The Constituent Assembly needs to begin immediately discussions on the governance structure essential for guiding the future trajectory of new Nepal. 
There are two models being proposed by political parties. The Maoists have proposed dividing Nepal into 12 ethnic enclaves, whereas the Madhes-based parties have emphasised creating a single Tarai autonomous state. The NC, UML and other major parties do not have any specific proposals of their own, but have shown their reservations for both forms of federal structure. Other groups in the Tarai (Churebhabar and Tharus) are opposed to the idea of a single Tarai state.
These two competing models are mostly driven by cultural sentiments. For example, by ignoring the ecological interdependence of the three geographical belts-mountains, hills and plains-and dividing them into three long strips of separate states, there is less chance of providing a long-lasting solution.
A Tarai/Madhes state comprising a 1,000km-long strip of land bordering five Indian states is not going to be very practical for a land-locked country like Nepal with its three distinctly interdependent ecological belts. Likewise, the smaller, fragmented, ethnic enclaves proposed by the Maoists without any umbrella structure and/or central supervision could be detrimental to the unity of the country.
A much more workable model would be a cooperative federal structure with four states based on our rich river basins-Karnali, Gandaki, Kathmandu and Kosi-with a four-tiered administrative system: centre, state, region and villages (see map).
Under this proposal, each federal state could have three to four ethnic enclaves known as regions, along the lines of the Maoists' proposed ethnic structure. These regions will send their representatives, based on their population, to form the State Legislative Assembly under a directly elected Governorship. These ethnic enclaves can enjoy some forms of carefully crafted socio-economic and cultural autonomy (schooling, language rights and cultural practices) without jeopardising the ethnic harmony and the territorial integrity of the nation.
Most Nepalis face the same problems and share the same destiny. A political solution that is also viable economically would provide a lasting solution for problems we face today. The time has come for plains people to look to the north and see the vast potential offered by the biodiversity, natural resources, water and hydropower, minerals, forest products, herbs and cash crops, which can complement the Tarai's own agricultural production, fisheries and industrial activities.
The hill people on the other hand should also look at Madhesis as their Nepali brothers and sisters and not treat them as second-class citizens. The ecological comparative advantage of the three belts, if harvested properly, can be a uniting force to solve many of the other problems in each community, including social injustices, across-the-board poverty, soil erosion, drought, immigration, food security, joblessness and flooding. Such a north-south federated system should be able to accommodate the ethnic and population balance in each regional unit to create a more representative electoral system to satisfy ethnic and cultural aspirations. Furthermore, member regions in the state assembly are compelled to set aside their ethnic differences in favour of a cooperative model to harness their relative strengths for the benefit of the entire population.
In addition, the new constitution needs to be very specific about which powers go to the federal units. If the new federal system does end up based on language and/or ethnicity, it seems reasonable to devolve school-level education to the sub-national regional entities, whereas the state-level government can focus on the autonomous university system and hydropower development. Perhaps we could also consider health care and some justice issues.
However, care needs to be taken with taxation. Though we know this to be the norm in most federal systems, the fundamental inequality in Nepali society is going to make this a very important and potentially explosive issue. While devolution sounds great, we are still going to have to have a strong central government to even things out.
Alok Bohara, PhD, is professor at the University of New Mexico. For a longer version of this proposal, see: http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2008/others/guestcolumn/jul/guest_columns_01.php
ALSO READ
Mapping a mosaic - FROM ISSUE #392 (21 MARCH 2008 - 27 MARCH 2008)
Race for identity by JB Pun - FROM ISSUE #318 (13 OCT 2006 - 19 OCT 2006)
