Round The World
New
Delhi, 26 August 2015
Nepal’s Statute Trouble
INDIA KEEPS A CLOSE WATCH
By Amrita Banerjee
(School of
International Studies, JNU, New Delhi)
Even as the Indian foreign policy
establishment has been busy with the Sri Lankan elections and the NSA level
talks with Pakistan, which
finally didn’t take place, trouble has broken out right across the open border
in Nepal.
Anger has been building for weeks in parts of Nepal Himalayan country State
after lawmakers struck a breakthrough deal on a new Constitution, spurred by
April’s devastating earthquake.
Nepal's wait for a new
Constitution has been long and painful, and followed a decade of bloody civil
war. Under the country's former monarchy the Constitution was written by
commissions approved by the king - but Maoist rebels fought an insurgency to
overthrow the monarchy and install a new democratic republic.
A fresh Constitution was another
step in Nepal’s
democratisation, which began in 2006 with the signing of a historic peace
agreement between the Maoists and the then government. Repeated deadlines for a
new Constitution have been missed and several governments have come and gone.
The Constitution-making is a crucial step in the State building process. The
process of broad consultation and participation of the people is very much a
prerequisite for making it democratic.
Work on the new Constitution began
in 2008; two years after the end of the insurgency that left an estimated
16,000 people dead and brought down the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy. However,
in spite of repeated attempts in inking the statute, differences on key areas
like the system of governance, judicial system and federal issues persisted and
all efforts towards Constitution making proved futile.
Quite recently all the plans laid
out in the draft charter to divide the country into seven provinces has sparked
fury among historically marginalised communities, who say the new borders will
limit their political representation. The primary political issue which has
polarised society is the nature of federalism. Nepal’s bigger political parties
-- Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) and the
Maoists along with a smaller party from the plains -- decided Nepal would have
eight federal States but later carved out just six. The bigger parties
addressed the demands of the people of the western hills, without taking into
account Tharu and Madhesi grievances.
Since all the proposed States under
the federal structure would touch India,
violence erupting in these States just across the border is not good news for New Delhi. As the latest
reports of violence from Kailali district (which is close to the border with India) came to the fore, Prime Minister Narendra
Modi appealed to the Government, all political parties and the people of Nepal to eschew
violence and maintain social harmony.
Given the present scenario, where
does Kathmandu move from here? A deeper
analysis suggests two possibilities. One, that Kathmandu
can choose to dig its heels in. There is anger over the killings of policemen.
The State may use this to unleash retaliation, which can only lead to more
violence. Second, the State should wake up to the anger in the plains. Prime
Minister Sushil Koirala must set up a negotiation team; reach out to dissenting
groups; and parties must revise federal boundaries.
The other question that arises is,
being an immediate neighbour, what should be India’s role at the moment? After
assuming power, Modi on both occasions (his first official visit to Kathmandu
and visit to Nepal
during the 18th SAARC summit in 2014), reiterated his support to the
Constitution making and, most notably, he explicitly stressed the need for
drafting an inclusive Constitution within the given time. He also underlined
that India
does not intend to interfere in the process. Although this was a friendly
advice from the PM, some political leaders in Nepal considered it differently and
criticised him for having a ‘hands off’ approach.
In fact, New
Delhi is in a precarious situation; knowing the nature of
relationship between India
and Nepal,
it is impossible to think about complete detachment. India-Nepal relations
require delicate balancing; the task will be more difficult if the ‘centre of
gravity’ is not known. As former Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran rightly stated:
‘The dilemma for India
remains.... there is request to provide support and also maintain a distance.’
In this regard, the External Affairs Ministry, in a friendly advice, asked the
political leadership of Nepal that it should resolve all outstanding issues
through dialogue and arrive at solutions that reflect the will and aspirations
of all citizens.
The need of the hour is that Nepal problems
should also be viewed more holistically. The Constitution making process of
2008-12 failed to draft and adopt a new one but did produce significant
achievements. There is today in Kathmandu, broad agreement that Nepal should be
a federal, secular and inclusive democratic republic. There has been a
widespread public debate on complex constitutional areas and the various
thematic committees of the former Constituent Assembly produced impressive
reports on the main constitutional issues.
Kathmandu has to learn further
from its failed exercises. Political actors, in Nepal, should understand that
without recognizing the role of law and without sufficient respect for the rule
of law, no dispute can be settled. We should know that Nepal is not
just a democracy but a constitutional democracy. The country will be able to
take the peace process to a logical end and promulgate a new Constitution
within the extended mandate of Constituent Assembly if political actors show
total sincerity toward the rule of law and past commitments. Pragmatic approach
and ideas are equally important to take the process to a logical conclusion.
What, then, should be the future
course of action for Nepal?
Firstly, it should insure guarantee of inclusion. The people of Nepal have determined
upon the restructuring of the State in order to resolve, inter alia, the
existing problems of the country relating to class, caste, region and gender.
Secondly, sufficient consensus and
judicious compromise is needed. Multi-sectoral compromise across the political
spectrum is essential in the overall nation-building and Constitution-making
process. Ownership needs to be mustered from all sides along with bolstering
post-conflict peace-building efforts.
Thirdly, assistance of the
international community is vital as Constitution making is a shared effort. For
this, it is essential to enable the positive support of prominent international
communities who have been closely watching the developments taking place in Nepal, to make
their contributions to the key constitutional issues and technicalities
involved. But the text of the new Constitution today has been subject to heavy
international criticism for failing to protect fundamental rights.
Only if the above principles are
observed and practised, Nepal
can achieve a breakthrough and make a Constitution that would be acceptable to
all stakeholders and be long lasting in future. The need of the hour for this
Himalayan country is to start a dialogue process so that the Constitution can
be made more inclusive and gives the country its much needed stability. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|