Money for nothing | Opinion | Oped | ekantipur.com

When the Maoists presented their 40-point demand in 1996 before declaring the “People’s War” against the Nepali state, federalism was not included. Nor was it mentioned in the12-point accord signed between the seven parties and the Maoist insurgents in 2005, which ledto a successful popular movement in 2006; the result of which, was the end of monarchy in 2008. However, by the time elections for the Constituent Assembly (CA) took place, federalism had become an essential component of the political scene. It was an idea which no political party could afford to ignore.
But how did this come about and what role did foreign donors play?
Columnist Yuvraj Ghimire, commenting on the decision of the State Restructuring Commission appointed by the Bhattarai-led government, wrote in his column about how some members of a certain ethnicity and donors interested in spreading social animosity have prepared a report favouring a ridiculous and impractical federalism” ( Annapurna Post, February 18).He wrote that certain donor countries such as Denmark, Norway, Switzerland and Britain have provided assistance to ethnic organisations that espouse extreme views in the name of ethnic empowerment. According to him, such assistance has increased the danger of social and ethnic tension and social violence (Annapurna Post, February 3).
Similarly, columnist Dirgha Raj Prasai believes that there is increasing concern among foreigners in promoting ethnic federalism. He cites as an example of how foreign aid agencies try to influence Nepali organisations, and takes the example of DFID threatening to halt funding to an indigenous people’s NGO if it didn’t call off a “Nepal banda”(Gorkhapatra, February 3). However, such “interference” appears positive in this particular case, and perhaps DFID realised its mistake.
It is worth remembering that there have been British ambassadors in the recent past who had worked as anthropologists studying some disadvantaged groups in Nepal. It’s natural for them to be sympathetic
to their plight. This might have resulted in channeling a generous amount of British aid in empowering backward groups.