weekly interview
Related story
‘Decisive’ talks of Gen Z and Nepali Army halted after Durga Pr...
Sadbhawana Party President and one of the leaders of the 30-party opposition alliance Rajendra Mahato has been in the limelight of late for his stand on federalism. He had opposed the federal model floated by Bijay Kumar Gachchadar on January 19, on which both Nepali Congress and CPN-UML were positive.
At the moment, he is putting pressure on Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the leader of the opposition alliance, not to negotiate from a position of weakness. What then is his Mahato's idea of a federal constitution? And what kind of protests is the opposition planning? Mahabir Paudyal had caught up with Mahato at his Mid-Baneshwar party office on Tuesday.
We were and are in favor of consensus through dialogue. We held dozens of talks with ruling parties hoping that it would result in consensus. We asked for more time on January 25. But the ruling parties did not listen. The CA chair went ahead with the process despite our strong reservation, pushing us out on the street. Following our show of strength on February 28, the Prime Minister called us back. But again it resulted in nothing substantive. These talks have become ruse of ruling parties. They want to buy time and continue the status quo. We were left with no option to declaring second phase of our protests.
What do you want? You opposed the middle-way proposed by Gachchadar.
Gachchadar's proposal was a replica of NC-UML model. It proposed to put federalism on hold and move ahead with constitution. This was not acceptable because it would not address the agenda for which Madheshis, Janajatis and Maoists fought. If you put federalism on hold, you might as well do so with republicanism. This would be tantamount to reviving the constitution of 1990. This is why we rejected Gachchadar's proposal. To put federalism on hold is political dishonesty and betrayal of people's aspirations. NC and UML were never in favor of federalism. It felt like Gachchadar was reinforcing their views. NC and UML are governed by Khas mentality and view every demand for federalism as secessionist.
So there is no room for compromise now?
Not really. Some talks have been meaningful. But when it comes to settling the disputes the ruling parties back out. Let me tell you about the most recent talks early this week to settle the disputed five districts. The ruling parties insisted on their nine-point proposal of three months ago as the starting point of discussions. This made all formal and informal talks we had in between meaningless. Even today NC and UML are not in a mood to own up the agenda of change.
NC and UML together command two-third majority in CA. Isn't it the opposition which needs to be flexible?
Don't bring arithmetic into constitution writing. Even if we didn't have a single seat in the CA, constitution should have been made based on agendas of People's Movement, Madhesh Movement and various past agreements. This is because the CA is the outcome of past movements. Even Interim Constitution has recognized these agendas. Thus the question is not about our numerical strength in the CA. It is about whether we honor past agreements and Interim Constitution. We are not asking for anything new, only what NC and UML already agreed to. Whatever their strength in the CA, they cannot deviate from agenda of Madhesh Movement. NC and UML are misinterpreting election mandate. The Madheshis voted for NC and UML hoping that they would institutionalize Madheshi agendas. Even UML and NC cadres were in the Madhesh Movement. Why do they forget that?
Didn't Madheshis vote for NC and UML because they liked their federal model?
To the contrary, those Madheshis who voted for NC and UML are now ready to support us. They say NC and UML have betrayed their trust by trying to bypass Madheshis. 'Since we cannot recall them nor take back our vote, you should launch street protests, we are with you.' This is what they have been telling us. They regret voting for NC and UML in CA polls and want to correct that mistake by supporting us. Let the movement proceed. You will see what I mean.
There have been over three dozens of agreements with various groups. How is it possible to address them all?
Not all of those movements were spontaneous, nor all agreements were made in good faith. Some were sponsored. There was an agitation to counter the protest for change. When there was Madhesh Movement, Tharuhat Movement was launched to weaken it. When the Tharuhat Movement gained steam, the integrated Far-west movement was launched to counter it. Even the dispute over the five districts is artificial. Late Girija Prasad Koirala had clearly agreed to "Madhesh state". Now they talk like Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Kailali and Kanchanpur are not in Tarai Madhesh. Is it not a violation of the agreement Koirala made with us? The ruling parties argue that these five districts should not be in Madhesh state because there is domination of hill people. But Madheshis, Pahadis and Janajatis have been living in these five Madhesh districts with harmony for ages. Would it not be unfair to integrate them in hill states?
What do you propose to settle the five districts?
There cannot be more than two states in Madhesh: one state to the east of Narayani River and the other to the West. These states will include the border lands to the South and reach up to Chure and inner Madhesh. This would keep Madheshi, Janatati, Tharu and Pahadi population in balance. This would also dispel the fear of breakdown on national integrity. K P Oli seems worried about the people of these five districts. Shouldn't he also think about the hill people of other 15 Tarai districts? If he wants the five districts in hill states, does he imply that hill people of 15 districts should migrate to hills from Tarai? Oli's proposal is more divisive than ours.
Our mountains, hills and plains are interdependent. And if so, shouldn't a judicious federal model incorporate parts of all three in every federal province?
This is what KP Oli has been saying. It is being made to appear like we are demanding a separate country in Madhesh. We want separate Madhesh province, not separate Madhesh from hills and mountains. Separate states in Madhesh will not break this interdependence. Hill and Madhesh states will share resources. Look at India. Punjab is the food basket of India. But don't other states share food grains with Punjab?
Parties in opposition alliance appear divided. Apparently, Prachanda and Gachchadar are not keen on protests.
There seems to have been misreading of our proposed protests. We are not opposed to talks. We will still sit on negotiating table, but only for decisive talk. This movement is aimed at that ultimate goal. It is basically to exert pressure on ruling parties to heed us. Ruling parties want this movement to fizzle out. They talk about consensus but are not ready for it. We will come to dialogue table, but only after the movement has intensified and begins to shake the foundation of ruling parties. Ruling parties are treating us like beggars. Unless they treat us on equal terms, talks won't be meaningful. We have sacrificed a lot for federalism, identity, proportionate representation and inclusion. This is not something NC and UML have given to us out of their magnanimity. In fact, they were always opposed to these agendas. If we relent now, they will have token federalism. They will retain current five administrative regions and call them federal units. This is why we are going into the next phase of our protests.
But how will you get public support without rising issues that concern their everyday lives?
We will also raise issues like corruption, rapes, black marketing and inflation. This is where we are beginning. But we cannot push rights and identity issues to the backseat either. This battle for dignity, identity and rights should come to an end once and for all so that we can work for the country's economic development. This is why our focus is federalism and identity.
What will be the nature of your movement?
This is going to be different from all past movements. In the past, Madheshis, Maoists, Dalits, Tharus and Janajatis fought for their rights and identities separately. This time we have come together. This is happening in Nepal for the first time. All progressives have come under the umbrella of thirty-party alliance. This movement will be the final movement for identity. The movement will be peaceful but strong.
There is a fear that it could turn violent.
Rest assured there will be no confrontation. Nor will it lead to civil war, even if the ruling parties want it. Make no mistake. Those Madheshis and Janajatis who voted NC and UML won't stand against identity and federalism. Even the security personnel won't suppress the movement because they won't raise their batons against fellow Nepalis. However, there is a danger. If KP Oli reigns supreme and federal states are delineated as he wishes, it could lead to a civil war in Madhesh. If this happens, the movement for Madhesh province might turn into movement for Madhesh as a separate country. Situation will go out of our control and right into the hands of extremists like CK Raut. Is this what NC and UML want?
What is your bottom line?
The main agenda of this movement is a constitution that addresses people's aspiration for change as enshrined in past agreements and Interim Constitution. The movement won't stop even if some parties in alliance withdraw support. Until the CA comes up with such a statute, the protests will continue across the country. Let the NC-UML majority deliver the statute but it should also address our concerns. Like I said, street protest is only for exerting pressure on ruling parties to deliver progressive constitution. We won't sit for formal talks now because that will be useless. As the protests gain momentum, some mediators will hold informal talks with ruling parties on our behalf. If there is progress, we will then come forward for formal talks. We do not trust ruling parties. Fake assurances won't stop us now. We want results this time.
