By
Nepal
is in its deepest crisis since the people’s uprising in 2006 that ended with
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that was signed between the Maoist
Party Chairman Prachanda and Nepal’s
prime minister. This agreement brought great hope to the Nepali people who were
tired of years of the Maoist insurgency on one side, a corrupt and negligent
monarchy on the other, and fractious political parties.
The challenge before the elected
Constituent Assembly (CA) was state reconstruction and peace building.
For state reconstruction this CA was to make a constitution that would
fulfill the aspirations of Nepali people. Nepal was to have a historic
transformation from monarchy to republican democracy, Hindu kingdom to
secularism. Unitary system to federalism.
The leadership also had before
them the major challenges of peace building. This involved furthering and
implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement; demobilising,
disarming and re-integration of the armed Maoist militia. They needed to
create a system of transitional justice, give some reparation to victims of
Maoists and state violence; property return, land reform and most important
building a consensus on all aspects of the transition.
Five years after the peace accord
many hopes are dashed. The Constituent Assembly’s initial two-year term, was
extended four times and then had to be dissolved, in the face of judicial
strictures. But several issues had been resolved after much debate,
infighting and pressure from within and outside. For example, the contentious
issue of how many members of the Maoist militia — the PLA — would be
integrated and how many would retire with a monetary package was resolved.
Several aspects of the
Constitution were also reaching consensus. For example, a presidential and
parliamentary system on the French model was being accepted. But one issue
broke down the process, that of what kind of federalism and which way should
regions be formed and how the division of powers has to be.
The reason for this is not
surprising but lies deep in the heart of ethnic, caste, political, regional
inequalities of Nepal’s
socio-economic structures. Politics of Nepal
has long been controlled by the Kathmandu and
hill elite who generally are sceptical of the federal system since they have
benefitted from the limited development.
The people of the Terai on the
Indian border, the Madhesis, the small ethnic groups, the Dalits who had
felt excluded from this elite politics were mobilised during the Maoists
movement and also after that. They developed aspirations for holding
power in new provinces on the basis of a loose federal system since they felt
that like the old elite, the new governing elite would also marginalise them.
The discord between these
communities resonated in the State Reconstruction Commission. The majority
representing the Madhesis and ethnic minorities proposed 11 provinces, with two
in the Terai, and other ethnically demarcated provinces. They wanted
preferential political rights and the right to self-determination. But
minority members of the Commission wanted six provinces, which would be more
economically viable. And no right to self-determination or preferential
political rights. This led to a deadlock.
Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai
dissolved the Assembly and has called for fresh election, pegging this decision
on the Supreme Court decision not to give any further renewal. This has led to
a situation of further crisis.
Moreover, there had been severe
political wrangling from the very beginning of the CA, since it had no clear
majority, even though the Maoists were the single largest party. All the
political parties — the Nepali Congress, the traditional Communist party,
the CP-UML, the splinter Madhesi parties and the Maoists have been grappling
for leadership. After all who would write Nepal’s tryst with destiny? Whose
name would go down in history as creators of the Constitution and most
important who would be the new governing elite?
Prime ministership thus changed
several hands and none of them has been able to deliver what the CA as a whole
had promised the electorate, namely, a viable constitution. Of course, all
groups are putting the blame on each other. The Nepali Congress have become
close allies. The Maoists who always had two factions have split. The group led
by Prachanda and Baburam took the decision to leave the gun and accept
parliamentary politics. The leader of the militia Kiran has opposed this, and
now walked to create a new revolutionary party and perhaps go underground
again. Violence seems to loom ahead. All this bodes ill for Nepal and also for India. Several of their leaders,
especially Kiran, mobilise people on sectarian anti-India nationalism, which is
mostly unwarranted.
PM Bhattarai had clearly said
that the constitutional crisis was of Nepal’s
own making and India had
goodwill and support for Nepal
all along. Thus Kiran’s angst against India is misplaced and false. Nepal has once
again entered unknown political terrain. The most rational way will be to go
for elections and re-constitute the Constituent Assembly. The parties need to
have a compromise and reconciliation on the broad framework and present the
people with a constitution and amendments and changes can always come later.
India will have to be patient with
this troubled neighbour. There will be the usual two positions amongst our
policy makers. One that says that we have had enough of them and should
intervene to install a government favourable to us. And the second, that helps Nepal
through its democratic process.
Peace building and state
reconstruction is a difficult and painful task. India can lead this process by
showing its own models of resolving conflicts through compromise and
negotiation. By strengthening and deepening participatory democracy at the
grass roots and offering assistance for democratic change only when specially
asked to do so through a consensus between the governments and the people in
neighbouring countries.
Anuradha M Chenoy is
professor at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru
University.
Courtesy: The New Indian Express, June 22, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment