The end of the official time period allocated for registering requests for amendment of the draft constitution in the Constituent Assembly should not be seen as end of the road. There is still a possibility of a compromise solution emerging between the Big Three and the Madheshi and Tharuhat activists who have been protesting, non-stop, in the Tarai belt over the past one month. Yes, according to the CA calendar, if a relevant proposal has not been tabled in the CA by now, the draft constitution can't incorporate it. As per the calendar, over the next one week, the CA is to hold a clause-wise discussion on the draft. But this is the technical part. Constitution-making, at its heart, is a political process, the culmination of the journey of 'peace and constitution' that started with the signing of the 12-point New Delhi accord in 2005. The only way the country will find a safe landing is if the new constitution is based on broad consensus, which has been the bedrock of the Nepali constitutional process after 2006. So efforts to take the disgruntled forces into confidence should continue even as the CA goes about its daily business. It's never too late.The Madheshis and Tharus have accused the government of trying to suppress their peaceful protests with brute force. Some Madheshi leaders have openly started lobbying India to intervene on their behalf. We agree that the police have, in some places, used disproportionate force. There is also a question mark over the legality of the deployment of Nepali Army. Nor, in our view, have the top leaders of Nepali Congress and CPN-UML been committed to trying to take the opposition into confidence. This is a big failure. But even as the protests have gotten increasingly violent, the Madheshi leaders have also not been able to clearly articulate their demands. If they, as they say, want to revisit past agreements, they first have to be sure that they will accept the outcome of such an exercise. The famous 22-point agreement between the government and MJF (Nepal) at the end of the first Madhesh Andolan in 2007 provides for 'autonomous provinces'. But the agreement also leaves the final decision on the level of autonomy with the sovereign Constituent Assembly. Whichever way we go about it, there is no escaping the centrality of the CA in constitution-making. So more clarity on Madheshi demands and on how they could be channeled via the CA would help.
Again, it's the responsibility of NC and UML as the lead actors in the constitutional process to make an effort to engage the agitators. It has not been lost on common Madheshis and Tharus that Bijay Gachchadar's MJF (D) had to leave the ruling alliance because it believed the Big Three leaders were not serious about addressing the legitimate demands of these two communities. The absence from the constitutional process of even a single party representing the Madhesh community could badly undercut the legitimacy of the new constitution. So there must be prompt confidence-building measures to get at least MJF (D) back on board. Meaningful solutions to the prolonged constitutional crisis in Nepal will not come from the street. Eventually, both the sides will have to return to the talks table. The sooner it's done, the better for everyone.
Related story
Let’s live and let live
