The opposition has once again started a protest programme against the ruling parties. What is behind this?

First, we need to look at where this Constituent Assembly (CA) came from. There was the Maoist insurgency, the Janaandolan and the Madhes Movement. After all this, the country made a pledge to become a federal republic. Some issues have been included in the Interim Constitution but others remain to be addressed. The most important among those issues is federalism. And according to the Interim Constitution and previous agreements signed by the state, it will be a federalism consisting of autonomous provinces with certain rights. Second, there is also the issue of the provision of inclusion in all bodies of the state without any discrimination against any groups or communities. Now, the government is willing and there is already a republican set up. So the CA was formed to address those outstanding issues. The previous CA was dissolved because of a refusal to address these issues. Now, there is even talk of a Hindu nation and of merit over inclusion. We were supposed to have a draft constitution by mid-October but we haven’t even reached consensus on anything. The aim of this unwillingness to reach a decision seems to be the scuttling of the federalism agenda and  autonomy for the provinces.

Your protest programme, however, seems very confrontational.

Our aim is not confrontation. We want to bring the process back on the track that was set by the agreements signed by various governments. Recently, the ruling parties have been saying that the mandate of the November election is not in favour of federalism. This is very wrong.

But don’t the results reflect a vote against single identity-based federalism?

The elections were not a referendum on federalism. And furthermore, the Army was deployed for the election and the repercussions of this remain to be analysed. But I don’t want to go down that path. Just because you win or lose an election, a genuine agenda does not win or lose. Just look back at the referendum in 1980. The entire state machinery was deployed to make certain that the referendum was in favour of a party-less system. But that party-less system did not even last 10 years after the referendum. The vote might have been won but the democracy agenda was not defeated. In the same way, federalism, identity and inclusion cannot be defeated; we cannot go back on these issues. But there is a danger here of political polarisation pushing back on these agendas to the constitution of 1990, which was written by the Panchas of the Prajatantra Party, the Congress and UML. The ruling parties refuse to reach consensus on any issue, even those that they previously agreed to and signed agreements on. Then, they announce that consensus cannot be reached and go for a vote. They are confident in the vote since they hold a two-thirds majority and can pass whatever they want. In a situation like this, progressive parties are either forced to take action or wait for a time when we too will have a two-thirds majority. But it is like Ram Manohar Lohia of India’s Samajwadi Party once said, ‘living communities don’t wait for five years.’ If there are forces aiming to reverse change, then forces must also stand to preserve change.

The Madhes-based parties had a sizeable presence in the last CA and even in successive past governments. If it is all about power centres and numerical presence in government, why wasn’t a constitution written then?

Even then, we were always in favour of consensus. Then, when we couldn’t reach consensus, we had proposed going to a vote. But the NC-UML proclaimed in the CA itself that rivers of blood would be shed if the constitution was put to a vote. And now, they are the ones proposing the vote. Another point here is, what is the percentage of votes that the NC-UML received? It is only 30-32 percent. So around 70 percent of votes went to the opposition. We must not forget this in a democracy. All we are saying is that let us move forward on the basis of all the agendas that have been agreed to in principle and in documents. We are not looking to topple their government and replace it with ourselves.

Moving on, your party has stated in its election manifesto that it is in favour of a ‘One Madhes, One Pradesh.’ Is this the bottom-line for negotiations?

There are three parts to this. First, this demand came up during the Madhes Movement and we have incorporated it in respect for the sacrifices of the Madhesi people. Second, the 22-point and 8-point agreements signed clearly state that the Madhes will be one single, autonomous province. So state restructuring is about federating the other parts of the country, not the Madhes. Third, the Interim Constitution was passed by the former CA and it states that the Madhes, along with other provinces, will be autonomous. So based on these three bases, it has already been agreed that the Madhes will be treated as one autonomous province. When it comes to negotiations, we will go to the people and consult with them. But if the Madhesi people want one province in the Madhes, let them have it. Let the Madhesi people decide.

But other Madhesi parties are willing to compromise up to two provinces in the Madhes.

There is a difference between us and the other Madhesi parties. We came from the Madhes Movement. It was our leaders who made sacrifices. The state signed agreements with our party. But even then, if agreeing with the 16 or so Madhesi parties that arose after the Movement will solve the Madhes’ problem then okay, let’s go for it. One thing that I have always taken issue with is the fact that the Madhes is willing to stay together and work together but instead, we are being told to separate into four or five provinces and work with four or five chief ministers. And on the other hand, in the east, Limbuwan and Khambuwan want to be separate but they are being told to stay together. It is the same with the Newars and Tamsaling or with the Gurungs and Magars.

On a final note, you have made an alliance with the Maoists, which some have termed ‘unnatural’ as the Madhesi forces rose in opposition to the Maoists, including your own party.

That is a wrong way to look at the things. The Maoist insurgency and the Madhes Movement are twins. If it hadn’t been for the Maoist insurgency, the Madhes Movement would not have been. Certainly, there were clashes between the Maoists and Madhesis but these were unfortunate and the result of misunderstandings. But both are forces of change. The Madhesi parties that exist now were not there at the beginning. It was the Maoists and the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum-Nepal that were the agents of change in this country. The Maoist insurgency gave strength to the Madhes Movement and Madhesis supported the Maoists. If it hadn’t been for Madhesis, the Maoist insurgency would not have lasted 10 years. So we are not opposed to each other. If you’re talking of principle, then we are not communists. We are a socialist democratic party. There is a difference in ideology, but we are together in attempting to take Nepal to a new age.