The Constitutional Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee of the Constituent Assembly failed to find a consensus on the disputed issues of the constitution despite repeated extensions of its deadline. The chair of the Dialogue Committee Baburam Bhattarai tried to find a consensus but his attempts were like carrying water in a sieve because the opposition formed a separate alliance due to a common proposal by Congress and UML, which instead of facilitating constitution-drafting created further difficulties. In spite of several discussions among the main three parties Congress, UML, and UCPN (M), their outcome was almost nothing. Also, while the discussions were going on, the United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) was revived again.

Common Proposal from Congress and UML, the Opposition Object

The Dialogue Committee was given by the Constituent Assembly until November 1 to find a consensus. The Constituent Assembly had directed the Committee to submit its report with questionnaire the next day if there was no consensus within the deadline. The Committee could not find a consensus despite the last deadline by the Constituent Assembly. The Dialogue Committee gave continuity to its meeting on November 2. In the meeting, chairperson Bhattarai stated that since state restructuring, distribution of state power, form of government, and election systems were the main issues of the state and any constitution, there should be agreement one these among the past protesting power groups.
‘If the main power groups do not move forward together in these issues, there will be no peace, stability once disputes and debates starts’,1 said Bhattarai. In the meeting of the Dialogue Committee the next day on November 3, Congress, UML, Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Bahujan Shakti Party, and two independent Constituent Assembly members submitted their views on the issues of the constitution. The suggestions included an executive prime minister from the largest party, ceremonial president elected by an electoral college consisting of members from federal and state parliaments, direct elections to the House of Representatives and complete proportional representation in the National Assembly, the Supreme Court as a court of record with the authority for final interpretation of the constitution.2 Dialogue Committee chairperson Bhattarai was not happy with this proposal and stated that he would try to block as it would raise suspicions and distance among the parties.

UCPN (M) and other parties opposed the common proposal. There was opposition also within the ruling coalition. In the meeting of UML parliamentary party, Constituent Assembly members criticized that the party had forwarded the proposal without discussing the disputed issues of the constitution in the party.4 The Indigenous Nationalities National Movement Nepal also opposed the proposal. There was opposition within Congress as well. 22 Constituent Assembly members from Congress representing Tarai-Madhes met Congress president and Prime Minister Sushil Koirala and opposed the proposal and demanded federal restructuring based on population. They demanded three states from Mechi in the east to Mahakali in the west if there were to be an agreement for seven states and four states in Tarai if there were agreement for eight states.

Then the meeting of thought management committee of UCPN (M) decided to expose the ruling coalition from the parliament, streets, and the Dialogue Committee. The meeting of 20 opposition parties including UCPN (M) on November 19 concluded the proposal had disrupted the situation for a consensus. The press release by the 20 party opposition states, ‘It is our conclusion that when the constitution-drafting process is moving ahead as per the preamble of the Interim Constitution to institutionalize the gains from the past revolutions and movements, the proposal is against the spirit of the constitution and past agreements and by forcibly trying to make it the agenda of Constitutional Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee also ignores the Constituent Assembly Regulations, which will disrupt the environment for consensus’.

In the next meeting of 22-party opposition alliance, the leaders stated that the constitution will not be drafted on time because of the common proposal. The chairperson of the Dialogue Committee Bhattarai stated that he is unable to end the roadblock in the Dialogue Committee without agreement among the parties and he will submit its report only after such an agreement.’7 In the meantime, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum president Upendra Yadav made public his proposal on main issues of the constitution including models of Limbuwan, Kirant, Tamsaling, Magarat, New, Narayani Tamuwan, Tarai/Madhes, and Karnali Khasan states.