Archives

A Need of Identity and Recognization

Leave a reply

Nepal saw an important political change in 1990. The Panchayat rule came to an end, and multiparty polity was reinstated. As a result, parliamentary system, constitutional monarchy, human rights, independent judiciary, and press freedom for the first time in the history of this nation became constitutionally guaranteed features. However, the system was blamed for not being able to bring about social and economic changes demanded by the time. Above all, the state remained indifferent to inclusive politics, especially to the rights of the minority, marginalised and isolated communities. This led to voices of dissatisfaction.

The Maoists, now the United Communist Party of Nepal (UCPN-Maoists), capitalising on voices of dissatisfaction, launched an armed people’s war in 1996. In the name of inclusiveness, the Maoists drew strong support from the Dalits, indigenous people and citizens who had felt isolated and marginalised by the state machinery. The Maoists and seven parliamentary parties signed a 12-point peace accord and launched a collective movement in 2006 against the monarchy. This was the first-ever movement that brought the issues of inclusiveness and restructuring of state to the fore. The other movements that followed it were the Madhesh Movement and other movements led by Tharus and Janajatis. Such movements have strongly rooted the agenda of inclusion in national and local politics. This was one of the reasons why the CA formed the Committee on Protection of the Rights of Minorities and Marginalised Communities to ensure that the new constitution addresses the rights of every community in order to make people realise changes.

The Committee made a study on the rights of minority, marginalised and excluded communities, and submitted its report to the CA on 20 April 2009.

Definition Sought
What are the premises to define a particular community as marginalised, minority and backward? This was the first challenge that the Committee on Protection of the Rights of Minorities and Marginalised Communities faced. Moreover, the Committee realised that defining such communities is a must to ensure their rights in the new constitution.

The Committee took seven months to prepare a preliminary draft report. During this period, it conducted lots of discussions, consultations, studies and researches. It passed several issues unanimously. The Committee report proposes to define minority community on the basis of caste, religion, and language. It states, “Minority community refers to the community that has remained oppressed and discriminated by the state. This term also refers to minor religious, linguistic and caste communities, particularly those which have remained oppressed and discriminated”. Its draft further defines marginalised communities as “the ones which have remained backward economically, socially, educationally, linguistically, regionally, politically, in terms of access to health, and also in terms of caste, religion, gender and sex. The term also refers to extremely marginalised as well as communities likely to face extinction”. Likewise, the draft of the Committee says that the excluded community should refer to the one that has suffered physically as well as mentally because of “caste discrimination”, “untouchability”, “linguistic, economic, social, cultural, regional, gender or sexual discriminations, and oppressions”.

Identification Criteria
The Committee has proposed that any religious and linguistic community or caste and religion of small population going through all sorts of discriminations and oppressions in societies should be defined as a minority community. Similarly, the report states that any community that has remained backward politically, socially, economically, linguistically, regionally, in terms of access to health, caste, religion, gender and sex should be defined as marginalised community.

The Committee report states that any community that has remained unable to participate in state politics because of caste “discrimination” and “untouchability” and “linguistic, economic, social, cultural, gender, and regional discriminations and oppressions” should be defined as a backward, isolated and excluded one.

Provisions for Protection
The Committee has proposed different constitutional safeguards in order to protect the rights of minority, marginalised, and backward communities. Individuals from minority communities, the Committee proposes, should have guarantees of their rights against all form of discriminations and untouchability. They should have the rights to live with one’s fundamental identity. They should have the rights to preserve and promote their religion, culture, language and script. Also, they should have the rights to use, protect, and promote their tradition, art, knowledge and skill. They should also have rights to form and run organisations and establish relation with other communities in a peaceful and free manner. They should have the rights to exercise their rights individually and collectively.

The Committee has proposed that individuals from marginalised and isolated communities should have their rights ensured in the new constitution. The state must ensure such individuals equal rights and respects that they hold in the nation. The Committee strongly recommends the state to nullify laws, policies, plans, programmes, decisions and practices that treat marginalised community differently from other communities. The Committee also recommends that the new constitution must bring provisions to punish culprits who discriminate people on the basis of caste, religion and sex, etc. Further, it states that the new constitution should regard caste and religious discrimination as serious crimes against humanity. There should be special provisions to enable people from marginalised and isolated communities to participate in economic, social, religious, cultural, political, administrative, and educational and all forms of public life. The new constitution must ensure them that they hold the rights to participate in creative and constructive work in national, regional and local levels and in all aspects of life of their concern. It should also ensure them that they have the rights to stand against all of kinds of discrimination. Provided that such rights constituently guaranteed, the rights of such communities remain protected, the Committee believes.

Methods for Inclusion in the State
In order to assure the values of human dignity, people belonging to all forms of castes and communities must be given equal opportunities and rights. Untouchability- and caste-based discriminations are the worst affronts to human dignity. Thus, they must be eliminated. There should be special provision to protect communities that are facing extinction. Similarly, the new constitution should have provisions to guarantee caste inclusions in state machineries. It must direct the state to provide equal concerns and investment to protect the languages of minorities. Moreover, the constitution must have special provisions to protect languages facing extinction.

The new constitution must also guarantee equal treatments to all religions to end religious discrimination. It should guarantee gender equality so that people of all gender and sex get equal rights and opportunities. It should also guarantee equal access to natural and economic resources for all. There should be equal distribution of resources to people belonging to each and every community.

The new constitution should also guarantee social inclusion, equal treatment to every citizen, end of discrimination and social ostracism. It should guarantee political inclusion, equal access and proportional representation of all caste, tribes, religion, language, colour, gender, third sex, disability, class and region in national politics and political systems. The new constitution should have provisions that guarantee equal rights to people belonging to each and every region as part of ending regional discriminations and constructing federal and decentralised system of government. It should guarantee equal distribution of resources, balanced development, and utilisation of local labour, skill, knowledge and ability as part of ensuring regional inclusion.

Limitations to Rights
The Committee states that no right or liberty can be absolute in itself but limited and relative. Therefore, to curtail absolute and unlimited rights or freedom, the state must have some specific laws and regulations to maintain peace and order in the country. Keeping this in view, the Committee recommends that the new constitution must have some provisions to foil individual and communal activities that harm or disturb nation’s sovereignty, national integrity, and harmony among people belonging to different castes, religions, language, and communities. The new constitution should also curb actions that condemn the court, libel and verbal assault, and any moves that might disturb public peace.

The Committee including its sub-committees had organised altogether 48 meetings. It spent 352 hours on discussion over the issues. The full meeting of the Committee took place for 22 times.

In its first meeting on 16 December 2008, the Committee fixed a timetable and terms of references. First, it had held consultations with experts on concerned fields. Only then had the Committee begun to take suggestions from political parties and other individuals concerned. To make it effective, the Committee had formed a timetable and subcommittees to carry out field study, develop and draft concept paper and to come up with suggestions and recommendations that they could offer to the CA.

Conclusion
The Committee has defined minority, marginalised, backward and isolated communities. It has also proposed some measures to be taken to protect their rights. It has strongly argued for provisions that guarantee inclusions in politics, development, bureaucracy and education among others. The new constitution should also have some provisions to curtail absolute rights of people of belonging to any community in order to maintain peace and harmony.

Finally, there was no serious dispute among parties while preparing the draft. This shows that parties are committed to granting rights to marginalised, minority, and isolated communities.

Fundamental Duties for the First Time

Leave a reply

Though discussions continued for 15 months on fundamental rights and directive principles, the parties could not strike consensus on many issues. The parties had disagreements over issues regarding political parties, land reform, autonomy with right to self-determination, prior-rights over land and natural resources, retrospective law, name of the House, citizenship, military training, capital punishment, education and role of youths and others. The Committee incorporated the issues of consensus into the draft report and those of the contentious proposals were put under the category of differing opinions. The Committee prepared a 570-page draft report and submitted it to the Constituent Assembly on November 8, 2009.

Other committees too had voices of disagreements over the key issues. And as a necessary solution, the issues were put to voting before preparing the reports. Similarly in the absence of consensus, differing opinions started to flood the Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles too. Worse still, the report of the Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was even burnt in the streets under the leadership of a CA member himself. On November 22, 2009, as the discussions were continuing inside the Constituent Assembly hall, the Committee report was burning under the leadership of CA member Pasang Sherpa. Surprisingly or coincidentally, the Committee Chairperson Binda Pandey and Pasang Sherpa belong to the same political party, Nepal Communist Party (UML). Sherpa is also the chairperson of Nepal Indigenous People’s Federation. Sherpa led the protest alleging that the Committee report did not include the rights of the indigenous community and Janajatis. Nepal Indigenous People’s Federation is a leading group in opposing the Committee report of the CA from the streets.

Single Federal Citizenship
The Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles has proposed the provision of single federal citizenship. It holds that this provision is proposed to avoid any complication regarding the citizenship in future, to ensure all Nepalis equal duties and responsibilities as citizens of the country, and for administrative proximity. The Committee is also of the opinion that in the citizenship issued by the federal government, provincial identity of the citizenship bearer should also be stated.

According to the Committee, the following persons can become citizens of Nepal: persons who have citizenship at the commencement of the present constitution, persons that have got Nepali citizenship by the time the constitution is promulgated, a person whose mother or father was a citizen of Nepal at birth, a person born in Nepal of Nepali citizen married to a foreign national and living permanently in Nepal, and the person that has got foreign citizenship on the basis of his father or mother but if his parents then are both Nepalis.

The Committee has also introduced the citizenship by descent, naturalised citizenship, citizenship of regional annexation (if any region or locality is annexed into Nepal, the inhabitants living into that territory will become citizens of Nepal subject to the provisions of the existing laws of the country), citizenship by descent with gender recognition and honorary citizenship. The proposal states that the federal government can confer citizenship to an internationally recognised individual but such individual cannot exercise political rights. If one discards the Nepali citizenship voluntarily and receives foreign citizenship, Nepali citizenship will be automatically annulled.

Rights, Rights Everywhere!
The Committee has proposed 31 fundamental rights in the report. The rights include the right to live with dignity, right to freedom, right to equality, right to mass media, right to justice, rights for criminal victims, right against preventive detention, and right against torture. Also in the list are rights against racial discrimination and untouchability, right to property, right to religious freedom, right to information, right to secrecy, right to environment, and right against exploitation, right to education, right to language and culture, right to employment, right to labour, right to health, right to food, right to shelter, women’s rights are others. Besides these, rights regarding children, rights of Dalit communities, right to family, right to social justice, right to social security, right to consume, right against exile, and right to implementation of fundamental rights and constitutional remedies are proposed by the Committee.

The Committee has proposed a right that is different from the ones included in the Constitution of 1990 and Interim Constitution 2007. The proposed draft mentions that every Nepali has right to live with dignity. Under this is suggested a right of a Nepali to live with his physical body and all organs and with his identity, self-respect and dignity. The Committee argues that in the absence of the right to live with self-respect and dignity, all other rights are meaningless. Therefore this right has been guaranteed. The new rights introduced by the Committee are rights of the criminals, right to food, shelter, consumption, and family.

Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles of the State
Under citizen’s duty under the right to fundamental duties, every citizen should be faithful to his nation, should defend and protect nationality, sovereignty of state and integrity of the country, should keep national secrets, should abide by the law and constitution of the country, should serve compulsorily for the nation when the nation demands, and should pay tax according to the law. Similarly, to respect labour, to respect father, mother, children, elderly people, women, helpless and disabled people or community are other fundamental duties. To protect public and national property, to exercise one’s rights and freedom without infringing on the rights of other people, community or citizen, and to protect and promote natural, cultural and historical heritage, and to work for environment conservation are also fundamental duties.

The Committee holds that the rights and duties complement each other and, therefore, a citizen’s observation of his or her duty facilitates another citizen to enjoy and exercise her or his rights. And then the citizen finds some basis to exercise her or his fundamental rights. Also, the awareness of her or his duty makes the citizen disciplined, dignified, moral and righteous and more dutiful and faithful to the nation. This is the justification of the Committee to make provision of the fundamental duties in the draft report.
As for the directive principles, policies and accountability towards the state, the draft states that “the political objective of the state will be to establish the federal democratic republic system
by keeping the country’s sovereignty, independence and integrity with utmost priority, by protecting every citizen’s life, property, freedom and equality, by maintaining the just rule in all aspects of national life by following the principle of rule of law, fundamental rights and human rights and values, inclusiveness, participation, and social justice and thereby establishing the welfare state, by establishing the smooth relation among the federal units through the principles of mutual cooperation and federalism and thus ensuring people’s participation in proportional basis in decentralisation and self-governance and by guaranteeing the system where people can reap the benefits of democracy”. The report of the Committee states that the policies regarding the national defence and national unity, policy regarding the politics and government, policy regarding social and cultural transformation, economic and business policy, development polices and others will be the policies of the state.

Heaps of Different Opinions
The CA members in the Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles expressed their disagreement not only as part of party ideology but also individually. UCPN (M) expressed its dissent in the issue of freedom of registering of political parties. Their proposal states to add in the draft that “the political parties that go for anti-national activity, work as stooge of the foreign powers, conspire against the nation, stands for regression or forms mechanism or organisations for these purposes should be banned, and the law to this end can be formulated”. The Committee report has it that for the sake of scientific land reform while confiscating land to distribute it to the landless peasants and squatters or while the state creates any other right for public good, compensation should be granted according to the law.

The UCPN (M) put its dissent in this regard. They proposed to include “in implementing revolutionary land reform, limitation on possession of land will be set and those that have more land than specified in the limit will be distributed to squatters, landless, poor peasants, and a scientific plan will be made and put into operation to ensure growth of production and productivity”. The Committee proposed under the right to social justice that “the indigenous community and Janajatis should be granted the rights, with priority, to empower them to promote, protect, and develop their language, identity, and culture with special opportunities of gains”. The Maoists proposed to add phrases like “self-governance and autonomy with the right to self-determination” for indigenous and Janajati community.
Likewise, the Committee report also states that “the Madhesi community will get rights to equal distribution of social, cultural, and economic opportunities and gains, and the challenged and backward community within the Madhesi community will have the rights to acquire special opportunity and gains for their promotion, protection, empowerment and development”. But the UCPN (M) proposed to add “Madhesi community will have right to self-determination, autonomy and self-governance”.

As for the fundamental duties, the UCPN (M) has proposed to add “the indigenous and local community will have prior right over land and natural resources”. Also, the party has insisted on including the provision of military training. In the section in the directive principle, the Party has proposed to include “military training to the youths for the protection of nation’s sovereignty, self-rule, and integrity should be provided; also to be granted are right to self-determination, autonomy with ethnic governance including the prior rights over land and natural resources.”

As for the right to property, the Nepali Congress held that except for the purpose of scientific land reform, the state cannot impose limitation on property of citizen. It submitted its dissent to this end. For the Nepali Congress, right to mange, monitor and control over issues like scientific land reform, land management, growth of production and productivity of land, modernisation and commercialisation of agriculture, environmental conservation, and urban development and managed settlement should be conferred on the provincial unit. It also holds that every citizen has the right to freedom from starvation and malnutrition.
With regard to the fundamental duties, the Nepali Congress is opposed to the lines “to serve compulsorily when the nation demands” and roots for “to serve at the time of national crisis and disaster”. It argues that compulsory training should be given to the citizens on peace and conduct. As to the Committee draft of “the political objective of the state will be to establish federal democratic republic state”, the Nepali Congress has offered its suggestion to add “federal democratic republic based on the principle of pluralism and multiparty competition”.

Interestingly the CA members from Nepal Communist Party (UML), to which the Committee Chairperson Binda Pandey belongs, also have expressed dissents over the Committee’s draft report. The Clause 4 of Article 5 of the Fundamental Rights holds that nobody will be subject to punishment unless he has done something that is against the existing laws and nobody will be subject to punishment for more years than is specified in the existing laws in practice at the time of committing the crime. The UML members have suggested adding “this clause will not hinder to make retrospective law and punish the culprits in crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes relating to ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc”.

Likewise, Clause 11 of Article 27 of the Fundamental Rights states that the families of the martyrs of all past people’s movements, (like People’s war and Madhes Movement), families of the disappeared, lame and wounded during the movements will be given space for inclusion in all of the state mechanisms, special benefits and allowances in government and public services. Also, they will be given right to relief and pension besides gaining special privilege in education, health, social security, employment and shelter. But UML wishes to put instead “the families of those who died in all movements and struggles for democracy, the fighters of democracy, victims of conflict, and the displaced, lame and disabled and wounded all will be provided justice and relief, education, health, employment, shelter, and social security with due respect and priority for them”. The Committee members that belong to UML but put different opinions are Urmila Devi Shah, Ushakala Rai, Dharmaraj Niroula, Dhirendra Bahadur Shrestha, Pradeep Gyawali, Ramprit Paswan, and Lalmani Chaudhary.

The CA member of Nepal Sadbhawana Party Rajendra Mahato expressed his different opinion with regard to the system of single federal citizenship. He opined that provincial government should issue single citizenship on behalf of the federal central government. Leela Nyaichyai of Nepal Workers and Peasants Party proposed so that “separate citizenship provision is ensured in Nepal both at provincial and federal level.”  The Committee report has stated that for a person to be appointed or elected in the positions of the head of the state of the country, vice-presidents, head of the provincial or federal legislature, executive, judiciary, constitutional body and security agencies, he or she should be Nepali citizen by descent. Nyaichyai recommends removing this condition and suggests writing “to be elected or appointed in the high-level positions in the political, constitutional, administrative bodies of Nepal, the person should be Nepali citizen that has got the citizenship by descent”. Likewise, other CA members like Bhupendra Chaudhary, Chandrika Prasad Yadav, Gagan Thapa, Tilak Bahadur Thapa Magar, Dal Kumari Sunuwar, Angdawa Sherpa, Urmila Thapa, Ushakala Rai, Sunil Babu Panta, Arbind Shah and Ganesh Tiwari Nepali have put different opinions.

Suggestions of Their Own Kind
The Committee had received suggestions and recommendations from a team of the Constituent Assembly, experts, and the concerned organisations in writing. The Himalayan Conservation and Development Association, Humla, had suggested that the inhabitants of Karnali should be granted special privilege in terms of education, health, and employment and such provisions should be recognised by the courts too. The Community Forest Consumers Federation, Nuwakot, demanded a clear policy in management and consumption of forests. Nepal Hindu Literature Council, Birgunj, demanded that Nepali should be made the medium of instruction in the textbooks of higher education, and Hindi and other languages should be given due space. Nepal Trade Union Federation suggested the formation of National Labour Commission to ensure the rights of labour and peasants class and solve the problems they face. Nepal Human Rights Organisation requested ending the culture of impunity and establishing constitutional supremacy and thus improve human rights situations.

All Nepal Squatters Union, Sunsari, suggested that “the squatters should be guaranteed water, jungle and land” in the new constitution. Nepal Gold Workers (Sonah) Union demanded guaranteeing the rights of the Sonah caste, enlisting them in the constitution, and allowing them free fishing and panning for gold in the river banks. United British Gurkha Ex-Army Union demanded that the Gurkhas living in Britain should be able to retain their Nepali citizenship and also demanded that the government of Nepal should do the needful to pressurise the British government to give the Nepali soldiers salary and pension in parity with their British counterparts. Gurudwara Shree Gurunanak Satsanga, Nepalgunj, demanded that the rights of the Sikh community should be guaranteed and their religion and culture be protected and promoted. Youth Buddhist Union, Pokhara, suggested writing clearly that “Nepal is a secular country”. Nepal Doctors Union demanded professional rights of the doctors and providing every citizen the basic free health service. Kamlari Emancipation Common Front, Dang, demanded abolishing Kamlari system, guaranteeing special rights of the Kamlaris over water, land, and forest and suggested forming a Kamlari Commission.

Constitution Experts Group demanded that all citizens should live in an exploitation-free society and live with dignity. Non-Resident Nepali Association suggested that the country had to focus on regional integrity, save and protect sovereignty and multiparty democracy. Nepal Democratic Party Nepal, Panchthar, claimed that Prithvi Narayan Shah should be viewed as symbol of national unity, there should be only one army in the country and also demanded the constitutional monarchical democracy. Makawanpur HIV Infected Union, Hetauda, suggested that the government guarantee the human rights for the HIV infected.
The Committee also had got suggestions and recommendations to discourage the tendency of building private houses and manage affordable government housing. Other suggestions were for declaring red light area, referendum over the sensitive issues, introducing English from the beginning of primary education, iron tablets for the pregnant, prohibition on embryo identification, and free education to the children of the labourers.

Most Meetings of All
Of the thirteen committees of the Constituent Assembly, this Committee held the highest number of meetings. By the time the Committee gave final touch to the report, the Committee and subcommittees had held altogether 197 meetings. Discussions had continued for 478 hours 30 minutes. The Committee had begun its work on December 16, 2008. In the initial meetings, the Committee discussed about the functions to be carried out. And to prepare the details of work for the Committee, the Committee decided to recommend names to form subcommittees in the next meeting. It formed a subcommittee to make a timetable. The Committee had decided to take help from Nepali Missions to take suggestions from the Nepalis living abroad. The Committee had also selected experts and discussed.

To organise and manage the proceedings, the Committee had formed six subcommittees. They were Fundamental Rights and Duties Identification Subcommittee, Prohibition on Fundamentals Rights Subcommittee, Liability of State Subcommittee, Directive Principle and Policy Subcommittee, Citizenship Subcommittee, Sex and Gender Subcommittee, and Social Justice, Inclusion, and Special Protection Subcommittee. In addition, Residual Rights and Inter-coordination Subcommittee and Concept Paper and Draft Report Subcommittee were also formed. For concept paper drafting, two task forces, related to fundamental rights and directive principles, were formed. The Committee also discussed about the questionnaires prepared to collect opinions and suggestion. After the reports submitted by subcommittees and task forces were discussed, the decision proceedings were geared up. The Concept Paper Preliminary Draft and Descriptive Report Subcommittee submitted its report to the Committee at the meeting of November 4, 2009. Of other reports, reports on citizenship, fundamental rights, fundamental duties, directive principle of the state, and policy and accountability were passed in the meeting. And the Committee decided to submit the draft report to the CA chairman.

Conclusion:
The political philosophy of the respective political parties was the root of discontent and dissents in most of the issues. This was the main reason behind the inability to reach a consensus. The UCPN(M) insisted that the parties that go against the nation and stand for regression should be outlawed. The Nepali Congress and UML sternly objected to this. The NC and UML held that with this proposal in operation, the Maoists intended to outlaw all other parties that hold different philosophy from theirs.

The UCPN(M) nod to multiparty system but denial of pluralism gave rise to the doubt of the NC and UML over them. The UCPN(M) put forward the provision of military training for the citizens. The UML, NC and other parties viewed this with cynicism and began to doubt the UCPN(M)’s intention. The NC and UML agreed to formulate retroactive law to address crimes against humanity. But the UCPN(M) disagreed. The Nepal Workers and Peasants Party rooted for capital punishment to those who have committed the most serious offence. Despite the differences of the parties over many issues, the Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles prepared the report finally.

The report talks about the citizenship in the federal system and fundamental rights and duties. The committee has introduced many more fundamental rights than mentioned in all of the past constitutions. Citizens are not just granted rights but they are also made to realise their duties. The Committee holds that claiming of rights but ignoring duties should end for once and all.

Overshadowed by Party Politics

Leave a reply

Among the fourteen committees that the CA had formed, the Constitutional Committee is the most important one in terms of the responsibilities and important jobs that it was assigned. This particular Committee is responsible for drafting the constitution on the basis of the reports submitted by the thematic committees. It is also responsible for preparing drafts over issues which do not belong to any other committees.

This Committee was formed on December 15, 2009. Kul Bahadur Gurung, the senior-most member of the CA, worked as the chair of the Committee till January 13, 2010, the day Madhav Kumar Nepal got elected as the Chair of the Committee. Altogether eleven meetings were held under Gurung’s chairmanship. The Committee under the chairmanship of Nepal functioned effectively until May 23, 2009, the day the Maoist-led government resigned and Madhav Kumar Nepal got elected as the Prime Minister of the country.

The Committee did not have its chair for five consecutive months; as a result, it did not function at a time when all other thematic committees were actively busy on discussing and preparing reports over constitutional and political issues. Finally, Nilambar Acharya, CA member from the NC, got elected as its chair.

It formed several sub-committees to execute its responsibilities on time. It finalised several issues which did not garner consensus through holding elections. Altogether elections on 98 issues were held, and it submitted its report along with opposing views put forward by different political parties on January 4, 2010. It has stated that the new constitution must be termed as the Constitution of Nepal 2067.

Sovereignty and Peoples’ Polity
The report prepared and submitted by the Committee contains clauses such as “Honouring the sovereignty of Nepali citizens, freedom, sovereignty, unity, integrity and glorious and prestigious history of Nepal, the historical movements such as the Armed Struggle, the April 2006 Uprising and the Madhes Movement held to restore democracy, peace, human rights and progressive changes, the ordeal and sacrifice that the people of this nation have shown for such changes and the martyrs……..”. Its preamble further states, “With commitment to a competitive and people-based proportional and inclusive democratic polity that guarantees freedom and rights of citizens, human rights, voting rights, regular election, press freedom; able, inclusive and free judiciary; law and order, democratic values and ethics, democratic republic form of state polity dedicated to create foundations for socialism through eradicating all forms of feudalism to fulfil people’s expectation for a long-lasting peaceful, prosperous and developed Nepal, we promulgate this constitution through this Constituent Assembly….”.

The report of the Committee further states that Nepal as a nation is a mosaic of people belonging to all races, castes, languages, religions, and cultures motivated to maintain a sovereign nation and other values and principles mentioned in the preamble of the new constitution.

Provision for Amendment
The Committee in its report states that amendments that harm the constitutional values as stated in its preamble should not be permitted. Whereas issues and acts other than mentioned above are subjects for amendments and must follow the legislative procedures as mentioned in the new constitution of the nation.

Freedom to Register Political Parties
The Committee in its report states that it is a matter of constitutional rights for individuals to register their party. But such a party must conduct intra-party elections on a regular basis and remain committed to the constitutional values and ethics, must not organise any events or propagate ideologies and agendas that are detrimental to the sovereignty and unity of the nation and people.

Other Proposals
The Committee in its report states that the head of the state on the recommendation of the council of ministers can call for the state of emergency throughout the nation or in certain areas of the country in case of internal war, foreign invasion, armed struggle, extreme economic disparity, natural disaster and epidemics among others. The head of the state on the recommendation from the council of ministers can nominate diplomats and ambassadors and can pardon criminals convicted by judicial, semi-judicial, administrative bodies and officials across the country.

The Committee in its report states that all forms of existing judiciary must remain active until the new constitution comes into effect. Moreover, the officials working in the existing judiciary are subjects for reappointment as the new constitution comes into practice. The Committee approves the existing national flag, logo and anthem.

Votes of Difference
Almost all the parties have put forward various opposing voices over the final report submitted by the Committee.

UCPN(M) CA members commented that the Committee in its preamble must include clause such as “struggle to end imperialism and foreign encroachment”, “workers and farmers as history makers”, “restructuration of the state to end every kind of discrimination from untouchability to regional disparity” and ‘People’s War’ instead of ‘Armed Struggle’”. The UCPN (M) CA members claimed that the existing national flag must be replaced with another one since it does not reflect the current political euphoria of the nation.

The NC CA members commented that the constitution in its preamble must use the term “inclusive” instead of “proportional inclusive” in the clause that provides the president the rights to appoint diplomats and ambassadors, and must define Nepal as a “federal democratic” instead of a nation “heading towards socialism”.

UML CA members commented that the constitution instead of defining Nepal as a ‘Republic Multinational Nation” heading towards “inclusive socialism” must use “Democratic Republic Nation” heading towards “inclusive socialism”. Similarly, they proposed that the Head of the State should appoint ambassadors and diplomats on an “inclusive basis”, not on “proportional inclusive” one.

CA members belonging to the three parties, RPP-Nepal, RPP, Chure Bhawar and Rastriya Janashakti expressed their opinion that before stating Nepal as a “secular” and “republic” nation in the new constitution, there should be referendum over such issues.

CA members belonging to Rastriya Janamukti Party expressed their opinion that the new constitution must include term such as “end to feudalism, autocracy, centralism, unipolar and patriarchy” in its preamble, and they also claimed that the existing national flag does not represent the reality of the new nation, thus should be replaced by another one.

CA members belonging to the Nepal Communist Party (United) expressed their opinion that any treaties that are detrimental to the economy, stability and natural resources of Nepal must be decided through a referendum, and also argued that the existing national flag must be replaced with another one that can reflect aspiration of the new times.

CA members belonging to Nepal Workers and Peasants Party expressed their opinion that instead of “Historic Armed Struggle”, “People’s Peaceful 2006 Uprising” and “Madhes Movement”, the new constitution should just state “all kinds of struggles made to establish democracy” in its preamble, and the new constitution should be named as the Constitution of Republic Nepal heading towards Socialism 2067.

CA members belonging to Rastriya Janamorcha and Nepal Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) expressed their opinion that the new constitution must not include “Madhes Movement” in its preamble.

CA members belonging to the following parties, Sanghiya Loktantrik Rastriya Manch (Federal Democratic National Forum), Dalit Janajati Party, Nepa Rastriya Party, Janamukti Party, Loktantrik Samajbadi Dal and independent CA members expressed their opinion that the new constitution must also mention Limbuwan, Tharuhat and Janajati movements along with the three major movements that the constitution mentions in its preamble.

Several women CA members belonging to different parties have expressed their opinion to include the term “women’s rights” along with “human rights” as the fundamental part of the new constitution in its preamble.

Conclusion
The Constitutional Committee held great many discussion sessions with persons and institutions related to judiciary as well as leaders of political parties though it could not make any major achievements. It could not convince its members on certain common premises of the new constitution. Major political leaders though members of the Committee remained glued to their political ideology and spent their energy either in prolonging the government or protesting against it. The CA members belonging to the UCPN (M) failed to convince about their commitment to democracy to their fellow members, especially those belonging to the NC and UML; as a result, misunderstanding among the three major parties directly hampered the constitution-writing process. However, the Committee should keep on organising discussion over the issues that have not drawn a consensus.