These are extremely sensitive times in Nepal. Any argument against the unrest in Tarai entails the danger of being (mis) understood as anti-Madheshi ramblings targeted at victims of state neglect. More so if the commentator is a hill Brahmin/Chhetri. Progressive discourse lumps you into a privileged elite class—whatsoever your history of struggle.However, Madheshi leaders' insistence on implementing "past agreements" and ruling parties' stand on going ahead with constitution process, come hell or high water, merits an analysis on nature, circumstances and applicability of those agreements and whether they can facilitate the resolution of Madhesh crisis.
It's common in Nepali politics to victimize police constables (most of them hill poor) to push agitation. Agitators provoke security personnel so that some of the agitators get killed and the movement gets momentum. Parties have done so on a number of occasions in the past. Madheshi leaders also restored to this tactic to foment agitation.
They accuse ruling parties of breaching all past agreements and Interim Constitution. But on close scrutiny, it seems revisiting those agreements is likely to create more problems than they can help solve.
Since 2007, successive governments have signed about 40 agreements with various agitating groups, most of them contradictory.
The government signed a 22-point agreement with Madheshi People's Right Forum Nepal on August 30, 2007. It aims to "create an environment enabling all Nepalese people, inclusive of Madheshis, to join the single national mainstream and federal structure" and promises to "immediately establish a commission of experts for state restructuring and ensure that its constitution is inclusive." "While restructuring the state," says the agreement, "provision shall be made for a federal governance system with autonomous provinces/states, while keeping the sovereignty, national unity and integrity of Nepal intact." But it clearly states that the "rights of the autonomy will be as determined by the Constituent Assembly."
On February 28, 2008, then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala signed yet another deal with United Democratic Madheshi Front which reiterates that "Nepal shall become a federal democratic republic by accepting people's aspiration of a federal structure with autonomous regions, including the Madheshi people's aspiration for an autonomous Madhesh state." It also says "the structure, full details of the lists of Center and the states and the division of power between them shall be determined by the Constituent Assembly, by keeping Nepal's sovereignty and integrity intact."
Article 138 of Interim Constitution upholds those commitments in a way. "Accepting the aspirations of indigenous ethnic groups and the people of the backward and other regions, and people of Madhesh, for autonomous provinces," says the Article, "Nepal shall be a Federal Democratic Republic." But it also accords power to decide federal structure to the CA. "The Constituent Assembly shall determine the number, boundary, names and structures of the autonomous provinces and the distribution of powers and resources, while maintaining the sovereignty, unity and integrity of Nepal... The final decision relating to the structure of state and federal system shall be made by Constituent Assembly."
Similar agreements have been made with Tamangs, Tharus, Limbus, campaigners of undivided Far-west and Brahmin/Chhetri and Dashnami community, each contradicting the provision of the other.
None of the agreements, nor Article 138, says anything about number, boundaries and names of the federal provinces. They accept CA's supremacy and accord it power to settle federalism issue and put sovereignty, national unity and territorial integrity above all else. All that the agreements say is that provinces shall be autonomous, which is no statement because every province in federal system is autonomous by nature. Agreements are silent about which districts should be incorporated into which provinces—the major bone of contention among the parties.
Invoking one agreement will drag other into a mess. For example, you cannot address Limbus' demand for Limbuwan (with Jhapa, Morang and Sunsari) and Madheshis' call for incorporating them into Madhesh province at the same time. Nor can you agree to Tharuhat province without violating agreement made with undivided Far-west advocates. Implement one agreement and it will open a can of worms.
"Political agreements are not binding in constitution making," notes constitutional expert, Bipin Adhikari. "Save for the process, even CA is not obliged to follow Interim Constitution, let alone past agreements. It can chart its course according to its mandate."
On hindsight, all these agreements were meant to diffuse one after another violent protest escalating across the country in the name of identity. To escape the trap the government of the day would form talks team and had the agitating parties sign agreements to maintain peace, at least for time being. The biggest challenge in 2007 was to conduct Constituent Assembly election (already twice postponed) in 2008. It had become a competence issue for late Girija Prasad Koirala. He had signed the deal with Madheshi forces for the same purpose. He is said to have expressed ignorance about federalism even after he had agreed to it.
Many things have changed since 2007. State Restructuring Commission forwarded two contradictory federal models to the CA. Federalism dispute reached new height and the CA got dissolved. By this time, Maoist-Madheshi coalition had earned such notoriety that people elected Nepali Congress and CPN-UML with overwhelming majority in CA II polls of 2013. Madheshis suffered serious setback because they had become so discredited (save for Lal Babu Pandit, no Madheshi leader has been able to leave a mark while in power). CA II changed the power balance. The winners today do not feel obliged to abide by agreements of the past.
But Madheshi leaders do not see it that way. "The second CA has owned up agreements of first CA, so how can it reverse the agreements of first CA? Besides, State Restructuring Commission of CA I has recommended 11-province. We won't relent unless Congress and UML agree to make it a baseline for province demarcation," Sadbhavana Party co-chairman Laxman Lal Karna told this scribe over telephone from Birgunj Monday morning.
There seems to be no meeting point between ruling parties and Madheshi forces yet. Madheshi leaders say of NC/UML: You are treating us like second class citizens. You are trying to deprive us of our rights. NC/UML say of Madheshi forces: When you were in power, you led the CA to dissolution without drafting constitution. History has accorded us the responsibility to draft national charter now. Let us do it our way.
Politics is hardly a fair game. Madheshi leaders are aware that unless they do something to show to the Madheshi people now, they are done for. So they are likely to go to any extent to vilify hill leaders, chasing away hill settlers from Tarai plains, imposing blockade on the highways to deprive Kathmandu of food and gas and projecting hill dwellers as source of all evils.
NC and UML are no fools. They know that if they fail on constitution it could put their own relevance under question. This fear is genuine. They have seen for themselves how Madheshi-Maoist era of misrule and failure on constitution caused their great fall in CA II polls. With near two-thirds majority in the CA, NC and UML (with support from Maoist and other fringe parties) look determined to go ahead with constitution. But dangers remain.
Until Monday morning Laxman Lal Karna was saying, "Agitation is under our control so far. But once it goes out of our hands, we cannot say what will happen." Monday afternoon he was seen with a group other leaders addressing a gathering across the border calling on India to help them intensify agitation.
Where will it end? Who will be able to douse fires in Madhesh? Political analyst Mumaram Khanal responded in loud voice what is often whispered in Kathmandu. "India."
mahabirpaudyal@gmail.com
Related story
EC to conduct door-to-door voter education for Nov 20 polls
