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.