We have to be careful when renaming the new proposed federal units. To foist names for these provinces from above, without consultations with local inhabitants smacks of bahunism. In fact if all the ethnic groups in the mosaics that will be these provinces are to be fairly represented, the naming should not be ethnically-based so that all groups feel like they are a part of it. All the new federal provinces should have names that have geographic, historical or natural nomenclatures. Within those provinces, one can always have ethnically-demarcated autonomous sub-units. If that is not done and the federal units are named after a particular ethnic group, the others who are left out will not feel ownership. Even Gopal Gurung, who has been one of the earliest supporters of ethnic federalism has warned about disturbing communal harmony if the provinces are named after ethnic groups.

Recently, however, the Maoists have named 11 national committees of which all except three are ethnically-named. For example the eastern tarai, where bahuns are in a majorioty, has been named 'Kochila National Committee'. If these committees are going to be the names for the federal units to be set up after the constituent assembly is elected then we have to think very carefully before doing it. Or take the Maoists' 'Newa National Committee' in Kathmandu where 320,000 people are Newar, 424,000 are bahun chhetri. In Dolakha's 'Tamasaling' 27,000 are Tamang and chhetris alone number 59,000. It is a similar situation in Ramechhap or Dhading. Even in 'Tamuwan' 64,000 are Gurungs while bahun chhetris number 85,000. There are similar ratios in Tanahu, Syangja, Kaski and Parbat. Take Baglung in the Maoists' 'Magarat' region, only 74,000 are Magars there while bahuns and chhetris make up 110,000 and there are another 59,000 dalits. The numbers are similar for Argakhanchi, Pyuthan. Even in Ilam of 'Liumbuwan' there are 40,000 Limbus while bahuns make up 42,000 and chhetris 41,000 and Rais 68,000. It's the same picture in Dhankuta, and in Sankhuwasabha dalits outnumber both Limbus and bahuns. How will these new 'nations' safeguard the interests of other groups within their boundaries who are actually in the majority? How wise is it to give ethnic names to these federal units?

Fine, we want to change the names of areas which were named by bahuns in the past, but let's not repeat bahunism by allowing a bunch of high priests in Kathmandu to christen them. The right to name their own province should be left in the hands of the inhabitants of those provinces. The best option is the demarcation of geographical federal provinces with autonomous sub-units. Political representation can be then ensured with bicameral legislatures: one elected through free competition and another nominated on the basis of ethnicity.