Madheshis, Janajatis and Dalits had expected that the new constitution would safeguard their rights. They had all fought for their rights, and their struggles had been documented in the Interim Constitution. Interim Constitution included provisions to safeguard all of their rights. The preamble promises to "institutionalize the achievements of the revolutions and movements till this date" and "to bring an end to discrimination based on class, caste, language, gender, culture, religion and region by eliminating the centralized and unitary form of the state." It says the state shall be made inclusive and restructured into a progressive, democratic federal system." It also says that "final decision relating to the structure of the state and federal system shall be made by the Constituent Assembly." We all expected that the draft constitution would stand on these principles. Besides, the state had promised Madheshis an autonomous province.
The draft constitution did not honor these promises. We had serious reservations with the recent 16-point deal also because consensus on vital issues should be sought from within the CA, not among four leaders of four parties. This is the spirit of Interim Constitution. We object the so-called 'fast track' method of constitution making. The deal flouted CA's Regulations. Nor were we given enough time for deliberations on the draft in the Constitutional Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee. They prepared the draft in a hurry. People were given only two days to study the draft and give their feedback, which is also against CA Regulations which provides for at least a month for study and feedback. So why wouldn't we protest?
Was it necessary to try to obstruct feedback collection where people were participating enthusiastically?
All we said was, 'Stop this drama!' Give us enough time. Give us 15 more days at least. Our protest was more against the process than feedback collection. Besides, there was no proper feedback collection; it was like policing of feedback collection. There were more police in feedback collection booths than people. And when dissenting mass tried to enter booths, police dealt with them brutally. Even a 14-year old boy in Janakpur was not spared. You call it feedback collection? They shortened the process, flouted CA Regulations, and when people put forth differing views they tried to suppress them. If due process had been followed, and Madheshi people were given enough time to read and provide feedback, we would not object. And we would agree to whatever feedback people offered, for or against north-south and east-west provinces. But like I said, this was no feedback collection. It was a farce. So we said enough is enough.
Suppose that the feedback collection is started again and Madheshis are given enough time to study the draft constitution. Will that be acceptable to you?
This is a hypothetical question. What is happening is that the constitution is being finalized for the benefit of the four leaders of four parties, not for Madheshis and Janajatis. They are in a hurry to become President and Prime Minister. Otherwise, why would they disown past agreements and issues settled by first CA? Why would they remove inclusion and proportional representation from draft constitution? The draft constitution backtracks from several provisions in Interim Constitution.
Where has it backtracked?
Take citizenship. It had been settled. There was provision for naturalized citizenship by marriage for Indian women marrying Madheshi men in the Interim Constitution. We want such provisions retained in the new constitution.
You oppose citizenship for foreign men marrying Nepali women, but not vice-versa. Why?
This concept of 'equal provision' is based on false logic. We have beti-roti relation with India. There are about half a million Indian brides in Nepal who have naturalized citizenship by marriage. But the draft constitution tries to deny them even such citizenship. But only a few Madheshi daughters are marrying Indian men. How can you deprive half a million daughter-in-laws their rights for the sake of a few who marry Indians? There is a big misunderstanding about equal provision here. We have never demanded citizenships for Indian men who marry Madheshi women. Only Pahadi women activists want this.
They propagate the fear that lax citizenship law will open floodgate of Indians coming into Nepal. This is ridiculous. Yes, India was once a British colony. Poverty was rampant there and many Indians would come to Nepal. But India is a different country today. There is not a single village that is not connected with roads. State governments have schemes for the people below poverty line, whereby they can get rice and sugar for IRs 2.5 per kilogram and kerosene for IRs 4 per liter. There are loan schemes to help them build houses. Every Indian below poverty line is entitled to unemployment allowance of four months.
India has such food reserves that it could feed all Indians for ten years in case of food scarcity. They give seeds at subsidized rates and water pumps for free. So who in Madhesh would not want to marry their daughters into India? And who would come to Nepal leaving behind all such facilities? Why don't Congress and UML understand this? It seems they do not consider Madheshis Nepalis. You know I am a CA member. So you call me Nepali. But all those who wear dhoti and kurta and who have black skin are considered Indians in Nepal.
Apparently the majority of people who offered their feedback want north-south provinces. Should not you heed them?
This is how they have indoctrinated hill people. They believe that granting a separate province to Madhesh will severe it from hills. No province will create boundaries and stop cross-flow of people from north to south and vice versa. You need to understand that province delineation is like creating new administrative units. Don't we have different zones, development regions and districts? Have they discriminated between people from the hills and Madhesh and stopped them from living where they like? Madhesh is going to be a different province, not a different country.
But your colleagues like Rajendra Mahato threaten to impose blockade and stop food supply to the hills.
Every Madheshi leader should speak and behave responsibly. But when you expect others to behave responsibly, shouldn't you also be responsible? Wasn't it UML chief KP Oli who asked us to accommodate UP and Bihar in Madhesh? Was this not insulting to us? There is no criticism when a hill leader makes an irresponsible remark. When a Madheshi leader does so, the media raises hue and cry. I believe Mahato was saying so only to exert pressure on ruling parties to heed Madheshi concerns. There are radical forces which are demanding Madhesh as a separate country. Such demands have come as a result of the state's reluctance to adopt inclusive principle, like denying Madheshis administrative jobs like Police and Army. This has given them the impression that the state is treating them like second-class citizens. This is why such statements come now and again. Madheshis want equal treatment, nothing more. Grant that and half the problem will be solved. More than criticizing secessionist remarks, you should try to understand why such remarks are made.
Let's suppose the state guarantees full inclusion and proportional representation. Will you soften your stand on federal provinces?
We won't fall for any false assurances now. The Interim Constitution enshrined the policy of proportionate representation and inclusion of Madheshis in state bodies. But Madheshis are nowhere in vital bodies. Didn't the same state kill Jaya Narayan Patel for demanding development in Bara? The state gave us a bad check. All these checks have 'bounced.' We will not take another such check. We want cash now. Besides, north-south model is against the principle of federalism. It reinforces the idea of unitary state. The permanent establishment, as CK Lal puts it, has made it seem only north-south provinces are viable. They have made federalism complicated.
There is a voice that federalism should be taken to referendum.
I have not heard of a referendum to carve out provinces anywhere in the world. There are examples of referendum held for secession. Suppose that you hold referendum for province delineation. But what if this triggers demand for a separate country? What will you do? Will the verdict be acceptable to you? Again, you don't hold a referendum to demarcate state provinces. Besides, referendum on federalism will be against the spirit of Madhesh Movement and Interim Constitution which has agreed to autonomous Madhesh province. This idea of referendum smacks of conspiracy to dilute federalism. No Madheshi will accept this. Any attempt to dilute federalism will invite serious conflict in Madhesh.
Related story
Making a great first impression at an interview
