Interviews
We can create autonomous or protected regions within provinces
The CPN Maoist Centre and the Nepali Congress joined hands in early August to form a government with the objective of brining on board agitating Madhesi parties and pave the way for the implementation of the constitution that has been contested by a section of the society.Sarin Ghimire & Tika R Pradhan
The CPN Maoist Centre and the Nepali Congress joined hands in early August to form a government with the objective of brining on board agitating Madhesi parties and pave the way for the implementation of the constitution that has been contested by a section of the society. But in nearly two months since the government took office, very little progress has been made towards amending the constitution, a key demand of the agitating forces. In the next 16 months, the coalition will have to deliver on the amendment, hold elections for three levels of government and conclude the peace process. Against this backdrop, Tika R Pradhan and Sarin Ghimire spoke with Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara, a key confidant of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, about the progress in talks with disgruntled forces, preparations to hold local level polls, controversies surrounding the prime minister’s recent visit to India and the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Nepal.
How far are we on the road to constitution amendment?
Efforts to reach a consensus on constitution amendment are ongoing. We have been holding talks with all the major parties. We need to bring the parties—including the Madhes-based, the opposition as well as the ruling ones—on board. Informal talks have been going on, but there have not been formal talks.
Could you be more specific on the talks with the Madhes-based parties?
Their demands on federal demarcation are about increasing the number of provinces to eight and breaking some of the existing districts. We are not keen on doing so. We can move forward by creating autonomous or protected regions within the existing provinces. If autonomous provinces are given sufficient rights, they will reflect the aspect of identity. We would be open to making adjustments to some VDCs without changing the provinces. All the demands of the Madhes-based parties may not be met. We are in the process of finding middle ground, but we have not reached a conclusion yet.
The Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML and the Local Body Restructuring Commission (LBRC) have made public their views on local body restructuring. How does the Maoist Centre see things?
It is obvious that local level bodies will be under the authority of the provinces. The constitution has envisioned three levels of government—federal, provincial and local. But we have not reached a conclusion on whether the districts will continue to exist. It is a political question and it does not fall within the mandate of the LBRC.
There has to be state restructuring in a way that the constitution has envisaged. It has to be different from the present structure. The commission has recommended 565 local bodies. All-party discussions at the local level are ongoing. As far as I know, there have been agreements in about 30 to 40 districts. In province 2, however, there has not been much discussion and an agreement has not been reached. But I think we are moving in a positive direction and we will eventually arrive at an agreement.
Some are against the idea of restructuring and want to go back to the earlier structure, but that will be against the spirit of the constitution. At this point, I cannot tell you how many local bodies we will end up with, but it will not diverge significantly from 565.
Won’t the delay in finalising the number affect local elections?
It will. We have to finalise the restructuring about three months before the local elections slated for March-April next year. So we will have to wrap it up in a month or so.
Laws necessary to implement the new constitution have not been drafted. What is the reason behind the delay?
Laws will be formulated; that is not the big issue. It will happen soon after a political consensus on state restructuring is reached.
What about the issue of citizenship in the constitution?
The issue of citizenship was going to be handled according to federal laws, which have not been formulated. A point of consensus can be following the existing laws, like the ones in the interim period.
What are your views on the five contested districts in the Far West and the East?
The Madhes-based parties demand that there should be only two provinces in the Madhes. As I said, there may be adjustments to some VDCs. We must come to an agreement at some point. We cannot have everything that either side wants. I believe we can and will find common ground. A federal commission could be created to offer a solution to the dispute.
Coming to the issue of the peace process, there are concerns that your party might push for granting a blanket amnesty. Is that so?
This is a political problem that requires a political solution. It cannot have only a legal solution. It is against the law to take up arms. But we did; we waged a war against the state. Now we are in the government. That proves ours was a political fight. So if we look at the peace process in a political way, we will find a solution. But it will get more complicated if we look at it in a purely legal way. Having said that, we are not opposed to bringing perpetrators of grave crimes to justice.
What is your take on the recent move by the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) to reopen investigation into the issue of corruption in managing cantonments?
This is also a political case, as it is related to the peace process. But we are not against the CIAA acting within its jurisdiction and conducting a legal probe. The CIAA probably will not continue with its investigation into reports on alleged mismangement of cantonment funds. Doing so will not lead to any result. Media reports about the meeting between the prime minister and the CIAA chief could be true.
You went to China as the prime minister’s special envoy to invite Chinese President for a visit to Nepal. Has the proposed visit been cancelled?
It is surprising that news about the cancellation surfaced. How can there be a cancellation when the date of the visit has not been fixed? As far as I understand, the Chinese President will make a visit to Nepal at a time favourable to him, not to us.
There have been speculations that China is unhappy with the current government’s growing closeness with India.
It is not true. China is quite happy that our relationship with India is improving. They have already issued an official statement to that effect. We are not living in a time where closeness with one is resented by another. We are for maintaining good relations with both our neighbours. Both can contribute to our development.
Speaking of India, Prime Minister Dahal has been criticised for giving into Indian pressure while issuing a joint statement at the end of his visit.
The statement merely says that we will work closely in certain international forums such as the United Nations. Countries collaborate with one another all the time depending on the issue. Even India and China collaborate with each other. Depending on the issue at hand, we may (or may not) have similar views with India. This is basic diplomacy that we have been practising for many years. As a sovereign nation, Nepal has the right to have an independent view on various issues. I do not think India is trying to interfere in that right of ours. Those who are criticising the joint statement, including some from within our party, are doing so without a proper understanding of diplomatic practice.
Has there been any change in the way your party views India?
At the people’s level, there is no problem with India or China. Problems arise when the government does not truly represent the people. I think the way India views Nepal has also undergone some changes. They have been discussing—and implementing—necessary changes in their Nepal policy.
Has India still not welcomed our constitution then?
There has been a change in that as well. India is not as opposed to our constitution as it was last year. It is no longer saying that the promulgation of the constitution was a mistake.
There have been allegations that this government is not keen on implementing the agreements that the previous government reached with China?
We are for implementing all the past agreements that are in the national interest. If an agreement is good for the country, we will facilitate its implementation.