Thursday, July 19, 2012

Plenum’s Impact on National Politics

Yuba Nath Lamsal
The seventh extended central committee meeting of the Unified CPN-Maoist or the plenum is underway in Kathmandu, which is expected to come up with a new ideological and tactical tools to cope with the newer challenges that have cropped up in the contemporary Nepal and also in the international arena. The seventh plenum is being held first time after the party split. A section of the party headed by Mohan Vaidya broke the relationship with the mother party and announced a separate party called the CPN-Maoist. After the vertical split in the party, the UCPN-Maoist has faced a real political, ideological and organizational challenge. The Vaidya faction has accused the principal leadership of the UCPN-Maoist of being deviated from the fundamental philosophy of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that the party championed as a guiding principle since it was created. Now the UCPN-M leadership has to prove the Vaidya group wrong and give continuity to its earlier image among the people.
Ever since the party joined peaceful politics after signing the 18-point agreement, certain deviations have definitely occurred in its working style, organizational structure and even ideological ground. But Prachanda and his team are not the sole responsible of this deviation. The leaders who have now formed the new party are also equally responsible for the deviation in the party and they cannot just escape by putting all the blames on Prachanda.
The party adopted the tactical line of peace and constitution in order to serve its strategy. The fundamental strategy and goal of the UCPN-Maoist continues to be the establishment of new democracy through a revolution. Motivated by this spirit and guided by MLM principle, the party launched a decade-long armed insurgency or ‘People’s War’ in which it reached the state of equilibrium in terms of power. A large swath of rural territory had virtually been under the control of the Maoists during the period of insurgency. The presence and control of the government was confined only to district headquarters and urban centers. In urban areas too, the influence of the Maoists was growing slowly. This was the situation when neither of the two sides was in the position to overpower the other. The government was unable to retain its control over the rural areas whereas the Maoists were not in the position to capture and retain their control in district headquarters and urban areas. In this state of equilibrium, there was a compulsion to negotiate and strike a deal which was agreed upon in the form of 12-point agreement as a basis for Jana Andolan II and later Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) after the success of the popular uprising.
The 12-point deal and the CPA were the products of necessity, which marked the beginning of the peace process. The peace process was also a doctrine of necessity. The tactical line of peace and constitution was adopted by Chunbang meeting unanimously and there was no single voice against it. However, some leaders of the Vaidya camp started criticizing the tactical policy of peace and constitution only four years after the peace process began. There is yet another ethical and moral issue behind this criticism. While the leaders, on the one hand, have taken full benefit of the tactical policy of peace and constitution, they also continue to criticize the same policy as ideological degeneration to reformism and revisionism, which can be termed as a double standard. Only CP Gajurel and Mohan Vaidya were not present in the Chunbang meeting as they were in Indian prison. But they, too, became party to this decision by taking benefits from the political deal made on the basis of Chunbang meeting’s tactical line.
In the political report presented in the plenum, chairman Prachanda has dubbed the accusation of Vaidya camp as dogmatist propaganda. In the report, chairman Prachanda has frankly acknowledged the mistakes and weaknesses made by the leadership especially after the party entered into the peace process. It is true that the UCPN-Maoist, despite overwhelming support of the people, has definitely not been able to live up to huge popular expectations.  This has definitely created people’s apathy towards the party and the leadership. The Vaidya camp is just trying to reap benefit out of this frustration and apathy of the people.
It would not be wise to claim that party leadership was absolutely flawless. The principal leadership committed many mistakes in the past which gave rise to the present situation that led to the party split. In the name of internal democracy in the party, Vaidya group took every issue to the street and defied all legitimate decision of the party. The internal democracy allows dissenting voices and criticism only in the legitimate forums and committees of the party. Internal democracy does not mean open defiance of party decisions and condemnation of the leadership in public. Any issues concerning ideological, political and tactical policies should be raised only in the party committees and forums. However, the dissenting group openly took the issues to the streets and public forums whereas the party leadership also failed to strictly implement the principle of democratic centralism. Under democratic centralism, anyone who violates the party discipline and system is liable to action. But the principal leadership, in the name of maintaining unity in the party, became too liberal and tolerated everything when party discipline, methods and systems were openly defied. Here lies the fundamental weakness of the principal leadership.
The party, now, has multiple challenges to face in the situation. Being the largest party UCPN-M has a big role to play to steer the country out of the present state of political crisis. Similarly, Chairman Prachanda, being a signatory to the Comprehensive Peace Accord, has the responsibility to complete the peace process and herald a new era of peace, stability and prosperity in Nepal. But chairman Prachanda had to be more preoccupied with the internal problems and conflict of the party. As a result, he has not been able to give much time and energy to resolve the country’s political problem. The failure of Constituent Assembly to deliver a complete constitution was also a failure of the Maoist party and also its leader Prachanda. In the failure of writing the constitution in time and concluding the peace process, several factors and players had their own role. Ordinary citizens, voters and the international community had expected much from Prachanda, the leader of the largest political party in the Constituent Assembly and the failure of producing a constitution was linked to the failure and incompetence of the UCPN-Maoist. Their conclusion may have been partially correct but not wholly. In fact, there was an inherent design to fail the Constituent Assembly both at home and abroad. In this design, domestic reactionaries and regressive elements including the royalists and some international forces were involved in rendering the Constituent Assembly unsuccessful and incompetent so that a new kind of uncertainty and chaos would crop up in Nepal out of which they may reap political benefits. The recent overtures and activities of former king is evident of this move.
The international reactionaries including capitalists and imperialists were against the institutionalization of the achievements of Jana Andolan II and also against the promulgation of the new constitution. The promulgation of the new constitution would institutionalize the agendas like republican set up, federalism, secularism, inclusive representation in all decision-making bodies, which are originally Maoist agendas. Institutionalization of these agendas would further establish the Maoist party and strengthen its position in the mass of the people, which was not of their liking. The international forces, therefore, played through their lackeys at home to fail the Constituent Assembly with the purported plan of not letting the Maoists’ agenda to be established and institutionalized.
Against this background, the UCPN-Maoist and its principal leadership have a big test and trial to sail the ship the party smoothly to its destination.  The immediate challenge of the party is the split, which has further complicated the situation. Accept it or not, the split has definitely sent a negative message among the rank and file of the party. In terms of number, the split may not have significant impact on party’s organizational life as only 15 to 20 per cent cadres and supporters may have deserted the party and joined the newly created CPN-Maoist headed by Mohan Vaidya. Overwhelming majority of the cadres, workers and supporters are still with the UCPN-Maoist. But the split has caused a huge psychological damage. The leadership has, now, a big challenge to overcome this psychological problem in the party and revive its earlier organizational potency. The present plenum of the UCPN-Maoist is, thus, being watched keenly by all in both positive and negative light. This is so because the entire political course of Nepal would largely depend on the decisions and moves to be taken by the Maoist party.

Nepal’s rulers invite foreign interventio

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Nepal is currently passing through a political transition. All political transitions are difficult. But the present political transition in Nepal is unique and more difficult. Unlike all other transitions of the past, the present transition is not a mere change of regime but a systemic transition that has marked a transformation from a feudal monarchical system to republican set up and from unitary state to federal model.
The present transition of began six years ago when a peace accord was signed between the Maoist insurgents, who had been waging a guerilla war against the feudal monarchy, and the government comprising seven parliamentary parties. This accord formally marked an end of the decade long armed insurgency that had claimed life of more than 13 thousand people. With the initiation of peace process, a new chapter of Nepal’s history began providing hopes for a better, peaceful and prosperous Nepal.
Nepal has been in perpetual transition right from its founding. In every decade or so, Nepal has seen and undergone some kind of transition. In each transition, external elements and forces have often played their role and interfered in Nepal’s politics. As a result, it seems as though the foreign interference has become our fait accompli. If we go back to history, the arrival of British colonial rulers in South Asia can be traced as the beginning of foreign interference in Nepal. British imperialism that had gobbled up almost entire South Asia, had definitely eyed on Nepal during its hey days. The only visionary ruler of Nepal that foresaw the danger from British imperialism was Prithivi Narayan Shah, who not only laid the foundation of a strong and unified Nepal by leading the campaign to bring together several small and fragile principalities but also kept the British colonial power at bay. Had British been allowed to enter into our domain during the state of fragility, the imperialist power would have easily and quickly taken over the weak, small and scattered principalities like it had done to many Indian states. Prithivi Narayan Shah kept British India far away and hurriedly spearheaded the unification process. But the similar kind of approach and vision was not found in the rulers of Nepal in the later days.  After the demise of Prithivi Narayan Shah, his son Pratap Singh Shah became the king but he, too, died soon which proved to be disaster in Nepal’s politics.  When Pratap Singh Shah died, his son Rana Bahadur Shah was a minor but was installed in the throne of Gorkha kingdom. In the name of the infant king, his mother Rajendra Laxmi ruled as a regent and infant king’s uncle Bahadur Shah assisted her in the governance. In course of time, suspicion and animosity developed between the regent Rajendra Laxmi and the king’s ambitious uncle Bahadur Shah.  The bone of contention was the power. Bahadur Shah was, too, ambitious and had his supporters in the ranks and file of armed force and bureaucracy. A section of the royal court had provoked Bahadur Shah to assert more power in the state affairs saying that he should have been the legitimate ruler in the name of the infant king. The courtiers loyal to Bahadur Shah or those who were opposed to Rajendra Laxmi had been of the view that Hinduism did not allow a woman to be a ruler.  Being provoked from his loyalists, Bahadur Shah’s ambition started growing slowly. Already suspicious about Bahadur Shah’s presence in the palace and his role in the administration, Regent Rajendra Laxmi took it as a threat to his son’s throne. Some had even told Rajendra Laxmi that Bahadur Shah was conspiring to remove the infant king from his throne and take over power. It was quite understandable for the regent to be enraged and she issued an order to arrest Bahadur Shah. Once she consolidated her power, Rajendra Laxmi, under pressure from within the palace and outside, released Bahadur Shah on condition that he went on self- exile. After being released from jail, Bahadur Shah went on exile to Betia of India.
Already desperate to have a trade treaty with Nepal and permission to use Nepal’s territory for trade in Tibet, British rulers in India took the conflict and clash in the royal court of Nepal as an opportune moment to influence the Nepal Durbar.  British rulers established contact with Bahadur Shah, who was on exile in Betia, and offered help to restore his position in Nepal Durbar. In return, British rulers sought trade treaty with Nepal and permission for India-Tibet trade via Nepal. Bahadur Shah had agreed the British condition. In the meantime, new developments occurred in Nepal which suddenly changed the entire situation. Rajendra Laxmi passed away and Bahadur Shah came back to Nepal and acted as a regent of infant king Rana Bahadur Shah. This was a favourable situation for British rulers and the British began to influence in the Nepal Durbar, which was the beginning of external interference in Nepal’s internal affairs.
Right from the time he resumed the role of regent, Bahadur Shah’s foreign policy approach took a shift from that of Nepal’s traditional policy, which had been adopted since the time of Prithivi Narayan Shah. It could have, perhaps, been due to British influence.  Bahadur Shah was in favor of commerce treaty with British allowing free trade with Nepal and also in Tibet using Nepal’s territory without any obstruction and hindrances—something Nepal had not agreed earlier. Until then trade with Tibet was the sole prerogative of Nepal but Bahadur’s Shah’s treaty with the British brought an end to Nepal’s monopoly in trade with Tibet. This was the first case of betrayal to the country for personal benefit. It can be assumed that Bahadur Shah had entered into a secret agreement with British while he was in Betia and might have assured the British rulers that he would do everything for their interests if he was helped to restore his authority in Nepal.  
Once being back in power as a regent, Bahadur Shah asserted his authority so aggressively that he virtually eliminated his opponents in the royal court. However, the voice of dissent slowly developed and those opposed to Bahadur Shah tried to provoke king Rana Bahadur Shah, who was about to attain majority, against Bahadur Shah. Rana Bahadur was even told that Bahadur Shah was conspiring to depose the king and seize the throne for himself. Rana Bahadur Shah believed the words of his loyalists and once he got majority he soon ordered Bahadur Shah’s arrest and put him behind bars where he died in 1997 (some even suspect that Bahadur Shah was murdered in custody).
Even after Bahadur’s Shah’s exit from power, the factional fighting and intrigue did not come to an end but further grew. The colonial rulers started playing one group against another in the Nepal Durbar. When Rana Bahadur Shah abdicated and went on exile to Benaras, he tried to establish contact and relationship with British with the hope of regaining his throne with British support. British rulers also took this an opportunity to interfere in Nepal’s politics through Rana Bahadur Shah once he was re-installed in the throne of Nepal.  According to Leo Rose in his book ‘ Nepal: Strategy for Survival’ Rana Bahadur Shah promised, if returned to power ‘to pay the company ( East India Company) 37.5 per cent of the revenue from the hill areas and 50 per cent of that from the Terai area of Nepal’. Rana Bahadur further promised, according to Rose, that ‘if a time should come when none of his descendants were living, the whole of the country of Nepal shall devolve to the administration and control of the company’.  The Nepal Durbar became aware of this design and hastened to mend relationship with British in India. However, British colonial rulers put forth some conditions if they were not to support Rana Bahadur Shah in regaining his authority. Desperate rulers of Kathmandu agreed to British conditions and signed a trade treaty in 1801. This indicates that Nepal’s rulers were competing to cajole the British in order to gain and retain power. This incident makes it further clear that Nepal’s monarchy and Shah kings, who claim to be the champion of Nepal’s national independence and patriotism, were the ones that invited external interference. This trend continued throughout until now. All the rulers always tried to please the rulers in New Delhi and tried to protect their regimes in Nepal—be it Shah kings, Ranas or political parties.
The external interference has intensified so badly that foreigners are dictating who should go to power and what ministerial portfolio should be allocated to which party or person. Our political parties seem to have lost their capability and confidence and seek external assistance for even a minor political affair. This has worsened external meddling in Nepali politics. If this trend continues, it may ultimately lead to Bhutanization or Sikkimization process. The time, thus, requires all of us, especially patriotic Nepalese, to be vigilant and cautious in order to keep our national independence intact.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Nepal In Unique Crisis

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Nepal has seen a unique situation in its political arena after the demise of the Constituent Assembly and declaration of the fresh election. A new kind of debate has surfaced in our academic and political circle. The subject of debate is the constitutionality and legality of the government’s decision to dissolve the constituent assembly and declare the fresh election.
Opinion is divided for and against the dissolution of the CA and declaration of election for a new constituent assembly. Those who are defending the decision of the government to go for a fresh election are of the view that the government was left with no viable alternative other than the election. However, the critics and opposition parties claim and argue that there were alternatives left but the government did not seek those options but declared election to prolong its life. Both sides have their own logics and counter logics, which are equally powerful.
The dissolution of the constituent assembly and declaration of the election are definitely subjects of legal and political debate. Everyone has the right to ask whether the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly was the right decision or there were other alternatives. Were all alternatives were sought to save the constituent assembly? Was the election the only alternative? These are some of the questions that are being raised from various quarters, which must be duly and logically replied by the government and the ruling parties to the best satisfaction of the people.
The debate in itself is not a bad idea. A healthy debate always leads to meaningful and logical conclusion on every issue. Thus, the debate on constitutionality, legality and political rationality of the dissolution of the CA and announcement of the fresh election cannot be dismissed as merely unnecessary political tug of war. Only debate enriches our experiences and constitutional exercises. It is also the right of the opposition parties to question legality and political rationality in the decision of the government. It is the duty of the government to prove that their decisions were politically and legally correct and justifiable.
Election is the best democratic exercise in democracy which enables people to participate in political process. The government has based this logic to justify the declaration of election. The government has claimed that the announcement of the election was made based on the verdict of the Supreme Court that has clearly ruled that if the Constituent Assembly failed to deliver the constitution within its constitutional deadline, fresh election would be better. The spirit of the Supreme Court was to check the indefinite extension of the life of the Constituent Assembly. The intention of the Supreme Court was not to fail the Constituent Assembly and go for fresh election.  By declaring election for another constituent assembly, all the exercises made during the four years since constituent assembly was formed have gone wasted lot of works had been accomplished on the constitutional issues except the ones related to federalism and state restructuring. But the declaration of election nullified all the works and achievements made during the four years concerning the constitution. These achievements and agreements should have been formally codified prior to opting for alternative approach on the issue concerning federalism and state restructuring. It was, thus, a mistake on the part of the political parties and the government not to institutionalize and formalize the issues that had already been settled in the constituent assembly.
In the first place, it was a grave mistake of the chairman of the Constituent Assembly.  Chairman was the custodian of the constituent assembly and it was his duty to save the image of the constituent assembly. The current image of the historic constituent assembly is very poor. First, the constituent assembly was huge with 601 members. People had not taken it very positively because of its huge number. It was taken as a white elephant for a small and resource strapped country like Nepal. However, people accepted it as a product of special circumstances with the hope that it would deliver the constitution in time. As the constituent assembly was the demand of Nepali people for more than six decades, people wanted this body to prove its worth. When the constituent assembly failed to produce a constitution in two years and its life was extended, people became slowly disillusioned with this body. The constituent assembly failed to function independently but became a tool of top leaders of three major parties, which caused people’s apathy towards this elected body.  Its unceremonial demise became even a big concern of Nepali people.
Since the beginning, the chairman Subash Nembang did not act as a guardian and leader of the Constituent Assembly. He simply proved himself to be pawn of top brass of the three major parties in their political game plan. As a result, the Constituent Assembly virtually became directionless right from the beginning simply because its chairman failed to provide a firm leadership and direction. The Constituent Assembly became a mere tool to implement the decisions made in the headquarters of the three major parties and their principal leaders dictated the function and decisions of the Constituent Assembly. There was a tendency to make decisions by a handful of leaders of three largest parties in the dark rooms somewhere outside the Constituent Assembly and the CA merely endorsed these decisions. This not only made the constituent assembly defunct but ultimately led its demise. The scene of the Constituent Assembly on May 28, 2012 is evident of the incompetence of the chairman Nembang to save the image of the CA and formalize its task accomplished during the last four years. The meeting of the CA had been scheduled at 11 am on that day but CA chairman did not even turn up in the venue of Constituent Assembly. Instead, he ran from one leader’s residence to others and kept CA members waiting till the end that facilitated the government to dissolve the constituent assembly. The CA chair should have initiated the meeting on time and formalized all the accomplished tasks concerning the constitution. It would have facilitated the promulgation of the new constitution and would have saved the image of the CA. Thus, the chairman Nembang is primarily responsible for CA failure. Although Nembang is trying to defend his move as a bid to build consensus among the parties on constitution and political deadlock, this is his lame excuse, which can never be justified by any means. If he was at all serious for building consensus, attempts should have been made within the Constituent Assembly but not outside. The attempt of seeking solution outside the constituent assembly was an insult to the people’s elected representatives and also to the Constituent Assembly.
The government announced the fresh election, which it says, is to respect the Supreme Court verdict. But the government did not appear to have duly consulted constitutional lawyers and experts before taking this decision. There are constitutional hurdles and complications to hold the CA election under the present circumstances because the Interim Constitution has not visualized the constituent assembly election more than once. Also there are some other constitutional and legal hurdles for the election, which should have been cleared before declaring election. Given these circumstances, the election is not likely to be held on the scheduled date.
The move taken by political parties after the demise of the Constituent Assembly are even more dangerous from constitutional and political point of view. The opposition parties are now provoking and instigating the ceremonial president to take political action to sack the present government and form an all-party government. If ceremonial president takes political move, it will set a bad precedent in Nepali politics which may reoccur in future that will prove disastrous for Nepali democracy. Thus, the formal way to seek solution of the problem would be revival of the Constituent Assembly and resolve all the unsettled issues and promulgate the constitution. It is now high time for the political parties not to waste time in unnecessary debate of seeking solution outside the formal and constitutional forum but focus on legal and constitutional ways to give the ways out of the present unique political crisis.  


Foreign hands behind failure of Constituent Assembly

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Nepal is increasingly facing a newer and graver political crisis owing largely to inaction and incompetence and their capitulation to foreign powers. The demise of the Constituent Assembly without delivering a new constitution, which is the most unfortunate development for the Nepali people, is not solely making of our own parties. Foreign hands were seen to have been visibly involved for this political disaster. The failure of the constituent assembly is political disaster because the long desire of the Nepalese people was once again belied.
A section of Nepali intelligentsia has interpreted the demise of the constituent assembly as a positive event that, according to them, saved the country from being torn apart. But this conclusion, too, is devoid of objective analysis. In reality, failure of the constituent assembly to deliver a constitution was our historic blunder as we failed to utilize this opportunity for our larger national interest and transform Nepal into a peaceful, stable and prosperous country. With agreement among the key political forces of the country to have the constitution written by a constituent, a long desire and demand of the people had come to fruition. 
The demand for an elected constituent assembly to write the constitution had been raised first time in Nepal right after the political change in 1951. The then king Tribhuvan, right in his proclamation after the establishment of multi-party democracy in 1951, had said that ‘until the constitution written by a constituent assembly comprising elected representatives of the people came into effect,  the country would be governed under the interim constitution.’ This clearly indicates that there had been an agreement to write the constitution by the constituent assembly. However, the king and other dominant political parties of that time viewed the constituent assembly as an inimical to their class interest and scuttled this legitimate political process. A section of people especially revolutionary forces and communists had always raised the issue of constituent assembly and demanded that the constitution be written by the elected representative of the people.  It had been believed in 1951 that there would be election for constituent assembly but the king, instead, declared parliamentary election in 1959, despite demands from various sectors for the constituent assembly election. This is how the issue of constituent assembly election was wrecked. This issue again came into the fore only after 1990 political change. Even in 1990, the voice for the constituent assembly was very feeble and the major forces of that time did not think necessary to pay attention to this just demand. Moreover, the dominant political forces during 1990 political movement were against the constituent assembly and they instead opted for shortest route to make the constitution. As a result, a nine-member panel comprising the representatives of three forces—the king, the Nepali Congress and the United Left Front— drafted the 1990 constitution which was promulgated by the king. This constitution protected the interest of the three political forces but did not necessarily represent the concerns of the people.
The real voice for the constituent assembly election was raised forcefully only after the initiation of Maoist armed insurgency.  The Maoists principal goal was to establish a people’s republic in which the power would be at the hands of proletarian and working class people. In other words, Nepal will have a one-party communist system like the one Mao Zedong established in China in 1949 through a revolution. Although the Maoists fought a decade long armed insurgency to establish a communist regime in Nepal, it, for various reasons, adopted the tactical line of peace and constitution for establishing a republican democracy, for which it raised some key issues including the constituent assembly, federalism and republican set up, among others as a precondition to enter into peaceful settlement.  Parliamentary parties like the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML had earlier been opposed to these agendas and they had been insisting to seek solution to political issues and problems from the 1990 constitution. The Maoists’ insistence finally dragged parliamentary parties to these agendas based on which peace accord was brokered between Nepal’s parliamentary parties and the Maoist insurgents. Thus, the constituent assembly is the Maoist agenda which was formally institutionalized as a move to address the longstanding demand of the people.
The constituent assembly was formed through a democratic election with full representation of people belonging to various section, sector, ethnic, social, cultural and religious communities. Despite such a inclusive nature of the constituent assembly, it utterly failed to deliver the constitution. All political parties, big or small, are responsible for this failure. The demise of the Constituent Assembly is not only an utter failure of the parties but also a great waste of money, time and energy of the nation. In the demise of the constituent assembly, the role and interest of different elements and forces are responsible. Nepal’s reactionary forces were already against the process of writing the constitution by a constituent assembly. And some foreign powers, too, may, in a way or the other, have been involved in failing Nepal’s political process.  
The political parties had agreed on almost all issues concerning the constitution. The federalism issue remained unresolved as parties locked horns on the number and model of federalism. Agreement could have been reached on the number of federal provinces. But crux of problem was the federal model as some parties demanded federal model on ethnic line while others vehemently opposed it. In fact, the ethnic federalism had never been thought and imagined when the federalism was agreed and Nepal was declared as a federal democratic republic. But the demand for ethnic federalism, in course of time, came so strongly that the entire country was polarized into federalism on ethnic line and federalism on the basis of economic viability.
When time came to decide on the federal model and number of the federal provinces in the constituent assembly, janajatis (ethnic nationalities) and indigenous people demanded demarcation of provinces on ethnic line with priority right to the dominant ethnic group, which made this issue more complicated. Some political parties also strongly backed their demand. Ethnic groups, of course, have the right to raise their concerns and demand the ethnic provinces. There should not be any objection on their right to freedom of expression. All ethnic communities, nationalities and indigenous people have their own and distinct social and cultural practices, which must be preserved and developed. But the way they are raising the issue of ethnic federalism was, however, not digested by other people, which created more complication in the constitution making process.
Suspicions are that some foreign elements and forces are behind the ethnic federalism. In the demand for a one Madhes state, which is being raised by some Madhesi parties, the foreign hands are clearly visible. The Madhesi parties are the creation of our southern neighbor. This is not a mere suspicion and assumption, but this is backed by factual evidences. Even some Indian political analysts and intellectuals have acknowledged this and said that India created the Madhesi forces in order to tame Nepal’s mainstream political parties in general and the Maoist party, which had been strongly raising patriotic slogans, in particular. The Rautahat carnage, in which dozens of Maoist cadres were killed by goons from across the border, is an example how the external force manipulated in Nepal’s affairs and criminalized Nepali politics. New Delhi is now pursuing its agenda in Nepali politics and meddling in Nepal’s internal affairs through Madhesi parties more than others.
So far as ethnicity-based federalism is concerned, some Western countries have their strong role in it. Western countries instigated the hill ethnic people and blew up the ethnic issues out of proportion in the name of supporting ethnic population and promoting their traditions and culture. But their intention was not merely to support Nepali ethnic communities but to have foothold in Tibet through Nepalese ethnic groups and create trouble in Tibet.  Thus, seed of discord in the name of ethnic federalism was sown by the European countries and organizations funded by Western powers.  The federalism issue was interpreted and hijacked by external elements and some vested interest groups in the country in such a manner that it was ultimately taken as a design to tear Nepal into pieces with the conscious objective of destroying our sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity. But Nepalese people realized this only in the last minute.
Since the dispute between the two models of federalism (ethnic identity-based federalism and federal model based on economic viability) too such an ugly turn that the parties had to tacitly agree on the demise of the CA purportedly to avert the ethnic and communal tension in the country. Thus, the foreigners are, in a way, behind the failure of the constituent assembly to come up with a new constitution. Had the issue concerning the federal model not been blown up so badly and dangerously the constitution could have come well in time. In a way, the demise of the constituent assembly is a blessing in disguise but it has once again dashed people’s hope for a new constitution written by their own representatives. Whatever its model, the issue of federalism should be decided by the Nepalese people to suit in our national context. We should not be guided by foreigners while deciding our own fate and political and federal model. This alone can meet our needs and address our problems.