On 28th April, 2010, the people of Nepal had elected 601 representatives for drafting a new constitution drafting, and these representatives themselves went to districts and Village Development Committees (VDC) with a bag of questionnaires in order to incorporate people’s opinions in the new constitution. The suggestions (opinions) collection process started on 27th February 2009 with the aim of completing it on 28th March, 2009. During that period, 601 CA members were deployed in various districts by dividing them into 40 groups and distributed 3.4 million 60-page questionnaires; 45 sets of questionnaires to a VDC and 10 sets for the each ward of municipalities.

Based on these questionnaires, the CA members directly collected people’s opinions regarding the major issues such as governance system, model of federalism, inclusiveness, electoral system. According to Subash Nemwang, the CA chairperson, CA members were instructed to make the process as fair as possible avoiding political influences during the people’s opinion collection; however, this instruction was violated, including by CA members from the party in government UCPN(M) to Rastriya Janamorcha Party which opposes federalism. Narayan Kaji Shrestha, CA member of UCPN(M) and vice-chairperson, addressed political meetings in his home district of Gorkha, rather than fulfilling the responsibility of filling up the questionnaires, and Rashmiraj Nepali of Rastriya Janamorcha spent much time speaking against the federalism rather than on opinion collection.

CA members had said that this process will help to build strong relation between people and the Constitution Assembly. Mentioning the strength of this process to understand the ground reality of people, CA member Nabindra Raj Joshi, who was deployed to collect people’s opinions in the capital, said, “People are suggesting in favour of federalism, governance system, peace, prosperity and democracy from diverse perspectives, and these are all helpful to draft the new constitution”.

Similarly, CA member Bishnu Rimal had shared people’s enthusiasm during the opinion collection process in Bhaktapur. According to Rimal, 391 one people had filled up the forms within a day in Chhaling VDC of Bhaktapur district. Rimal mentioned his experiences of personally providing pen and copy to the people who said, “I can’t fill up this long questionnaire, but want to write something”.

The task of opinion collection was totally disrupted in Kailali, Kanchanpur, Banke, Bardiya, Dang, Siraha, Saptari, Sunsari and Rautahat districts, due to the government move of listing Tharu and other indigenous nationalities and minority communities of Tarai under the Madhesi group, and the government decision of opening Western University at Surkhet. According to the Secretariat, the opinion collection process was smooth in other districts.

CA members themselves as enumerator

The responsibility of the Constitution drafting was given to various thematic committees of the CA, following the South African model. Two million people had sent suggestions to the South African Constituent Assembly. In Nepal for the purpose of similar opinion collection, CA members themselves worked to fill up 3.4 million questionnaires in the various districts. However, a number of CA member just ordered the Chief District Officer to collect and send the suggestions without taking forms.

In the beginning, Secretariat staffs had prepared short questionnaires in order to ask only fundamental as well as theoretical concerns regarding the constitution. According to the Secretariat staff, later when the CA members decided to collect suggestion themselves adopting random sampling, then the size of questionnaires was enlarged. In order to ask what should be included in the new constitution, 45 forms for each VDC and 10 forms for each ward of municipality were made available. Secretariat spokesperson Mukunda Sharma said that no outside expert was brought and only the CA members were involved in the process of questionnaire drafting.

Claiming that the forms were prepared by the thematic committees, spokesperson Sharma said, “All the responsibility of questionnaires preparation to form fill up to processing was completed by the CA members, because it is essentially a political process, and it was believed to develop a sense of ownership in the people about the Constitution”. Out of 64 questionnaires, the Committee for Determining the Form of the Government had longest questionnaire and the Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power has the shortest one.

A number of CA members created disputes on the language issue after they reached to the people, with self-prepared questionnaires. Mohamad Istiyak Rai, a Madhesi CA member, protested on questionnaires not being in Urdu language on 28th February, 2009, at a press meeting in Nepalgunj to inform about the process of opinion collection through media. He was part of the team assigned to Bardiya and Dailekh districts.

On 7th March 2009, through a letter Mahant Thakur, CA member of Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party (TMLP), also had demanded to stop the opinions collection process in Terai districts, by claiming that the indigenous and Madhesi people could not understand the language. However, in the process of questionnaires preparation, Thakur and other CA members from his party had equally participated. Secretariat’s spokesperson Sharma said, “These questionnaires were prepared by them, and the issue of language was not discussed there during the questionnaire preparation”.

Despite the plan that twenty three committees will be led by the chairpersons of the committees of the CA and legislative-parliament, 5 teams by chief whips, and other 12 teams by senior members, the name list was not available in secretariat at that time. The printing cost of questionnaires alone was Rupees 8.5 million in addition to the transportation cost.

Question on the process

No one questions the decision of the CA members to gather opinions of the people before sitting down to write the draft of the new constitution. However, the process and techniques exercised during the opinion collection process were severely criticised. The CA has not found no answer for people suggesting going against the federalism and secularism.

CA members themselves realised questionnaires as unscientific and had agreed on their failure to provide enough information to people. According to Subash Nemwang, CA chairperson, in the beginning, it was planned to give this task to experts, but time constraints forced the CA members to complete themselves. On the one hand, questions asked in the form themselves were complex and lengthy, while on the other hand there was no expertise in the CA in order to assist people opinions coding, analysis to arrive at a conclusion through an objective method.

For that purpose, the Secretariat had planned to request the Central Bureau of Statistics for analysing these data. Finally, the CA members themselves had to do this job after getting the experts’ suggestion that it is impossible to reach any solid conclusion from such long descriptive and emotional opinions. Like a teacher marking a student’s copy, CA members did coding inside their workplace in the CA, and a number of CA members took the work home also.

The CA election held on 10 April 2008 gave no clear majority any party. The parties who had gone to the election with promise “to write new election in two years” were given the message to “write the constitution in consensus”. Twenty-five parties were elected to the CA. However, the party leaders focused more on party politics than the mandate of the people, which resulted in extension of the CA deadline after the constitution, could not be drafted within the stipulated timeframe.

The party leaders instead of focusing on consensus, cooperation and unity to write the new constitution focused more on the game of minority and majority to become the prime ministers and to strengthen self-centred party politics because of which the constitution could not be drafted on time, and the new constitution could not be promulgated within the period stipulated by the Interim Constitution 2007.

The first seating of the CA on 28 May 2008 declared Nepal a republic, and 15 days later, King Gyanendra left Narayanhiti Royal Palace. Despite this bloodless momentous change, there has been no change in the old mentality and culture of the party leaders and activists, and intellectuals. The pain of unbridled politics kept repeating. Intolerant and inhumane activities like reassurance, conspiracy, insensitivity, murder, kidnappings, beatings, donations, arsons became “industries”, which attacked the Nepali society. The UCPN (M) passion for arms did not abate; though the murder rates declined, industrialists, businessmen, doctors, journalists and civil society had to live under the shadow of fear. Even after 101 meetings of the CA, the new constitution could not be drafted on time.

The five days from 23 to 28 May 2009 were lost in confusion. There was pessimism all around after it became apparent that the constitution was not going to be ready, and there was still confusion until 10:30 pm on 28 May though the party leaders were busy in various meetings. While the UCPN(M) was against extending the CA deadline until the Prime Minister Madhav Nepal resigned, the NC, UML and other parties were against him resigning until the UCPN(M) start implementing the past agreements (on management/integration of Maoist combatants, ending the paramilitary structure of the YCL, return of captured land/houses and properties). The five days of political “marathon” continued between these two stands, and in the end, they agreed to extend the deadline at midnight of 28 May for another year.

Splits averted

The UCPN (M) is the largest political party in the CA, and the UML is the third largest. While the UML is a party of leftist “liberals”, the UPCN (M) still believes in the centralised government under the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is reflected in its authoritarian character and attitude. The UML is leading both the government and the “house”.

After the standing committee meeting of 28 May at Paris Danda (UCPN(M) central office), Dr Baburam Bhattarai’s camp was in favour extending the CA deadline for six months to continue to the policies formulated at the Chunwang meet (to effectively abandon the people’s war and forge relations with parliamentary parties), but Baidhya camp was against extending the deadline. At the end, when chairperson Prachanda also reached a decision not to extend the deadline, the UCPN (M) put out the condition of the prime minister’s resignation. At 9 am in the morning at the CA building in New Baneshwor, UCPN(M) CA member and Kathmandu valley YCL in-charge Chandra Bahadur Thapa disclosed that the standing committee had clearly been divided into two camps. He said, “Our standing committee members are divided into extending the CA deadline for 6 months and utilise the time and others who are against extending it in the prevailing context. Now, whatever comrade Prachanda decides, we will agree to it.”

Similarly, in the evening, some UML CA members belonging to the party leadership collected signatures demanding the prime minster’s resignation to extend the deadline, but another 62 members collected signatures in the counter-campaign in defence of the prime minister. There were clear two camps within the party regarding extension of the CA deadline. Both Jhalanath-Bamdev and KP-Madhav camps were actively involved in ousting each other immediately after formation of Madhav Kumar Nepal-led government. Therefore, Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal was attached from within the Party rather than by coalition members. The 28 May consensus not only extended the tenure of the CA for one year, but it also calmed the intraparty conflict within both parties and the parties escaped split. In the three-point agreement, the first one mentions the completion of the peace process, the second, extension of the CA deadline, and the third, formation of a national consensus government.

Extension more challenging

The leaders of three main parties saved the CA at midnight on 28 May by reaching a three-point agreement. However, the agreement is not only unclear in itself, there is also no timeline. There is no clarity by which time the points should be implemented. To complete the peace process, the first point mentions implementing the past agreements. The second one mentions the extension of the CA deadline by one year, and the third one mentions the formation of a national government, but it does not mention whether the national government should be of only the three parties or with participation of the 25 parties in the CA.
Therefore, if the constitution is to be drafted within the extended deadline, there is no alternative to a national government, which can have the agreements of all to overcome the disagreements within the CA and the constitution-drafting process can gain speed. The gist of the three-point agreement is the management/integration of the Maoist combatants, return of captured land/house, commission on the disappeared, and ending of paramilitary structure of the YCL before forming the national government. However, the working style and desire of the leadership presents more challenges during this extended period.

What happened during the last 3 days?

26 May 2008

27 May 2008

28 May 2008

Sources: based on news broadcast by various newspapers, radio and TV.

With the signing of the 12-Point Agreement between parliamentary political parties and the then CPN(M) on 22nd November 2005, the CPN(M) entered into open politics, by ending the decade-long insurgency started on 13th February, 1996, targeted against the multiparty democratic system. The peace process that had started with the agreement of adopting multiparty democratic system by then CPN(M) and accepting the issue of a constitution assembly by other political parties had continued till the CA election albeit in a slow pace. The Comprehensive Peace Accord was signed on 21st November, 2006, between then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and Prachanda, chairperson of the then CPN(M); however, the consensus politics ended with the CA election.

Despite the various agreements and understandings, but their implementation was found to be wanting. When the UCPN(M) formed the government with the support of CPN(UML) and Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, there was no more the state and rebels (the Maoists) in the peace process. However, the situation became more complex as the UCPN(M) continued its radical activities even after leading the government. Specifically, there were two obstacles in the peace process: the reaction of status quoists, and the UCPN(M) extremist thinking of them being winner of the CA and other political parties as losers. And the peace process fell into the clutches of these two extremist behaviours.

The People’s Movement of 2006 with anti-monarchy sentiment was made only possible after the unity and collaboration between political parties and the UCPN(M). As a result of that, the first meeting of the CA had formally declared Nepal as federal democratic republic by ending the Shah Dynasty on 28th May 2008. Finally, on 11th June, 2008, then King Gyanendra Shah organised a press meet at Narayanhiti Palace and gave up this throne declaring the return of the crown entrusted to his ancestors to the people. thus, the monarchy came to an end.

Even after the declaration of Nepal as federal democratic republic, the political parties could not stand together in the process of managing the transition to the federal democratic republic. This has imperilled the Nepali people’ desire of drafting the new Constitution through the Constitution Assembly. The mistrust between the senior leaders of political parties had continued since the 12-Point Agreement, which would come to the fore at different times. The agreements and understandings took place when there was low mistrust, and heightened mistrust created tensions. at this time, the political parties realised the need of a neutral observer to continue the peace process, and agreed to invite the United Nations. Thus, the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) got involved in Nepal’s peace process.

Role and presence of UNMIN

UNMIN got involved in the peace process of Nepal due to lack of trust between the actors involved in the peace process after signing the 12-Point Agreement and requested UNMIN to monitor the peace process. Specifically, UNMIN is involved in the management, integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants. Already, UNMIN has completed the verification process of the Maoist combatants of various cantonments. In the beginning, UNMIN had made public the number of the Maoist combatants in various cantonments as 19,602. No data have been made public regarding their numbers after that.

In the period of two years, various questions were raised regarding the activities of UNMIN. Generally, the perception towards UNMIN is mixed into two different camps. Political parties accuse UNMIN of being ineffective in monitoring the activities of the Maoist combatants, and not speaking out even as they are breaching the peace agreements by leaving the cantonments carrying arms and continue coercive activities and violence. however, the UCPN(M) has stated the role of UNMIN is neutral and effective.

Lately, the Nepal Army has stated that it will not remain under UNMIN control, which has been stated not only by the spokesperson of Nepal Army but even the Defence Minister Bidhya Bhandari as the Nepal Army is the national army and it should not be put in the same category as the Maoist combatants and has clarified that the National Army should not be put under the UNMIN.

War of ‘ism’s

In the CA, many long debates and discussions were held on the various themes; however, no decision has been made on any theme. The UCPN(M) wishes to establish “Janabad” (people’s democracy), Nepali congress is in favour of parliamentary system, UML seems unclear, Madhes-based political parties are in favour of ‘one Madhes one province”, Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal wants to resurrect the monarchy, Rastriya Janashakti Party alone is against federalism. Therefore, the CA is in the shadow of various ‘isms’ and ideologies.

Due to differing ideologies, a common understanding between the political parties was crucial to draft the new constitution. Due to the ineffective working modality of political leadership and their culture of hasty compromising and decision-making, the constitution-drafting process is stuck on the issue of what will be the form of the governance system under the new constitution. The CA equally represents diverse thoughts and philosophy of the 25 political parties represented there. Therefore, the constitution-drafting process is at a difficult turn.

Challenges of the Constitution-drafting Process

The main objective of the peace process is to write the new constitution through the CA. The political parties and the UCPN(M) attempted to take the peace process forward through compromises and collaboration in the period between 22nd November, 2005 and May 28, 2008. However, the constitution-drafting and the peace process have suffered after the first meeting of the CA has endorsed majority system by amending the Interim Constitution 2007 on May 28, 2008.
On the one hand, the UCPN(M) reneged on its earlier promise of making Girija Prasad Koirala the president after it gained double the number seats of other parties in the CA. at the same time, the Nepali congress and UML also could not easily accept large win of the UCPN(M). Thus, the politics of compromise and collaboration eroded after this point.

With UNMIN’s involvement in Nepal’s peace process, there was a class of interests of big powers including India, China, U.S.A., and countries of the European Union. The failure of the prime minister selection process through the CA and legislature-parliament can be seen as an example of influence of external powers, where the prime minister has not been selected even after six rounds. Realising this impact on the government formation on the political parties, it is anyone’s guess that the constitution-drafting process is not free from external influences. Therefore, the new constitution is impossible without political consensus, even in the extended timeframe as well. The CA is stuck on the discussion of thematic committees while not being able to address any problems faced by the state.

Without finalising the form of government, the draft of the new constitution cannot be prepared. Then, there needs to be consensus on the model of federalism. Without management, integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants, there can be no end to the peace process and constitution-drafting process. Lastly, the new constitution will be short-lived if it does not incorporate the concerns raised by different ethnic groups. Therefore, these issues have stood as obstacles in the constitution-drafting process.

The schedule of the CA had to be amended three times to give completion to the thematic committees. It was only on 13 January 2009 when all the committees got their chairpersons that the constitution-drafting process came back on “track”. This process was made easier after the then ruling coalition of UCPN (M) and UML agreed to nominate Madhav Kumar Nepal to the CA and made him the chairperson of the Constitutional Committee. These disputes in the leadership of the committee had already given signs that the constitution-drafting process would be affected.

The CA schedule published on 14 November 2008 had set the deadline of end of the second week of December to finalise the committees; however, since the committees could not be formed, it was extended to 30 December 2008 and 9 January 2009. Again, the committee chairpersons could not be selected, and another date of 13 January 2009 was fixed. At 10 p.m. on 10 January 2009, after form UML general secretary was sworn in to the CA, the parties agreed to select the committee chairpersons in consensus. Three meetings of the CA had been called on that day.

There was consensus after the coalition partners and the main opposition Nepali Congress agreed to support Madhav Kumar Nepal’s nomination. Nepali Congress chief whip Laxman Prasad Ghimire said, “We supported Madhav Kumar Nepal’s nomination as the chairperson of the Constitutional Committee after it was agreed that Nepali Congress would get the chairmanship of three thematic committees as well as Public Accounts Committee”.

However, the main disagreement was over the seat of the chairperson of the Constitutional Committee. Nepali Congress and UCPN (M) both had laid claims to the post. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala, UML general secretary Jhalanath Khanal, Madhes Janadhikar Forum chairperson Upendra Yadav and other senior leaders of the people’s movement are in the Committee.

The nepali Congress had proposed former Chief Justice Bishwanath Upadhyaya as the chairperson of the Constitutional Committee, but UCPN(M) and UML did not give their assent, following which he resigned from the CA before taking the oath of the CA. Nepali Congress sent its vice-president Ram Chandra Poudel to the Committee in place Upadhyaya and nominated Trade Union Congress leader Achyut Pandey to the CA. Upadhyaya was the chairperson of the committee that drafted the 1990 constitution while Madhav Nepal was one of the member of that committee. Upadhyaya is a non-political but an expert on constitutions; Madhav Nepal has been active in politics and has been a former general secretary of UML.

Along with the selection of the chairpersons of the committees, the leftist party got vice-chairpersons as well important position in parliamentary as well as constitutional committees. On the agreement of UCPN (M) on UML nominating of Madhav Nepal to the chairperson of the Constitutional Committee, professor of political science Krishna Hachhethu says, “It could be understood as an attempt to give continuity to the 60% votes received by the leftist parties in the CA elections”.

Until the selection of the chairperson, there was constant change in the membership of the Constitutional Committee. UML forced nominated CA member Sushil Chandra Amatya to resign to give way to Madhav Nepal in the CA, and to secure the chairperson of the Constitutional Committee, Radha Gyawali was shifted to another committee. Similarly, UCPN (M) also shifted Amrita Thapa and Dina Nath Sharma form the Constitutional Committee to the Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights, and Revenue Sharing and the Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles and replaced them with Dharmashila Chapagain and Dr. Baburam Bhattarai. After 13 CA members from the Muslim community objected to the non-inclusion of any Muslim members in the Constitutional Committee, two independent CA members Sadrul Miya Haq and Baban Singh were added on 29 December 2008. The Interim Constitution 2007 has a provision of inclusion representation in the committees. There are 13 women members in the committees and 16 members have legal background.

Inter-committee relations

The first task of the committee was to present the preliminary concept papers to the public by second week of April 2009, after which they were supposed to present a preliminary draft with the concept paper to the Constitutional Committee after a discussion. Then the Constitutional Committee prepares the first draft of the constitution. After this draft is submitted to the CA, it is published in the gazette and sent to the Public Opinion Collection and Coordination Committee to gather suggestions from the public. The Constitutional Committee had to compile and integrate the reports from the thematic committees and the suggestions gathered by the Public Opinion Collection and Coordination Committee.

The early meetings of the committees were affected because they took on works falling under other committees. For example, the issue of fiscal relations between different levels of the government was to be discussed in both the Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights, and Revenue Sharing and the Committee for Determining the Form of Government. Similarly, the issues of the rights of women, children, youth, labour, farmers, Madhesi, indigenous Janajati, Dalit, backward region, disabled, Muslims and other minorities were included in both the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Minorities and Marginalised Communities and the Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. So initially issues were cross-listed and it affected the workings of the committees until it was sort out.

At the same time, it was accepted that of the 14 thematic committees, the Constitutional Committee was special and “superior”. Its members took oath of office and secrecy on 16 December 2008 but other committee member have not been sworn in, which has raised questions among the CA members and secretariat staffs. Until this time, journalists had access to all the committees. The CA Chairperson Subash Chandra Nemwang himself had emphasised the transparency of the constitution-drafting process, “journalists are ex-officio members”. However, the Constitutional Committee made new regulations to “constitution-drafting process will be secret” and restricted access to the journalists.

Before then, the State Affairs Committee and Public Accounts Committee were held in importance in the legislature-parliament. There used to be competition among the parties and members to chair and be a member of these two committees. In the previous parliamentary sessions, a precedent was set where the Public Accounts Committee would be chaired by the opposition and other committees would be chaired by the governing parties, and following on this tradition, UPCN (M) chief whip Dina Nath Sharma said, “It will be easier to draft the new constitution if our party chairs the Constitutional Committee”.

There are 43 members in each thematic and procedural committee. The chairperson of the CA selects the members in agreement with the CA based on party structure and by including women, Madhesi, indigenous Janajati, Dalit, backward region, minority community, but no member can be in two committees. Chure Bhawar Rastriya Ekata Party, Nepal Loktantrik Samajbadi Party, Nepa: Rastriya Party, Pariwar Dal, Dalit Janajati Party, and Samajbadi Prajatantrik Janata Party have one member each in the CA who is members to the thematic committees only. Only Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, UML, nepali Congress, and UCPN (M) have members in all the 14 thematic committees while other 20 parties do not because none of them have 14 members in the CA. however, since the preliminary draft papers and concept papers are presented to the full sitting of the Assembly, all members presented their suggestions.
The CA regulations states that the people and CA members have to work together for constitution drafting through a bottom-up process where the members reach out to the people and collection suggestion and people’s wishes.

According to the CA Regulations, the committees have to schedule their timeline with that of the main timeline and go to the people to solicit suggestions. Then every committee prepares its concept and preliminary draft papers and present them to the chairperson of the CA. after discussions, revised reports are sent to the Constitutional Committee for preparing the draft of the constitution, which has to be presented to the CA by its chairperson. However, the committee reports had dissenting opinions and to resolve them a sub-committee to study the reports and make suggestions was formed with Laxman Lal Karna as coordinator and after he became a minister, Agni Prasad Kharel took his position. It has been able to resolve the disagreements of three committees only so far.

Public Opinion Collection and Coordination Committee submits its report with the suggestions of the people to the CA, which debates on the report and sends to the Constitutional Committee. Only then the draft of the constitutional takes the form of a formal bill which has to be presented to the CA by its chairperson and it signals the end of the all the committee-related works. The full sitting of the CA will undertake theoretical and article/clause-wise discussion and the preamble, articles, and clauses have to be approved separately one by one, as per the Regulations. If there is no unanimity, another 15 days has to be given to try to seek a consensus on those issues. If there is not consensus even after then, it has to be approved by two-thirds (265) of the members in attendance not less than two-thirds (401) of the existing members (601).

Every CA member has to sign on the pages of the preamble and articles and clauses of the constitution approved by the full sitting of the CA. then the Regulations states that the chairperson of the CA certifies the document and presents it to the President in a national ceremony and the President will declare the promulgation of the new constitution in the country.

Chairpersons of the 14 thematic committees

1. Constitutional Committee: Nilambar Acharya became the chairperson after Madhav Kumar Nepal became the prime minster.
2. Committee on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: Binda Pande (UML)
3. Committee on the Protection of the Rights of the Marginalised and Marginalised Communities: Lalbabu Pandit (UML)
4. Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power: Lokendra Bista Magar (UCPN-M)
5. Committee for Determining the Structure of the Legislative Body: Ramesh Rijal (Nepali Congress)
6. Committee for Determining the Form of Government: Shambhu Hajara Dusadh (Nepali Congress)
7. Judicial System Committee: Prabhu Sah Teli (UCPN-M)
8. Committee for Determining the Structure of Constitutional Bodies: Gobinda Chaudhari (TMLP)
9. Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Revenue Sharing: Amrita Thapa Magar (UCPN-M)
10. Committee for Determining the Base of the Cultural and Social Solidarity: Nabodita Chaudhari (RPP)
11. National Interest Preservation Committee: Amik Sherchan (UCPN-M)
12. Committee on Citizen: Mina Pandey (Nepali Congress)
13. Public Opinion Collection and Coordination Committee: Pramod Prasad Gupta (MJF)
14. Capacity Building and Source Management Committee: Mrigendra Singh Yadav (MJF)

Not only are the Constituent Assembly (CA) members divided in multiple groups based on their political ideologies, but also sharply along their ethnicity, sexual orientation, geography, sector and occupation. Therefore, there is a tough polarisation inside the CA in these ethnic, geographic, gender-based, sectoral, linguistic and occupational lines. There are various pressure groups of women CA members, indigenous and ethnic CA members, Dalit members, Muslim members, Madhesi members and Marwari members, among others, which are actively working inside the CA.

The female representatives of all the parties in the CA have joined hands together to form their Women Caucus. The Caucus was established mainly to apply pressure for ensuring the rights, welfare and privileges of all Nepali women. For the management of the Caucus, these women parliamentarians have drafted a ”Women CA Members’ Group/Women Group Regulations”.

The leadership of the Caucus is based on circular rotation between all the political parties involved. While CPN(UML)’s Usha Kala Rai has been appointed as the coordinator of the 24-member executive committee, Shanti Basnet Adhikari of CPN(UML) is its assistant coordinator, Nilam Varma (Madhesi People’s Rights Forum-Democratic) is the secretary, Durga Jayanti Rai UCPN(M) is the treasurer. This is the only caucus that has been formally formed in the CA with an independent regulation. However, there are no other pressure groups (caucuses) inside the parliament which have formulated their own regulation.

Similarly, 49 parliamentarians representing all the political parties participating in the CA have formed an informal caucus of indigenous/ethnic CA members. Another front has been established by the Madhesi parliamentarians as well. This front was founded involving 83 CA members during the last prime ministerial election. Although only 83 Madhesi members are involved in this front, more than 200 CA members represent Madhes in the parliament. The main goal of forming the Madhesi parliamentarian’s front was to act as a pressure group for ensuring the rights and privileges of the Madhesi people, i.e., for the implementation of “Ek Madhes, Ek Pradesh” (All Madhes as one federal unit).

The 49 Dalit CA members in the parliament representing various political parties have also united their voices and formed their group for ensuring Dalit rights. In addition to that, the Muslim parliamentarians have also united to form a group for the securing the rights of the community. Though only informal, the Muslim parliamentarians and their group is active in pressurising for the right and privileges of the Muslim community in the new constitution. To be noted is the fact that there are only 17 Muslim CA members in the parliament. Similar to the above-mentioned groups, the Marwari CA members have also come together for the benefit of their community.

Why Polarisation?

In the past, people belonging to many caste and ethnic groups, communities and sectors were left unaddressed by the state’s mainstream of governance. Only a special caste and religion was able to situate itself on top of the system. The developmental activities did not reach rural and remote places. These people who waited for progress started searching for the fruits of development and questioning their identity. The political parties in the mainstream of governance could not understand this, and as a result, the polarisation of multiple communities, ethnic groups, sexual identities, and geographical started to be seen.

Though the idea of decentralisation was heard on and off during the past, the actual concept of decentralisation was never followed and/or implemented; everything was concentrated on the scope of the power-holders. One of the reasons for this rise in polarisation could be the want of freedom from the woes created by these “powerfuls”. Therefore, the political parties and their leadership should understand this in time and start the process of inclusion at the state level without any further delay. It is clearly evident that the timely settlement of this polarisation is essential; and at the same time the ethnic politics is starting to get dominant.

Searching Identity within Identity

Various ethnic groups like Newar, Magar, Gurung, Tamang, Rai, Limbu and Madhesis, who have larger population and have some access to the state level, are seen demanding ethnicity-based federal states with self-determination. Similarly, in places where these ethnic groups are in majority, the other minority caste and ethnic groups have been raising voices of self-governance.

The Tharus have started demonstration against the ”Ek Madhes Ek Prades” (All Madhes as one federal unit) in the Madhes itself. In the words of Tharu Welfare Assembly’s former General Secretary and Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities’ President Rajkumar Lekhi Tharu, “We will never sanction another series of exploitation at the hands another oppressive feudal in the ”Ek Madhes, Ek Prades” form of federal state.” This means that most of the Tarai-based indigenous and ethnic groups do not favour the idea of ”Ek Madhes Ek Prades”. They want multi-federal system in the Tarai. Equally struggling for their identity are the Muslims, who number about 11 lakhs.

On the other hand, the Hyolmo ethnic groups residing in the Nuwakot and Sindhupalchok area are not willing to endorse the Tamsaling state that the Tamangs are demanding. The Chepangs of Makawanpur and Dhading are also searching for their identity within these two districts which are claimed by the Tamangs. Similarly, the Jirels and Thamis of Dolakha are not in favour of limiting themselves within the proposed Tamsaling. The UCPN(Ma) CA member from Dolakha Chun Bahadur Thami says, “We need Thami autonomous region. We want to govern ourselves through our own administration and governance, and not at the hands of any Tamang or other groups.”

These groups have been demanding their own independent autonomous states. Various groups like Thakali, Bargaun, Tangbe Magar, etc. within the proposed Tamuwan have also been searching for their identity. The quest for identity has had such deep roots that the ethnic Bargaun group is not willing to reside under the aegis of the autonomous state of Thakalis in Mustang. The only parliamentarian representing about 4000 the Bargauns, Tashi Hyolmo Gurungseni, says, “We want an autonomous region of the Bargauns. There was no parliamentarian from our community till date; therefore, no one spoke for our rights. Now I will raise voice for my community.” She informed during the meet that though her surname is Gurungseni, she does not belong to the Gurung community, and it was the fault of the age-old system of recordkeeping while issuing her citizenship by which she has got the Gurung surname. Parliamentarian Tashi adds, “The Bargaun group has its own identity; we belong neither to the Thakalis nor the Gurungs.”

Similar to the above stories, ethnic groups like Ale and Dura have also been searching their identity within the identity of the proposed Tamuwan state. What is clear with these issues is that the voice for ethnic, geographic, gender-based and sectoral polarisation would keep getting louder. Loktantra (democracy) will take firm roots only when we can rightly manage these issues. If the voices of the ethnic groups are only heard and not listened to and acted upon, this will smoulder like an ember within a tinderbox.

The Indications of Polarisation

The ethnic and geographic polarisation has gained more momentum than sectoral and occupational ones in the Constituent Assembly. The proponents of ethnicity have been chanting the mantra of drafting the new constitution on ethnic grounds. Similarly, the followers of ”Ek Madhes Ek Prades” have been insisting on the restructuring of the nation based on the three ecological zones of mountain, hill and Madhes; and all the Madhes-based political parties are united on this demand.

The ethnic, Madhesi and Dalit leaders representing various national-level political parties have been getting attracted towards their own community and region. Even those leaders who had occupied government posts in the past have started saying that they are working for the benefit of their community, ethnicity and region. But nothing could be said without exploring what they did for the development of their community and region in the past. It could also be argued that they have got this attraction to their community and region for clinging onto the facilities, privileges and respect that they have been getting from the past. Conversely, it could also be that they are actually dedicated to the benefit of their community.

No matter what, it is clearly evident that the indigenous, ethnic, Dalit, women, Madhesi and Muslim parliamentarians have been attracted more towards their community and region than own mother parties. This has escalated the possibilities of division in the national-level parties. The fact that the political parties, which ought to take up national issues to the forefront, could now be limited to ethnic and regional issues cannot be negated in this context. This will have a deleterious effect on the party-based politics and the sense of positive competition would get a serious blow. The fact that this polarisation could result in the rising ethnic tension in the society cannot be easily denied.

Boxes
Caucuses in the Constituent Assembly

1. Women Caucus/Group of Women Parliamentarians
2. Group of Ethnic and Indigenous Parliamentarians
3. Madhesi Parliamentarians’ Front
4. Group of Dalit Parliamentarians
5. Group of Muslim Parliamentarians
6. Group of Marwari Parliamentarians