It is the time everyone has got to realize the reality of ethnic problem in Nepal. The concept of federal state has been propounded by several politicians and intellectuals by way of solving it. In the long run, the newly amended Constitution also formally incorporates the federal state due to be implemented as the first meeting of constituent assembly takes place. That's a good step. However, there is not explicit concept of political role of each ethnic group with the decentralised power of federal state. Is there any guaranty of racial emancipation even when the state is transformed into federal state? Nowhere in the constitution is seen the concreteness of racial emancipation. So it must be admitted that the propounded concept is not likely to address the core ethnic conflict.

Indeed, the ethnic conflict in Nepal is the case associated with political role. Each ethnic group has sought own decisive role in the policy-making level in the state. The ethnic classes have sought neither a sovereign state under self- determination nor eligible to be an emperor of fragmented small lands. So if someone considers the idea as ethnic emancipation, this would be nothing more than a great misconception. What should be the theme of discussion about ethnic problem is how to let each existing ethnic group represent themselves in the policy making level. The initiatives to represent them in decision -making level will pave the way to the solution of ethnic conflicts. To make the state guarantee their political role is exactly what the oppressed ethnic groups have been asking for since the time when they felt marginalised by oligarchic regime from the policy making level . Let it be not considered that the ethnic groups demanding the autonomy tend to be separatist. Rather, they want to consolidate the nationalities by inclusive policy that would reflect their ethnic norms and values. Nation- building process is a must now. Despite the fact that we have been forcefully made consider the nation as the territory, nation is indeed that communal group [ethnicity] that establishes the share of their own law in a sovereign state and tends forwards "we-feeling". In Nepal all ethnic people have not got the access to the state. So, to bring all ethnic groups to the stage of nation is main task for us. How can the federal state not tending to define the political role of excluded ethnic groups, solve the real ethnic conflicts?

To say in a nutshell, federalism is to decentralize the power to local body or share the power with local people. There is no doubt that local / regional people will deserve power. There is no argument over it. But we have to analyze the nature of people. People are indeed the conglomeration of various ethnic classes. People can't be defined as only one ethnic group in state. So it is pertinent to raise a question over which type of people the decentralised power rest on. Won't it be again that the decentralised power always lays on the hand of only one ethnic group as totalitarian dictatorship? Will there be the representation of all the ethnic groups when only one ethnic group keeps to holding power in autonomous state ? Even though power in federating unit, we can't say that the federal state can solve the ethnic problem unless there is explicit theoretical definition of ethnic role in the decision making level.

Social structure in Nepal is unique. Nowhere is the sole inhabitance of a single ethnic group. All the ethnic groups live in the mixed way. So it is not sure that the decentralised power will simply be delegated to targeted racial community. For instance, let's give the autonomy to Limbuwan targeting Limbu community. Surfacedly the Limbus considers it that the autonomy is for only them. But what guarantee is there that the Limbus alone is likely to hold the decentralised power of the federating unit if there is not constitutional approaches to power for Limbu ? There are also non-Limbus as well in the LIMBUWAN . There is not absolute majority of Limbu alone. Similar is the case with other ethnic territories, too, where total majority of only one ethnic group can't be found. So the ethnically demand of autonomy in multi- nationalities country like Nepal cant address the permanent solution to ethnic conflict , either .There are such ethnic groups that don't have ancient land to claim as their own . So where is, if the autonomy is to be given on the status of ethnics, the ethnic land of the people such as Brahmin, Kshetri and Dalit at the time when they [Brahmin, Kshetri, Dalit] themselves have admitted that they had immigrated to the land in Nepal much more later? Assuredly, the people seek the historical ethnic land if we delegate the autonomy on the basic of ethnics. This brings the contentious situation .Thus the regional autonomy is much more relevant than ethnic autonomy in the context of Nepal. But one thing worth keeping in the mind is that the ethnic representation should be in government of federating unit [autonomy] as well as in central government .The atrocity, discrimination, oppression should not be committed for sake of single ethnic group. So what should come to the conclusion is that racial emancipation in Nepal is not in link with land and territory, but is connected with political role of ethnic group in policy-making level in a whole state. Making all people realise their own political representation in all sector from top to bottom in the whole mechanism of a state will certainly pave the way out. All ethnic groups are not of same scale in sizable aspect. Some are in majority, some in minority. In that case, there will be only one state mechanism balancing between size of ethnics and political role of theirs. That mechanism is proportional representation in policy making level on the basis of ethnic populace. Notwithstanding such theory related with proportional representation, some intellectuals along with Maoists, by way of solving ethnic conflict, seem to have been supporting the federal state not defining the political role of people. Let's not plunge into such illusion.

The ethnic representation to be established in the policy making level should not be exercised through competition. Such process would, since the competition is likely to promote even further malicious conflict and conspiracy, rather bring contentious position among various ethnic groups. So, open competition is just for opportunity, not for axiomatic rights. The ethnic diversity is neither problem nor will be out of existence. The race is the out come of the realization of different and different living ways of different and different communities of the people due to the inconvenience endured by the people in course of the evolution of society, while adapting themselves to the rare livelihood, overgrowth of population and geographical inaccessibility .The racial diversity is axiomatic and spontaneous existence. Thus it is not unnatural for people to cry out for their representation in the policy making level of state.

Definitely, ethnic problem is relating to political role. This should not be taken as ethnic land. It is linked to the input and output function in political system. So the federal state, which delegates only power to regional or local body , but not likely to establish political role of all races in policy making level in each unit of government, doesn't deserve the permanent solution to the ethnic conflict in Nepal. So there should be the federal autonomous with the inevitability of proportional representation on the basis of ethnic populace in state-power.