The main reason the Constituent Assembly (CA) couldn’t write a constitution of the federal democratic republic of Nepal was because of the issue of ethnic federalism raised by then undivided UCPN (Maoist), the largest party in the last CA. The party and its sister organizations declared the formation of ethnic states from the street, bypassing the elected CA. It appears that the proposal for 14 federal states mainly based on ethnicity will receive a quiet burial by the some of the same hardliners who raised the issue. This is primarily because of the security concerns regarding Nepal’s northern neighbor, the People’s Republic of China.
There were many inconsistencies in the Maoist proposal to declare a country with 80 percent Hindu population a secular state, while advocating six ethnic federal states along its northern border, in none of which the main ethnic group formed the majority of population. On the other hand, the party had proposed only two states based on linguistic identity along the southern border adjacent to India. The coalition partners of the Maoists, the Madheshi parties, had wanted only one state for Madheshis in the south, ignoring that large scale migration from the hills in the last four decades had completely changed the ethnic demography in Tarai and had left only areas west of Kosi and east of Parsa with majority of Madheshis.
ENGINEERINGDAILY.NET
The Chinese considered monarchy a dependable ally before Nepal became a republic. China used to refer to the Maoists not by their party’s name but as an “anti-government force” at the time. China had also been watching with interest the brokering of 12 Point Agreement between the Seven Political Parties and the Maoists by the government of India, which led to the success of Second Jana Andolan in 2006. This in turn led to the declaration of Nepal as a republic after elections in 2008 in which the Norwegians, Swiss and the Carter Center led by former American President Jimmy Carter played important roles. It is possible that the perceived threats to Indian security interests encouraged the Indians in this enterprise.
The possibility that Europeans including the British, the Norwegians and the Swiss wanted to create trouble for China over the issue of Tibet and actively facilitated religious conversion from Hinduism and Buddhism to Christianity can’t be discarded. The Interim Constitution (IC) in secular Nepal permits conversion only by free will of individuals. Since the percentage of Christians in Nepal has increased threefold between 2001 and 2011, whether all who converted did it of their free will is a question that remains to be answered.
Amidst growing perception of foreign hand in Nepali politics, there are indications that the Mohan Baidya Kiran-led breakaway faction of the Maoists CPN-Maoist has now become a dependable ally of the Chinese. The Government of India seems to have lost out again as yet another mass-based party has become an ally of the Chinese, signifying a failure of the Indian foreign policy in Nepal. Mohan Baidya and some of his party colleagues were invited to visit China and were told that ethnic federal states along Nepal’s northern border may encourage anti-Chinese activities and present a security threat to China in Tibet. If a recent news item in Rajdhani (27/2/13) is to be believed, there are signs that Baidya-led Maoists are reconsidering their stand on ethnic federalism.
They have now formed bureaus named after five regions in the country (eastern, central, western, mid-western and far western), while they once had bureaus for proposed ethnic federal states such as Tamuwan, Magarat and Tamsaling. One influential Maoist leader is reported to have said “federalism intended to divide the people of Nepal should not be encouraged”. Mohan Baidya on his return from China had stated that the Chinese had suggested that ethnic federalism is not suitable for Nepal, although it was for the Nepali people to decide what kind of federalism they wanted. If these developments are to be believed, a new dimension to the future of federalism has been added before new CA election, which will probably take place within 2013.
Nepal ratified the United Nations International Labor Organization’s Convention 169 dealing with indigenous people in September 2007, which was seven months before elections to CA. It’s interesting to note that only 22 countries have so far ratified the convention. Nepal is the only Asian country to have done so. In fact, it is one of the least ratified conventions of the United Nations. Glaringly, this convention has not been ratified by the US, Russia, India and China. There are often seminars and discussions in civil society before such conventions and treaties are signed in other countries. According to the records of Nepal’s Parliament, the convention was signed after only a few hours of discussion.
Among the most vocal proponents of ILO-169 in Nepal are the countries which have not ratified the UN convention.
According to Treaty Act of Nepal, international conventions in which Nepal is a signatory have precedence over national laws. It is interesting to note that the likes of Finland, Australia, Germany, Canada, Switzerland and Britain have not signed the convention, but the aid agencies of these countries such as DFID, Canadian International Development Agency, Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation, GTZ and JICA have all cooperated to draft a national action plan for the implementation of the ILO 169 in Nepal. They want their aid projects in Nepal to be based on ILO 169.
Nepal Council of World Affairs has organized a series of talk programs with foreign resident ambassadors in Kathmandu as guests. Among the ambassadors invited included those from Britain and Germany. When this scribe asked them why the two countries had not signed ILO-169 themselves while they planned to conduct their aid program in Nepal on the basis of the convention, both of them replied that their countries didn’t have indigenous people. Whether this reply sufficiently answers my question, I leave to the readers to decide.
While British aid purports to support an inclusive society in Nepal, the policy of Gurkha recruitment in Nepal is far from inclusive and excludes the majority of Nepali ethnic groups such as Madheshis, Dalits, Newars and Brahmins. Much of the British aid is concentrated in areas where former Gurkha soldiers are living. Among other signatories on BOG (Basic Operating Guidelines) for aid in Nepal include such countries as Australia and Canada which have large indigenous populations, but have not signed ILO-169. Doesn’t this indicate double standards practiced by the aid agencies in Nepal?
The author is a former official of the United Nations Secretariat and current secretary of Nepal chapter of International PEN
paraj85@hotmail.com
Related story
Nepal Council for Standards approves shoe quality standards for...
