Nepal should consider joining an exclusive club of nations. It may be the way to jump start the long stalled process of national development. How about this for company: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Tanzania, Nigeria, Pakistan and the United States?

What do they all have in common? Each has taken the decision to move the capital city and the seat of government away from the largest metropolis and into the hinterland, building a new town from scratch. The soaring arches of Canberra, the ultra modern precincts of Brasilia, Ottawa's gothic buildings against a forest backdrop, Dodoma in the shadow of Mt Kilimanjaro, Abuja in the central plains, Islamabad's broad boulevards and the ultimate imperial city, Washington DC.

None of these places existed, save perhaps Dodoma as a small village, before the movers and shakers in each country decided to build them. There were many reasons for such a move-mostly a desire to get the seat of political power away from the money culture of the big city, from New York, Sydney, Dar-Es-Salaam, Lagos et al. But also a genuine feeling that the government could better serve the people if it existed among them. And yes, not a bit of land speculation and builder cartel profiteering.

The justifications in Nepal for such a move are many. No one who has studied this country can deny that alienation and distance from a faraway capital is rampant, and has been for centuries. The brave attempts at devolution in the 1990s were popular and effective. Now the only de facto decentralisation of power is practiced by the Maoists.

There's also a hugely compelling environmental argument. The gorgeous and valuable Kathmandu Valley is being smothered by urban sprawl. Declining water tables, poisonous air and disappearing arable land all portend a cumulative catastrophe that will affect millions of people. So many attempts to stave off or mitigate this disaster have failed amid the political entropy in Kathmandu.

So where to build this new city, this Prithbipur or Janapur or Prajatantrapur or whatever? The East of Nepal is the most functional part so arguably it doesn't necessarily need the development that would come with a massive public works project. The Far West is too distant from the rest, however poor and underdeveloped. The hills are too rugged, the tarai too hot and too valuable as agricultural land. Pokhara or its surroundings would just
end up as another Kathmandu, an aloof cut off and increasingly beleaguered urbanised valley.

My choice is Dang. The broad riverine lands around Tulsipur and Gorahi have an equable climate and an abundance of space and water. The troubled districts of Rolpa, Salayan and so on are just to the north, within easy proximity for development work and security operations if necessary. Just across the low Mahabarat hills is the rich land of the tarai and the Indian border for trade and commerce. No more vulnerable convoys of smoke belching petrol tankers toiling up the Trisuli.

Of course, with a new capital, Nepal should be building roads and rail lines to access the city. A huge urban market economy would quickly spring up in the mid west of the country with benefits for the impoverished far west, the tarai, the central areas and even the industrialised east.

The Kathmandu Valley could be reorganised as a super municipality and restoration of the environment given top priority. The city's financial culture would eventually recover from the loss of government through a reinvigorated private sector and surging tourism. Nepal's new capital city, young, dynamic, democratic and dedicated to developing the country would be the envy of the region and the world. It's worth a debate at least.