Federalism in Nepal is not a haphazard political experiment, nor is it a structure born out of the personal ambitions of a few leaders. It is a system that has come into practice as a result of a long history of discontent, exclusion, inequality, and persistent resistance.

Looking at the political history of Nepal, the seeds of federalism were sown long ago. The issue of federalism clearly came to the fore after the end of the Rana regime. The Nepal Terai Congress, established in 2008, established this issue in Nepali politics by making federalism its main political agenda.

Then, the Nepal Sadbhavana Party, the struggle of the indigenous people, the Maoist People's War, and especially the Madhesh movements strongly advocated for federalism. But the real credit and sacrifice of federalism goes to the Madhesh movement. Federalism was achieved after the hard struggle of the Madhesh movement and dozens of Madheshis gave their lives. Therefore, federalism is not a structure built on the foundation of blood and sacrifice. To dismiss it is to insult those sacrifices. To sow the seeds of another rebellion.

Nowadays, when governance fails, service delivery is weak, and public discontent grows, there is a widespread tendency to blame federalism entirely. Let's say that federalism itself has created all the problems of the state. But this accusation is very simple and misleading. Was Nepal a successful, inclusive and just state before federalism? Even now, the state has not been able to be just for all communities. But it has definitely been better than a unitary and centralized system.

For more than two centuries, a unitary and centralized state system governed Nepal. During that long period, neither equitable development occurred, nor social justice was established, nor did citizens' trust in the state grow stronger.

When power, resources and decision-making processes were controlled by a limited geography, class and group, the state became distant, unfamiliar and sometimes hostile to the majority of citizens. It was this historical failure and the pain of exclusion that gave rise to the demand for federalism. Federalism is not a new experiment, but rather a clear political verdict on the long-term failure of the centralized state.

For a long time, the state did not want to accept the truth that Nepal is a plural and diverse society. Diverse languages, cultures, religions and identities were seen not as sources of power, but as risks to the state. The so-called ‘mainstream’ policy of the state did not try to assimilate the rest of society, but rather adopted a policy of exclusion and suppression. As a result, identity-based dissatisfaction grew, which gradually turned into movements and rebellions. Since the reign of the king and the Rana, various communities had 

resisted for their rights and identity. The long struggle of indigenous peoples, Madhesis, Dalits and other marginalized communities made federalism mandatory. Federalism is a way to democratically manage this historical tension and imbalance. Considering it as a project of ethnic division or showing fear of disintegration of the country is only an intellectual discomfort and an attempt to maintain old dominance.

Even in the context of development, the accusations made against federalism are extremely weak and one-sided. No one wants to find an answer to the question of why development could not be balanced and equitable when the centralized state ruled for decades. The development model centered on the capital and limited to only a few cities always kept the vast geography and population of the country as a ‘backward region’.

The remote hills, rural areas of the Terai and the Himalayan regions remained far from the mainstream of development. The main objective of federalism is to break this imbalance. To help ensure the identity and rights of all communities, to bring the decision-making process to the local level, to connect development priorities with the citizens and to bring accountability closer.

The deeper meaning of democracy is also inextricably linked with federalism. The right to vote is not only democracy. Direct access and participation in the decision-making process is real democracy. When power and authority are concentrated in a single center, then democracy remains limited to formalities and the electoral process.

Federalism is a structure of balance of power and decentralization, which keeps the potential autocracy of the center in check. By delegating power to the provinces and local levels, democracy is connected to the daily lives of the people. Weakening federalism means re-narrowing and centralizing democracy, which will prove fatal for a diverse country like Nepal.

Today, the narrative that federalism has failed is being vigorously constructed, but there is complete silence about the behaviors and policies that prevent federalism from succeeding. The real problem is the failure to transfer the powers stipulated by the constitution to the provinces, the delimitation and nomination of provinces in a way that benefits one ethnic group, the laxity in personnel management, the mismanagement of financial resources, and finally the tendency to blame federalism by maintaining control of the center. This is only an attempt to hide the weakness of one's intentions and incompetence by blaming the structure. Only if federalism is fully implemented can its real success or weakness be assessed.

Opposition to federalism is often presented under the guise of nationalism. Some claim that this system will lead to fragmentation and disintegration of the country. But history is witness that centralized and unitary states have become the main factors of long-term discontent, rebellion, and instability. The purpose of federalism is not to divide the country, but to make it stronger and more integrated.

This system connects citizens to the state, respects identity, and decentralizes power to make everyone inclusive. Opposition to federalism is actually driven by the fear of decentralization of power and the concern that old hegemony will be undermined. Politics motivated by such fear and self-interest is extremely dangerous for democracy and national unity.

Therefore, federalism in the context of Nepal is not one of the alternatives, but rather a historical necessity. It is a clear admission of past failures and exclusion and a responsible commitment to the future. To weaken federalism is to further increase the distance between the state and citizens, to rekindle discontent. But to strengthen federalism is to make democracy vibrant and deep, to put social equality and justice into practice, to make development balanced and inclusive, and to make national unity sustainable and strong.

In a country like Nepal, which is full of linguistic, cultural, and geographical diversity, federalism is essential because it alone makes all citizens the owners of the state, provides opportunities for development to all regions, and respects all identities. Without federalism, Nepal's democracy remains incomplete, development remains unbalanced, and national unity weakens.