India's suggestions-that-never-were on Nepal Constitution could worsen an already bad situation

A day after India was reported to have submitted/conveyed a list of seven recommended Constitutional amendments to Nepal, its embassy in New Delhi has fired back saying that the country’s new Constitution is ‘better than the Indian Constitution’. The Indian Express reports that Nepal’s ambassador to India Deep Kumar Upadhyay decribed ‘the most progressive (Constitution) in South Asia’ as an ‘open document which can be amended’. His deputy Krishna Prasad Dhakal, however, went a step further asserting that “Nepal’s Constitution is better than the Indian Constitution since it takes care of minorities as well as women”. To illustrate his contention, Dhakal pointed out that while India’s Constitution ensures the first-past-the-post — wherein the candidate with most votes wins, and those with fewer votes get nothing, regardless of the percentage of votes they picked up — system, the Nepali one ensures this as well as a system of proportional representation. [caption id=“attachment_2407728” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Representational image. AP[/caption] He went on to tell The Indian Express that with a 33 percent reservation for women, the newly-promulgated Nepali Constitution also takes care of women, along with minorities. Even Russian ambassador to Nepal Dr Sergey Vasilievich Velichkin voiced his approval for the new Constitution, stating that it ‘fully meets generally accepted standards’. Take a moment to read that again. Russia propounding on generally accepted standards. It’s a new world. And that, it would stand to reason, should be that. Unfortunately, it’s rarely ever as simple as that. And India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) quickly put out a statement denying that it had ever ‘handed over’ any list of amendments. It stated, “(Government of India) has not handed over any list of specific Constitutional amendments or changes to the Government of Nepal.” Nevertheless, Upadhyay expressed to The Indian Express his displeasure at the way these recommendations were suggested. He said that if these ‘suggestions or reservations or expectations’ were made in a timely manner, “this situation would have been avoided. This is not a good situation for both countries… If before the public statements, if we had known (about India’s reservations), then something could have changed (sic)”. In the meantime, Nepali political leaders have not entirely unexpectedly responded negatively to these suggestions-that-weren’t: - Chief of the CPN-UML’s publicity department Yogesh Bhattarai was quoted by The Kathmandu Post as saying, “If that is Delhi’s official position, that is wrong and objectionable… No country has the right to submit such suggestions to a neighbouring countries when the latter is promulgating new constitution on its own.” - Spokesperson of the UCPN (Maoist) Dinanath Sharma reacted a little more quizzically, stating, “Any suggestions prior to the constitution promulgation would have been welcome. But how can they offer such suggestions now?” - Spokesperson of the Nepali Congress Dilendra Badu merely denied that there had been any official communication. - Chairman of the CPN-UML KP Oli opted to address specific recommendations instead of the act of recommending by telling The Indian Express Wednesday that “(under) no circumstances shall we amend the constitution to pave the way for naturalised citizens to occupy the post of head of state, head of the government and constitutional bodies”. Whether in anticipation of this selection of less-than-enthusiastic responses or to push the envelope on Constitutional amendments, the MEA issued a statement on Monday. It mentioned the difficulties faced by Indian freight companies and transporters in ‘movement within Nepal and their security concerns, due to the prevailing unrest’ relating to the Constitution. This has been interpreted by sections of the Indian and Nepali media as a thinly-veiled threat of a possible economic blockade against Nepal by India — a throwback to 1989. In March 1989, a similar blockade had been imposed on account of the growing closeness between Beijing and Kathmandu evident in Nepal signing a deal to buy arms from China, and China building a road connecting it to Nepal. And the latest development, as per a report in Nepali Times, is that the Tharu community has taken a cue from the MEA statement and blocked the country’s east-west highway, effectively cutting Kathmandu off from a supply of daily essentials. Could all of this have been averted if India had submitted its ‘official’ recommendations while the Constitution was being drafted, rather than after it was circulated? Possibly. Is there any guarantee that India’s views would have been taken on board? Highly unlikely. Is this whole situation likely to get worse, to the particular detriment of the Madhesi, Janajati and Tharu cause? Most likely.