Opinion Quiet,please

As the May 28 deadline approaches,many contentious issues have yet to be settled. Leaders of the four big parties have been taking decisions on these issues and getting them adopted by the constituent assembly,bypassing the process of debate and the clause-by-clause voting provision. Dissenting voices,especially of political minorities,are being increasingly marginalised in the drafting of the constitution.

But even the big players do not have it easy. A metal detector has been installed in the newly acquired mansion of Prachanda,the chief of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M). He has been warned of attacks from Maoist combatants,those who were ready to sacrifice their lives for the cause he championed until a few years ago. “He has embezzled billions of rupees from the salaries of the combatants living in cantonments and should be investigated for this,” alleges party secretary C.P. Gajurel. Prachanda’s security has been doubled,but the threat has not receded.

The insurgency ended in 2006,after the Maoists joined the peace process and the move towards democracy. However,since then,the use of violence,it seems,has also got legitimacy in Nepal’s politics. The threats that Prachanda faces from his own cadres,or those that Thapa and Chitra Bahadur face from their political opponents do not augur well for a country that eagerly awaits political stability,along with individual security and economic opportunity. There are apprehensions that the constitution,if at all it is delivered by the deadline,will be a mere formality to ward off public anger and the disappointment of external stakeholders. The big four fear that they will be held guilty of bungling a historic responsibility.

There are more complications: too many rights issues have been placed before the state. The Nepalese Federation of Indigenous Nationalities,for instance,recently observed a three-day bandh in parts of the country,demanding that the new federalism be based on ethnic identity. Prachanda even promised to fulfil their demands. Others say the indigenous people must have control over natural resources like water and forests,as was the practice in parts of the country before the unification of Nepal in 1768. But for generations,and in the last 60 years in particular,internal movement or migration has brought about massive changes in Nepal’s demography. Social customs have become liberal and inter-caste marriages are accepted. The rights-based demands ignore these facts. Lobbies have developed,cutting across party lines,and the big parties have to appease them. “We will have to choose between our ethnic interest and the party,” says Prithvi Subba,a leader representing the interests of indigenous groups.

The UCPN-M is moving with caution but trying to work things to its advantage. It can monopolise the credit if a constitution of any kind is delivered. Currently,it is trying to co-opt parties into agreeing to its agenda,using the pressure of the deadline and trying to convince them of the need to institutionalise the changes brought about by the “people’s movement of 2006”. The Maoist agenda includes a directly elected executive president sharing power with a prime minister elected by the parliament,a jumbo bicameral parliament with 385 members (Nepal’s population is 28 million),a mixed electoral system and a constitutional court. It wants other parties to agree to this,even if it goes against their declared line.

However,if the big players refuse to follow due processes and hold debates on contentious issues,Nepal’s constitution,after a patient,four-year wait by the people,may be a mere formality. Its acceptability and viability,then,may be in question from day one.

yubaraj.ghimire@expressindia.com