In the absence of north-south provinces throughout the country, it is immaterial whether the five Tarai districts (Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Kailali, and Kanchanpur)—the scapegoats for the present impasse—are included in their northern counterparts (position of ruling parties) or to the proposed Tarai-only two provinces (position of opposition parties). As in other issues of the constitution, the stands of both the ruling and the opposition parties on these five districts are not borne out of national interest. They are not principle-based but self-centric and short-sighted reactions. Both stands are equally harmful for the nation.

There are no common ethnicities and languages in the Tarai that support the proposed two provinces. Moreover, the formation of Tarai-only provinces is neither necessary nor sufficient to end the systematic exclusion of the people of Tarai origin from public and political institutions. By not adopting north-south provinces, the country is further postponing nation building and the inclusiveness agenda.

Diversity display

With 20 out of 75 districts, the Tarai houses half of the country’s population and contributes two-thirds of agricultural and manufacturing products. It has more diverse communities than the rest of the country in terms of ethnicity and language. All 125 ethnic/caste groups in Nepal (57 mainly hill and 68 mainly Tarai groups) live in the Tarai. Hill groups constitute 37 percent of the Tarai population (compared to only

2.7 percent Tarai group in the rest of the country). Among Tarai groups, the largest is Tharu, with 12.5 percent of Tarai population, followed by 9 percent of Dalits (combined with hill Dalits, who make up 13 percent) and 8 percent each of Muslims and Yadavs. None of the Tarai groups comprises a majority in any district, except for Tharu in Bardiya. Jointly, hill groups, Tharu, Muslim, and Dalit make two-thirds of the Tarai population.

Mother tongue is more encompassing than ethnicity/caste, but it is also far from making Tarai a homogenous region. As with ethnicities, almost all 116 languages practiced in Nepal are spoken in the Tarai. Nepali is the mother tongue of the largest fraction (26 percent), followed by Maithili (22 percent), Bhojpuri and Tharu (11 percent each), Bajika (6 percent), and Urdu (5 percent). The remaining one-fifth speaks another hundred-plus languages, including Avadhi (4 percent) and Doteli (3 percent).

Nine districts do not have a single language that is the mother tongue of the majority. As there are five mother tongues of the majority in the remaining 11 districts, the numbers of districts for a given mother tongue are few. For Maithili, there are four districts (Siraha, Saptari, Dhanusha, Mahottari), followed by Nepali with three (Jhapa, Chitwan, and Dang), Bhojpuri with two (Bara and Parsa), and Bajika and Tharu with one each.

When combined, people with hill languages as mother tongue comprise a majority in seven districts (those with Nepali plus Morang, Nawalparasi, Kailali, and Kanchanpur).

Digging deeper

The ethnic and language compositions of the Tarai provide no rationale for the proposed two provinces. Equally important is the fact that the formation of Tarai-only provinces is not necessary to end the exclusion of people of Tarai origin. In fact, separate provinces for Tarai will be counter-productive for an inclusive society.

With the recent changes—federalism, republicanism, and secular state—social and political exclusions have been weakened substantially and could be removed through more public policies. For example, language issue can be addressed by making Maithili along with Nepali as the country’s national languages and offering other languages as elective courses in schools. The proportional electoral system has already addressed political exclusion and if further fixing is required, it can be done using additional electoral policies.

It is a monumental mistake to expect that having own ethnic groups in Parliament, own religion to celebrate, and own language to be educated will end exclusion. The fact that the largest numbers of people under the poverty line today are hill Bahuns and Chhetri is testimony that the problem of exclusion is deeper than—or even different from—we are willing to admit. I am saying this not to ignore social and political exclusions, which need to be ended, but as a reminder that the motherhood of all exclusiveness is the economic one.

Economic inclusion requires economic development which, unlike social and political issues, cannot be achieved with a few rounds of policy decisions. It requires vision, a right set of policies, disciplines, dedication, and perseverance. A provision of north-south provinces, though not sufficient, is a necessary condition towards that direction.

Raising hope

Nepal’s rivers, natural diversities, and ecosystems that extend north-south will be managed more efficiently and cordially if provinces are mapped accordingly. There will be daunting challenges in continuous consultations and negotiations across provinces if they become upstream and downstream riparian clients. This situation alone is sufficient to go north-south.

Nepal has two neighbours: China, a manufacturing powerhouse in the north and India, an emerging services giant in the south. If Nepal can get its federal framework and domestic policies right, its neighbours can provide opportunities right at its doorstep. These opportunities can be harnessed better if all provinces are bordered with both countries.

Given the continuous hollowing-out of its industrial base, it is impossible for Nepal to compete in manufacturing. The one area where Nepal can avoid outside competition and high trade costs—the two most formidable challenges—and ultimately thrive is tourism. This will be more effective with the construction of sophisticated and high-class tourist corridors that run north-south, which is more feasible if the jurisdiction is under one government.

Nepal’s revenue is still highly based on trade tax. A few import entry points, such as Kathmandu and few districts of the Tarai, collect all the trade tax. Under federalism, a mechanism has to be developed on sharing this revenue or allocating the revenue in accordance with the final destination of the goods. In case of north-south provinces, it will not be an issue as each province can have its custom points; otherwise, this single nuance alone will create administrative nightmares.

The state of the union of Nepal will depend on how all provinces perform. In the lack of progress in other provinces, a province with better opportunities will invite workers, dissipating its gains. The only way for any province to prosper is by making all provinces well-functioning entities, which requires that they all share the natural endowment of the country, possible only under north-south provinces.

It seems that the potential of the Tarai is less unknown than that of the rest of the country. We do not know how the future of these two regions will evolve, but it is clear that until and unless Nepal can create a situation that a voluntary reversal of labour movement occurs from Tarai to the rest of the country, Nepal will not be a prosperous nation. To create that win-win condition, we need to be visionary and link Tarai, hill and mountain by common institutions, coordinated actions, and shared sentiment.

If Nepal ever starts the herculean task of economic development and creation of an inclusive society, there will be no choice but to restructure provinces on north-south axis. Till then, a lot of damage will be done. The losers will be the excluded majority—who are poor, have no jobs, are not educated, and have to go to merciless foreign lands to support their families—both in the Tarai and elsewhere.

Acharya is a Canada-based economist who conducts research on economic policies