A sensational news report in the September 25th issue of Indian Express about India's seven proposed changes to the Constitution of Nepal, promulgated on September 20th, spread like wildfire in Kathmandu. The article further mentioned that the demands "have been conveyed to Nepal's leadership by the Indian government through official channels Ranjit Rae, India's ambassador to Nepal." Two previous statements from Indian government in three days' time and hasty rush of Indian ambassador to Delhi were sufficient to believe such reporting. The news was in line with the intensified movement of Tarai-based parties along the border, blatantly rejecting the Prime Minister's offer for dialogue. After one and half days of silence, the Indian establishment denied delivering such demands. The editor of the newspaper vouched for the authenticity of the news. From the circumstances one can understand that the news was a planned leak to test the water, and that strong reaction from diverse sections of the Nepali society compelled a hasty retreat.The 'seven-point recommendations,' if officially presented, would have been tantamount to a direct and blatant violation of Panchashila, a basic tenet of UN charter of noninterference in the internal matters of other member states. The way it came out clearly signifies serious intrusion into Nepal's internal affairs by our big neighbor.
Looking at the history of Indian involvement in our internal matters, politicians seeking covert advice has been an old phenomenon in Nepali politics. This became more prominent when the major political parties, left and right, invited India for support to fight against the then King Birendra in early 1990s. Indian interference intensified further after the 12-point New Delhi agreement signed by the seven political parties and the Maoist insurgents to fight against monarchy back in 2005. After that, our political forces started seeking Indian support to ascend to power. Until now, ranging from the petty interest of junior Indian embassy staff to post and transfer officials to vital interest like security and control of Nepali market for trade and investment, there is hardly any sector immune to Indian intrusion.
Such intrusions are sometimes invited by government officials and sometimes by politicians. Nepali officials, for personal benefits; and politicians to gain power and sometimes to park their ill-gotten properties elsewhere. This time, the intrusion was more blatant and serious than ever before. The content of the slogans chanted and rumors spread by the agitating parties in Tarai, with direct and visible support of India, is enough to guide us towards that conclusion. Agitating political parties declined to sit with the prime minister in his official and formal request for dialogue, but had a lunch with the Indian ambassador at his residence at the same time. The content of two consecutive official statements from the Indian government after the promulgation of the constitution and hassles faced afterward along the border by carriers of essential supplies destined for Nepal also speaks volumes about the seriousness of the matter.
Under such circumstances, all political parties, including the agitating ones in the Tarai, must solemnly introspect before embarking on anything that can be interpreted as an invitation for foreign intervention. World history is evident that such actions always result in the loss of national independence, thereby resulting in a heavy dent on individual as well as collective pride of citizens. Inviting foreign intervention cannot be justified under any pretext. It was wrong in the past, it is wrong now and will be considered wrong in the future. It's as simple and straightforward as that. No patriotic force ever tries to justify foreign intervention.
Our internal social, political and economic differences (and which nation in the world doesn't have them?) must be set aside to condemn foreign intervention, unequivocally and unconditionally. All ongoing debates and discussions about ethnicity, nationality or geography are internal matters. We are seen as Nepalis by the outside world and that is how it must stay.
At the same time, leaders must realize that we should set our own house in order before pointing our fingers at others. After all, every country in the world tries to protect its own interests. The fundamental question therefore is: Have we acted in a manner that is in the best interest of Nepal and Nepalis?
Any political force worth its salt must be willing to go to any length so long as it ensures peace, stability, sovereignty and independence of our country. No leader or political party has the right to negotiate on any term that compromises our sovereignty, independence, stability, ethnic harmony and peace.
Nepal is a complex mix of social, political and ethnic diversities and therefore state restructuring will be hard. But not impossible, if intentions are honest. The age-old adage that "united we can stand, divided we fall," was never truer. We can secure prosperity only if we unite. Only misery and deprivation will be ours, if we are divided.
The new constitution already addresses many of the concerns of the Tharu people and those of the Tarai based ethnic communities. The remaining concerns can be addressed through peaceful means, dialogue and understanding.
Constitutions are not etched in stone. It's a dynamic document that stands on the foundations of compromises made between various stakeholders. No one gets everything but everyone gets what's most important for them and the process is perpetual; it never ends. That's how any country in the world would remain dynamic and relevant to its citizens.
Implementing the constitution will demand tremendous flexibilities from all sides. The journey has only begun and the destination can be arrived at only if we walk and toil together. After all, a constitution does not replace diligence, integrity, discipline, sincerity, commitment, and hard work, which are fundamental conditions for wellbeing and progress.
Lastly, I would like to advice major political parties: make use of every network you have to reach out to those who are unhappy. A lot of misinformation is reported in media. It is the responsibility of learned citizens to use their networks to disseminate true information about provisions in the constitution. If there are any genuine concerns that require serious analysis and responses, it is the duty of big parties to be magnanimous. If the concerns are not compatible to the other communities or geography, it is up to the agitating parties to show flexibility and compromise. Communication must be initiated at all levels. Let's do everything to bring the agitating parties to the table for unconditional dialogue. The only non-negotiable are the sovereignty of the people, territorial integrity and independence of Nepal.
The author is former Chief Secretary, Government of Nepal
Related story
Nepalis pray for health and wisdom as coronavirus curtails crow...
_20191222200001.jpg)
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
