught imaginations in operational term.) And, also there are some voices, which advocate for maximum decentralization of power by making existing 75 districts as local governments.

·         Inclusive federal model that recognizes identity of nationalities together with economic viability and geographical clustering. In Nepali it is called "Jatiya Pahichan sahitko sanghiyata".  It has three divisions in operational terms.

1) Naming sates/provinces on its historical context/ identity of core nationality such as Kirat, Nepah, Tharuhat, Khasan, etc.

2) Adding "right to self-determination" with the provision as mentioned in clause number 1 above.

3) Providing prerogative to core nationalities for certain period in addition to the provisions as mentioned in clause number 2 above. 

Suitable model of federalism

The debate now is not mainly between unitary model and federal model as a massive majority supports federal model.  The major debate is among the supporters of federalism. When we look critically on the proposed federal models above, it is very difficult to come to consensus at a model that is appropriate and suitable for Nepal. 

With due respect to advocates and scholars who stand for other models, I like to argue for the inclusive federal model that includes identify of core nationality in a geographical region, where they were and are the indigenous people or first settlers. Moreover, I also support their right to self-determination. Why I stand for this model?

While working on a book on nationalities in 1990-2000, I came across contrast views regarding for and against federalism and its types. I have documented some of the major views in my book. I finally, had reached the conclusion that there is need of 11 provinces/states.  In 2005, when I was revising the book for second edition, I analyzed hundreds of comments and feedbacks. After carefully examining the new information, I reached to the conclusion to bring down the number of provinces from 11 to 8. I have discussed the criteria, geographical clustering, population and the main qualitative aspects of federalism in my book. (Please see the end note below.) 

Now, after about 12 and half years of the publication of my book, I revisited it last month. Strangely, I found it as fresh as it was. Hence, rather than going into details about the nationalities, need of restructuring, multiculturalism, federalism, physical and social infrastructures we need and designing co-operative federalism keeping equity, equality and justice as main thematic areas; I thought to advise to download my book from www.neupaneg.wordpress.com and read it. I will repeat the name of the book, once again here – "The Nationalities Question in Nepal: Social Convergence and Partnership Building through Multiculturalism and federalism." Unfortunately, the English translation is that of the first edition only. However, other than a few changes here and there, the essence, orientation, findings and conclusions are the same. In that book, I have summarized my findings as below:

·         There are five nationalities – Khas or Khas-Aryans, Mangol-Kirats or Janajatis (excluding Newars and Tarai sub-nationalities), Madhesis (including Madhesi 'Janjatis' and Madhesi Dalit community), Dalit (hill Dalits as nationality) and Newars.

·         Khas or Khas-Aryans dominated in the past and still are dominating in all spheres of state affairs – politics, bureaucracy, judiciary, legislative and many more areas.

·         Dalits, Madhesis and Magol-Kirats /Janajatis were and are marginalized.

·         Inclusion with power sharing is what Nepal should consider while restructuring the state.

·         Federalism could accommodate the aspirations of people in a multicultural society.

·         There is need of affirmative actions including prerogatives, reservations and reparations.

·         There should be eight provinces/states, which could be financially viable, socially harmonious and politically functional. They are – Kirat Pradesh, Tambasaling/Tamsaling, Nepah, Tamumagarat, Khasan, Tharuhat, Bhojpuri Pradesh and Mithila.

·         Co-operative federalism with identity of nationalities could be the most suitable form of federalism for Nepal. 

Conclusion

Finally, I share concerns about the messy present and gloomy future of our country. We love Nepal and we should stand together to translate the abstract love into actions that will take the country out of the darkness of today and will lead us to a future that is shinning. And, I hope, inclusive as well as co-operative federal model could open up the flood gates of imaginations, initiatives, endeavors and will bring a large orchestra into full play. Let's take the very first step to this direction.

 The talk of the election of the constituent assembly will bring several issues out of the hibernating deep holes. Federalism would be at the top among such issues. Gradually, it will continue to heating up. This time, let's come out with full force so as to rectify past injustices; to bring justice, equality and equity into full play and to build partnership among nationalities through multiculturalism and federalism. This is not only the responsibility of oppressed nationalities, but also that of forward looking and progressive elements among the ruling Khas-Aryan nationality. The Khas-Aryan domination should end now and just now. 

"Unity in diversity" is what we need. Let's build Nepal truly a "rainbow nation". We could and should build a new Nepal that is multicultural, federal, strong, peaceful and prosperous. In essence, inclusive federal model is the gateway for social harmony and economic prosperity.

---

[i] For detail definitions, classifications and status, please read my book, "Nationalities' Question in Nepal: Social Convergence and Partnership Building through Multiculturalism and Federalism". The first edition of the book is available on www.neupaneg.wordpress.com. It could be downloaded free of cost. The second edition of "Nepalko Jatiya Prashna"(Nationalities' Question in Nepal) is available in print edition.

SPONSORED REGIME AND INTERVIEW FOR INDIA'S CHIEF OF 'NEPAL PROJECT'

Posted by The Himalayan Voice:

[Few months ago in a private conversation, an Indian professor told me that replacing Baburam had been a very difficult job to do so far. However, it was necessary from the Indo-Nepal relationship perspective. The controversial role of his wife, his questionable tolerance in cases of corruption and Indian government's over use of him, created this unwanted situation. Therefore, India was inviting leaders for necessary discussions. The professor also told that was a Delhi Durbar interview of shortlisted candidates for CEO - 'Chief Executive Officer' or 'Project Manager' to run the ongoing 'Nepal Project'.  You may see delighted faces of those 'shortlisted candidates' who seem, as if, they have just come out worshiping Goddess Sonia Gandhi(Please see the above photograph of Sushil Koirala, Prakash Man Singh and Krishna Sitaula with Sonia Gandhi) and getting words of wisdom from Guru Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh; their polite speeches of gratitude and the actions that follow in Kathmandu, we now can certainly understand how much sovereign are Nepalese people actually ?]

(The Chief Executive Officer  is also called the honourable Prime Minister of Nepal)

By Govinda Neupane

Initially, I was literally taken aback by seeing many Nepali leaders lining up to see many chiefs at the Delhi Durbar. Why were they here competing against each other in this endeavor?

Is Nepal virtually a de-facto protectorate of India? Many believe it is so. In the 21st century, the characteristics of a certain colony and colonization have changed. Now, they have established a sponsored regime that run the protectorate or the colony as independent government. The sponsored regime works on the order of the master. The orders pass through mostly clandestinely.   

I do not blame India for establishing or fostering or arranging such a relationship with Nepal. This has happened, primarily, not because of Indian design, but because the result of the mentality and actions of Nepalese people's leaders.

During the Rana rule, Nepal was completely isolated from outside world, though there were formal relations with some countries. During its last days in 1950, the Rana Prime Minister Mohan Sumsher signed the 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship' with India. But, he failed to convince Delhi Durbar and could not be the first chief of the sponsored regime in Nepal irrespective of being Prime Minister for some time.

Tribhuvan and his company gave India the first real opportunity in 1950 to get involved in the strategic decision making processes related to the internal affairs of Nepal. Hence, Tribhuvan, in my assessment, is not the 'Father of Nation', but had become the first chief of an Indian sponsored regime.  

Mahendra tried to take an independent course consolidating power in hand and so did Birendra also. They did it, primarily, for their own interests as they believed, India would have Nepali Congress leaders at the helm and not the kings if there was any such opportunity. Hence, they distanced themselves from India for their own sake. The end result was somehow positive in regard to Nepal's nationalism. Again, in 1990 a sponsored regime came into existence, and this time, Girija Prasad Koiral replaced Tribhuvan after a gap of about 36 years.

The sponsored regime continued till Gyanedra snatched power in 2002. Again after the 2006 people movement, the sponsored regime took over after a brief gap of about 3 and half years. And, now, the patronized regime is functioning with its full force.

It has become very interesting to delve all squarely into the question why would Nepal have so many sponsored regimes after the three mass movements of 1950, 1990 and 2006? This could be another topic for a serious study  of political science for the students of Indo-Nepal relations.

The third sponsored regime, which came into existence after 2006 mass movement had been the most ambitious, ready-to-go to any lengths and least accountable to Nepali people. The regime's leaders were ready to barter anything for three Ps - for their position, power and pelf.

Girija Prasad Koirala and his company offered its services to India effectively and unquestionably. He was instrumental in creating the anarchic situation just after 2006, which is continuing till todate. He, in company with Pracanda-Baburam and Jhalanath-KP Oli groups made the interim arrangements in such a way that opened Pandora's Box for hundreds of anarchic acts, actions and 'aspirations' so to say. This troika (UCPN-M : United Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist, NC: Nepali Congress, UML: Unified Marxist Leninist ) increased seat numbers in the the disbanded Constituent Assembly to 601. They are responsible to manufacture hundreds of 'martyrs', many among them died in road accidents, gang fights, family quarrels and so forth. By providing one million rupees to each deceased and declaring them 'martyrs', they simply made the word "martyr" disrespectful in all respects.

The Himalayan Times Photo

Nepali Congress President Sushil Koirala (2nd from L)‚ Chairperson of India's 

ruling United Progressive Alliance Sonia Gandhi (C)‚ Congress I leader 

Karan Singh (L)‚ NC General Secretary Prakash Man Singh (2nd from R) 

and NC General Secretary Krishna Sitaula (R) pose for photograph after a 

meeting in Gandhi's office in New Delhi . 

Girija Prasad Koirala was replaced by Prachanda and the latter's successors were replaced again by A, B, C, and Ds etc. But the fundamental character, role and functioning remained the same. They became champions in the areas of corruption that has flourished in an unprecedented and alarming scale and magnitude in the country. These cases of corruptions included billions of rupees appropriated for the upkeep of former Maoist fighters and cantonments in which they were virtually imprisoned. The lives of 'former fighters' and the poor condition of the cantonments are tell-all stories. Then, where did the money make its way? Do we know it ? No, we do not at all. But the glittering bungalows, heavy bank accounts and rosy cheeks of the former Maoist (now Unified Maoists) leaders speak volumes about the whereabouts of the money. The Sudan scandal made the Sitaulas or in other words, Sitaula and his Congress comrades richer and  so seems to be the case with UML leaders also. This sponsored regime has only 'one authority' to be accountable to the Delhi Durbar. Perhaps, Delhi Durbar likes seeing majestic bungalows, elephantine bank balance and rosy cheeks of its 'beloved Nepali Bahadurs'.

Among the troika, Baburam Bhattarai was considered the most pro-India leader and still he is understood that way. However, his popularity nose-dived and India reached to the conclusion that he is no more an asset. India wanted to fathom the willingness and ability of other available leaders to fill the position of India's point person in Nepal who would replace Baburam.

There were five shortlisted leaders  – K P Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, The Prachand himself, Sher Bahadur Deuba, Madhav Kumar Nepal and Sushil Koirala.

The Delhi Durbar considers Jahalanath Khanal and Ram Chandra Poudel as dry and skinless sticks of a jute plant called "Sunthi" in Nepali.

Few months ago in a private conversation, an Indian professor told me that replacing Baburam had been a very difficult job to do so far. However, it was necessary from the Indo-Nepal relationship perspective. The controversial role of his wife, his questionable tolerance in cases of corruption and Indian government's over use of him, created this unwanted situation. Therefore, India was inviting leaders for necessary discussions. The professor also told that was a Delhi Durbar interview of shortlisted candidates for CEO - 'Chief Executive Officer' or 'Project Manager' to run the ongoing 'Nepal Project'.  You may see delighted faces of those 'shortlisted candidates' who seem, as if, they have just come out worshiping Goddess Sonia Gandhi(Please see the above photograph of Sushil Koirala, Prakash Man Singh and Krishna Sitaula with Sonia Gandhi) and getting words of wisdom from Guru Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh; their polite speeches of gratitude and the actions that follow in Kathmandu, we now can certainly understand how much sovereign are Nepalese people actually ?

People generally say, "Shame on these leaders, who sold Nepal!" I shall add, "Shame on us, the Nepalese people, who have been tolerating this all, for this long!"

http://thehimalayanvoice.blogspot.com/