What is it that the People's Movement followed by Madhesh Movement and movement of the marginalized sections achieved through all the sacrifices people made? Nothing, it appears! History shows that hill elites have always successfully sabotaged demands of Madheshis and other marginalized sections and ruthlessly crushed their expectations. History has repeated itself again in the form of Draft Constitution 2015. The much awaited constitution incorporates highly discriminatory provisions and major impacts are to be borne by the Madheshis and those at the margins.This constitution fundamentally does not appear to be anything more than an effort to re-institutionalize the same old autocratic order. It contains multiple provisions that impinge upon the interest of the marginalized. Take Article 7 (Clause 1 and 2). Although Clause 2 allows regional language to be used as official language in the federal states, Clause 1 defeats the purpose entirely as it makes Nepali official language at the central level which makes it compulsory to learn Nepali otherwise the population will have no access to the center. This clause successfully establishes the one-language policy and symbolic denial of linguistic diversity. This provision can simply be sorted by adding and/or English to the provision but the total lack of interest in incorporating diversity is well reflected in this provision.
Second atrocious provision is the delineation of provinces that perhaps seek only to ensure the interest of the top leaders to create an immortal order of hegemony. The systematic merging of the Pahadi districts with the Madheshi districts is again another attempt of the endorsement of the idea of hill-dominated nation (State number 2, notwithstanding). The focus here should be on developing rather well connected federal provinces that ensure flow of goods and services rather than creating merged provinces when the focal demand of Madhesh is clearly the establishment of distinct identity and acquiring greater autonomy in decision-making.
The greater concern requiring astute understanding here is establishing the identity of Nepal beyond the quintessential image of a country that only comprises hills and Nepali speaking people. That is exactly where the demand establishing Madheshi identity started and federalism became the means to achieve it. Therefore, unless this concern is addressed, it will be a risk more than a challenge for the Nepali state to move forward with the constitutional process.
Third and most importantly, the citizenship provision echoes the same 1964 and 1990 Citizenship Act sentiments that were systematically drafted to keep the Madheshis out of state mechanism. Now this has transcended a level to also impinge upon the interest of Nepali women in general. Further, these factors are interwoven with civil services so wittily that Madheshis will never get a breakthrough into civil services.
It is clear that socio-cultural factors like cross-border marriages are prevalent in the plains. Most Madheshis marry across the border and this is true in case of both men and women. Further, due to customary practices like Gauna most of the children are also born across the border. In such situation provisions as enumerated in Article 13 (3) in addition to already skewed Article 12 is a lethal arrangement against Madheshis and also their future generations. The irrational arguments like "it is not meant that way" vis-à-vis this provision that appears every now and then in the national media is in no way justifiable unless it is amended within the constitution in practice.
Further, restrictions on civil services following the citizenship provision will deprive a significant number of Madheshi women and potential candidates out of opportunities in the government services. Such provisions on one hand are redundant as long as the provision of denouncing the prior citizenship is retained, while on the other, in a country that is already in shortage of capable human resource is unfortunate for the nation more than that for Madheshis or women in particular.
It is the fundamental duty of the state to keep in mind the unique socio-cultural as well as the geo-political context before drafting the constitution. It is the duty of the drafters to keep in mind the unique construct of the state and hence incorporate all citizens as equals. It is the uniqueness of the state which when addressed mindfully paves way for better thriving for the state. However, with a constitution like the current one, Nepal not only appears like a country that recognizes no diversity but also needs no citizens.
In the process of the corrupt leaders' vigorous pursuit of self-interest, it is not being realized that majority of the population does not fit into this limited definition of the state. Moreover, a state cannot progress by rendering a significant population stateless. This poverty of vision and systematic oppression are rather acting as the official creator of extremism in Nepal.
Democracy, federalism, and secularism were a common dream of the entire country. However, Nepali state in the name of hollow nationalism guided by shallow vision is now recognizing itself as the most regressive state. The very structures conceived for promoting democracy and providing liberation from the traditional constraints are corroded. Jargons of security, stability and unity are being used to configure and perpetuate new hegemonies clearly targeted against Madheshis and other marginalized sections.
Even if the state has fallen prey to the interests of actors that have no commitment to the people, growing consciousness among the Madheshi population as well as other marginalized sections cannot be overlooked. If the diversity is not addressed, Nepal will head towards a darker future with polarization and extremism.
The author holds a Master's Degree in Social Work from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
kalpana.jha57@gmail.com
Related story
Desperate search for missing girls as nearly 80 dead in Texas f...
