With the constitution at hand, the narrative now needs to focus on how to improve this document to ensure maximum political ownership. While the constitution has its flaws, as we have pointed out in our numerous editorials, it is nevertheless a document that has been endorsed by the country’s sovereign Constituent Assembly.

There are some positives. It institutionalises many progressive gains and caps a long struggle to have a constitution written by an elected body, rather than through a committee of experts. Republicanism, federalism and secularism are now irreversibly established as fundamental principles in a new Nepal. This is no mean feat.

We recognise that thousands have fought hard, and many have died, in an effort to get their voices reflected in the constitution. It is true that many of their demands still remain to be addressed, as we have noted here week after week and often several times a week these last few years.

Yet we call on the dissenting parties and groups to accept ownership of the constitution while maintaining their reservations and choosing to fight their battle another day. We urge them to see this as an incremental battle that needs to be continued peacefully—which will enable them to keep their moral high ground.

 Our message to the major parties that stood firmly in favour of the current CA timeline remains consistent, and is now even more urgent: the onus now lies on the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and UCPN (Maoist) to redouble their efforts to reach out to the disgruntled parties and groups. Show humility; major parties need not display triumphalism; they need to instead communicate to the dissenters that no one has won and none has lost; that they remain open for negotiations; let’s accept the fact that the new constitution hasn’t been able to carry all sections of the society. The marginalised groups, the Dalits, Madhesis, Tharus and tens of thousands of women feel cheated by their male party leaders.

But it’s the Tarai that worries us most. Even Tharu/Madhesi moderates were shocked to see that the three parties had chosen to ignore their calls to hold off the CA process for a while as a symbol of respect for the protests and dissent. The government’s decision yesterday to provide Rs1 million to each of the 40 families who lost their kin in the recent unrest in Tarai is a positive move, but the major parties could have done still more to reach out to the estranged constituencies.

A large section in the Tarai is deeply suspicious of Kathmandu. They lament the fact that Kathmandu remains insular to voices from the Tarai, where 40 people died in the recent protests, a toll higher than that of the second Jana Andolan, which toppled the royal regime.

No one disputes the fact that the constitution was long overdue. Many people now feel a huge sense of relief that a page has been turned on what has been a very difficult chapter in the country’s modern history. But that is only half the story. History will also hold to account the parties and their leaders on whether they were able to deliver a durable constitution. Were they able to assure the country’s population that the new constitution embodies their aspirations? That, more than anything else, will be the biggest test of the new constitution and the people who made it possible.

Many still see the new constitution as a continuation of the hill-centric regime—not of an inclusive, tolerant and vibrant modern democracy and a dream for a new Nepal that drew tens of thousands of young and no-so-young Nepalis, men and women, Pahades and Madhesis to the streets in the 2006 mass movement. That’s where they feel let down by the new constitution.

If these feelings continue, it will only serve to widen the gap between the political classes in Kathmandu and the minority groups on the ground. As the sentiments change, so will the narrative, thus hardening attitudes irreversibly. This will be a dangerous slippery slope. Kathmandu’s political leadership should seek to reverse the trend by reaching out with genuine intent for a compromise, not with perfunctory tokenism.

Those who argue that numerical strength in the CA alone makes the process legitimate need to be more careful. World history offers numerous instances when the complacency of majoritarianism and hubris brought on by political power have resulted in irreparable losses for nations.

We hope that won’t happen here, as we sit at the cusp of a new dawn. We would like to see saner voices and moderates prevail in the parties and outside in these deeply polarised times. In the end, only a politically stable Nepal will be able to deliver on what every nation strives for: socioeconomic transformation and justice.