Unless Constitution crisis is resolved, Nepal could be a ticking time-bomb for the region

By General Ashok K Mehta India’s hyper reaction to Nepal’s new Constitution promulgated on 20 September is unprecedented. New Delhi is incensed that Kathmandu did not heed its advice despite assurances it would, rendering the Constitution non-inclusive and ignoring the voices of more than half the country – Madhesis, Tharus and Janjatis. The second reason for India’s consternation is the widespread violence and protest mainly in the Terai which has led to 43 deaths, imposition of curfew and ordering in the Army. In 1919, a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) document had warned that dictated by the grain of the land, any unrest in Nepal would spill over into India. Given the open border, we saw this happen during the 10-year Maoist war as also during the Madhesi Jan Andolan of 2007. Relations between the border areas of India especially UP and Bihar with the Terai in Nepal are described as ‘roti-beti ka rishta’. The spillover includes the nefarious activities of terrorist groups of Pakistan, Chinese spies and criminal gangs inimical to Indian interests. These are the negatives of an open border when linked to the India-Nepal 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship which has no equivalent arrangement anywhere in the world between two neighbouring countries. [caption id=“attachment_2320906” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File image of Nepalese activists burning a copy of the draft Constitution. AFP[/caption] New Delhi’s concerns could have been worded more soberly and need not have been threatening or prescriptive at a time when India-Nepal relations were on an unprecedented post-Narendra Modi high. The Indian Ambassador to Nepal Ranjit Rae’s favourite quotation is, “What was not achieved in 60 years was achieved in four months”. Charges of Indian interference were inevitable, following the string of démarches. India wanted its political and security concerns addressed which should have been done before the closure of the constitution and not after it. The die was cast on 8 June when the four major parties – Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML); United Communist Party of Nepal Maoist (UCPN Maoist) and Madhesi Peoples Rights Forum Democratic – agreed to end their differences and fast-track the Constitution-drafting process. In two months, the federal boundaries were demarcated – first, in six provinces, later increased to seven provinces – and on 20 September, the Constitution was promulgated despite India’s belated intervention. The biggest losers on federalism are the Madhesis and Tharus of Terai . Ironically, they are the original owners of the idea of federalism and autonomy, painstakingly extracted from the government in two agreements in 2007 and 2008. In the elections to the first Constituent Assembly (CA), the Madhesi parties emerged as the fourth largest party after UCPN-Maoist, Nepali Congress and CPN-UML; and with 84 legislators, became kingmakers. Of the 601 legislators in the CA, 200 were from Terai and 121 were Madhesis with 84 from Madhesi parties. That was the political strength of Madhesis at that time. From three parties, Madhes Jan Adhikar Forum, Terai Madhes Democratic Party and Nepal Sadbhavna Party in 2008, they fractured into 13 parties by the time of the Second Constituent Assembly election, thereby costing Madhesis the centre of gravity. Lack of cohesion, lust for power, divisions between Madhesis and Tharus, and within Madhesis themselves; and the governments not factoring in past agreements in constitutional processes are among the many setbacks faced by Madhesis. A brief narrative of Madhes is instructive. Madhesi historic grievances are well documented. Till the early 1950s, they needed a permit to enter Kathmandu and were derisively called ‘dhoti’. They were unrepresented in government, public and private enterprise, state institutions including the Army where the demand for a Madhesi battalion has been long outstanding. With one-third of the land area, nearly 50 percent of the population, 80 percent of industry — the granary and hub of communications in a landlocked country, it is the natural strategic underbelly of Nepal and although it contributes 70 percent of national revenue, it receives only 12 percent for development. In 2008, for the first time, regional and ethnic politics found political space within the emerging democratic system. Earlier, with the exception of the Sadbhavna Party, Kathmandu-based Pahaadi parties represented Madhes. Due to the infusion of arms in the Terai during the Maoist war and the Jan Andolan, a number of weapons came from across the open border. There was a proliferation of armed groups from 22 to almost 109 with numerous criminal gangs also joining in. Many of these were disarmed but many lie dormant. The potential for conflict has not gone away and could gather momentum after the perceived discrimination in the Constitution. Its possible manifestations are an intra-Madhes conflict – between the Madhesis, Tharus and the migrant Pahadis; Madhesis versus Pahadis ; and now Kathmandu versus Madhesis, and Hindu versus Muslim. Pakistan’s ISI is very active and with the mushrooming of madrassas with Saudi funding, Indian Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba find easy sanctuaries. Political stability is therefore of the essence to ensure rule of law and vigilant border management. Unless the political grievances are addressed especially revision of federal boundaries — as Madhes has been salami sliced into five parts — the hill areas in the north can be choked and another Jan Andolan started. That eventuality may not arise as Prime Minister Sushil Koirala has called off his New York visit to the UN in order to address these very issues. The author has known Nepal since 1959 and travels there frequently