A vote of confidence in the province

No one can argue that this is his last vote of confidence. There are ups and downs in the state politics. This is the scenario. Curiosity, dramatics, upheavals, duality, and contradictions have become a common routine in provincial politics.

The condition of the state process of Nepal till date is disappointing. Lack of competitive ability, lack of basic participation and social justice, lack of transparent, accountable governments, laxity, corruption, and lack of inclusion in the state organs were the result of the unitary state system. However, looking through the eyes of regional practice, the state's progress was not seen. So is the problem only in Biratnagar, Janakpur, Hetaunda, Deukhuri, Pokhara, Surkhet and Godavari? Everyone who knows the ins and outs of politics is aware that the source of instability is in Kathmandu. That is Kathmandu, which is inside the Lion Palace. The crux of the power struggle is around the Prime Minister's post and the political playground for taking the reins is also around the Singha Durbar. Therefore, if the real face of federalism is seen not in the mirror of regional practice, but in the spirit of the lion court, the real picture will emerge.

The problem is still with Singha Durbar. Sinhdarbar is very good at trickery, appeasement, promises of borrowing, exhausting-melting, image destruction, division, Kakha and Pakha. Whoever takes the executive reins in the Chaudhadi of this Singha Darbar will be staring at his own shadow and Manuwa, who thinks he is the master of the Singha Darbar, will not make the mistake of letting the Chief Ministers remain stable and extending the queue of future Prime Ministers. Where federalism is effective, where the Chief Minister is influential, they have the opportunity to become the national executive. Such Chief Ministers are known as 'PM Makers' in national politics. There are many such instances in neighboring India, anecdotes abound in political circles. Constructing a territorial practice means devising new rules of the game in politics to regulate and regulate current and future conduct and behavior. Provincialism is a discipline that operates independently within the limits specified by the constitution. Prohibits undue interference by unions. But the state government was made Magante. The federal government has become the referee in the game of give and take.

Territorial practice in Nepal has become a malnourished constitutional offspring. When all the seven state assembly members were first elected, the structural arrangements were void. A collective procession of elected representatives drew lines of territorial practice across an ocean of centralized psyche. This is not a federalism earned by little pain. It's not going to collapse if someone makes a fu. Now seven 'regional bridges' have been built over the ocean of centralized mind. In the construction of this regional bridge, many character lines were and are involved, like Lokharke of Ramkatha, who shaped its existence. Yes, because of them, the territorial exercise became so fablic that the politics of division was forever ruined.

There are many Nepals within Nepal. Many exile dreams are coming true. The regional practice saw the need to find such a formula for Nepali, where all dreams are possible to come true. Many issues of injustice, inequality, oppression and exploitation have been brought to the surface by the regional practice. This is the positive side. But if it is said that the provincial politics is only power-oriented, position-oriented and caste-oriented. If you look in depth, the politics here are people oriented and problem oriented. Even now, a part of those who reach the state assembly have a feudalist background. However, those who rose from the ground level got a seat in the state assembly. The problematic racism, apartheid and panchayats that have taken root since yesterday have begun to attack and crumble. Madhesh, which has probably suffered the most severe impact of exclusionary nationalism, has today determined its own identity. The mud accumulated in the minds of the 'nationalists' has not yet been completely washed away. But what is interesting is that until recently, even among those who understand the division when they hear the 'I' of Madhesh, the initiative to understand and explain Madhesh has increased.

While there are accusations that regional politics is creating a wasteland by crossing the road, the comments that have been going on until now are being strongly cautioned from here. Even in a small country, there are those who complain about federalism or those who complain that it has become expensive, the fact is that those who made Kathmandu their destination with their expectations are now eager to take advantage of the proximity of service to the provincial government. Now they have come to a place where they are gradually maturing and taking a clear direction by setting certain priorities. Madhesh fought vociferously for federalism, but others also took advantage of it. Today, the ambition to become a Chief Minister-Minister has established the context of its justification and necessity. The hope of the common people with the provincial government is fading.

Who is currently attacking federalism? Let's understand his face and intentions. An eye-opener that has been continuously insensitive, insensitive and unaccountable, federalism has fulfilled the psychological needs of Nepali diversity. Making federalism acceptable is the means of uniting culturally and geographically divided citizens emotionally and objectively as 'We are Nepali'. It is said in the countryside - if you put your hand in the fire knowingly or unknowingly, it will burn. Some of the actions taken by the perpetrators of territorial practices fall into this category. Yes, for some, the territorial exercise agenda was a shell to cover his power and power. Several provincial players played a significant role in making federalism ugly. His commitment to provincial practice was not reflected in practice. The comment prohibiting

territorial practice is baseless. Instead, what should be done to make regional practice more popular? That churning is necessary. Yesterday, when Shakti, who fought for federalism, got the key to run the state, their actions, expressions and team confirmed that they are throwing an ax at the branch they are sitting on. Bhadragol in Madhesh Pradesh is a vivid example of this. One cannot and should not be ungrateful to the history of the struggle for federalism. The power which brought the territorial structure into constitutional existence should not be overlooked and appreciated.

Madhesh Chief Minister Saroj Yadav, who has won the vote of confidence for the fourth time, is the math leader of the state assembly. The character lines associated with the Madhesh movement are becoming innocuous and dull to defend federalism. They are not able to bring the good works of the provincial practice to the public. The social change of republican Nepal is being extended by regional practice. However, such indicators are not being communicated to the general public. Ministers are capricious. Even the candidates who will be the chief minister in this province have not been able to move ahead with the roadmap to bring federalism to its roots. My question is not that the Chief Minister should not be changed, but what happens if the Chief Minister is not determined, does not determine the boundaries between the party and the government, does not develop an acceptable mechanism and tradition of dispute resolution or development model, does not decide the direction of the cabinet? Not only the Madhesh state government, but others also became a power struggle game of factions/sub-factions.

Internal reactions and pressures from regional situations cannot stop the radical change agenda. Citizen intervention is necessary for this. Provincial politics is taking shape, but the provincial civil movement has not been able to create an identity. This is creating a situation where the anti-federalists will dominate the streets, the house and the government. What can be the greater meaning of hegemonic politics? In the time of the political storm of trust-vote of the heads of the state governments, the 'mango of existence' of the states should not fall, its focus should be more on the people on the ground. Federalism is not like sowing green grass, it will quickly grow and show usefulness. This is a mango tree. To taste the sweet, juicy, tasty fruit, the plant must be constantly monitored from the time of planting. Many times this also happens, after the jatara is thrown, someone else picks it up and runs away. Who else can understand this than Madhesh, the province of mangoes!