Relations between India and Nepal are fused together by strong civilisational ties and the propinquity of blood and kinship. This cannot be allowed to wilt, wither and assume unfriendly overtones. The present crisis must end
Nepal adopted a new Constitution on September 20, after a long and arduous process by the Constituent Assembly that was set up in 2008 and re-constituted in 2013. Ardent believers in democracy are sanguine that the Constitution will make Nepal a peaceful and prosperous republic, putting an end to protracted acrimony, violence and political paralysis. India longs to see enduring peace and tranquility in the Himalayan democracy. India shares an open border of 1,751km with Nepal and a great civilisational heritage.
like India, Nepal is multi-lingual, multi-ethnic and has a predominant Hindu majority. The Constitution declares Nepal an independent, sovereign, secular and democratic republic. It was adopted by the Constituent Assembly through 501 out of a total of 601 votes.
The new Constitution replaces the interim Constitution that had earlier replaced the monarchy. It comprises 302 Articles and nine Schedules, enshrines the principle of parliamentary democracy with certain innovations and novel features, which may be hailed as the Himalayan brand of parliamentary democracy as opposed to the Westminster style.
The political structure is divided into federal, provincial and local Governments. The judicial system is unified with the Supreme Court at the apex, a High Court for each State and a district court for each of the districts. The country is divided into seven Provinces numbered consecutively but without a nomenclature. The Preamble to the Constitution declares Nepal a multi-caste, multilingual, multi-cultural and resolves to end all forms of discriminations, promote unity in diversity, create an egalitarian society on the basis of the principle of proportional inclusion and participation and to ensure equitable economy, prosperity and social justice. The solemn resolve to establish multi-party democratic governance system, to guarantee civil liberty, fundamental rights, human rights, adult franchise, periodic elections, free Press and independent and competent judiciary is fortified by clear constitutional provisions.
The promulgation of a new Constitution adopted by the people in their free volition ought to have brought joy and all round national celebrations. There should have been great reprieve as the Nepalese bore the horrendous brunt of the armed conflict between the monarchy and the Maoists for decades. But unfortunately, the much heralded Constitution stirred protests, violence, deaths and destruction in the Terai region.
The Madhesis and the Tharus, who populate the Terai region, make up nearly 40 per cent of Nepal’s population, are deeply incensed with the manner the boundaries of the seven Provinces have been proposed, creating serious apprehension of their political marginalisation. The dilution of the element of proportional representation from 58 per cent, as contemplated in the interim Constitution of 2007, to 45 per cent, has fuelled further resentment among low caste groups and marginalised sections. The marginalised groups and the protesters believe that the Constituent Assembly was dominated by the elite hill people.
Women’s rights activists are also critical of the provision dealing with citizenship. They argue that it is backward and discriminatory against women. They claim that Nepal has not come out of the strong tentacles of patriarchal society. There is a vocal section who say that the Constitution was rushed, especially the contentious provisions. Of course, to sooth frayed tempers it is said that the Constitution is flexible enough to admit amendments and, like all other Constitutions of the world, it too will mature and evolve.
However, there is grave apprehension among the Janjatis (hill tribes), the Tharus (plains tribes in the Terai), the Dalits and the Madhesis, who constitute the majority of the electorate, that they will be marginalised politically by the new constitutional architecture. They are incensed that the Brahmin-Kshatriya, known as Bahun-Chettri coalition, comprising less than 30 per cent of the population, but who ruled over Nepal, will continue to dominate the state apparatus.
The monarchy has been abolished but the ruling class — a clique of high-landers and high castes — which exercised a stranglehold over the state will continue its hold over power under the new Constitution. The leadership of the major political parties, be it the Nepali Congress, the the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-leninst), and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) belongs to the same minority upper caste clique.
The unrest in the Terai region is being viewed by vested political interests in Nepal as the result of India playing spoiler. Perhaps democratic politics finds a similar ruse: Blame the neighbour for one’s internal failures.
The relations between India and Nepal are fused together by strong civilisational ties and the propinquity of blood and kinship. This cannot be allowed to wilt, wither and assume unfriendly overtones. Our ties cannot be held hostage to parochial politics.
(The writer is Additional Secretary, lok Sabha. Views are his own)