Guest
Column by Bal Krishna Jha
Eventually,
on 20th September, 2015, amidst scores of protests and curfews, the ConstituentAssembly (CA) in Kathmandu promulgated the constitution of Nepal.
The
Madhesis, Janajatis and other marginalized groups greeted it by observing the
day as a black day. Protesters marched with black flags throughout
Terai/Madhes. They burnt copies of the constitution. Black flags were flown.
Most of the cities, towns and villages in Madhes boycotted the celebrations.
Clearly, the constitution was rejected by the Madhes people. India, the United
States and the UN responded by just ‘taking note’ of it, and asking the
government to address the demands of the dissenting groups.
The
Constituent Assembly (CA) had failed to finalise the constitution in the first
instance. The first CA of 2008 got stuck with the issue of carving out states
in the new federation. In a diverse country consisting of about 100
nationalities, the Nepalese people were earlier made to live under a unitary
system held by force. All the distinct groups had to associate themselves with
the identity and ethnicity imposed on them by the ruling elites called
Khas-Arya, also called Bahun-Chhetri— the so called hill-elites of Nepal. The
Madhesis, Janajatis and other marginalized groups, therefore, demanded a
federal state, consisting of provinces based on their ethnic identities.
The
second CA elected in November 2013 also grappled with the same problem of
federalism. The only reason that this CA was able to move forward on the issue
was because of the urgency felt by the people after the earthquake of April 25,
2015 to bring the constitution-making efforts to an end without further delay.
The Kathmandu elites used the earthquake to justify fast-tracking of the
process, over-stepping the genuine demands of a wide cross section of people
and their representatives for ethnicity and identity based provinces. In the
post-earthquake period, all the contentious issues related to constitution were
handled by just three or four persons from the four major political parties for
their own vested interests. All other political parties, including Madhes-based
ones were sidelined.
The
commitment of the major parties to create a single Madhes province in the Terai
region, was also conveniently overlooked. In fact, there was an agreement for
an autonomous Madhes state after 20-day long protests by the Madhesis in
January 2007. It had cost 52 Madhesi lives. The current federal boundaries in
the new constitution violated this agreement, and the districts in the
Madhes/Terai belt have been inducted into five different provinces, merging
about 13 of them with four northern hill states This delineation was based on
only one principle, i.e., the principle of retaining hegemony of the Khas-Arya
race on Madhes and throughout Nepal.
On the
day of voting on the constitution, the party whips of the big parties saw to it
that their CA members voted on the ‘party lines’. Accordingly, out of 598
members of the Constituent Assembly, 507 voted for the new constitution, 25
voted against, and 66 abstained on September 16, 2015. The 507 votes were
heavily influenced by the party bosses, and hence it does not necessarily mean
the constitution enjoys the support of 90 per cent of the population, as
claimed by Kathmandu. However, the fact remains that the oppressed groups like
the Madhesis and Janajatis comprising around 70% of the total population of
Nepal have disowned this new constitution.
Kathmandu
establishment continues treating Madhes like a colony. It is relevant to trace
a little bit of history here. The Terai region was given back to Nepal by East
India Company in 1816 (vide Treaty of Sugauli) and then in 1860. The only
motivation for the British colonialists to give back this chunk of land could
be to provide a fertile and cultivable land to the Nepalese rulers which could
be used by the war mongering Gurkhas to feed themselves. The British
administration did not want any problem in Sikkim, or elsewhere in northern
India. The Gurkhas, who had conquered and ruled from Kathmandu, started
treating Terai/Madhes since then as a prize colony. There was no effort to
integrate the Madhesis who were treated as foreigners. Till very recently, the
Madhesis even needed ‘passport’ to enter Kathmandu.
While the
constitution was meant to unite the people of Nepal, it ended up doing just the
opposite. Kathmandu elite and those benefiting from perpetuation of Khas-Arya
domination have owned up the constitution, while those apprehending their
marginalization are out on the roads, demonstrating and facing the bullets.
Unfortunately, a dividing line has now been drawn. With over 45 days of popular
demonstration, which is showing no sign of fatigue, the country is at a
standstill, undecided about what course to follow next.
Is there
a way out of the current crisis?
A strong
and prosperous Nepal is the wish of all the internal and external stakeholders.
It is only the Nepalese people who can resolve this crisis. Introspection,
self-criticism and corrective actions are the need of the hour.
Nepal’s
closest ally, and the biggest external stakeholder – India, too has to share
some portion of the blame. While India is always eyeing Nepal’s jal bidyut
(hydropower) and investing a lot in the Kathmandu elite, it has to take into
account the aspiration of the people living along its border with Nepal. Any
violence in the Terai region of Nepal will have a cross-border impact, which is
certainly not in India’s interests. As a concerned neighbor, India should use
all its influence on the Nepal leadership and persuade the Kathmandu elite to
address the demands for equality made by the dissenting Madhesi, Janajati and
other marginalized citizens in Nepal. If they have to choose a side, they must
stay with the right cause, irrespective of praise or criticism.
Some of
the following constitutional provisions need to be considered for amendment to
address the demands of the dissenting groups, as well as to restore long term
peace and stability in Nepal:
● Article
84(1)(a) of Part 8 of the new constitution proposes 165 electoral
constituencies based on geography (land area), provincial balance, and
population. This provision is discriminatory against Madhesis and would greatly
under-represent Madhes in the Parliament. The Terai region is about 4 times
more densely populated than the hilly parts of the country. If geography (area)
and provincial balance are considered while determining the constituencies, one
vote of Pahadi (person from hill) will be equivalent to 4 votes of a Madhesi.
Therefore, the basis of electoral constituencies should be strictly based on
population.
● Although
Terai/Madhes has about half of the entire population of Nepal, it has only 24
districts (33 per cent), as compared to remaining 51 districts in hills.
This means that one hill district of Manang having about 5,000 voters
would have the same weightage as about 500,000 voters of Morang district of
Terai.
● Since
the Proportional Representation System is meant to promote under-represented
groups, Article 84(2) defeats its very purpose. It makes reservation for the
already over-represented Khas-Aryas under Proportional Representation. The
provision needs to remove the overrepresented groups. It also needs to clearly
define all the groups and communities (Madhesi, Tharu, Adibasi, Janajati,
Adibasi Janajati) mentioned under Proportional Representation to do away with
any ambiguities and misrepresentation while making further laws based on it.
● The
constitution should also guarantee equal rights to women, including right to
equal citizenship to a child that she gives birth to, without being dependent
on the citizenship of her male counterpart. As per article 11 of the
constitution, a child from a Nepalese mother would be a naturalized (against by
descent) citizen if the father is a foreigner. Also, the period of
naturalization for citizenship should be within a reasonable time frame like 5
years.
● The
size of constituencies should be reviewed every 10 years, instead of 20 as
mentioned in Article 286(12).
● Since there
are about 40% of people who do not speak Nepali, few other major languages too
should be promoted to be used in district administration, judiciary, Public
Service Commission and other government bodies.
The ball
is in the court of the major political parties. They need to apologise to the
people for having failed to address the genuine social, economic and political
needs of the people of Nepal. The Madhesi leaders too will have to take some
blame and apologize to the people for their divisive politics. The
representatives of Madhes have either misled or under-represented the Madhesi
cause in the CA and the Parliament, probably for exchange for partisan or
personal favours from Kathmandu. If all the political actors show their
maturity, shed their prejudices and engage in a constructive dialogue a long
lasting, and much needed consensus will not be beyond their reach.
(The
writer is a US based Political Analyst dealing with affairs relating to Nepal)
- See
more at: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1875#sthash.enAlcz2E.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment