Nowadays, a new way and trend of expressing one's feelings has begun with the help of Gen-G or the essence of the Gen-G movement. In other words, the established ones themselves have lost confidence in their own thinking, knowledge, relevance, and credibility for various reasons.

In the politics of the constitution-making process, the only party in the Constituent Assembly that disagreed with the federal system, with only the Janamorcha and the RPP, being the only ones who disagreed, was the one who made the statement that ‘federalism has become expensive’, ‘this structure has not worked’, ‘this has led to many political, economic and other distortions in the country’ and ‘corruption and irregularities have become more widespread’. Believing this statement, some people of the Gen-G generation have also argued that federalism should be abolished, that there is no point in going to the elections under this structure.

Even some academics and scholars who have made their profession from teaching at universities to research have often been heard saying that federalism has not worked and should be abolished based on these things. And, while saying this, the support that almost everyone has taken is the structure of provinces within Nepali federalism. Some have even started saying that it would be appropriate to eliminate all the current seven provinces within the federalism and run the country through the union and local governments. That is, whether federalism without provinces is possible or not, and what are the theoretical and practical aspects of federalism, some statements seem to be coming out of confusion, anger and insistence.

Even after the youth movement of 23 and 24 Bhadra, despite the emotionality of the few days, it can be understood and experienced that the youth are gradually digging into the basis of the previous comments and forming their own opinions on the matter. It is a matter of great joy for the nation and politics that the youth are increasing their interest and trying to get involved in forming informed, factual and justified opinions and forming ideas. In the meantime, Kathmandu University's Nepal Contemporary Studies Center and Gen-G Nepal Civic Forum are also running a series of joint programs under the title of "What's happening in the provinces". The conversation between the keynote speaker and participants of one of these programs has sparked this article.

It has been eight years since Nepal's latest political structure started working. 104 years of Shah-Rana dual rule, 30 years of active monarchy under controlled and directed Panchayat, nearly 12 years of multi-party system based on constitutional monarchy, the last five years of active monarchy, and a decade of constitutional transition are the series of the history of Nepal's governance system. The last eight years of elections and federal structure building amidst crises such as regional movements, blockades, earthquakes, and Covid after the 2072 constitution was drafted are not a long time in themselves and there is a consensus that the new path the country is trying to take cannot be evaluated in such a short time.

Others say that if federalism is tried to be run in the same way as it was tried to be run in the past eight years, then even if it is run for the next 200 years, the federalism desired at the time of the constitution will not work. Therefore, Krishna Khanal, a professor of political science who has been an advocate of federalism for a long time, has started saying that this federalism is better to be abolished than to be run in its current form.

The fact that some others who tried to run federalism in accordance with the spirit of the constitution in the early days were also starting to look tired was also seen in the statement of Dipendra Jha, the founding Chief Attorney General of Madhesh Province, while speaking at the Gen-G Nepal Civic Forum. The disappointed expression of the supporters of federalism is not in its spirit but in the manner or indifference of its operation. However, the arguments and statements of the young speaker Asmita Sah, who is also an economics student, against the anti-federalist remarks seemed profound and exemplary in showing how important the need and justification of provinces within federalism is for the people at the grassroots level.

What is in a province?

Looking at the schedules of the list of powers of the union, provinces and local governments mentioned in the constitution, it is seen that while Nepal is adopting a federal system, it has limited the union to the army, currency and foreign relations and has given the role of supporting and facilitating the provinces and local governments to work efficiently and properly in other matters.

And it seems that the provinces and local governments have been made responsible for the tasks that have direct contact and relationship with the people. The 21 rights under the exclusive rights of the provinces listed in Schedule 6 envisage the province as the guardian of the people's peace and security as well as social and cultural rights.

Police, administration and peace and security, public administration and other services, Planning Commission, education from higher to university level, health, electricity, irrigation, drinking water, transportation, banks and cooperatives operating in accordance with its policies other than the National Bank, land management, forestry, agriculture, land, water management, factories, employment, language, script, culture and art, and Guthi management are areas of provincial rights that are directly related to people's lives.

The province is also responsible for ensuring peace and security and national security such as ensuring justice and peace, prisons, detention, as well as the judicial system. The province is also responsible for managing and ensuring its own affairs, including real estate, vehicles, entertainment service fees, penalties and fines, advertising and operation of communication media, provincial highways, land management and record keeping, and tax collection.

In the areas of livelihood and development, agriculture and livestock development, factories, industrialization, trade and business, transportation, provinces can carry out development work not only by collecting taxes, but also by taking foreign grants and assistance with the consent of the Federation. In the course of performance of work, a system has been ensured to address inter-provincial disputes and complications arising in the use of social, family, commercial, public property and peace and security and crime, provincial borders, rivers, roads, environmental protection, biodiversity communication, minerals, natural and other disasters, rescue, relief, drinking water, tourism and sanitation, in the event of inter-provincial disputes and complications arising in the internal management of many areas such as rescue, relief, water supply, tourism and sanitation.

This system is in the name of common rights as per Schedule 7 of the Constitution, its purpose is to ensure that such issues are resolved by the provinces themselves at the provincial level and do not have to face the Federation. In the course of exercising these rights and implementing programs, the provinces can also do so by supporting and empowering the local government and by taking the support of the Federation as needed. Since there is no more autonomous structure for the provinces, there is a system to play a bridge role between the federal and local levels and to coordinate and collaborate with them in the course of their work.

The root of the problem: The intention of the leadership

The key point to understand here is that when it came time to implement the rights of the provinces, the problem started there. First, the ‘double NCP’ government formed during the implementation and its then leader KP Oli’s attitude towards the provinces. The statement made by the then Prime Minister that the provinces and local levels are subordinate to the center led to confusion about the right to make separate laws within the list of rights granted by the constitution.

On the other hand, even the parties and leaders who understood the justification for having those rights at the provincial and local levels under the federal structure seem to have been badly missing or lost in the important initial stages of implementation by making necessary interventions and guiding them on the right path. One reason for this is the strong hold of the CPN in seven provinces when the CPN was formed, and many of the CPN-UML's Oli-backed leaders became Chief Ministers. The federal government also practiced a shadow government in six provinces except Madhesh.

The provincial government heads who were elected to lay the foundation did not take the initiative to exercise their powers according to the essence of the province. Instead, they were limited to a role of pleasing and supporting the federation. The Congress and the Maoists used to be somewhat flexible in the power of federalism. However, due to the Congress leadership, which was faint from its weak arithmetic position, and Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who was obsessed with the greed of quickly capturing the government and party after Oli, no one could play a strong role in turning the government of the time from an anti-federalist campaign to constitutionalism.

Capital-centered psychology and bureaucracy

When the main political leadership, which appeared powerful for various reasons, appeared to be anti-provincial, the federal bureaucracy seems to have used this contradiction with gusto. As a result, the provincial and local levels were given dozens of drafts of model laws by the Ministry of Federal Affairs, making the comment that the people's representatives there were incapable of making laws, lacked good knowledge and experience, and they began to deploy employees who had been trained, experienced and accustomed to centralized structures in the past to the provincial and local levels.

As a result, either laws were made that went beyond the essence of the schedule, or provincial laws were not made for a long time. Madhesh Province and its assembly, which were somewhat far from the shadow of the Oli government in the federation, tried to work to ensure the rights of the province to some extent, but the bureaucracy that raised and approved the comments of the ministries there did not allow the embryo of federalism that had begun to take life there to develop by saying 'no' and 'not compatible'.

It should be understood here that wherever and in whatever environment, it is the political leadership that takes the initial steps to bring a new structure and take it to the implementation level. Most of the provincial leadership at that time had already held important ministries before federalism, were considered influential in the party, saw the future in the federation, and were union-oriented. The bureaucracy always wants to continue the existing system or status quo. That is why the bureaucracy is considered to be of a status quo and sluggish character.

Thus, the centralized psychology seen at the time when it was supposed to lay the foundation and institutionalize federalism became an obstacle. There was a lack of leadership to take responsibility for the implementation of the new system with thought. The authority to implement it went to the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy used this opportunity for its own understanding and benefit. The eight years of federalism, which has been working on the complete plan of the bureaucracy, making full use of the situation where the blame for the emergence of federalism goes to the political parties and the government, has taken the form it has today.

In the meantime, looking at the various forms of the chief administrators in the provinces, it can be said how the bureaucracy has made a mockery of federalism. Even if it is the decision of the government and political leadership, in reality, the situation of the chief secretaries of the provinces alone among the various scenes of employee transfers that are being carried out by the chief administrators themselves, shows a terrible situation. In eight years, 13 Chief Secretaries have been changed in Bagmati Province, 12 in Koshi, 10 in Sudurpaschim, 12 in Gandaki, 11 in Karnali, 11 in Lumbini and 12 in Madhesh. Many have been transferred from the province after a few months and some after only a year.

How much time do they have to stay in the province during that period to understand the situation there and work accordingly? Many of them, who have been the Chief Administrator of the province for an average of five to seven months, are said to have been willing to become the Chief District Officer (CDO) of the district but were also in a state of flux seeking to resign from the position of Chief Secretary. Even though the province has its own administration, there are even pitiful examples of Chief Ministers having to rush to Kathmandu to find a Chief Administrator for their office.

If this is the case of the Chief Secretary (Secretary in the Union), the instability of the Secretary (Joint Secretary of the Union) is even worse. It is said that the secretary/joint secretary who is enjoying luxury vehicles like Japanese Toyota and Land Cruiser in the union has to settle for Scorpio which is difficult to get in the state. They are found to have calculated the countless services and opportunities including living with family. For them, going to the state is considered to be a punishment, it is said that they go to the state only out of extreme compulsion and to fulfill the criteria for promotion in the federal ministry.

'Central' administration in the state

The result is clear, no office that is not in the union and was not envisaged to be kept was brought under the state or local government. Police administration and peace and security, which are the first number of sole rights of the state, are still under the Union Home Ministry and in the district, the Chief District Officer of the centralized structure not recognized by the current constitution, is exercising the old rights and giving orders.

प्रदेश प्रमुखहरू नै अनौपचारिक कुराकानीमा भन्छन्– प्रदेशमा प्रहरी र प्रशासनले मुख्यमन्त्रीलाई भन्दा प्रमुख जिल्ला अधिकारीलाई मान्ने र सुन्ने अवस्था छ । यदि एकल अधिकारमध्येका एक (प्रहरी र शान्ति–सुरक्षा) र पाँच नम्बर (निजामती र अन्य सेवासम्बन्धी) मात्र प्रदेश मातहत जाने हो भने जनताले प्रदेश सरकारसँग आफूलाई देख्ने दिन आउँछ ।