There is an intensive discussion about the justification of federalism in contemporary politics. The fact that the older and larger parties reluctantly accepted federalism is not hidden from anyone. Due to the absolutism of the newly emerged Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RASWPA) and the opposition of various components of the re-organizing Rashtriya Prajatantra Party, the questions raised on the legitimacy of federalism have become stronger.

Federalism has been rejected by the courts since its inception. When the third important force of Nepali politics, Maoists, started to align with Congress and UML, it became easy for Nepal's civil service and security agencies to stand against federalism. 

The old elites, bankers and business houses of Kathmandu never accepted federalism. What is unusual is that the democratic neo-elite class, civil society, gas workers, media entrepreneurs and journalists who have emerged since 2046 are also trying to establish the comment that this federalism has become expensive, poverty, unemployment and corruption have increased. 

The voice of Madhesh and other identityist forces who fought for federalism is loud, but there is no breath in their speech. The main reason for growing displeasure rather than attraction among the common man is the result of the political games he has played in and out of power in the last seven/eight years. The government and party management style of the identitarian parties, which seem new only by the name of the party and the title of the leadership, are completely individual and family-oriented.

UML and Congress are rather liberal in this sense. At least more than one leader and family have an opportunity to harness and distribute state resources. Even if it leaks, it goes to the mouths of many activists. In the Maoist and Identist parties, the taste and smell of it does not go beyond the top leader's family. That's why, people in the countryside say - 'Even if Jogi comes, his ear is torn, but the new one is more and more ashes.' 

The result of a long struggle 

The discussion of federalism in Nepal has intensified since the Maoist People's War. Especially after the Madhesh uprising in January 2063. However, the credit for entering the federalism debate in Nepalese politics goes to the Nepal Terai Congress (Leadership) Party. The main leaders of the party formed around 2008 were Vedanand Jha and Ramjanam Tiwari. 

That period of Nepali politics was dominated by the Nepali Congress. It was the time of BP Koirala's rise. After the leader did not win a single seat in the 2015 election, no one took the leader and agenda of that party seriously.

Federalism could not be discussed throughout the Panchayat period. The birth of the Panchayati system had many aspects. King Mahendra had to become a powerful king by establishing sole supremacy in the kingdom. For that, Hinduism and the cultural supremacy of Khasarya were supported. 

BP Koirala and the Nepali Congress Party were his political enemies who single-handedly created obstacles in the mobilization of state power. However, primarily the Madhesi and subsidiarily the tribal tribes were his cultural enemies. Therefore, the entire panchayat system was focused on making the Madhesi community appear non-Nepali.

Panchayats did not ban the book (Regionalism and National Unity) written by Frederick H. Gage exploring these issues in the early decades of the Panchayat. King Mahendra considered the Nepali Congress as a bigger enemy politically, but he considered the Madhesi community as a bigger enemy culturally. As a result, the Madhesh, Madheshi and federalism debates across the panchayat were the most attacked. 

The Sadbhavana Parishad formed in the last years of the panchayat, which transformed into the Nepal Sadbhavana Party after 2046, again made federalism its main political agenda. As a result, in the year 2048, the debate on federalism was introduced in the parliament. Credit goes to the Sadbhavana Party for bringing the federalism debate from the streets to the House. 

The Maoist People's War that started in 2052 made federalism its political agenda in the middle. Whatever the intention may be, an influential non-Madhesi non-tribal-led party making federalism a prominent political agenda proved significant over time. However, because the Maoists failed to write in the interim constitution (2063), Madhesi Janadhikhar Forum got the success of this historic work. Federalism was guaranteed by revising the interim constitution due to the 2063 Madhesh uprising at the call of the

forum. When the 16-point consensus tried to maintain federalism again, the creation of provinces was possible only with the intervention of the Supreme Court with the announcement of the 2072 Constitution. From this point of view, from 2008 to 2072, Nepal was confused whether federalism was needed or not. Only after 2072, another part was added to the federalism debate, what kind of federalism now? 

creation of the province in the atmosphere of hope and fear 

After federalism was mentioned in the Interim Constitution (2063), the debate on federalism in Nepal took a step forward. After the formation of the Constituent Assembly in 2064, a systematic debate on this issue began. Several committees/sub-committees were formed within the assembly. Outside, many commissions and forums were formed at the governmental and non-governmental levels.

This sequence continued until 2072. There were debates on other topics at different levels. But looking back at that period, the federalism debate was basically more focused on the delimitation of the provinces. Demarcation based on identity or geographical convenience? The Madhesi parties unanimously adopted the rut of Madhesh as one province. In terms of rights, terms like autonomy with self-determination polarized the Nepali society in a new way. 

The supporters of federalism dreamed of political supremacy based on the fact that they wanted their demographic majority in the composition of the province, while the traditional dominant community felt the fear that it might sow the seeds of division. In this way, the entire Nepali society became a victim of communal polarization between the atmosphere of hope and fear when the debate about the totality was focused only on the boundaries. The 16-point agreement in May 2072 and the decision of the big parties to maintain federalism again was the result of that. 

Actually the constitution should have been made universally accepted. The entire politics should not have been mobilized towards just settling the mathematical equation within the Constituent Assembly. Among the various social groups in Nepali society, an environment should have been created where more and more people could accept and adopt the constitution, which could not happen. As a result, when the Constitution of Nepal was promulgated, the Khasarya community celebrated Diwali.

The Madhesi protested by 'blacking out'. Some of the tribals were standing around and some were silent. At that time, Professor Krishna Khanal used to say, 'For the acceptance of the constitution in Nepal, two equations must be balanced together, political and social.' The social equation of Madhesi, tribal tribes) remained unbalanced. There was no attempt to balance it. 

union and the problem of elites 

What was seen from the naming of all the provinces, the results of two elections and the change of leadership of the government from time to time, there was no newness in the politics of any province except Madhesh province. The formation of provincial governments was not giving the impression of federalism, no. Except for Madhesh, all provinces were dominated by the traditional elite community. Congress, UML or Maoist governments were formed in all provinces. 

Now the question arises, why did this happen? Why did the supporters of federalism want the creation of provinces on the basis of identity? The history of Nepal's elections shows that here the Khasarya community ie (Bahun and Chhetri) win the most number of elections. They are also the ones who take turns to rule. Other supporting factors of the state support him.

What is the general understanding of the marginalized, we cannot become the prime minister in this country, if we become a province, we can at least become the chief minister. For that, you have to win the election. Elections require the demographic majority of one's community and proximity to the seat of power.

If the provinces were formed on the basis of identity, the tribal communities would also have a demographic majority in some provinces, like the Madhesi in the Madhesh province. Had that been the case, perhaps some other new parties would have come into existence. The chief minister of other provinces would also be from a marginalized community like that of Madhesh. Let's imagine, if only Terai districts were kept in Lumbini province like Madhesh province, would the party structure and the face of the chief minister be different or would it be the same as we are seeing so far? 

Today, two Madhesh-centric parties have become national parties. Its main basis is the polarization in the Madhesi community. Perhaps, the same situation would have happened in Lumbini region as well. This is done by the traditional elite, dominant communities of Nepal knowingly while creating the provinces in such a way that the demographic majority of their communities and the dominance of their parties will continue. That is the reason behind not following the recommendations of the State Restructuring Committee and the State Restructuring Commission of the Constituent Assembly. The same politics is repeated in naming. 

After the state government came into existence for the first time in the year 2074, the debate on power sharing between the states and the union started in Nepal. The state government was/is not able to recruit its employees. State public service commissions have started recruiting employees after arranging some short-term administrative changes. Still the state has not been able to recruit its own police. There are differences of opinion between the union and the states on several issues in revenue sharing and distribution of other resources. Initially, the Chief Ministers of Madhesh Province and later all the provinces have been showing dissatisfaction towards the federal government.

In this sense, KP Sharma Oli's thoughts and expressions are consistent whether he is in the position of Prime Minister or not. In his eyes, the province is the first development area. It is a subordinate structure of the Center and should remain so. Some were confused about Prachanda. State no. After the naming of 1, his confusion has also been resolved. Most of the Madheshis had already seen Prachanda's federalism obsession with the announcement of the Interim Constitution (2063).

In June 2072, after he changed the 16-point consensus, the confusion of Rahalpahal Madheshi was also resolved. Prachanda is not different from KP Oli and Sher Bahadur Deuba on the question of empowering the province, the state of federal civil and police adjustment bills during his prime ministership showed. Overall, the psychology of the beggar and the giver has now developed between the states and the union. 

province is equally guilty 

There is another side to the implementation of federalism. There are also things that the province itself can do. Federalism is essentially a political system that performs three functions simultaneously. self-governing their units (provinces), sharing governance with the center (federation) and thirdly addressing diversity within their units. Therefore, federalism is considered the best way to manage conflicts in a society full of diversity.

In Nepal, as much as the provinces are active in taking power from the union, they are loudly accusing, they are not so generous with the marginalized communities and areas within their own provinces. They are stingy and harsh when it comes to sharing the gains from power with the marginalized. 

For example, we hear that Madhesh province has repeatedly expressed its anger towards the inaction of the federal government for the passage of the Federal Civil Act and the Police Adjustment Act. The chief minister and ministers claim that the state has not been able to recruit its administrative staff and police due to non-enactment of the said laws. It is alleged that this bottleneck was created deliberately by the association. However, in Madhesh Province, the most marginalized Dalit and Muslim communities are not showing any activity to uplift and respect them. 

Madrasa education bill tabled in the state assembly has been stalled for years. The implementation of the passed Dalit Empowerment Act and the budget allocation are interesting. The presence of both these communities in politics is negligible. In Madhesh, Muslims, tribals and Dikka communities are further marginalized. The situation in other provinces is no different from Madhesh in terms of the rights and respect of the marginalized people there. The presence of Dalits, Muslims and Madheshis in the politics and budget of Lumbini Province is even more interesting. The situation is no different in Koshi. 

As a whole, regardless of the party's leadership in the politics of the provinces, the overwhelming dominance of local elites has been established in government formation, power management, budget allocation and law making. A strong grip of the social and administrative elites has been established on the province's budget. Government action is focused on the construction of physical structures rather than the social transformation of the local marginalised, minorities and the poor, which is of more interest to the builders than to the common man. Seven years is not a very long time, but enough time for signs to appear, with not many encouraging signs. 

The way forward 

Federalism was envisioned due to two structural problems in the Nepalese state. Those problems were - centralization of the state and exclusion of different communities. 

The old state structure was built in such a way that people had to go to Kathmandu for every job. Federalism was envisioned in Nepal to solve such a centralized structure. Since the distinctions made in the past were based on caste, religion and geography, it was believed that the foundation of the composition of the provinces should also be identified in federalism. 

The second problem was exclusion. Since the previous Nepali state also discriminated on the basis of caste, religion, culture, dress, language, gender and geography, it was on that basis that the Nepali state and the place of political representation became a political agenda. On that basis, proportional elections and reservation in government services are also allocated.

If someone says that federalism has become expensive, increased poverty and unemployment, he should understand that federalism is not a project of poverty alleviation, it is a political undertaking designed to compensate for the discrimination in the past, and to respect the identity of the discriminated communities. The reason for this is neither poverty nor corruption in Nepal. These problems are the old problems of the Nepali state which may have been a little bit worse but it is baseless to say that they have increased because of federalism. 

Federalism is a political issue. It should not be made a technical matter only for administrative or consultants. A decision on this should be taken at the political level. Only if the top leadership of the major parties accepts federalism as a political solution to compensate for the disparity with the states in the past, then its journey forward can be smooth. And, only after that acceptance, the second stage of conversation begins that how to share power between the union and the state? If not, the perverted federalism will continue to increase.