You now say the CA itself should settle delineation of federal provinces.I have been saying from the very beginning that all contentious issues should be resolved by political parties based on consensus. I stand by this even today. One point in the historic 16-point deal has a provision for delineation of provinces by transformed legislature parliament, on recommendation of a Federal Commission. This laid the ground for draft constitution. Meanwhile, the draft has been sent to the people for their opinions and feedback. It will take a fortnight to complete this process. This time can be used to resolve issues regarding province delineation.
Once we have collected people's feedback, it will present us three good opportunities. One, Constitutional Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee can recommend modifications to the draft based on people's feedback. Two, the Drafting Committee can modify it based on CPDCC's recommendation and the amended draft can be tabled in the CA. And three, the lawmakers can propose further modification of the draft forwarded by Drafting Committee. Right through these three stages, the parties can try to resolve delineation through CA. If they are successful, it will be the best thing we can hope for. We can keep working on this until the last minute. This is what I mean when I say the CA itself should resolve delineation.
What if there is no progress even until the last minute? How will CA proceed?
In that case, the provision of 16-point deal and the one in draft constitution will prevail. With the draft constitution in hand we have solid basis for promulgation of new constitution. The more we can modify the draft based on people's feedback, the more we will be able to accommodate their views, and more we will be able to take more forces into confidence. This is why we need to work to resolve contentious issues before having the final draft. Since the political parties have long been saying that they can resolve all disputes within two days, there is no reason to doubt they cannot resolve this issue within short time. So why should they not try until the last minute? I believe people will give their feedback on this as well. Their feedback will make it easier for parties to start deliberations.
You have also been saying constitution should not be halted even for a single minute. This sounds contradictory.
Yes, it should not at the cost of delaying constitution process. I was thinking maybe we could promulgate constitution by July-end. But given the time for people's feedback, discussions among political parties and deliberations in the CA, I have reached the conclusion that it can be done by mid-August. We should aim to make it happen by then. While discussions are underway to resolve contentions, no one should think of delaying constitution. I urge political parties to set mid-August as the deadline for constitution.
It is said delineation dispute has been guided by foreign pressure.
I don't think so. I had talked about province delineation with the PM, Prachanda, UML chairman and other leaders. Everyone wanted to resolve it before the statute's promulgation. But this did not happen. There was a demand for resolving delineation even before 16-point deal.
The proposed India visit of top leaders has raised many speculations.
I have been reading about leaders' India visit in newspapers. But I still do not believe they will go because this is the time for them to go to the people, to tell them what they have accomplished so far and take their opinion on how they should proceed. It's time for leaders to be involved in this vital process. We have started a national campaign of collecting people's feedback. I call it a national campaign, because, barring exceptions, all parties represented in the CA are in it. The program of feedback was devised by the parties in the CA. Every CA member from every party is supposed to participate in this.
You could have issued a ruling to prohibit them from going on foreign visits, couldn't you?
Let me inform you. The CA issued a ruling that CA members are to go to the people between July 9 and July 23 to collect feedback. CA's Civic Relation and Constitution Suggestion Committee endorsed this program with the initiative and support of all those who are now said to be going to India. This is the reason I say I do not believe they are going anywhere.
You once summoned representatives of international community and asked them not to encourage CA members to go on foreign visits.
Yes, I had. Some violated this ruling. But good thing is that there is significant reduction in CA members' foreign visits. Some of the international community members have been very supportive in this regard. Some have refrained from extending invitation citing my request not to do so. This is why it was hard for me to believe they are going elsewhere at this critical time. I recently crosschecked the name-list of CA members and found all of them were going to the public for feedback. Besides, not a single leader has informed me about their foreign trip. Like I said, they should be here among the people. Even if they have to go, the CA regulations make it mandatory for them to inform me. Not a single leader has done so.
Do you foresee the possibility of constitution making taking a different turn after top leaders' return from Delhi?
Constituent Assembly works in accordance with the constitution, CA regulations and established practices. It charts its own course. CA's course is not directed by anyone else, nor will it ever be.
It is said provisions on citizenship and press freedom are even more regressive than in Interim Constitution.
The draft constitution unveiled by the CA is good in many respects. But questions have been raised about terminologies, phraseologies, style of presentation and even nitty-gritty of some provisions from certain sections of the society, from press to women organizations to janajatis and Madheshi communities. I take it positively. This indicates that there is broader participation of people in the constitution process. Some have submitted memorandum to my office as well. I have forwarded them all to Drafting Committee.
As the draft constitution was being unveiled, I had told in the CA that this is only a preliminary draft, not a final one and that it could be modified through different processes. Then modified bill shall be presented in the CA. Thus in a way the CA itself agrees that this is not a final draft. As for dispute over citizenship, perhaps we have failed to explain issues properly. This is our weakness. Things will be clear as we discuss more. Yet I also believe some concerns being raised are genuine and need to be addressed. Our attention has been drawn to them. We have taken them seriously.
CA has been criticized for suspending vital provisions in the name of 'fast-track'.
Let me tell you, terms like 'fast track' and 'superfast track' are not CA's words. CA does not recognize them. These are the terms the political leaders used to impress people that they are working on war-footing. People should understand it accordingly. The CA has not and will not disregard fundamental norms and procedures. It will abide by them. Yes, we suspended one regulation. Instead of providing CA members seven days to study the draft we allowed them only three days because every CA member is informed and aware about the process. This could not have caused serious problems. It had also been suggested that draft constitution need not be taken to the people for feedback and that their opinion can be taken through electronic media. CA did not entertain this call because it is aware that people's feedback is related with ownership by broader section of the society. The draft constitution has reached people across the country now.
Provided that leaders agree to resolve delineation before constitution promulgation, won't it affect CA's course?
Constitution making must have a logical end within a certain period. The CA has not set deadline for constitution. But I have been telling leaders of various parties that constitution can be and should be promulgated by mid-August and there is enough time for consensus on disputed issues. If we can do so we will be able to include broad section into the process. But constitution process must not be stopped if disputes are not resolved. The constitution will enshrine a provision and offer a way out of unresolved issues. If we have no constitution, there will be total void. Therefore there is no option to promulgating the constitution by institutionalizing achievements made so far through the new constitution and lay a foundation to institutionalize remaining issues. This is my appeal to all.
You said to the media 'if we fail to have a constitution now we will be back to the situation of May, 2012.' Will you elaborate?
You need to understand the situation of May, 2012, first. Referring to the agreement reached then I had told the leaders that the constitution that was being promulgated back then would be in favor of Madheshis, women, Janajatis, dalit and marginalized communities and it would be a historic achievement for Nepal. Not having a constitution, I had warned then, could lead to dissolution of the CA. They paid no heed. Some of them responded by saying that they needed a constitution that addressed every demand. The CA got dissolved, and the rest is history.
Today some still refuse to get anywhere close to May, 2012 agreement, while those who rejected a deal back then fear they could never reach back to that point again. This is how things change. This is the reason I reminded the leaders to be mindful of May, 2012 situation. If we only keep raising hurdles, we could reach a point whereby we cannot have a constitution from the CA. This is what worries me the most.
Related story
Making a great first impression at an interview
