With the government planning on tabling a constitution amendment motion in Parliament soon and the CPN-UML and others likely to protest it strongly, the country’s political temperature is mounting—not least because of suggestions to re-delineate provincial boundaries. On the one hand, the amendment proposal is aimed at placating the aggrieved political forces, particularly the Madhesis, agitating against some constitutional provisions. On the other hand, some parties, the UML most vehemently, argue that the need to table an amendment proposal without sufficient justification defeats the purpose of a legitimate and democratic CA process that led to the constitution’s promulgation. Mukul Humagain and Tika R Pradhan talked to UML Secretary Pradip Gyawali about the politics behind the tabling of the amendment proposal, the UML’s likely response to it, and what he points is “increasingly caste-based dynamics” of Madhesi politics.

How worried are you about the recent turn of events in Nepali politics?

Recent political developments are far from pleasant. The country’s top priority is implementing the constitution, particularly creating a conducive environment for holding three levels of elections within the next 15 months. The four-month tenure of Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s current government appears to have been wasted from the point of view of constitution implementation. On the one hand, we are worried about the possibility of the country facing a constitutional void as we approach the deadline of January 2018 for holding elections. On the other hand, the government’s forceful attempt to table the constitution amendment proposal has enlarged the rift among the major political parties that wrote the constitution. This has consequences beyond the political realm. The content of some provisions in the amendment proposal seems likely to create social tensions, particularly between the Madhesi and hill communities.

The UML appears to be pouring cold water over serious efforts at consensus-building between the ruling and the agitating parties. Why do you describe the process of tabling the amendment proposal as forceful?

The way our party is being presented as being against constitution amendment and as an obstacle to a way out has ulterior motives. We have been repeatedly arguing that the constitution can be amended on the basis of need, rationale and interests of the country and the people. And we have proved it. The first amendment to the constitution had passed under UML’s leadership. But the amendment about to be tabled now is flawed both from the point of view of content and process.

The constitution’s acceptability is being made a major point. Expecting consensus on a constitution in a diverse country like ours is ridiculous; there are likely be dissenting voices against the constitution. The way a party like the UML with almost one-third representatives in Parliament is being sidelined in the name of appeasing some Madhesi parties is wrong. What was necessary instead was a minimum common understanding among the three major parties and, only after that, an attempt to address Madhesi issues.

As far as the contents of the amendment proposal go, particularly the ones related to citizenship and federal demarcation, these can have long-term adverse impact on the country. So our criticism is based on a consideration of national interest.

But doesn’t  the UML have any responsibility in bringing the country out of the possible crisis, and avoiding another round of likely confrontation and, more importantly, social tensions that you speak about?

The conspiratorial manner in which the previous Oli government was toppled was objectionable and against national interest. Still we honoured the democratic procedure that led to the fall of our government. Now we have looked at the content of the amendment proposal and voiced our criticism against it.

People seem to have broadly accepted the seven provinces created by the constitution. Currently, there are no voices at the people’s level in support of a change in federal delineation. The only voices for it are coming from some Madhesi leaders, for whom doing so might be a political strategy. Our concerns are that this might fuel societal polarisation and tensions. 

So we will support the government if it takes steps to implement the constitution like declaring the date for elections or formulating laws to facilitate the elections. In the absence of tangible preparations for elections, we object to the government’s intension to create unnecessary problems.

More than the opposition, the onus to avoid another round of confrontation lies on the government.

How in your view are these problems related to the issue of federalism? 

Demarcation of provincial boundaries without careful consideration of the basis for federalism is a root cause of conflict.  The discourse on federalism has been problematic, for which the Maoists are primarily responsible. They imposed the idea that the country’s different communities constitute different nationalities, which polarised our harmonious society. The Maoists seems to have backpedalled on the idea, but it is now being carried by the Madhesi parties, who are promoting the notion of two different nationalities in the country, the hill nationality and the Madhesi nationality. This is where the root of the current tensions lies. The UML’s position to oppose such a notion in favour of national unity cannot be called an obstacle to a political consensus in the country.

How can middle ground be established to extricate the country from these problems?

We urge the government to give up its intransigent attitude towards the amendment proposal, a proposal that will not resolve the problems because of a number of reasons.

First, the Madhesi parties will not accept it. They want to keep the issue alive while fighting elections. They started their protests against the constitution by rejecting it, saying for example that they would burn it; now they will not benefit from taking a defeated posture to their constituencies, who will ask them if the sacrifices they made were merely to separate a few districts or to make naturalised citizens eligible for some posts. There is competition for supremacy among the Madhesi parties, which are now a small political force since they only won 12 out of 116 seats in the second CA elections.

Madhesi politics is gradually shifting towards one based on castes. The four main Madhesi parties are represented by a particular caste base. We should not mistake their demands for the demands of the Madhesi people who suffer from internal discrimination, under-development, poverty, etc. Fighting these problems never figures on the agenda of the Madhesi parties. 

Second, opposition to the proposal is also coming from within the Nepali Congress and the Maoist Centre. We also urge the government to initiate negotiations afresh. To save face of the Madhesi leaders, we can be flexible on some of their demands, provided they do not affect long-term national interests.

And we urge the government to declare poll dates. Despite differences, the Madhesi parties will participate as they are democratic forces and as doing so is in their interest.

Do you see the infiltration of geo-political forces into these issues?

Definitely. But as the Nepali saying goes, secure your purse tightly and do not blame others. If political forces inside the country act against national interests, foreign powers will get an opportunity to play. We have to safeguard the core interests of our two big neighbours, which Nepal has been telling them it will do.

However, when the country’s major political actors decided to promulgate a constitution, one section of the Indian establishment was dissatisfied, which considered the decision a challenge to its age-old hegemony on Nepal. It tried to stop the constitution’s formation first, then its promulgation, and finally its implementation. The blockade was part of that policy. External forces that try to further their interests amid the political uncertainty in Nepal might still exist, but I consider the mistakes of the domestic political forces as the main cause for the delay in the constitution’s implementation and the creation of unnecessary problems.

The amendment proposal can technically pass even without the UML’s support. What are your alternative plans besides staging protests?

The toppling of the Oli government was not an ordinary change in government. It was an attempt at changing the course of the country. Now, attempts will be made to garner a two-thirds majority in support of the amendment proposal. But issues of national interests are not determined by numerical strength only. Certain districts cannot be touched because they are tied to certain powerful leaders.  I do not think the amendment proposal will pass as it will not have support even within the ruling parties.

How would you respond to critics questioning why the UML is backpedalling on some of the proposals it had accepted earlier?

We accepted many things in the past, including a 10-province model during the first CA. The NC, a staunch support of the current parliamentary system, had accepted the proposal of a directly elected president for the sake of a constitution.  So one cannot question a party why it is backpedalling on proposals it had accepted earlier. I pose a question back to the critics: if the proposals were so good, why did the other parties not accept them in the past?