Prakash A. Raj
Past Vice President
Nepal Council of World Affairs, NCWA
The people of Nepal had a unique opportunity of being masters of their own destiny by drafting their own constitution to govern themselves by means of their elected representatives in the constituent assembly (CA). It was something that they were promised six decades earlier in 1951. However, it seems unlikely that the CA elected in 2008 will be able to draft a constitution by May 2012.
It is highly improbable that the term of the CA would be extended further as it was already extended two years beyond its original term which expired in May 2010.
The main reason behind this failure is the advocacy of ethnic federalism in Nepal by certain political parties as most of the ethnic states didn’t have majority of the ethnic groups after which they were named. The problem was further complicated by announcing of the formation of the states from the street before these were decided by the CA which bypassed its powers and mandate. A large part of blame for supporting ethnic federalism lies with some foreign donors. It could thus be implied that some foreign donors are also responsible for Nepal’s failure to draft a constitution as they might have supported directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly the agenda of ethnic federalism in Nepal.
When the Maoists presented their 40 Point agenda in 1992 declaring “People’s War” against the Nepali state, federalism was not included. Nor was it mentioned in Twelve Point Accord signed between Seven Political Parties and the Maoist insurgents in 2005 which led to a successful Popular Movement in 2006 resulting in end of monarchy and the country being declared a republic in 2008. Before elections for constituent assembly (CA) federalism became an essential component of Nepalese political scene. It was a concept which no political party could afford to ignore. How did this come about and what role did foreign donors play?
Columnist Yuvraj Ghimire commenting on the decision of State Restructuring Commission appointed by Bhattarai government wrote in his column about some members of certain ethnic group and donors are interested in spreading social animosity have prepared a report favouring a ridiculous and impractical federalism”.( Annapurna Post, 18/2/12).He adds that certain donor countries such as Denmark, Norway, Switzerland and DFID (Britain) have provided assistance to ethnic organizations with extreme views in the name of ethnic empowerment. According to him such assistance has increased the danger of social and ethnic tension and social violence. (Annapurna Post, 2/3/12). Columnist Dirgha Raj Prasai believes that there is increasing concern among the foreigners in promoting ethnic federalism. Giving an example of threat to stop DFID assistance to an organization of Indegeneous People in Nepal if they didn’t stop call for “Nepal Bandha” he cites this as an example of how foreign aid agencies try to influence Nepali organizations. (Gorkhapatra, 2/3/12).
However, such an “interference” could also have positive effect in this particular case.
Perhaps, DFID has realized its mistake.
It may be remembered that there have been British ambassadors in the recent past who had worked as anthropologists studying some disadvantaged groups in Nepal. It’s natural for them to be sympathetic to their plight which might have resulted in channeling a generous amount of British aid in empowering the backward groups. When the Fifth Amendment to the Interim Constitution in July 2008 three months after elections to the constituent assembly declared that Nepal would be a federal democratic republic in recognition of aspiration of Madheshis, indegenious, backward regions for autonomy many donors could have started supporting ethnic federalism. What they have failed to anticipate is the likelihood of its impact the national interest in Nepal.
Columnist Ram Bahadur Rawal of weekly Nepal ( 4/3/12) commenting on CCD (Centre for Constitutional Dialogue) writes how it promoted formation of caucuses for discussion of ethnic and communal issues, disbursing millions of rupees to ethnic organizations, convening of discussion and analysis in issues having little relation with ethnicity and that the government didn’t investigate its activities on time. He inquires “Is this the practice of responsibility and transparency?” and adds “Who gave it mandate to discuss ethnic and communal issues in Nepal?”. CCD was funded by UNDP and its offices were located in New Baneswar near Constitutional Assembly. It organized lecture and interaction programs on different aspects of writing constitution of Nepal. Several of invited guests were foreigners from such countries as Canada, Austria and Australia. However, CCD printed maps showing boundaries of proposed fourteen states by Restructuring Committee of CA. Then it started inviting Nepalese, mostly ethnic activists to present their viewpoint on the proposed ethnic states. This scribe remembers attending many presentations which were highly educational. It appeared that those responsible for inviting Nepalese experts for presentation deliberately didn’t invite those opposed to federalism in general and ethnic federalism in particular. Restructuring Committee of CA had approved proposal for fourteen states by a simple majority and not two thirds as an approval by two thirds would be required to be made a part of constitution. Besides, the appointment of State Restructuring Commission by the Government was delayed by almost four years. It’s not known if any bilateral or multilateral donors tried to advise the government about constitutional requirement for forming Restructuring Commission as they were organizing programs regarding ethnic states. Weekly Tarun (6/2/12) leaning towards Nepali Congress published a news items immediately after publication of report of Restructuring Commission in February 2012. It blamed some members who wrote majority opinion of the Commission advocating ethnic federal states as being on the payroll of foreign donors, both secular and religious. It is not possible to judge the reliability of such accusations.
Regarding the sufferings of people from hill origin in Janakpur in the eastern Terai, columnist Ritu Raj Subedi (The Rising Nepal, 26/2/12) writes how communalism destroyed social harmony and demographic diversity. He adds “Most of the pahades (hill-origin) people fled the town after the Madhesh movement when they were harassed and their property looted. As the armed groups targeted them, they found it unbearable to continue to live there.” Krishna Dharawasi, a Nepali speaking writer of hill origin living in Jhapa in the easternmost Terai claimed by both Madhesh and Limbuwan expresses his opinion “You cannot deny the rights of one group while safeguarding rights of other groups. Ethnic consciousness which entered Nepal after republican Nepal is being distorted. Its burning example is the atrocities committed and displacement caused to the people from hill origin in the name of Madhesh movement” (Nagarik, 5/2/12). Would ethnic states named after Magars, Gurungs, Tharus, Newars, Limbus and Kirats having “priority rights” (agradhikar) result in similar atrocities and displacement of people belonging to ethnic groups different than those after which the states are named, only time would tell.
Text courtesy: Nepal Council of World Affairs, NCWA Annual Journal 2012.
Thanks the distinguished author and the editorial team of the NCWA: Ed. Upadhyaya. N. P.