The Madhesh Question Republica Daily | 19012015 In the imbroglio over details in the Constituent Assembly II, it is often forgotten that the primary purpose of a constitution is to resolve past conflicts, reconcile present contentions and prevent possible contestations. Since the formulation of a perfect charter that can transcend time and space is beyond the capability of even the best and the brightest of humankind, almost every statute invariably contains amendment clauses that set forth conditions for future modifications. Experiences, however, are less ambiguous despite being equally contentious. Most constitutions attempt to address such issues by keeping some provisions of the supreme law beyond the reach of fluctuating majorities in legislative assemblies. Inviolability of stipulations that are not amenable to amendments can only be maintained if these commitments are in line with universal principles and are broadly acceptable to as large sections of population as possible. While it’s true that no document can ever hope to address aspirations of everyone, constitution-making becomes a meaningless exercise if it fails to respond to crises of the past and ignores issues of existing contestations dogging a nation. A country doesn’t need a fresh statute just because it must have a new one every few years like a pair of shoes, suits or spectacles. Hence, the opinion of former premier Sher Bahadur Deuba that the country should adopt a new statute by just dropping the adjective from the Interim Constitution is either brilliant or balderdash depending upon one’s perceptions and position in life. Euphoric assumptions The Permanent Establishment of the Nation (PEON) in Kathmandu seems convinced that CA II results have resolved all fundamental contradictions of polity in the country. The monarchists are in resurgence but haven’t yet regained the strength to mount a challenge to the libertarian dominance. The Maoists have been defeated; and are consequently in a divided, disillusioned and dispirited mood. The Janjati campaigners have been put in their proper places, which is to prove the magnanimity of the mainstream by dutifully displaying colorful costumes on special occasions in the Tundikhel. The Dalit activists have been shown that they are superfluous to power games in the national capital. In the priorities of the PEON, even women empowerment is no longer an issue. Quality of the assessment is debatable, but premises of the PEON aren’t as erroneous as it appears at first glance. Having shared the same habitat and hardships for ages, caste-Hindu clans and prominent Janjati families of mid-mountains are inseparably intertwined. Through their Khatri and Thakuri cousins, even Bahuns have Janjati relatives. Bonds of ritual friendship put families in tighter embrace than even blood relationship. Many Pahadi Dalits have the same surname as their caste-Hindu neighbors and the two groups speak the same language everywhere in the hills and mountains. Sisterhood, as in the unity between women for the common cause of gender justice, is yet to take root across community, culture and class boundaries. Emboldened by CA II results and encouraged by the dominance of rightwing forces in Indian politics, the PEON has reasons to be sanguine. Deuba has spoken on their behalf: Why squabble when the Interim Constitution serves the status quo so well? The Nepali Congress honcho, however, seems to have forgotten that one of the fundamental features of the Interim Constitution—federalism—owes its insertion into the supreme law of the land to Madhesh Uprising eight years ago. As long as the promise of federalism doesn’t become a principled feature of the fresh charter, the constitution shall continue to be meaningless in most of Tarai-Madhesh. It is easy to pick, train and then parade Madheshi mannequins—dressed in labeda-suruwals—as true specimens of the model minority. But such prominent ‘patriots’ lose their legitimacy as soon as they begin to parrot lines of Panchayat nationalism. The acceptability of a Madheshi politico on home ground decreases in direct proportion to his—it’s almost always male—popularity in Pahadi circles. It is often forgotten that much before Ram Kumar Shah became the Chief Justice, some very competent Madheshis had graced that high office under Shah Monarchs. The Office of President is unique to a republic; however, Badri Prasad Mandal became the first Madheshi Deputy Prime Minister of the country not in a democratic regime but under the direct rule of the king. Public profile of President Barack Obama definitely helps in raising the self-esteem of African-Americans in the United States of America, but to think that it has solved race relations in the oldest republic of the world is simplistic at best. Reality check The history of dignity politics in Tarai-Madhesh is almost as old as democratic struggles in the country. However, it remained as an adjunct to campaigns for civil and political rights under absolute and constitutional monarchies. Desperation set in only when framers failed to incorporate Madheshi ideals of inclusion, participation and self-rule in the Interim Constitution in 2007 even after addressing issues considered vital for the accommodation of Maoists in the mainstream politics. Perhaps that was the reason Maoists became primary targets of the Madheshi outrage during the first phase of Madhesh Uprising. Except for the ritual remembrance on the Day of Sacrifice (Balidan Diwas)—commemorated every January 19 to mark the martyrdom of Madheshi youths in Lahan—few care to recollect that Madhesh Uprising initially erupted as incoherent expression of fury against the government. Political programs were unclear at best. The leadership in the initial phase was completely untested: Other than unremarkable stints in CPN-UML and UCPN (Maoist), Upendra Yadav had little credentials to claim the mantle of headship of the movement. Even the ones that fell to Maoist and police bullets in Lahan were not from communities that take to the street at slightest provocation. Ramesh Kumar Mahato, a 16-year student protestor, came from the humble background of what are sometimes grouped as ‘backward castes’ in Tarai-Madhesh. So was Bechan Yadav, a 32-year old householder. Vijaya Kumar Sahani, 32, and Pramod Sada, 15, had been born Dalits. Mohammad Alam, an 18-year-old student, was a Muslim, youngster of a religious minority in Hindu-dominated country. The victims of Madhesh Uprising eight years ago had nobody to speak for them even in Kathmandu, let alone in New Delhi, Beijing, London, Washington or New York. In contrast, when Rajaram Jha died in Janakpur last week after severe beating by the police, sympathisers from everywhere have shown interests to establish a relief fund to help survivors of his family. Reduced seats in the CA II notwithstanding, the Madheshi grievance has managed to acquire international visibility and retained its broad-based legitimacy in the national politics through devoted organizations. The Fijikaran phrase is now confined to the fringes of loony left and nutty right; the two mostly are one and the same any way in this country. In the constitutional history of Nepal, charters of 1950s attempted and succeeded in reconciling interest of the ruling Rana-Shah families and their former courtiers that had emerged out of their shadows. The Panchayat constitution was merely a tool to establish absolute rule of Shahs, which succeeded in creating a new group of minor elites from among select families of loyal Janjatis, Madheshis and Pahadi Chhetris. The Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal-1990 succeeded in addressing concerns of the liberal middleclass that had emerged due to the expansion in literacy and exposure to the outside world. The Interim Constitution of 2007 was intended to mainstream Maoists, which it has done to a considerable extent. Eight years after the first Madhesh Uprising, Madheshis are still waiting. The long silence doesn’t imply that the externalized population of the country have been silenced into submission forever. Nepal has a very long history of constitutions being made and unmade. The majority in CA II is well within its right to exercise its authority and be prepared for the consequences. That’s the way history moves backwards, sideways or forward. myrepublica/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=90601#sthash.M23jqgJa.dpuf
Posted on: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 03:06:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015