The most democratic countries in the world practice their beliefs only within their borders. They have totally different sets of ethics for the democratic values and principles beyond borders. When England, France and Spain were seizing the people's rights in their colonies in Asia, America and Australia in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the people living in the mainland were practicing the optimum level of civil liberties. The respect for human values, principle and democratic norms was reserved only for the rulers. The ruled were never considered equal in any respect. The colonial world has become a thing of the past, but the tendencies and the mindsets of the new global superpowers have remained the same.The notion that everything is acceptable in love, war and foreign relations appropriately explains the behavior of the so-called influential democratic countries in the ongoing process of constitution making in Nepal. When Nepal was not federal, inclusive, secular republic, the western and regional superpowers' assertion looked genuine to the pro-democratic intellectuals and activists. But since they were not satiated even after Nepal worked out most democratic ways to rule the country and promulgate the constitution, true nationalists are again suspicious.
Nepal is currently not only drafting its constitution, it is also cursed to cross the hurdles put forward by our friendly nations. Over 90 percent of the 601-member Constituent Assembly is on the verge of promulgating the constitution that can be easily argued as the most democratic constitution as explained by the modern political science gurus. For example, the constitution of India, the world's largest democracy, is not considered as democratic because it is a majoritarian system, which means the people or party that secures over 50 percent is likely to suppress the voice of minority 49 percent.
In a society afflicted by huge disparity and inundated by so many different interest groups, the majoritarian system definitely doesn't encompass the interests of the larger population. But interestingly, some political leaders and so-called Nepal experts simply refuse to accept that the upcoming constitution of Nepal has encompassed subaltern, marginalized groups. It is an obnoxious attempt to block the sun's rays with your palm.
Any system should be judged with the process it has followed. The upcoming constitution of Nepal has incorporated all the provisions to have the voice of all minorities in the society. The provision in the upcoming constitution to elect 110 members in proportional basis in the 275-member House itself explains a lot. Moreover, there is no threshold to get elected into the proportional system, which means any small group that can garner enough votes to elect one representative in the House. Even the state and local governments have proportional representation provision as in the federal parliament. Hence, if anyone claims that Nepal's current constitution is not incorporating representations from all caste, creed, gender, religion, minorities and subalterns, they are simply trying to ignore the truth.
Of course, there are still people who do not agree with the delimitations of state borders. But this is not a big enough excuse to cost over 40 innocent Nepali lives. It is certainly not like the partition between India and Pakistan. In 1947, carving out a village in one side of the border could ceaselessly impact the lives of the people who wanted to live on the other side. But in Nepal the borders can change umpteenth times, as per the people's desires, after the promulgation of new constitution. Even India has grown from 13 states in 1947 to 29 recently after Telangana became the newest state.
Hence, the elements that are trying to instigate Nepalis to take up arms against each other are not doing so in the interest of Nepal, we are just being naive. They have vested interests in mind: stopping Nepal from standing on its own. They never want Nepal to be a sovereign, peaceful and stable country.
Are the issues not resolved in the upcoming constitution so serious that 40 innocent people had to die? Except for the demarcation of state borders, there are not many issues to bring Madheshi people out on the street so furiously. Some leaders point to citizenship as one of the major issues but many Madheshis are unhappy with the distribution of 2.6 million citizenships after the 2006 movement as they realized that there were many unwanted competitors from across the border to share the minimal availability of resources and opportunities.
So the issue is not border or citizenship. The Madheshi sentiments are being wrongly stirred for the hidden purpose of not letting Nepal become stable. They want to stop Nepal from coming up with a constitution that would institutionalize the federal, democratic, inclusive, republican state. Madheshi people are counting how many CA members they voted for are now in favor of new constitution, and they are simply rejecting to come to the rallies. As fewer people participate in the agitation, the leaders resort to violence.
Would India want Nepal to be a failed state? I believe it does not. It is not in India's interest. It is not Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's modus operandi to exert influence by making the neighborhood weak and instable. His goal of making India an economic and political global power wouldn't be fulfilled in an instable neighborhood. But even PM Modi seems to have fallen into the trap of some interest groups who feed on the Indian taxpayer's money, portraying a wrong picture of Nepal being a security threat to India.
The freshly elected Modi was in favor of timely constitution in Nepal when he visited in November. But when he returned, he had already been tainted by the ideas of those conflict-mongers. The second time around, he was not as forthcoming in terms of following democratic values, principles and interests of larger group. He tagged along with the idea that the constitution had to garner larger support. In a democratic set-up, it would be absurd to expect over 90 percent support in the Constituent Assembly. Even authoritarian communist systems find it difficult to claim over 90 percent support.
It is high time the various interest groups in India and elsewhere respected the voice of Nepali people. If the world has not devised a newer tool, election is the only mechanism that truly assesses people's verdict. Let us not be fooled by absurd ideas being floated to fail the unprecedented political consensus. It is high time all Nepalis went along with their political leadership. Finally, in Nepal's otherwise illustrious history, we are in a position to admit that we are proud of our leaders. And we are proud of our democratic constitution.
The author is Prime Minister Sushil Koirala's press advisor
Twitter @prateekpradhan
Related story
A healthy dose of advice
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
