The Constituent Assembly (CA) could not promulgate the constitution by the scheduled date of May 28, 2010. Then the parties extended the deadline by another year. Even nine months after extension of the deadline, the constitution-drafting process could not move ahead smoothly. There were doubts raised not only at the extension resulting from interparty conflict and mistrust but also on drafting of the constitution itself.

Though there are 28 political parties in the Constituent Assembly, the constitution-drafting process, promulgation of the constitution, and the type of constitution depends on the largest party in the CA and the role of the second largest party the Nepali Congress. While UCPN (M), having joined the peace process after its 10-year armed struggle, was in favour of transforming old values and traditions, Nepali Congress with its six-decade history and having been in power for most of the democratic period was in favour of retaining traditional democratic exercise and values. Not only in terms of political ideology and policy, but also in terms of practicality, the greatest conflict and differences was between UCPN (M) and Congress, which also surfaced during the constitution-drafting process.

During the constitution-drafting process, UCPN (M) kept bringing new proposals and Congress strongly objected to every one of them. There was also differences among other parties in the CA. however, the policy differences and distrust between UCPN (M and Congress overshadowed these other differences. As there was no consensus among political parties, election to the post of prime minister was ongoing, and claims to government was overshadowing constitution-drafting, Congress on December 31, 2010, decided to launch a three-month long awareness programme. It issued a three-page circular for the awareness programme which was an attempt to counter the policies and issues put forward by UCPN (M) and also to strengthen its organisation. The following are the issues identified by Congress on which it has differences with UCPN (M):

Congress in its circular claimed that it is not behind the delay in the peace and constitution-drafting process. ‘UCPN (M) is not in favour of new constitution. It is not only delaying the process with unnecessary proposals, it did not extend the deadline of the mechanism to resolve disputes, which has proven its intention of not wanting to promulgate a new constitution’, states the Congress proposal. Despite the parties accusing each other, it was the power struggle, mutual distrust, policy differences, and party interests of the large parties in the CA, UCPN (M), Nepali Congress, and UML, who are responsible for the delay in constitution-drafting process.

There were clear policies in place to manage the constitution-drafting process. These processes had been the results of long discussions and consultations, which had laid the course for drafting the constitution. Following the laid-out processes would have guaranteed the new constitution on time. While drafting the Interim Constitution 2007, the CA Regulations, and CA calendar of events, timeline was also specified. However, when the parties could not reach consensus in their discussions, these regulations and calendar of events turned out to be impediments instead of guideposts. The political parties instead of following the regulations and the calendar of events amended these to suit their needs. The last example of this is the third (2011) amendment to the CA Regulations.

The Constituent Assembly had drafted its calendar of events on November 16, 2008. If everything had progressed according to the calendar, all the thematic committee concept papers and reports would have been discussed in the CA and forwarded to the Constitutional Committee by June 15, 2009. Then if the draft prepared by the Constitutional Committee was endorsed by the CA after discussion, then the new constitution would have been promulgated by May 28, 2010. However, due to disputes among the parties, the new constitution could not be promulgated. Instead, the CA term was extended until May 28, 2011 by amending the Interim Constitution 2007. Yet the calendar of events could not be followed.

According to the calendar of events amended by the CA on June 16, 2010, the CA was to forward all the reports with comments and directives after passing them to the Constitutional Committee and the Constitutional Committee had to prepare the first draft of the constitution by November 16, 2010. However, in the absence of consensus among the political parties, neither the CA was not able to forward the thematic committee reports with its comments and directives to the Constitutional Committee and consequently nor was the Committee able to prepare an integrated draft of the constitution. The CA was only able to forward the reports of the Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights, and Revenue Sharing; Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Minorities and Marginalised Communities; and the Committee for Determining the Structure of Constitutional Bodies.

A high-level taskforce discussed the reports of seven thematic committees. The report of the Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power was not finalised and could not be discussed upon by this taskforce. As there was no progress according to the calendar of events and the possibility of the high-level taskforce reaching a consensus grew thin, the political parties decided to change the CA Regulations instead of the calendar of events.

In the CA Regulations 2008 article 82 (9) has a provision that the reports submitted by the Constitutional Committee and thematic committees have to be discussed and passed by the CA and forwarded to the Constitutional Committee with its comments and directives. Due to the differences among the parties and the provision of this article, the CA could not send the reports of eight thematic committees to the Constitutional Committee. When going for majority votes to decide upon disputes would invite further complications and the prospect of consensus in all the issues was slim, the parties opted to amend the Regulations and insert new provisions.

The Constitutional Committee held a meeting on November 16, 2010, and it was also given the responsibility to resolve all the disputes in the thematic committee reports through discussions. To prepare the first draft of the constitution and forward the remaining thematic reports to the Constitutional Committee, Regulations Amendment Draft Committee was formed with CA members from UCPN (M) Ekraj Bhandari, Nepali Congress Pushpa Bhusal, CPN (UML) Dhirendra Bahadur Shrestha, Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party Brijesh Kumar Gupta, and Rastriya Janamorcha Santa Bahadur Nepali. After the proposal was endorsed by the meeting with support from Congress parliamentary chief whip Laxman Prasad ghimire, CPN (UML) chief whip Bhim Acharya, and UCPN (M) chief whip Posta Bahadur Bogati, the process of amending the Regulations moved ahead.

The Regulations Amendment Draft Committee chaired by CA member Pushpa Bhusal submitted its draft report at the CA on January 18, 2011. The Committee proposed addition of Regulations article 65 (3a) to article 65(3). The new amendment reads, “If disputed issues are not resolved in the thematic committees formed under the article 66 and included in the report and/or difference of opinion is seen in the CA discussions and becomes disputed, and the CA forwards such reports by specifying the disputed issues with its comments an directives to the Constitutional Committee to resolve them through further discussions, the Constitutional Committee will have the authority to resolve such issues and will submit unresolved issues to the CA for decision’.

Similarly, additional articles 82(10) and 82 (11) was added to the Regulations article 82(9). The article 82(10) states, ‘Notwithstanding the article 82(9), if disputed issues are not resolved in the thematic committees formed under the article 66 and included in the report and/or difference of opinion is seen in the CA discussions and becomes disputed, the CA will forward such reports by specifying the disputed issues with its comments an directives to the Constitutional Committee to resolve them through further discussions’.

The article 82(11) states, ‘Pursuant to the article 82(1), if any thematic committee report is received, the Constitutional Committee will resolve any disputed issues through discussions, and the Constitutional Committee will submit any unresolved issues to the Constituent Assembly for decision and prepare a draft as per the Assembly decision and include in the first draft of the constitution’. The amendment of the Regulations paved the way for sending disputed issues to the Constitutional Committee with authority to resolve them and submit unresolved issues again to the Constituent Assembly and prepare a draft constitution as per the decision of the CA.

One week after amending the Regulations, the reports of the Committee for Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, Committee for Determining the Structure of Legislative Body, Committee for Determining the Form of Government, Judicial System Committee, Committee for Determining the Base for Cultural and Social Solidarity, and National Interest Preservation Committee were forwarded to the Constitutional Committee on January 26, 2011. There were differences among the parties on whether to form the state restructuring commission or not, so the report of the Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power was not forwarded to the Constitutional Committee.

The article 138(2) of the Interim Constitution has a provision to from a high-level commission to make recommendations for state restructuring. Following the same provisions, UCPN (M), Nepali Congress, and UML reached an understanding to form the commission on July 6, 2011. However, the Madhes-based parties were against forming a commission. There was a meeting with CA chairperson Subash Nemwang and three parties on this difference on August 5, 2011. The meeting decided to hold discussions on the reports of other thematic committees except the Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power. As the time passed, UML and UCPN (M) also did not give primacy to the formation of the commission. Nepali Congress insisted on formation of the commission. While the differences had not been resolved, the report of the Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power was forwarded to the Constitutional Committee.

The Constituent Assembly (CA) sittings went through indefinite postponements 20 times due to lack coordination and consensus among the parties. After the fourth sitting of the CA on June 18, 2008, the then-chairperson Kul Bahadur Gurung had indefinitely postponed the sitting until further notice. There was no sitting for another one and half months. After smooth sitting of the first three sitting, the CA sittings were pushed towards uncertainty after the fourth sitting. After a long consultation among the leaders of the political parties and CA members, the fifth sitting took place on July 15, 2008. The sitting unanimously endorsed the procedures for electing the president and the vice-president.

The 10th sitting on July 27, 2008, elected UML leader Subash Nemwang unopposed to the post of chairperson of the CA. then the CA sittings were postponed until further notice. There was no sitting for another three months. In the 11th sitting of the CA on November 10, 2008, coordinator of the Regulations (procedures) Drafting Committee, Narayan Man Bijukchhe presented drafts of the CA Regulations 2065 and CA (Conduct of Business of Legislature-parliament) Regulations 2065; these were endorsed by the 13th sitting of the CA on November 14, 2008. Then the CA sittings were postponed until further notice. The 14th sitting on November 16, 2008, unanimously endorsed the CA calendar of events proposed by the Business Advisory Committee of the CA.

Sittings postponed until further notice

Source: CA Secretariat
In the 16th sitting of the CA on December 2, 2008, CA chairperson Subash Nemwang informed the Assembly of the letter from the Election Commission to the effect that the vacant seat left by the resignation of Mohan Vaidya of UCPN (M) had been filled by Kuber Oli of the same party. Immediately, the Assembly was adjourned until further notice. In the 17th sitting on December 15, 2008, names of members of various constitutional, thematic, and procedural committees formed to draft the constitution were announced. Again, the sitting was adjourned until further notice.

The 18th and 19th sitting of the Assembly on December 29, 2008, endorsed the proposal to amend the CA Calendar 2008. On the same day, after the CA chairperson tabled the CA Regulations Amendment Drafts Committee Report 2008 by Regulations Amendment Drafts Committee chairperson Kalpana Rana for voting, it was endorsed unanimously. It was also informed that the CA sitting had been adjourned until the next notice. The 20th sitting on January 6, 2009 again amended the CA calendar. Then the chairperson informed the Assembly that the elections to the chairs of different committees would be held on January 13, 2009, and the Assembly was adjourned until further notice.

In the 21st, 22nd, 23rd sitting on January 10, 2009, the chairperson read the resignation of CA member Sushil Chandra Amatya, who had been nominated by the Council of Ministers. The chairperson also read the decision of the Government of Nepal to nominate Madhav Kumar Nepal to the vacant seat. The 23rd sitting decided to include Madhav Kumar Nepal, Baban Singh, and Sadarul Miya in the Constitutional Committee. Then the Assembly was adjourned until the next notice.
In the 24th sitting on January 13, 2009, the chairperson read the letter from the offices of the prime minister and the Council of Ministers to the effect that Achyut raj Pandey had been nominated in the vacant seat after Bishwa Nath Upadhya declined to take a seat in the Assembly. And, the sitting was adjourned until the next notice. The 25th sitting on January 19, 2009, endorsed the proposal of the chairperson to reshuffle and nomination of the members of the various committees of the CA. Then the sitting was again adjourned until further notice. The 26th sitting on April 13, 2009, unanimously endorsed proposal to amend the CA calendar of events.

The 27th sitting of the CA on April 29, 2009 again amended the CA calendar of events. After amending the calendar of events, the CA was again adjourned until further notice. In the 28th sitting on May 25, 2009, Amik Sherchan, chairperson of National Interest Preservation Committee, presented its Preliminary Draft Report 2009 and descriptive report based on the Preliminary Draft Report 2009. In the meeting, the Chairperson of the CA informed that 7 individuals including Narayan Khadka of Nepali Congress and Rashmi Raj Nepali of Rastriya Janamorcha had cast their dissenting note on the issues of federalism.

In the 39th sitting on June 11, 2009, discussions on the Preliminary Draft Report 2009 of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Minorities and Marginalised Committees ended. Then the CA was adjourned until further notice due to lack of business. In the 40th sitting on July 12, 2009, the chairperson of the Committee for Determining the Base of Cultural and Social Solidarity Nabodita Chaudhary presented its Preliminary Draft Report 2009.

In the 51st sitting on July 21, 2009, member discussion on the Preliminary Draft Report 2009 of the Committee for Determining the Structure of Constitutional Bodies ended. Then the CA was adjourned until further notice due to lack of business. In the 52nd sitting on August 3, 2009, chairpersons of the Committee for Determining the Structure of the Legislative Body Ramesh Rijal presented its Concept Paper along with Preliminary Draft Report 2009.

In the 57th sitting on August 16, 2009, the CA chairperson informed the assembly the voting for the chairperson of the Constitutional Committee scheduled for 8 am on August 17, 2009, has been rescheduled for August 28, 2009, on the advice of the Business Advisory Committee. He also directed the acting chairperson of the CA Manohar Prasad Bhattarai to publish the voting schedule and make other necessary preparations for the voting. In the same sitting, discussions on the Preliminary Draft Report 2009 of the Committee for Determining Structure of the Legislative Body ended. Then the Ca was adjourned until further notice. In the 58th sitting a month later on September 9, 2009, the chairperson, on the advice of the Business Advisory Committee, proposed amendment on the CA calendar of events 2008, and the Assembly unanimously approved it.

In the 63rd meeting on September 17, 2009, discussion on the Preliminary Draft Report 2009 of the Judicial System Committee ended. Again, the CA was adjourned until further notice. The CA adjourned after the report of the Judicial Systems Committee sat on November 15, 2009. In the 64th sitting, chairperson of the Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles Binda Pandey presented its Concept Paper and Preliminary Draft Report 2009.

The 76th sitting of the CA on December 23, 2009, amended the CA calendar of events, and it was adjourned again. In the 77th sitting on January 9, 2010, CA chairperson informed the Assembly that the CA membership of Matrika Prasad Yadav and Jagat Prasad Yadav of UCPN (M), elected from proportional system from then CPN (M), had ended as they were not in the party any longer as they had violated the decisions of the party and were expelled after disciplinary action. He also informed the two vacant seats in the Assembly

In the 93rd sitting on February 4, 2010, member discussion on the Concept Paper and Preliminary Draft Report 2009 of the Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power ended. In the same meeting, Agni Prasad Kharel, coordinator of Concept Paper and Preliminary Draft Report Study Committee, presented its CA Suggestions and Directives to the Constitutional Committee Report 2009 based on the Concept Paper and Preliminary Draft Report of the Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights, and Revenue Sharing, and the proposal to send the report to the Constitutional Committee for integrated draft was unanimously passed. The CA was again adjourned until further notice. The next meeting took place one month. In the 94th sitting on March 3, 2010, Agni Prasad Kharel, coordinator of Concept Paper and Preliminary Draft Report Study Committee, presented CA Suggestions and Directives to the Constitutional Committee Supplementary Report 2009 based on the Concept Paper and Preliminary Draft Report of the Committee for Determining the Structure of Constitutional Bodies.

The 98th sitting on March 22, 2010, passed the condolence motion on the death of Girija Prasad Koirala, and the CA was adjourned until further notice. One week later, in the 99th sitting on March 30, 2010, Agni Prasad Kharel, coordinator of Concept Paper and Preliminary Draft Report Study Committee, presented its CA Suggestions and Directives to the Constitutional Committee Report 2009 based on the Concept Paper and Preliminary Draft Report of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Minorities and Marginalised Communities.

The 100th sitting on April 2, 2010, unanimously passed the proposal of the CA chairperson to endorse the CA Suggestions and Directives to the Constitutional Committee Report 2009 based on the based on the Concept Paper and Preliminary Draft Report of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Minorities and Marginalised Communities and to send both of them to the Constitutional Committee, and it was adjourned until further notice. In the CA meeting 5 days later on April 7, 2010, the CA chairperson declared the proposal representation seat of Girija Prasad Koirala vacant after his death. The CA was adjourned until further notice.

Conclusion
In two years, the CA had 101 sittings. Though the number of full CA sittings was low, there were many more meetings of Business Advisory Committee, 10 thematic committee, three procedural committees, the Constitutional Committee, and Report Study Committee. Fourteen reports have been prepared by the 14 committees of the CA and the Report Study Committee. There was no consensus among the parties on the main issues of form of government, election system, state restructuring, judicial system, legislative bodies, and others. There have been many consensuses through discussions. However, the CA is not without blame on the matter of constitution-drafting.

Constitution-drafting was impeded by the uncertainty of the CA sittings, its inability to endorse the preliminary reports and send them to the Constitutional Committee, and inability of the Constitutional Committee to prepare preliminary draft of the constitution. Further doubt on constitution-drafting and its promulgation on time is aroused by lack of consensus among the parties on major issues, the Constitutional Committee tasked with drafting the constitution not receiving the reports, and Report Study Committee not being in a position to submit all the reports while the CA had to be adjourned for indefinite periods.

A prime minister could not be selected even after seventh round of elections. Major political parties UCPN (M), Nepali Congress, and UML were more focused on getting the seat of the government rather than on drafting the constitution. Attempts to seek political consensus failed because of party stance. Except for one meeting to amend the CA calendar of events after extension of the CA deadline for one year, there was no meeting of the CA. The Constitutional Committee without any work agenda postponed its meetings indefinitely. There was no significant breakthrough in the report studying committee formed to study the disputes seen during the constitution-drafting process.

After an understanding between the senior leaders of UML and UCPN (M), UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal had withdrawn from the prime ministerial election. This made Congress suspicious. The discord among the leaders was making the election of the prime minister uncertain. There was criticism of not only the parties for their power-centric conduct and activities but also the CA members. The possibility of working as per the CA calendar was becoming thin.
Amidst this confusion, there was a meeting of the UML parliamentary party in the second week of June 2010. CA members criticised the leadership for not taking the lead in stalled constitution-drafting process. They said, ‘The constitution-drafting process is stalled not due to the CA members but the leadership. Therefore, leadership has to take the initiative to take the constitution-drafting process forward.’ After the CA members put pressure on the leadership, the meeting decided to give momentum to the constitution-drafting process.

After putting pressure on the UML leadership, representatives of the UML CA members met CA chairperson Subash Nemwang and vice-chairperson Purna Kumari Subedi on September 20, 2010. They stated that if the constitution-drafting process does not take momentum, it will not be possible to complete the constitution in time. The chairperson and vice-chairperson asked the UML CA members to submit the thematic committee reports to the Constitutional Committee by third week of October, 2010. They also drew the chairperson’s attention to immediately calling the meeting of the Constituent Assembly. After meeting the chairperson, UML CA member Yamlal Kandel said that they became active after constitution-drafting process became overshadowed.

The UML CA members had drawn the attention of the chairperson pointing out that delaying in submitting the thematic committee reports would also delay finalising the integrated draft of the constitution. It was the CA UML members’ view that the report studying committee had to submit the consensus and disputes in the thematic committees as they are. The leader of the representatives Binda Pandey said that it would be easier to resolve disputes in the Constitutional Committee as all the senior leaders were members of the Committee. UML CA member Bishnu Rimal said that campaign was to prepare a whitepaper on all the works completed by the CA to create an environment to promulgate the constitution on time.

The UML CA members reached a conclusion to coordinate with other parties to put further pressure on drafting the constitution. They held a meeting with other parties represented in the CA on September 26, 2010. UML pointed out the relevancy of the meeting—‘The meeting was called to create further impetus to the constitution-drafting process’. In the meeting, Congress CA members Gagan Thapa said that it would be better to move forward together as collective voice would be heard. The meeting was attended by CA members from UML, Nepali Congress, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum-Democratic, CPN (ML), CPN (ML-Socialist), Rastriya Prajatantra Party, and CPN (Unified). None of the members from the largest party in the CA UCPN (M) participated in the meeting. The meeting participated by members from eight parties decided to exert pressure within their own parties to actively work for constitution-drafting.

As the UML CA members were active in exerting pressure on constitution-drafting, CA chairperson started consultations with political parties. Parties discussed the delay in constitution-drafting in the meeting. As no consensus could be reached in the frequent meetings, the meeting on October 11, 2010, formed a high-level taskforce comprising of senior leaders from seven parties including UCPN (M), Congress, UML, and Madhesi Janadhikar Forum. The UML CA members seemed positive on the formation of the taskforce that even if the report was not sent to the CA by third week of October. UML CA members Rabindra Adhikari claimed that the taskforce was formed due to their pressure.

The taskforce was given the deadline to submit its report by October 24, 2010. After the taskforce sought more time for discussion, a meeting of 27 parties on October 24, 2010 decided to extend the deadline for 11 more days citing satisfactory work of the taskforce. In the extended 11 days, consensus was reached in some issues but not all. The consensus on local bodies, states, language and others gave reason for extending the deadline. UML CA members stated that the deadline of the taskforce should not be extended time and again—‘The tendency to extend the deadline of the taskforce citing insufficient time for discussions will further add to the delay’. However, they could not move collectively. They could not exert sufficient pressure on the UML leadership to work on constitution-drafting and neither could they work with CA members from other parties to exert pressure on UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Nepali Congress president Sushil Koirala and senior leaders of other parties.

A seven-member high-level taskforce comprising of senior leaders from seven political parties was formed when consensus could not be reached in the thematic committees of the CA, meetings of the CA, and discussions in the report studying committees and constitution-drafting process was stalled. Amidst allegations that the parties were more focused in the race to head the government and the CA members put pressure on their parties to work on the constitution-drafting, the formation of the taskforce gave a ray of hope. The formation of taskforce of senior leaders was openly challenged by the Constitutional Committee chairperson Nilambar Acharya.

The 27 parties had formed the high-level taskforce on October 11, 2010 when there was no consensus among the parties on the reports of eight thematic committees. The taskforce members were UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Nepali Congress parliamentary leader Ram Chandra Paudel, CPN (UML) chairperson Jhala Nath Khanal, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum president Upendra Yadav, Nepal Peasants and Workers Party (NPWP) president Narayan Man Bijukchhe, Prajatantrik Samajbadi Dal chairperson Prem Bahadur Singh, and Sanghiya Loktantrik Manch CA member Rukmini Chaudhari.
The meeting of the taskforce on October 13, 2010 selected UCPN (M) chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal as its coordinator. The taskforce started its work on the 210 disputed issues identified by the report studying committee. To facilitate the work of the taskforce, a provision was made to have an associate in the meetings, and accordingly, Deb Gurung from UCPN (M), Ramesh Lekhak from Congress, Bharat Mohan Adhikari from UML, Ratneswor Lal Kayastha from Forum, Sunil Prajapati from NPWP, Basudev Chaudhari from Loktantrik Rastriya Manch, and Hikmat Bahadur Deuba from Prajatantrik Samajbadi Dal could participate in the meetings.

The taskforce garnered consensus on issues of local bodies, chief minister in the states, unicameral parliament in the states and others. Many were optimistic that the taskforce comprising of senior leaders would resolve the dispute seen in the constitution-drafting process. It was taken as an achievement that the senior leaders were in the taskforce when there were accusations that the senior leaders were not taking the constitution-drafting process seriously even as the CA members were actively working for it. Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party CA member Hridayesh Tripathy claimed, “The sitting of senior leaders from three parties to discuss constitution-drafting is positive.”

However, the chairperson of the Constitution Committee Nilambar Acharya was not happy at the formation of the taskforce. Questioning the legitimacy of the taskforce, he said, “Even if the taskforce resolves disputes seen in the constitution-drafting process, it will not be binding.” According to the chairperson Acharya, the taskforce only has political legitimacy. He said that the taskforce would have been good if it had constitutional legitimacy and it would have been effective if it was formed by the Constituent Assembly. Acharya commented that formation of the taskforce by the 27 parties while the Constituent Assembly existed had degraded its credibility and authority.

According to chairperson Acharya, since the taskforce was formed by the parties, the Constitutional Committee does not have to recognise it. He stated that if the committee/mechanism had been formed by the Constituent Assembly, it have had constitutional legitimacy. The discussions of disputes in the taskforce while the Constituent Assembly was elected, formation of thematic committees and the Constitutional Committee to seek consensus gave grounds to question the credibility and authority of the Constituent Assembly.

There was no conducive atmosphere in the thematic committees and the Constituent Assembly as the senior leaders were absent and other leaders supported their party positions. Discussion among the 27 parties would be lengthy and would not be effective in a big group, thus there was the possibility that even small issues would spoil the atmosphere. The taskforce was formed to distract the attention of the public by electing the prime minister, calm the anger of the public, ease the pressure on the senior leader from the CA members and public not to amend the CA calendar of events, and work on the constitution-drafting. CA chairperson Subash Nemwang had a significant role in the process.

Initially, the taskforce term was extended for 12 days, then 11 and 15 days; it was active until December 11, 2010. The taskforce was able to gain consensus on 127 out of 210 disputed issues. The consensus arrived at language policy, citizenship, local bodies and others sent the message that if the senior leaders participate, the disputes will gradually be resolved. However, disputes on the form of government, election system, state restructuring, and basic principles of constitution remain to be resolved.