Ultimately, last week Nepal president Ram Baran Yadav announced the promulgation of the new constitution that has several laudable features. The first is that despite being an overwhelmingly Hindu-majority country, the constitution makers wisely decided to make their country a secular, democratic, federal republic. Blandishments from several quarters in India to make Nepal a Hindu Rashtra were rightly ignored,

Federalism was a ‘must’ for Nepal which has people speaking over a hundred different languages. Then there are differences in their ethnic identities. The people are divided on many counts – the high versus low caste, Nepali-speaking versus those speaking ‘indigenous’ languages, people of hill ethnic origin and plains ethnic origin. The high-caste people from the hills are the supremely dominant group. This is resented by the others. Reconciling so many conflicting interests was no easy job.

Violence broke out even before the constitution was adopted and continues even after its adoption. Nearly fifty people have so far been killed in group clashes or in police firing. India anticipated the consequences of forcing a constitution down the throats of the people and advised the law-makers not to hurry into passing the document. But they chose to ignore the advice. In fact, India’s advice was taken as an ‘interference’ in Nepal’s internal affairs.

Inevitably, clashes broke out. The main conflict is with the Madhesis and Tharus inhabiting the plains of Nepal known as the Terai region which is contiguous to India. They are people of Indian origin long settled in Nepal. The Madhesis constitute nearly twenty-two per cent of Nepal’s population and are a community that cannot be ignored in any constitutional or electoral exercise. Their main grievance is that the commitment the Nepal Government gave them in 2008 has been blatantly violated. They allege that the agreement had committed the Government to creating ‘fully autonomous’ federal states in the plains.

But that is exactly what has not happened. The constitution seeks to merge the Madhesi (and Tharu) areas with provinces that will include large tracts of the hills and will have a hill-majority population. The Terai people of the plains will be ‘dominated’ by the people of the hills. They strongly feel this will go against their interests. Clubbing the plains and the hills together is reneging on the solemn assurance that was given them way back in 2008, they say.

Shivaji Yadav, leader of a Madhesi party, ‘Federal Socialist Forum’, has alleged that the ‘big parties have tried to crush the minority groups’ and ‘pushed the nation into chaos.’ In his opinion, the constitution that has been rushed through will entrench the position of the ‘privileged old guard politicians’, not that of the people. He is not alone. Bhoj Raj Pokhrel, a former Election Commissioner, has said that the constitution that was rushed through has given rise to conflicts and the Government must immediately address the grievances of those who are opposing it because ‘the country’s future depended on it.’

But the Terai people apart, there are other conflicts also. The constitution that has been adopted has created seven provinces but neither their names nor their boundaries have been fixed. This task has been left to the individual provincial assemblies and a boundary commission which will be set up. Civil society in Nepal has become deeply polarized on the question whether the provinces would be ethnically delineated.

The Nepal Maoists are among those that have welcomed the new constitution. Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal, better known as Prachanda, has said that the adoption of the constitution is a ‘victory of the dreams of thousands of martyred and disappeared fighters.’ The Maoists have reasons to be happy. They had been consistently fighting for a constitution that will be both secular and federal. They have succeeded. .

But women’s bodies think the constitution discriminates against Nepali women in what is already a rigidly patriarchal society. Now it will be difficult for a ‘single mother’ to pass her citizenship on to her child. Similarly, children born of a Nepali mother and a non-Nepali father will be debarred from inheriting Nepali citizenship. These and many more problems remain to be resolved. Nepal needs an ‘inclusive’ constitution. Now that a constitution has been passed and promulgated, it will put to severe test the wisdom, the maturity, the farsightedness and the flexibility of the Nepali leadership formed by leaders of different political parties. The task will not be easy. (IPA Service)