A painful decade of bloody Maoist insurgency and then another decade of failed attempts later, Nepal, on September 20, got itself a new Constitution, a development that has led to celebrations in Kathmandu and the hill regions but violent protests in the southern plains, in a clear upset for India’s interests. Foreign secretary S. Jaishankar welcomed the Constitution with a warning note when he visited Kathmandu last week and met, among others, the leaders of Nepal’s political “Big 3” — the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN(M)), Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninist) (CPN(UML)) and the Nepali Congress (NC). As the crisis continues, a spooked Prime Minister Narendra Modi has now pressed no less than national security adviser Ajit Doval into playing the game of Chinese Checkers that is on.
What’s the trouble? For a start, while the new Constitution on paper embraces “republicanism, secularism, federalism and inclusiveness”, in reality it is a Constitution for the Kathmandu valley and the hill region of Nepal, but loaded against the people of the Terai plains of the country. Unsurprisingly, while the hills rose up in celebration when President Ram Baran Yadav promulgated the document, the Janjatis (indigenous people) and the Madhesis rose up in protest against their further marginalisation.
The Tharus and the Madhesis have hit the streets, opposing the federal structure arrangements enshrined in the Constitution. The violent protests, which first erupted in late August, have claimed more than 40 lives so far. While the Big 3 have made some proforma attempts to reach out to the Madhesis, the future trajectory of Nepal’s domestic politics and international relations — caught between India and China — depends on whether or not they soften the “majoritarian” impulse in the Constitution and how they react to the demands of the plains.
A brief history of Constitution-making in Nepal is instructive. Demand for a Constituent Assembly (CA) to draft a Constitution for Nepal was first made by the Maoists during their decade of insurgency. The first CA was elected in 2008, soon after the monarchy was unseated as a result of a “Comprehensive Peace Agreement” between the Maoists and the country’s seven-party alliance. The CA failed, however, to write an acceptable draft due to a lack of consensus and infighting amongst the political parties over a number of issues, federalism being the most important of them. Four extensions later, the CA was dissolved in May 2012.
A second CA was elected in 2013, and a 16-point agreement was forged between the Big 3 and the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (Democratic) to demarcate eight federal provinces in the Constitution. The MJF(D) staged a walk-out from the process, however, when the Big 3 decided to have only six provinces. Although they later conceded seven provinces, the Tharus and Madhesis were marginalised through the federal structure arrangements that were put in place.
In a CA of 598 members, 66 members of the Madhesi-based parties walked out and the 25 members of the pro-monarchy Rastriya Prajatantra Party (Nepal) (RPP(N)) voted against the charter. The remaining 507 members voted in favour of the Big 3 draft, and the Constitution was adopted. But those numbers alone do not tell the whole story of the battle of the hills versus the plains.
The Terai constitute over 50 per cent of Nepal’s approximately 27 million people, living along the borders with India. Indeed, in the eyes of Nepal’s Left-leaning politicians, who prefer to look up to China, the Terai form an Indian column in Nepal and must be marginalised. Many in the Terai believe that it is with this view, and to protect the vested interests of influential leaders such as Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli of CPN(UML) and Sher Bahadur Dueba of NC, that the present federal arrangements have been made, in which three of the far eastern districts in the Terai region — Morang, Sunsari and Jhapa — have been merged with the eastern hills and the far western districts of Kailali and Kanchanpur with the western hilly districts.
The new Constitution allows only 45 per cent of the total members of Parliament to be elected through proportional representation system as compared to 58 per cent under the interim Constitution of 2007. The proportional representation system had helped more members of the marginalised, oppressed and lower caste groups get elected. With the new constitutional provisions the democratic aspirations of the marginalised have been bulldozed by prevailing majoritarian tendencies.
In the prevailing anti-India mood, even the status of women has been subverted in the new Constitution. For instance, children of a Nepalese woman with a foreign husband cannot enjoy citizen status in Nepal unless the husband accepts Nepalese citizenship. Clearly, such constitutional arrangements are meant to target the Terai people who have strong social, cultural and ethnic ties with India and who often marry across the border.
Surely, the Indian government would not have missed one last googly that the Big 3 has thrown at it and the Terai people: In the normal course, now that its job is done, the CA would automatically stand dissolved and fresh parliamentary elections would be held shortly. But the Big 3 have laid down that only the Prime Minister, the Speaker and the President will step down and Nepal would get a new trio in their positions, but the rest of the CA will simply settle down into being the nation’s new Parliament! After all, if elections are held tomorrow, the Terai people could upset the applecart with their vote.
While India has reacted with anger and anxiety at being browbeaten thus, the Nepali social media, dominated by Kathmandu and the hills, is agog with anti-India sentiment. #BackoffIndia, says the raging new hashtag. But India cannot — if the Terai continues to burn, India will receive an increasing flow of people from Nepal, and an unrestricted border will exacerbate our security concerns. India has to rise above the usual ministry of external affairs line that these issues are an “internal matter of Nepal”. That Mr Doval is now in the frame shows that the government gets it. The question is, though, what can he do about it without pushing Nepal into being our new
Sri Lanka?
The writer is assistant professor, Conflict Resolution Programme, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru
