Optimal environment for new constitution was building up even before the recent deal. This agreement has helped us in taking decisive steps in finally bringing out the new constitution. The question now is not whether there will be a constitution but when. Yes, there were some who never believed in constitution through minimum required consensus or who always wanted to create hurdles in the constitution-making process. They have all been defeated.
What made the deal possible? Apparently, there was no sign of it happening even until June 8.
Some have called it an earthquake effect. It's not the case. We had CA II polls to draft the constitution through the CA. People had given their mandate to write a new constitution. In fact, constitution process had begun to take a definite shape even before the earthquake tragedy. We (Congress and UML) had not been able to deliver the statute despite having near two third majorities in the CA. There were signs of constitution not coming even before January 22, 2015, the deadline. After the January 19 mayhem, CA meetings were obstructed and postponed several times. If we wanted to push statute through voting, we could have done so before April 25. But we did not do so to create a positive environment amongst all the political forces.
But you were the one who took extreme stand against consensus and pressed for voting process.
There were two sides to it. What if consensus was impossible? We would never get the constitution. So it was wise to create a minimum required consensus among the parties through pressure, persuasion or any other means. It would not be wise to wait for consensus indefinitely. So we had to say 'if no consensus, we should go through the due process.' You have to understand the figurative of such statement. A man might tell the other man out of anger "I will kill you." But he really does not intend to kill, only exert pressure. The other person also takes the warning as a strategy. It is important to understand that a democratic party like the UML was always in favor of constitution through consensus or process. He who does not understand this simple truth about us cannot be a political analyst.
The Madhesh parties have opposed the deal and have also announced protests.
Nowhere in the world has constitution been drafted through absolute consensus. Differences are all but common. Perhaps, China is the only country whose CA delivered constitution without much protest. Look at India. People protested the constitution for 15 years. Some are doing so even today. Such differences won't affect constitution process in the long run. Besides, dissenting parties don't seem to have real differences on the fundamental issues. What is the protest for? Is it against constitution and federalism? Federalism has been granted, we have not decided names and boundaries of states. Names shall be determined by the state assemblies and boundaries by a Federal Commission. So what do you dispute over? Federal Commission will assess international practice, theoretical and behavioral aspects, consider population, geography, social set up, economy, social relation, development prospects, security, among other issues before taking decisions. I do not see the protests as a big issue.
But they say it's an udharo sahamati, a deal on credit and that there is nothing tangible to offer.
If you interpret it that way, almost every provision is a deal on credit: name, number, boundaries, provincial assemblies, their composition, and the provision of chief minister. There is no magic wand to have this overnight. After all, we have started the process of drafting constitution. No constitution is set in a stone. It's subject to amendment.
Will you tell us about some amendable and non-amendable issues?
For me what is amendable and what is not is not an issue. Things that are really non-amendable will remain so. People might want to change a provision listed under non-amendable section after a certain point of time. What do you say to that? Thus, this should not be the bone of contention. Our consciousness, social norms and the whole world is dynamic. What is considered non-amendable today might prove to be amendable tomorrow. There is no need to define issues as amendable and non-amendable. Time changes and things change along with it.
Why then is there a big contention over the word pluralism?
Pluralism has a philosophical dimension. Nature is diverse, so are the earth and seven billion people living on it. One person is not identical to other, though they may be similar to each other in many respects. Diversity is the law of nature. Pluralism is a philosophy that acknowledges this diversity. In a way, Nepal is a country with pluralism personified. We are a multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic country. This diversity has been very well acknowledged in Nepal. It manifests on our political front as well. Pluralism is when there is diversity and you accept this diversity. It seems attempts are being made to deliberately misunderstand the true essence of pluralism and define it in a way one sees fit.
You were the one who advocated three provinces. What made you change stand?
I believe that fewer states are better and more suitable for Nepal. This is my conviction. Others call it my stand. What may be rigid for one may be flexibility for others. Any stand that is in the interest of the country and its people is a good stand. You may think K P Oli shifted from his earlier stand. I opted to draft the constitution. We do not have a clear two-third majority in the CA. So should I stick to my conviction or work to deliver the statute?
So you chose to go for just about any kind of constitution.
We are not in favor of just any kind of constitution. We are trying to deliver the constitution that addresses our needs and takes into account our political, social, economic and development realities. Our attempt will be to bring the statue that puts national interest, people's interest, national unity, democracy and progressive vision first.
Some view that foreign hands worked from behind the scene to make this deal possible.
This is not true. The whole world is in favor of constitution in Nepal. China, India, Britain, Japan, US, Germany, all have their good wishes for us. But it is upon us to decide the kind of constitution we want. But it is natural for your neighbor to interfere if your family is fighting. It is best not to create a situation where others have to step in to resolve our issues. As for the recent deal, this is the result of long deliberation and discussions among the parties. There is no external factor to it.
The deal gives almost a footnote status to local elections. Many doubt it will take place any time soon.
We are on the verge of coming out with a new constitution. Besides, there is a huge responsibility of rehabilitation and reconstruction after the recent earthquakes. We could not fix the date for local elections. But we are determined to hold the elections at the earliest date possible.
So when will people get the new constitution and national unity government?
I don't want to speak on national unity government now. As for constitution, you will get it by July 16, 2015. You can start celebrating now by eating sweets.
Many see you as a Prime-Minister-in-waiting.
To those who wish to see me as a PM, I say thank you.
The donor conference is scheduled for June 25. And the PM Relief Fund has failed to attract donors' attention. What is your take?
There were some deliberate attempts to spread negative message about the PM's Relief Fund. It was said what is given to PM's Fund will be misused. The Fund has a symbolic value. The PM cannot spend it as he pleases. There is a mechanism under the Vice-chairman of National Planning Commission to operate the Fund. Besides, its spending will also be audited. No one can misuse money from this fund. Therefore, the Fund is the most reliable source to deposit one's contribution. Unnecessary rumor about the Fund seems to have shaped public opinion here and amongst international community. Business people and industrialists have given generously to the PM's Fund. But there is a tendency not to acknowledge it and instead glorify small contributions by individuals and organizations, such as distributing packets of noodles and biscuits. The PM himself cannot reach out to every victim and distribute the relief materials himself. The details of damages and destructions have come out. Not everyone needs to visit those places but work to provide relief in hard-hit areas. NGOs, INGOs, radio, TV, and newspapers are raising funds and rushing to the affected areas. They could do so through government channels.
On the other hand, our government's capacity to spend judiciously, despite having much in the Fund is also questionable. Our bureaucratic red tape and lack of swift action come in the way to spend the budget within stipulated time. This must have raised questions about the government's efficacy of spending relief fund amounting to billions. The government needs to clear all such misgivings. If we make credible plans for reconstruction, I am sure we will get generous funding from the donors. But if we cannot properly utilize what is already given, it would be foolish to hope for more.
India and China arbitrarily forged a controversial Lipu-Lekh deal when Nepal is struggling to get back on its feet.
I have not yet read the agreement. I will comment on this after looking into the details of the agreement. But if Nepal's interest has been compromised knowingly or unknowingly, the deal must be reviewed. There should be no compromise regarding Nepal's sovereignty and national interest. If there are flaws, I will definitely raise the issue.
Related story
Making a great first impression at an interview
