How did the talks with the government go?
We put our 13-point charter of concerns to the government. The essence of the 13-point concerns is that favorable atmosphere should be created for result-oriented and meaningful polls. The talks went amicably. The focal point was how to conduct polls by November, how to make it free and fair and how to take all the forces in the process into confidence. We found the government committed to holding polls. We hope things can be more or less settled in the next round of talks. But unless the political parties cooperate with the government it cannot hold polls. In fact, given the apolitical nature of the current cabinet, it can only act as a facilitator to the election process.
PHOTO: BHASWOR OJHA
But don’t you believe some of your conditions, like the dissolution of HLPC, are hard to address?
Look, we have been saying from the very beginning that HLPC is unconstitutional and illegitimate. HLPC is not the outcome of political consensus, so there is no obligation for other parties to endorse it. You may recall that before this government was formed big parties were divided into two camps—one led by NC and other by UCPN (Maoist). Politics of prohibition was becoming entrenched. Even then we stood against such polarization which would lead us to more conflict. Also the President had been calling on the parties to build broad political consensus. When the four parties started their homework for the formation of current government, we had clearly told them that consensus among four parties alone would not suffice and they had to accommodate all the forces. But in the end, they did precisely the opposite by forging the 11-point agreement and getting the President to endorse the 25-point amendment to the constitution. We have serious reservations over this. We have been questioning the procedural, constitutional and legal basis of HLPC. HLPC needs to be dissolved because it is controlling government activities.
But what is wrong with other parties joining the HLPC?
HLPC will not become legitimate just because we join it. We must hold election, which is the only way out of the impasse. The primary goal of this government is to hold fair and free polls, for which the government needs to be free of any political influence in the first place. HLPC is curbing the government’s freedom. This is our concern.
How can the government which had no role in forming HLPC dissolve it?
We understand that the government did not form HLPC. But the government needs to make a couple of things clear. If it is the figurehead of the four parties, it should declare that the current government is four parties’ government. But if it is free from HLPC influence, it should clearly tell the people so. Some parties in the HLPC have been demanding that the government does HLPC’s bidding, and still the government is keeping mum. This is objectionable.
Let’s suppose HLPC is turned into an all-party mechanism. What would your stand be in that case?
There is a clear provision in the interim constitution for a broader political consensus. The question is not of how many parties get into HLPC but of forging consensus among all the parties. Once we achieve such a consensus there will be no need for a mechanism like HLPC. If the government needs cooperation and counsel from political parties, why doesn’t it call for an all-party meeting and take the parties’ views on election related issues? After all, the President had started this practice. He had called all the parties and taken their views. He never needed any mechanism. Why does Khil Raj Regmi need one? We removed the phrase ‘consensus between seven parties and Maoists’ and introduced ‘political consensus’ in the interim constitution. HLPC has gone against this principle.
You have been demanding 60 percent proportionate representation in the new CA. Won’t this make the body disproportionately large?
First, let us be clear: neither the 601-size nor the PR percentage was a stumbling block to constitution making in the last CA. Second, we are not demanding a big CA; we would be fine even if we have a 200-member CA. We are opposed to the reduced percentage under PR system. There should be 40 percent seats for first past the post (FPTP) and 60 for PR, as was the case in the last CA, in order to ensure representation of as many minority groups as possible.
Why do you oppose the provision of nominating CA members?
This provision had been introduced to accommodate legal and constitution experts in the CA so that constitution writing process could be expedited. But the parties abused this provision. Those who benefitted from it were the leaders who had suffered shameful defeats in CA election. If we need experts’ suggestion, the new CA can hire such experts.
You have been demanding that certain contentious issues, including federalism, be settled now. If such issues are to be settled in advance, why do we need a new CA?
Because we did not agree on certain principles beforehand, we wasted four precious years. If we can arrive at a common understanding regarding federal provinces and system of governance now, it will ensure a constitution. After all, we had reached a tentative agreement on the federal set up based on the reports of state restructuring committee and (the last CA’s) state restructuring commission. We can make these reports the basis for further deliberation. Our point is: Let us start from where we were in the last CA, not from the scratch.
What can be the meeting point between those supporting HLPC and those opposed to it?
We are not making the 13-point charter of concerns our bargaining chip. Nor are we opposed to polls. We only want to draw the government’s attention for the holding of free and fair polls.
Let us change track. What will be the election agenda of your party?
Out agenda has been set long ago. We are going to the polls with the same issues we raised during the last CA polls and during last CA’s proceedings.
How would you rate the chances of alliance with Madhesi forces or with other political actors?
We will think of alliances and strategies only after election date has been fixed and conditions for fair polls have been created. But you can be sure that there is zero possibility of alliance with Bijaya Kumar Gachchadhar’s United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF). Regarding FDF, our forum, it comprises Adibasi, Janajati and Madheis parties, so it is already an alliance of a sort. Of course, there will be coordination with parties that have been raising the issue of exclusion among Madheshis, Janajatis and Dalits. But such coordination and alliance will materialize on the basis of whether the parties are committed to these agenda, not only along ideological lines. For example, ideologically, we are closer to Gachchadhar and Maoist chairman Prachanda, but they are not practically committed to our agenda. We don’t doubt NC and UML’s commitment to democratic norms but we have major reservations with them regarding their positions on identity and inclusion.
What is your view regarding the number of provinces in Tarai?
We will stick to two provinces on the basis of identity and capability, which had been endorsed in the reports of State Restructuring Committee and State Restructuring Commission of the last CA.
Don’t you believe you have let the Madhesi people down? You could not even implement the four point agreement on the back of which you joined Baburam Bhattarai government.
You are right. But because we could not implement the four point agreement and because I had strong reservation on issue of mass recruitment of Madhesi youths in Nepal Army with other Madhesi colleagues, I quit the government and formed this party. The issue of recruitment is not only related to inclusion, it has to do with the sovereign right of the Madhesi youths, nationality, ownership and identity. I have been fighting for this. Sadly, Madhesi colleagues in the government failed to understand me. I believe Madhesi people have already evaluated who was committed to the four-point deal and who was not.
You raised the issue of sovereignty and nationality but Madhesi leaders are accused of being silent spectators to recurrent border encroachment and SSB high-handedness in border regions.
You have to understand that in no bilateral agreements and dialogues between India and Nepal have the state ever involved Madhesi leaders. Besides, the voices of the people living in border regions have never been taken into account in any bilateral talk. There are these problems but I also assure you that we will raise these issues if and when we get into bilateral talks.
How do you evaluate the electoral prospects of Madhesi parties in the Tarai?
Most Madhesi parties do not have long history. They have broken away from other parties. So they have structural and organizational problems. And because they had never been given opportunities before, some leaders abused state power for personal gains. In this way, they have failed to live up to people’s expectations. There is frustration, rage and disappointment with Madhesi parties among common people. But despite all this, they have not yet looked for alternatives. If we are determined to correct past mistakes, engage in serious soul-searching and realign with likeminded forces, people will surely give us a second chance. There is no chance for UML, NC and UCPN (Maoist) in Madhesh. There is greater resentment against them than against Madhesi parties. The strength of Madhesi parties will more or less remain the same, although some Madheshi leaders are sure to bite the dust.
Related story
Is House obstruction a legitimate parliamentary tool or distort...
-1200x560-1781083488.webp)
