During the Janaandolan II, Nepal’s civil society played a crucial role in the struggle against king Gyanendra’s direct rule. Civil society leaders were instrumental in facilitating dialogue between the Maoists and the seven-party alliance that led to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Since then, the civil society movement has become increasingly polarised. In the current four-month long conflict between the three major parties and the Madhes-based parties, they have been roundly criticized for failing to facilitate dialogue and compromise. Dewan Rai and Shashwat Acharya spoke with Devendra Raj Pandey, a civil society leader, about the shortcomings of the civil society movement, the deficiencies in the constitution and the role of India in Nepal’s current crisis. 

It has already been four months since the agitation broke out in the Madhes. Why has the dialogue between the political parties not concluded?

We have to start from the second people’s movement and the 12-point Agreement. We thought we were agreed on the structure of society and the character of state we wanted, but we were wrong. Some leaders do not want to move ahead and they derail the process. We have been witnessing this trend from the last seven years. We needed a strong leadership to handle the current turmoil. To some extent, Prachanda was such a leader. But given his political schooling, I do not know how much he understands this. The role of civil society, although I do not like the term anymore, has also been absent. 

Do you see the need of mediation, perhaps, by third party or civil society?

From the first people’s movement, I have been speaking of the need to have a witness in political negotiations. There should be a witness, who can verify what the issues, and the agreements and differences therein, are. Of course, we have our stakes here—republicanism, federalism, secularism and societal transformation. These stakes are not bad in themselves, because they are also the mandates of the past movements. Those who do not have a stake in these issues cannot be mediators. There is nobody to tell which differences have been narrowed down and where the negotiations are stuck now. Normally, those who think they are weak demand a witness. However, none of the sides are showing any interest at the moment. The establishment is happy as things are. 

Why is the civil society not playing an active role in offering mediation support?

I am talking about our civil movement, which might have had shortcomings—I have to have some humility and accept it. But on the other hand, after the House of Representatives was restored, we were not required. There was no recognition of the necessity of civil society in taking the process forward, in holding Constituent Assembly elections and in negotiating with various communities in accordance with our conception of an inclusive society. There are two reasons behind that. First, we were not acceptable to the parties. Second, they had their own civil society members who were close to the parties. 

Did you ever imagine the kind of societal division seen today?

No. In a multi-party system that has accepted political pluralism, there is and should be competition among political parties. But I did not know of the same kind of competition among various groups of citizens. So-called professional organisations here could not be professional; they were guided by partisan interests. For example, human rights organisations, although they might have done some good work, are always questioned on their credibility and legitimacy because of their political affiliations. It is more or less the same with the media. There could be no non-partisan and credible watchdog to analyse situations, events and trends that influenced the thought processes of the political parties. Now, a new kind of division—between the Madhesis and the Pahadis—has come about. There is division even among the Pahadis now. There is disagreement among citizens, among Pahadi elites, on who is responsible for the blockade and whether the Madhesi issues are justified.

What brought about the division? Was it necessary?

The division was not only unnecessary, but also dangerous. It is as if some kind of law is pulling the country towards a precipice. Those who understand that this needs to be stopped are unable to stop it. It was not something that should have dragged on for four months. In fact, the Madhes movement—not just the second one, but the first one itself—should not have arisen in the first place. Nothing would have been lost if the Interim Constitution incorporated federalism. Not including federalism in the Interim Constitution led to the first Madhes Movement. The Madhesi leaders came up with their own extreme position by demanding ‘ek Madhes ek Pradesh’. Although it did not survive long even in rhetoric, it did the damage it could. It created mistrust. Those who were against federalism found an excuse to accuse the Madhesi leaders of seeking secession. Now, the demand is for two or three provinces in the Madhes. The current movement is the result of promulgating the constitution in a hurry. 

What do you think are the major fault lines?

The first one is the spectre of secession, which I have never accepted as a real possibility. The second one is that the powerful parties, namely the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, did not accept genuine Madhesi demands. The Maoists also joined them and sidelined the Madhesi Morcha through the 16-point Agreement. That move is precisely what we are suffering the consequences of. 

What exactly is the fight about?

Those who are fighting may have their own reasons for fighting. I can only say what we should be fighting for.  The way the state functioned after the movement of 1990—the inability of any government to last its full term of five years even when it had a majority in the House, the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor due to the economic and social policies the governments pursued, the minimising of the role of the state, the contraction of the space for the state to implement welfare policies in the name of economic liberalisation—added to the demands like cultural, linguistic and religious rights that the 1991 constitution had not addressed. This made it easier for the Maoists to wage their war. The peace process after the war should have addressed all these issues. We did not make a state in accordance with the type of society we have. The kind of state that we tried to create failed to secure ownership of a huge section of the population, including the Madhesis, Janajatis, women and Dalits. 

When we talk about an inclusive state, it is not just about participation of the marginalised communities; we want them to take up leadership.

Did the new constitution reflect the imagination of a new Nepal?

For some it did; for others it did not. However, I was relieved that finally a constitution was promulgated. They wasted time and money. They made the people wait for the constitution for all their needs. Given that, there was a sense of relief that a constitution was promulgated. But we did not want a constitution for the sake of it. The Madhes movement bears testimony to that. I am against the demands of some Madesi leaders that the constitution has to be re-written. I am for some much-needed amendments for now. The present stalemate is partly due to some entirely personal reasons; state lines have been drawn keeping in mind the personal interests of a few leaders. Partly it is due to prejudice and arrogance. 

So the current problem is about demarcation? 

That is what it looks like. I would have had no problem with it if the Madhesis had accepted it. I would not have taken to the streets if the major political parties had been able to convince the Madhesis. But as major stakeholders, the Madhesis had to be convinced. I do not 

support their 11-points demand. If they are accepted, what are we to do with the demands of the Janajatis, of the Limbuwan and the Magarat, for example? They have even signed off on these demands. The Madhesis’ demand of inclusion, proportional representation and electoral constituencies are very much justified. The government 

has even accepted those demands; language seems to be the only 

sticking point. They should not be taking this long to resolve it. There must be a middle ground. 

How then should we proceed with the problem of delineation?

The ruling establishment has to show some magnanimity with regard to demarcation. They have to understand that this issue has caused enough trouble for people already. The leaders are not suffering and they think nobody else is or that there is no cost to the delay. 

The government has not been able to give enough attention to the plight of the quake-victims. There is news today that seven of them have died due to cold. The government’s strategy seems to cause delay so as to tire out the Madhesis. The establishment has to realise the cost of the delay to the nation. They also have to give up their arrogance of electoral victory. 

The Madhesi Morcha has to show magnanimity as well. More than 50 people have died. Many others are suffering. Whatever demands are not fulfilled now, they will become the agenda of the Madhesi leaders for future elections. They also have to think in terms of the long run.  

How do you see the role of India in the current crisis?

Our leaders go to India to secure their interests. Time and again, they seek Indian intervention. India obviously looks for its own interests, whatever they may be. It has been doing so since the time of the British. India, this time, has made two mistakes. One, it took the servility of the Nepali political class for granted, based on its experience. It told the Nepali leaders to not give too much importance to electoral arithmetic and to come up with an inclusive constitution, convinced that it would be heeded like in the past. Then, the earthquake struck, which led the big three parties to forge an agreement inconsistent with India’s wishes. India’s second mistake was that after the constitution was ready, it tried to stop its promulgation, which it could not do. This led to resentment on its part that it was not heeded. 

However, the issue with India is separate from the Madhesi issue, which is a home-grown agenda born out of our own history. The Madhesi agenda may have received Indian support, but the tendency to conflate the two issues, as if the Madhesi movement would not have arisen had India not been there, is problematic. 

Do you think India was angry about Nepal having taken an independent decision?

Not so much as Nepal not having listened to India’s Foreign Secretary to delay the promulgation of the constitution. There may be a small section in the Indian establishment that relishes micromanaging Nepal. That section may have resented Nepal’s independent decision. 

But we should not think that the entire Indian state is resentful. A state has certain interests; the actors of a state may have different interests. The two may not always align. Even the so-called independent decision was not meant to 

be in defiance of India’s wishes; it was facilitated by the earthquake. For me, the earthquake was the biggest event of 2015. It provided a good excuse to push through a constitution. And India got caught unawares, as it took Nepal for 

granted. 

Some say that India is blockading Nepal to pressurise it to create the kind of federal states it wants to secure its water interests. What do you think?

I do not understand this line of argument. Water does not belong to provinces. Nor can provinces build dams. It is a federal matter. There may be internal conflicts between different federal states regarding the distribution of water. But it will not be the cause of external interference.  

The kind of nationalism that this line of argument has engendered has done much harm. To some extent, India is responsible, in that if it had not interfered openly, such nationalism would not have been generated. This has diluted the main issue of the Madhes. It has also created rift among citizens. And in the name of nationalism, the government is not fulfilling its basic duties. Look at what it is getting away with? How can they have six deputy prime ministers? There is no development process; no capital investment. No industry is functioning. For those with money, fuel is not a problem; there has been no let-up in traffic jams. There is complete lack of governance and accountability. Nationalism has been a pretext for inaction. 

What do you find lacking in the constitution?

I wanted a directly elected head of state. The NC has a stake in the parliamentary system; it is what it knows best. But that system did not function. There was rampant factionalism. It was run like a syndicate system from the centre to the local level. Parliamentarians were bought and sold. A system where the head of state is directly elected would have got rid of such state of affairs. It would have served its full term. There would have been proper check and balance. Now, this issue is not even discussed. 

Why has it been difficult to implement an inclusive system that promotes social justice?

Inclusion and social justice have been limited to rhetoric only. There is still reluctance to acknowledge that there has been historical discrimination against the Madhesis, Janajatis, Dalits and women. Now is the time to acknowledge and rectify the mistakes of the past. Nobody will lose their dignity and power by doing so. That is how a true leader is supposed to think. 

What about the country’s development?

There has been no strategic thinking. The five-year plans of the government have no meaning. There is no institution to formulate a comprehensive, coherent policy on the path the country wants to tread in to reach a certain goal in say 20 years. And the leaders lack vision. All they do is sell dreams without spelling out how they will be achieved. The country’s economy is being sustained by remittance. We are partying with the money that six million Nepali working abroad are sending back. What if these youth come back? Where will they be employed? This is the threat. But it can be an opportunity. If utilised properly, the skills and exposure they will bring back can be a huge asset for the country’s development. There is hardly any capital investment. The so-called development expenditure is heavily misused. Politics has been our main focus. We have to resolve political issues soon and embark on the path of development. For that, we need a cultural transformation in the way we behave and think. There are a few days left in 2015. Hammer out an agreement!