Interviews
We have to address the concerns of the marginalised
The Constituent Assembly, led by the three major parties—Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, UCPN (Maoist)—have started the voting process on the clauses of the new constitution.The Constituent Assembly, led by the three major parties—Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, UCPN (Maoist)—have started the voting process on the clauses of the new constitution. They reportedly decided to do so after they failed to reach consensus with the agitating Madhesi parties even after holding several rounds of informal talks. In this context, Dewan Rai and Kamal Dev Bhattarai spoke to UCPN (Maoist) Vice-chairperson Narayan Kaji Shrestha about the new constitution, the failure of the three parties to address the concerns of the marginalised communities and the possible challenges in implementing the statute.
Why are the three big parties pushing for a constitution without reaching an agreement with the Madhesis, Tharus and other marginalised groups?
A six-decade-long dream of the Nepali people to get a constitution through the Constituent Assembly (CA) is about to be realised. This is also an opportunity to institutionalise Nepal’s identity as a federal democratic republic, which was achieved after a long struggle. The decision to promulgate the constitution is a victory over foreign influence and undue intervention in the constitution-writing process. This is the bright side to promulgating the constitution.
However, I agree that the constitution has failed to address the concerns of the marginalised communities. This is because the Congress and CPN-UML were not ready to address the grievances of the agitating parties and groups which could have minimised the conflict. Even so, it is time we all own the constitution and amend it later.
Don’t you think it will be difficult to implement the statute this way?
Yes, the implementation of the constitution will no doubt be a challenge. We have to address the concerns of the marginalised communities. Our party wanted to delay the process for talks to settle the issues amicably, but the ruling parties did not want to wait. Our party firmly believes that we need to address the grievances of the different sections of society and find a political solution to their problems even after the promulgation of the constitution.
But because we have finally been able to write the constitution through a CA, we need to promulgate the constitution from this CA itself. If we allow the second CA to be dissolved without promulgating the constitution, we cannot predict what will happen next.
Your party has frequently stated that all agreements that have followed the 16-point agreement fail to address the agendas of the Janajatis, women and Tharus. Can you explain your discontents?
In the case of the Janajatis, there are three ways in which their issues are being addressed. Concerning language, there was a huge debate on whether a multi-lingual policy should be implemented or not. Later, we agreed on implementing the policy. The second issue of forming a Janajati Commission has also been fulfilled. Third, the issue of secularism has also been agreed upon though I am not very happy with its definition. However, the agenda of proportional inclusion is yet to be resolved. But there is a possibility of inserting this in the constitution.
Speaking of women’s issues, the draft constitution has addressed women rights to a great extent than before. The issues of gender discrimination still remain regarding the citizenship. Second, the issue of family rights has not been addressed. Third, the issue of women representation—the provision to elect a woman as a chair or a vice chair of the village municipalities or other municipalities—has not been included. We are yet to make it mandatory to elect a woman either as a president or a vice president too.
Furthermore, there many good provisions for the Dalits in this draft constitution. However, the issue of compensation along with special rights was mentioned in the Interim Constitution and also recommended by the Drafting Committee has been neglected. In addition, it mentions that the right to property, education and so forth will be provided according to the law which weakens the agenda. This clause should have been removed. Just as the way women have been given 33 percent representation in the federal parliament, the Dalits should have been insured 13 percent representation as they have been more oppressed. The women and Dalits should have had reserved seats in the first-past-the-post system too.
Even as secularism was already agreed upon in the Interim Constitution, why has it come under discussion again?
You are right. The issue of secularism had already been agreed upon and it is also an integral part of a democratic state, but the two ruling parties began saying that we need to change the secularism provision. The NC and UML’s definition of secularism has completely killed the essence of secularism. Secularism implies that a country does not have a particular religion—that the state and religion are
separate entities, and that the character of the state is secular. We should not be describing what secularism means in the constitution to begin with. It does not make any sense. Secularism universally means that first, the state does not have any particular religion. Second, as religion is an individual matter, religious freedom will be guaranteed. Third, the state will treat all religions equally. Fourth, as religion is a matter of faith, forceful conversions will not be allowed. These are the attributes of a secular state.
Your party along with the ruling coalition is accused of immediately addressing the grievances of the Pahades in Baglung, Rukum, Surkhet by creating the seventh province, while neglecting the demands of the Madhesi people.
Yes, it is indeed wrong to feel the urgency to act and resolve the problem when the Pahades protest, but when the Madhes is buring and the Tharus are revolting, we do not see an urgency to address their grievances. I am not trying to say that the issues of Baglung and Karnali should have not been addressed but that the demands of the Madhesis should have been addressed along with them.
The UCPN (Maoist) which claims to represent the marginalised groups such as Dalits, Tharus, Madhesis and so forth has also been accused of not being able to push for the agendas of these constituencies.
Yes, in order to promulgate the constitution from the CA itself we have made certain compromises. The first CA was dissolved due to our mistakes. But now, our bottom line is that we need to promulgate the constitution. Under no circumstances can we let this CA dissolve like the first one. We had to make huge compromises with the ruling parties for this to happen, and everybody knows our strength within the CA very well. But we are strongly advocating and negotiating for the rights of the marginalised communities, regions and gender within the CA process. However, we are aware that even though we are struggling for the rights of the marginalised, we have not been able to achieve as much as promised by the People’s War. Therefore, we will be submitting a note of dissent in all the issues we feel that we have not been able to address and we will try to gradually amend those issues. So it will be unfair to claim that we have not been doing anything.
How would you analyse the ongoing protests of the Madhesi parties?
The Madhesi Morcha and the Madhesi leaders have been protesting only on the basis that the state had previously agreed to give them: two provinces in the Madhes. But a province in the Madhes has already been created in the east from Parsa to Saptari. Concerning Western Nepal, if a province from Nawalparasi to at least Kailali or the major Tharu clusters had been created, as per the previous agreement, then we could have resolved this problem too. The issue of citizenship has already been completely resolved. Speaking of the issue of constituencies, we are positive about giving more priority to population and while carving constituencies as demanded by the Madhesi parties. Lastly, regarding Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, there are few things that need to be discussed with Madhesi leaders.
Why is it so difficult for you to address the issues of the Tharus?
We completely support the issues of the Tharus. To address the issues of the Tharus is to address the most suffered marginalised class of Nepal, acknowledging them and giving them their rights. Second, it is to commit to the past agreements.
Third, the state restructuring committee had agreed to carve a Tharu province—agreed upon by the NC-UML proposal and by us. The demands of the Tharus have to be addressed and that has and will always been our stance.