The Way Ahead

Mukesh Khanal

Not everyone is happy with the new constitution. But even in a democratic process it is not possible to please one and all

Here is an indisputable fact we have to live with: The new constitution has been brought into force. Some have lauded it as an accomplishment that every Nepali should be proud of and hence something to be celebrated. On the other hand, some have called it an example of a “brute majority.” However, we are a democracy, and a democracy works through brute majority. We needed two-thirds of elected representatives to vote for the constitution to pass. But over 85 percent of our Constituent Assembly members voted for it. That is democracy at work.
Here is another indisputable fact: Not everyone is happy with the new constitution. However, unhappiness is part of the democratic process. Some segments of Nepali society—and our neighbor to the south—wanted a constitution based on absolute consensus. But 100 percent consensus is impossible in a democratic system. Somebody always disagrees. There are claims that 40 percent of Nepal—the Madhesh—was not represented in new Constitution. That is false. Many CA members who voted to pass the new constitution represent their constituents in Madhesh. Their votes may not have pleased all of their constituents. Again, a democratic system does not please everybody. Every member of the public did not vote for the constitution. They voted for their CA representatives, who then voted for the constitution.

So, as things stand, a section of the country is celebrating while another section burns. There should be no doubt that there are legitimate Madheshi, Tharu, and indigenous grievances. However, their agendas have failed to capture popular imagination. Madheshi leaders bear much responsibility for that failure. Part of the failure lies in how key issues were defined. For example, who is a Madheshi? When I was a kid, I remember my grandfather telling me that even my great-great-grandfather did not know where our “Pahad” was. Our guess is that one of our ancestors several generations ago left Jiwanpur VDC in Dhading to go live in Sunsari. But we’re not sure. All I know is I am as much a Madheshi as my Sah and Yadav classmates I went to school with. The leaders need to ask themselves if people like us were left out of the Madheshi discourse.

There should also be no doubt that there has been a systematic exclusion of many groups—some by the age-old caste system, some by the state, and others by systemic designs of the rich and powerful elites. I have witnessed this growing up in the Tarai. For example, I have not seen the economic and social status of Tharus in Sunsari improve during my lifetime. They definitely do not have access to the same level of opportunities as I do. Yet, we lived together, side by side. This is certainly the case with Tharus in the Mid-west and Far-west, too. And this is certainly the case with dozens of other minority groups in Nepal. Something is seriously wrong with the way our society functioned so far. It needs an overhaul.

Many in the Tarai were hoping that the new constitution would be cure-all of the centuries-old societal ills and deficiencies. While I do not claim to understand how the disgruntled groups in Nepal feel, as a rational person, I can understand their disappointment. First, state restructuring—and seven proposed states—continues to marginalize the minorities. Second, there is no doubt that the constitution relegates women as second-class citizens. For a constitution written in the twenty-first century, these are inexcusable offenses.

However, there is a hope. The constitution is not a final document. It is a guide. It can be amended—as many times as needed. For example, seven provinces are not final. A Tharuhat province can still be realized. Kailai and Kanchanpur can merge with Bardiya, Banke and Dang to form a new province. This eighth province can materialize if the parliaments in province numbers 5 and 7 vote and approve that idea.

That is not wishful thinking. This kind of restructuring happens all the time in federal republics. When India became a republic after the British left, it had around half-a-dozen states. Today, India has 29 states, and there are ongoing movements in many Indian states for even more states. For example, Bihar split and became two states in 2000—Bihar and Jharkhand. But there are groups fighting to split Bihar further into three states—new Bihar, Bhojpura, and Mithila. Similar movements are afoot in Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Maharastra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, and West Bengal. The point is: groups who feel left out of state restructuring need not worry. The design can always be changed.

The same is true on issues of citizenship and inclusion. It will be easier to resolve those under a federal republic because states can use their economic might, public’s voice, and the parliament’s vote to put pressure on national governments for change. The states with majority Tarai districts will have stronger economies and larger populations. They can use that economic and demographic might to put pressure on both provincial and federal governments for progressive laws on citizenship and inclusion. The current law on citizenship is a disgrace, and states will need to play a role to push for greater equality.

(Courtesy: www.myrepublica.com and the writer can be reached at: mukhanal@gmail.com)