AUG 10 - On Saturday, the four major parties—the Nepali Congress (NC), CPN-UML, UCPN (Maoist), Madhesi Janadhikar Forum-Loktantrik—agreed upon the most contentious issue in the constitution: the delineation of provinces. However, disgruntled Madhes-based parties, both inside and outside the Constituent Assembly (CA), have opposed the agreement and warned of ethnic unrest. Against this backdrop, Dewan Raispoke to Sadbhawana Party Co-Chairman and lawmaker Laxmanlal Karna about the discontents of the Madhes-based parties regarding the draft consitution, federalism and on how to address the concerns of the Madhes.
 |
What are the Madhes-based parties’ discontents with the 16-point agreement?
We are opposed to the 16-point agreement for two reasons. First, it does not follow the required procedure. As an autonomous body, the CA should take all decisions regarding the constitution. The 16-point agreement, which was a hurried decision taken at midnight in Baluwatar, does not follow any CA procedure. Second, when we go through the content of the 16-point agreement, it is problematic. The Madhes Aandolan demanded a constitution with federalism. It was due to the Madhes Movement that the Interim Constitution 2007 was amended and the word ‘federalism’ was inserted in the statute. Article 138 Clause 1 (a) of the Interim Constitution says that autonomous provinces will be formed according to the sentiments of the Madhesi, Janajati and other disadvantaged groups and their numbers, names and delineation will be decided by the CA. Further, Article 138 Clause 3 says that the CA will take the final decision on federalism. This has already been defined by the Supreme Court as well. So when the four major parties sat down to talk, who represented the Madhesis, Janajatis and people from disadvantaged groups?
But a Madhesi party also signed the 16-point agreement.
The leader of that Madhesbadi party did not participate in the Madhes Aandolan. Only the Sadbhawana Party, Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party and Madhes Janadhikar Forum were the forces behind the Madhes Aandolan. The state signed the eight-point agreement with these three parties. None of these parties were consulted before formulating the 16-point agreement. So the agreement is faulty on grounds of the process and the content, and it goes against the Interim Constitution and the Supreme Court. This is why we opposed the agreement—as well as the draft constitution, which was based on it. We burned both the documents. Those who finalised the constitution were supposed to reach consensus on existing disagreements. Instead, they altered the existing agreements in the name of disagreements.
What changes in the constitution will ensure the Madhesi parties’ ownership of the document?
Various groups within the country, whose language and culture have been suppressed by the state for ages had hoped that they could rule in their respective areas after federalisation. If the state sticks to the bottom line of the Interim Constitution—that is, to ensure a federal, democratic, republican and secular state which will be proportionally inclusive and respects the agreements it has signed with the Madhesbadi parties previously—we will own the document.
The parties had previously agreed to federate Nepal into eight provinces. Now, they have agreed upon six provinces. How do you see this?
The Nepali Congress and CPN-UML do not need federalism. The UCPN (Maoist) is not too keen about federalism either. It rallied for federalism only to garner support for its movement. Didn’t the Maoists propose a 14-province model based on identity and capability in the past? Then the Baburam Bhattarai-led government formed a State Restructuring Commission which submitted a report proposing 11 states. Didn’t the Maoists accept that proposal? So there is no logic to how a party can agree to a 14 state model, an 11-state model, an eight state model and now six provinces. This shows that none of the three parties are committed to federalism. But the Madhesis, Janajatis, Dalits and women will not accept a constitution without federalism.
How do the disadvantaged groups plan to have their concerns addressed?
During the 1990 movement Gajendra Narayan Singh came up with a slogan, ‘Jabtak soshit inshaan rahega, dharti par tufan rahega’ (Until people continue to be exploited, there will always be unrest). If the demands of the disadvantaged groups are not addressed, a volcano of discontent will erupt. We have been patient for eight years. But we cannot be patient any longer. If the final draft of the constitution is out without the changes, the ensuing unrest will not only destroy the government but also the three parties.
I am a CA member of this country. Few people who know me call me Nepali but the rest call me an Indian. Just imagine how I feel when I am called an Indian despite being born in this country. All that we want is to preserve our identity through federalism. We want to be Nepali citizens who live in a Madhes province. The Janajatis want recognition too—as Limbus, Tamangs, Newars and so on. All over the world, countries are federated on the basis of language, culture and geography. So, we will not accept the new provinces unless they are delineated accordingly. As citizens of the 21st century, we cannot be deterred by guns and lathis.
Do you have a proposal for delineation of states?
Yes, we do. In the first CA, the NC and UML demanded a state restructuring commission. So it was formed in the last hour consisting of experts from the two parties along with those from the Maoist as well as the Madhesbadi parties. They agreed on 11 provinces. That is our bottom line.
What about the citizenship provisions?
Men and women are equal so the new constitution should accept the ‘or’ provision already enshrined in the Interim Constitution. Furthermore, we have a roti-beti relation with India. The state grants naturalised citizenship to women who are married to Nepali citizens. Article 13 now classifies both the woman married to a Nepali and her child as naturalised citizens. Article 282 says that naturalised citizens cannot be the president, vice-president, speaker, chair of Upper House, chief of province, chief minister, speaker of province assembly and chiefs of security agencies. Such a person will only have the right to vote but not to be a candidate.
Further, the Panchayat era mindset seems to have prevailed again. We had earlier reached an agreement to provide Non-Resident Nepalis who wish to live in Nepal with economic and social rights. Now the term ‘of Nepali origin’ has been added. How do we define that? Does it only mean Khas Aryas or Janajatis or Madhesis?
The constitution should provide equal rights to both men and women; it should provide equal rights to naturalised citizens and do away with the term ‘Nepali origin’. Those who have voting rights should have all other political rights too.
The Madhes-based parties apparently could not reach an agreement and now a foreign woman married to a Nepali man will get citizenship as soon as she relinquishes her foreign citizenship but the foreign spouse of a Nepali woman will have to wait for 15 years.
Foreign men who have married Nepali women are far less in number in comparison to foreign women married to Nepali men. Till date, over 300,000 Indian women have married Nepali men. Each year this number increases by 10,000 or more. The problem is, we only have records of women who get citizenship through marriage to Nepali men and not women who marry foreigners. In any case, the rights of thousands of women should not be curtailed for the sake of a few hundred. This is positive discrimination. But we are not rigid. What difference does it make if a few hundred foreign men who marry Nepali women become citizens of this country?
Leaders argue that it could jeopardise Nepal’s nationalism and turn Nepal into Fiji.
Back in the 1990s, Madhav Nepal accused Gajendra Narayan Singh of trying to turn Nepal into Sikkim. Singh then replied that there were no Madhesis in Sikkim. Had the Madhesis been there, Sikkim would not have been part of India. So, such arguments hold no substance. Nationalism is also a kind of opium of the masses, like religion. In any case, nationalism cannot be defined by a dress, a flower or an animal. Citizens can be nationalists at heart only when they know that they have the same rights as the rulers of the country. Only then can Nepal be united in the truest sense.
So what next for the Madhes?
We are still waiting for the state to implement all the agreements it has signed with us. If it does not do so, we shall no longer be able to trust the state. We will launch a movement which will be bigger than the Madhes Aandolan. In 2007, the Madhes was fighting alone. Now, the Janajatis, the Dalits, Muslims and women are also with us. Even the Mohan Baidya-led CPN-Maoist is with us. Can the state withstand the pressure so many people?
The leaders need to realise that the Nepali people do not just want a constitution but a progressive constitution—one which addresses the issues of all groups in the country. This is the only way to ensure peace in the country.
0 Comments