UML feels ultra-nationalist sentiments will benefit it

For four years senior Nepali Congress leader Minendra Rijal served as a member of the Special Committee which successfully integrated Maoist combatants into Nepal Army.

His amendment proposal on constituency delineation was passed by two-third votes in the Parliament on Saturday, in what is being seen as a major breakthrough in the standoff with Madheshi parties. Does the proposal address the major issues of Madheshi parties? Mahabir Paudyal and Ashok Dahal had caught up with him on Wednesday afternoon.

On what basis did you propose amendments of the new constitution?

I brought this proposal keeping in mind that we are already a federal state. If you look at international examples, there is no example of a country that has made population the sole basis for constituency delineation. In the US, the smallest constituency has little less than 500,000 people and the largest one has over 900,000. In India, the smallest constituency has less than 65,000 people, and the largest one more than 2.7 million. There is a huge gap between the smallest and the largest constituencies in India and the US because they have also taken geography into account. In our own case, it was obvious that geography had to be factored in because ecologically we are a diverse country.

There are sparsely populated districts in Karnali and mountainous regions, and there are densely populated districts. First I looked at the least populated districts like Dolpa, Humla, Mugu, Manang, Mustang and Rasuwa. One of these has the population of less than 56,000. But geographically these district together comprise almost 17 percent of our landmass, which is almost as large as whole of Tarai-Madhesh. So I searched for a formula to compensate these six districts. I looked at international experience as well. This led me to take both population and geography into account. Some friends asked 'How can geography be as important as population?'

Well, it cannot be. Geography is much less important than population. But geography matters because people make their livelihoods on land. Nepal's prosperity hinges on its water resources, tourism, agriculture and herbs. Natural calamities such as flashfloods and soil erosions are seen in all three ecological regions. So I had to factor in geography, population, economic prosperity and environment.

What was that formula? Will you elaborate on it?

I looked into importance of population and geography. If we made population the only basis for constituency delimitation, Tarai would get 83 constituencies. But if we gave equal weight to population and geography, there would be only 61 constituencies in Madhesh. That would not be fair on Madhesh. A compromise had to be found, one which gave more importance to population rather than geography. I realized that if I gave population 8-12 times more importance than geography, I could come up with a number that is reasonably good in terms of outcomes. The outcome is that we have 80 constituencies in Madhesh; one each for six very sparsely populated districts of mountains; and 79 constituencies in remaining hill and mountain districts.

Madheshi parties say your proposal does not do justice to Madheshi population.

Even if you buy their argument, having 80 instead of 83 constituencies does not make much difference. We also need to keep economic prosperity and survival issues in mind. Survival of the plains is dependent on how we manage our mountains and hills, just as survival of the mountains and hills is dependent on how we manage Tarai plains. Koshi River is said to be sorrow of Bihar. Why? Because of ecology of the mountains and hills. There is an imperative to manage our hills and mountains reasonably well so that all three regions of the country benefit from resources we have. Mahantha Thakur has often been quoted as saying to Nepali press that he is willing to compensate in case of remote and sparsely populated districts. My proposal takes him there.

What would happen if population was made the sole basis for constituency delimitation?

Those six districts I mentioned which comprise 17 percent of country's landmass would have no representatives at all.

If so, why do you think Madheshi forces are opposed to a compromise formula?

I get the impression that somehow we (government as well as the opposition party) failed to take the Madheshi parties into confidence and to seriously engage them. If we had, they would probably have accepted this amendment bill. Besides, revision of province demarcation is their major demand. The taskforce with representation from both the sides was close to a deal to settle boundary issue within three months. The thinking was that three months down the road, we would be thinking with cool minds. But the deal could not be reached. Madheshi forces should come to a negotiated settlement on delineation, citizenship and province boundary that is comfortable not just to Nepali Congress but also to UML and its allies in government because we need two-third votes for amendment, which would be impossible without Congress and UML support. Madheshi parties should be mindful of this.

Does it appear to you that the Madheshi Morcha wants Congress and UML to settle all outstanding issues by themselves but to Morcha's satisfaction?

You are right there. But let me also tell you our (Nepali Congress') take on Madhesh is different from UML and its allies in the government. This is one of the reasons we parted ways with UML after constitution promulgation. UML feels that it is beneficial for them to whip ultra-nationalist sentiments. I don't know which constituencies they cater to. UML somehow would like to portray Madhesh-based parties as anti-patriotic. They are publicly questioning their patriotism. Congress cannot do that. Madheshis are no less patriotic than me or any other person from hills and mountains. Congress has its support base both in hills and mountains and Madhesh.

Of 106 constituencies we won, 52 are from Madhesh. We cannot ignore what 52 members of our party have to say about their constituencies just as we cannot ignore what our representatives from hills and mountains have to say. Likewise, we cannot ignore sentiments of 1.5 million people from hills and mountains who voted for us in the last CA elections and 1.2 million voters from the plains. That's the reason we must find a middle ground between the ultra-nationalist camp and irresponsible posturing of Madhesh based parties.

But Madheshi parties have been responsible for bringing the whole country to a standstill for past four months.

But that still should not be the reason to question their patriotism. That takes us nowhere but only encourages separatist and secessionist elements. By stoking ultra-nationalist sentiments, UML and its allies seem to be trying to find scapegoats. During the early days of Cold War in the 1950s, members of the US Senate would question patriotism of other Senate members and parliamentarians. Senator Joseph McCarthy used to portray everyone who disagreed with him as anti-nationalist, communist and even raised question about their democratic and patriotic credentials. He was wrong. We cannot afford to make a similar mistake. We have to first accept that each one of us is nationalist and patriotic, and discuss ways to resolve issues with open minds.

Even so, wasn't it wrong of Madheshi parties to deprive people of essential goods and medicines?

If we solved our problems at home our neighbors would have no pretext to tell us what to do and what not to do. Again we should understand that we cannot solve our domestic problems by cursing our neighbors. If we conduct our diplomacy well, it gives us sufficient ground to argue with Indian leadership that if they do not keep their eyes open, do not look beyond the plains, do not look beyond Madheshi ethnic groups, they are not helping the cordial Nepal and India relations. We have to be wise in our diplomacy and foreign relations. As a nation we have done that in the last 250 years of our existence. That's the reason we stand as an independent and sovereign nation today. We remain independent because of the wisdom shown by our ancestors starting with Prithvi Narayan Shah. It would be unwise not to learn from them.

Ruling parties argue that our sovereignty and independence are under threat.

I understand the sentiments of the general people. But like I said, cursing neighbors does not save our sovereignty and independence. Showing wisdom in conduct of diplomacy and foreign affairs will.

But your own party has been accused of being an irresponsible opposition and failing to resolve the Madhesh issue.

We are pretty satisfied with our role in addressing Madhesh concerns. As for the concern that we have not raised the issue of daily difficulties facing people due to current crisis, we have. But parliament has not been functioning well because of continued obstruction by Madhesh-based parties. There is small window where opposition can raise its voice. We are mindful that the country is in a difficult situation. If we ruthlessly criticize the government in these difficult times that would be irresponsible.

Finally, there seems to be three contenders for Nepali Congress president. Whom do you support and why?

There is a growing sentiment in the party that time has come for someone other than three leaders to take up Congress leadership. I recognize that sentiment. But this is unlikely to happen this time. This will probably be the last convention in which this generation of leaders will contest. There will probably be contest between two of the three leaders in the scene. It could be between Sushil Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba or between Deuba and someone Koirala supports. I will go for Koirala. I was part of Deuba camp in the last convention. After Koirala became party president, he entrusted me with responsible positions and made me the minister even though I had not voted for him in the last convention. He gave me ample space within the party and the government.

There are those who say Koirala's tenure was a failure. As we inch closer to convention, you will hear more of such criticism. But let's be fair to Koirala. When he became party president, Congress was not the largest party. It was under his leadership that Congress emerged as the largest political force. And it was under his leadership that we fulfilled our commitment to Nepali people made 66 years ago that a constitution would be drafted by their chosen representatives. Under Koirala's leadership Nepal signed a remarkable power trade agreement with India. We galvanized enormous support for earthquake victims and organized donor's convention and brought home pledge of US$ 4 billion for reconstruction. You can criticize Koirala. It's a democracy. But give him the credit he deserves.