India caught in a ring of fire

Dhruba Adhikary

KATHMANDU - Reflecting growing anxiety in New Delhi about ongoing conflicts in the neighborhood, a leading Indian publication, India Today, led its May 28 edition with a cover report headlined "Neighbors on fire". Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal are four countries covered by the magazine. Although they are very much part of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the publication has conspicuously left out three countries: Afghanistan, Bhutan and Maldives. Perhaps New Delhi thinks these three can't afford to antagonize the rulers of India.

Political instability of an unprecedented kind has gripped the South Asia region, and the reasons for this range from armed insurgency to communal animosity and political obduracy thereof. Fears are being expressed that rapidly unfolding events and trends might place the basic principle of - and popular faith in - democracy at risk. Does India, the world's largest democracy, stand to gain from such a scenario? How will it be useful to India, not very far from China, to watch transparent political systems turning into opaque regimes in countries in its vicinity? Anyhow, when its immediate neighborhood is on fire, what should be India's reaction?

New Delhi, of course, could take some pleasure if it were discreetly assisting those responsible for setting the fires in the neighborhood. The other alternative, as the publication suggests, is to start worrying about the fallout for South Asia, where India is a dominant power. "India must ensure," said Aroon Purie, the chief editor of India Today, "that it plays a part in making sure its neighbors are able to put out their fires." In other words, India should help neighbors to help themselves - confine its role to that of a facilitator. It should play the role of mother India, not that of a big brother. But it seems unlikely the Indian establishment will do this, and New Delhi is sensitive whenever issues in public debate involve the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Defense.

This is explained in a book, Making News, published in 2006. In a chapter contributed by Rajdeep Sardesai, a noted television journalist, there is a description of how journalists who do not want to toe the official line have to run the risk of being called anti-nationals. He tells how journalists are expected to "follow hook, line and sinker what the ministry is saying". Unlike other issues, matters involving foreign relations are not regularly discussed in Parliament. Officials find it expedient to convince their political masters that it is beneficial to keep issues in the domain of external relations and diplomacy secret, in effect taking the agenda away from the public on whose behalf the government is expected to be working. This is what India is today, decades after renowned American scholar John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) said India was a functioning anarchy. (He also served as US envoy in New Delhi under president John F Kennedy.)

India Today has culled the opinions of experts criticizing the authorities for "ad hoc-ism". One is Brahma Chellaney, a strategic analyst, who said, "It is odd that Delhi does not have a clear neighborhood policy." It means that India has conducted its relations in the neighborhood in a haphazard manner without any coordinated, clear-cut policy since it ceased be a British colony in 1947. These include the wars with Pakistan, the clash with China, support to the movement to "liberate" Bangladesh, the annexation of Sikkim, and the landing of Indian troops in Sri Lanka to protect the Tamil population. And, in a more recent case, pitting Maoists, democratic parties and the monarchy against one other - thereby destabilizing Nepal. Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon admitted, in front of a New Delhi audience on April 10, that South Asia "remains one of the least integrated regions in the world".

Should not India, the largest country in the region - and currently the chair of the SAARC - do some introspection where its measures have failed to create a conducive atmosphere to build "interdependencies", as Menon alluded to in his speech at the Observer Research Foundation? There is a need for dispassionate study to find out why India's relations with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal have remained less than cordial. Surely, India alone cannot be right and others all wrong. As has been pointed out by experts - and tacitly admitted by authorities - New Delhi is working without a policy on its neighborhood. It ostensibly is guided by assumptions, presumptions, perceptions and intelligence reports that are inherently flawed because of preconceived motivations. Menon, as quoted by India Today, said diplomacy "is to get other people to do what I want but get them to think that I am doing what they want".

Since Menon is the head of India's diplomatic service, it would be fair to assume that the country's envoys - be they in South Asian capitals or elsewhere - perform their roles on this basis. This leads one to consider what Indian Ambassador Shiv Shankar Mukherjee in Kathmandu - and in the border town of Birgunj - has been doing. In earlier times, the Maoist leadership waging a war against the Nepali government was led to a believe that Delhi was acting for their benefit. Once the Maoists decided to join mainstream politics and become a part of Parliament as well as the government, Indian diplomats found it expedient to entice one or two breakaway Maoist factions and extend them support, on the basis of which they have launched a separatist movement in the southern plains called Terai. One of the leaders at the forefront of this "Madhesi" movement, Upendra Yadav, is a Maoist renegade who in 2004 was arrested on Indian territory with two of his comrades.

New Delhi quietly handed over the two to Nepali authorities but set Yadav free while he was still in Indian territory. There is a widely held perception that Yadav, who physically resembles the people of the nearby (to Nepal) Indian state of Bihar, is being used to sustain a hate campaign against Nepalis of "hills" origin. This is presumed to be based on an Indian interpretation that most Maoists are of "hills" origin, and that by getting them evicted from the plains India can keep its porous borders safe and also prevent the Maoist movement from spreading to adjoining Indian states. Clearly, it is an attempt to create a buffer within a buffer - which is Nepal. It is becoming clear that Yadav is being groomed to take a role akin to that of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran's in Sri Lanka.

If Prabhakaran can obtain Indian support for his fight for a separate Tamil state, Yadav's expectations for similar support from New Delhi for a "Madheshland" look logical. Some analysts tend to see these initiatives as an example of the double standards that India has applied for decades, citing military repression in Kashmir, the northeast and elsewhere to quell separatist movements. The Indian stand on the Maoists has been inconsistent. When the Indian Foreign Office was led by Jaswant Singh, New Delhi labeled the Maoists as terrorists. Later, it reversed this approach and started to assist them, despite their violent methods. More than 13,000 lives have been lost in the decade-long insurgency that began in 1996.

Yet New Delhi was instrumental in making them a party to a 12-point agreement with the Nepali Congress-led front of seven political parties. One agreement led to another, and eventually the Maoists fully joined the constitutional process, finally becoming a part of the interim government on April 1 this year. But now India sees them as a deadly menace, a sort of Frankenstein's monster. But the stinging question is: Who supported them so that they could be where they are now? The Maoists have ambition, as is evident from this observation of top Maoist leader Pushpa Kamala Dahal, aka Prachanda, reproduced in the May 18 report of the International Crisis Group: "Even if we are a small country in South Asia, we think our revolution can have impact all over the world."

Prachanda stresses the "great" experiment Nepal is about to undertake, saying that the country will be a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. Communism may have died elsewhere, and the Shinning Path movement in Peru isn't there to provide them inspiration any longer, but Nepali Maoists claim that they have become a force to be reckoned with. In a broader context, Indian is jittery over possible Chinese inroads into Nepal through the Maoists; here the interests of New Delhi and Washington converge. That the United States and India consult on Nepal has been made public by their officials on numerous occasions. In response to a US Congress committee query on March 22, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded that "our closest international partner in working on affairs in Nepal is India".

She also described Nepal's conditions as "somewhat tenuous", at the same praising her ambassador, James Francis Moriarty, for his performance in Nepal. Rice's remarks serve as an indicator that Moriarty and his Indian counterpart Mukherjee are working in tandem. Their frequency of visits, conducted separately, to the residence of interim Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala create enough room for conjecture that the external influence on crucial decisions he makes is pervasive.

Apparently, Delhi has argued with Washington as well as with countries in the European Union that they should remain in touch with the Indians whenever the West intends to make substantive offers to Nepal. The reason: it is India that has to face the resulting consequences, pick up the pieces. Moriarty and Mukherjee could, if they wanted, have met Koirala and the chief of the Nepal Army, General Rookmangud Katawal, at the same time. Analysts say Mukherjee wants to protect himself from embarrassment because the government in India is based on a coalition to which communist parties provide important support.

This leaves the task of condemning Maoist violence to Moriarty, who receives condemnation for being the meddlesome ambassador of an "imperialist power". Maoist leaders no longer publicly denounce India, which used to be seen as an "expansionist power". (In private conversations, the Maoists, like any other political leaders, resent New Delhi's growing interference in Nepali politics.) In the words of analyst Upendra Gautam, the Americans' approach to issues is usually direct and straightforward - they say what they accept and what they reject. The Indian style is different, and it is often difficult to fathom what New Delhi means or wants.

"There is a visible lack of sincerity as well," Gautam said, referring to the usual Indian hesitation in implementing various agreements on trade, transit and water resources with Nepal. Gautam also agreed with those who think that while the Indians and Americans may be working jointly to contain China, India often goes further and goads the US to do things for which it has to face public anger. One recent incident in eastern Nepal provides an example. Outside a Bhutanese refugee camp, Moriarty faced a stone-throwing crowd he had gone to meet to make an offer for resettlement of about 60,000 refugees. Mukherjee, on the other hand, has not encountered any hostility, although it is his country, India, which has assisted the Bhutanese royal regime in evicting the more than 100,000 Nepali-speaking Bhutanese nationals who have taken shelter in United Nations-run camps since the early 1990s. (The diplomatic corps in Kathmandu issued a statement last weekend expressing concern for the safety of diplomats accredited to Nepal.)

A news report published in The Australian newspaper on April 12 said the central plank of India's impatience and concern stems from a perception that the Chinese influence on Nepal is on the rise - not only through the Maoists, who have joined the government, but also by China's reported interest to extend its Tibetan railway to Nepal. Since India enjoys a close and improved relationship with China, especially after Beijing recognized Sikkim as a part of India, there is apparently no ground for New Delhi to be over-sensitive. Meanwhile, Nepal remains politically unstable as interim government leaders and feuding political parties work overtime to find a date for proposed November elections for a constitution-making assembly.

There are rumors that New Delhi is contemplating sending in troops, as it did in Sri Lanka in the 1980s. Speculation also includes a possible bid to dispatch Indian soldiers under UN command. But there are hurdles. How will, for instance, the 50,000-plus Nepalis currently employed by the Indian Army react when they know that their motherland is being invaded by Indian forces? Observers mention such aspects to discount fears of direct military intervention by India, also because the mission to Sri Lanka turned out to be a fiasco (and led to the assassination of prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991). The other important deterrent is China, which obviously does not want to see undesirable activities in a country bordering Tibet.

Beijing's concerns of instability in Nepal may not be found in the daily media, but it would be wrong to presume that the Chinese are indifferent toward happenings in the vicinity of Tibet. Unlike India, China does not take too much interest in who comes to power in Nepal; its policy has been to deal with whoever has been accepted by the people of Nepal. In the past, China maintained contacts with the monarchy; since April 2006 it has worked with first the caretaker and then the interim government headed by Koirala. In a concomitant gesture, China changed its ambassador after Nepal's interim constitution in effect suspended King Gyanendra by way of transferring his official responsibilities to the prime minister.

By directing its new ambassador, Zheng Xianglin, to present his credentials to Koirala (April 19), Beijing issued a pithy message that its past linkage with the monarchy was not a permanent one, or that it would go against the wishes of the Nepali people. Zheng became the first ambassador accredited to Nepal to break the tradition of seeking an audience with the king for the said purpose.In addition, Beijing has invited Koirala to pay an official visit to China, this is likely to be next month. Meanwhile, a number of delegations, including official ones, have arrived from China in the past few months. And a senior member in the Maoist hierarchy, Barshaman Pun (aka Ananta), has been to China twice in the past six months. Media reports said in recent weeks that if approached by Nepal, China could make arrangements for a limited supply of petroleum products for Nepali consumers who have to date been fully dependent on supplies from India. Some of these developments seem to have set off jitters in New Delhi, prompting it to look for alternatives.

What could these be? First, India has to develop an integrated foreign policy for the neighborhood with a specific pledge to support democratic processes in all countries. Second, it needs to stop getting involved in internal political competitions, and develop friendly and transparent relations with governments elected by the people. Third, it could lift all restrictions on trade and transit facilities and begin treating neighbors on the basis of equality and respect. By taking such measures, India would win the goodwill required to project itself as a genuine regional power. This is preferable to entertaining the idea of coups to install "friendly" regimes.

Source: Asia Times, June 6, 2007

What Would A Maoist Nepali Economy Be Like?

John Child

Maoist leaders' speeches at the annual Chambers of Commerce meeting contained comforting commitments but plenty of radical rhetoric too.

The 41st annual meeting of the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industries opened this week with speeches from the usual slate of ministers and business leaders, but the agenda also included time for Maoist supremo Prachanda and number-two Dr. Baburam Bhattarai. The Maoists sought to calm fears by repeating earlier assurances that they are not anti-capitalist, that they do not intend to confiscate private property, and that they will not prohibit foreign investment.

But the reassurances came with a hefty dose of rhetoric at odds with the promises. Prachanda said that economic progress depends on doing away with 'rents and commissions' to foreign 'compradors.' Rent is a term from classic economics: It is the difference between income generated and cost incurred - the profit - from putting an additional unit of capital or labor into use. To Communists though, rent is 'unearned profit': In both the Soviet Union and Mao's China, that meant all private profits.

The word comprador also predates Marx but took on new meaning in Communist economics. Originally a term for a Chinese agent working with foreign traders as a business intermediary, Marx and Mao used the word to describe those who serve and profit from imperialism. Imperialism in Lenin's definition is 'the highest form of capitalism,' that of multinational corporations and international capital movements. Prachanda and Bhattarai also railed against 'feudal and reactionary interests' and 'foreigners and their commission agents who waged jihad against us' and 'looted the nation's assets.' Perhaps the words rent and comprador are just more Communist jargon. But if the Maoists mean what they say, their vision of the Nepali economy is quite different from today's picture.

The Maoists want 'national capitalists' but not 'foreign agents.' Many of the country's major business houses are Indian-owned; most of the commercial banks are foreign-run joint partnerships. Many in the audience must have wondered if they would be considered compradors, benefiting from the global economy. The Maoists want foreign investment, but Bhattarai explicitly ruled out education, health, communications, and transportation. Maoist water minister Yami's blocking of the Melamchi deal suggests that foreign involvement in public works is out too.
The Maoists say they approve of private property, but they have also called for legal limits on how much of it anyone can own, in the name of land reform. Profit is OK, but not 'unfair' profit. Foreign money may be acceptable in some areas, but not foreigners or their agents. No commissions means no corruption around investments, say the Maoists.

In his speech, Prachanda said that foreigners waged 'media war' on his party after they refused to take the commission offered for letting the Melamchi deal go through. To dramatize a commitment to good government, Maoist ministers signed over all their personal property to the party and pledged to accumulate none during their tenure. Anti-smuggling efforts by the YCL too are part of the Maoists' stated clean-up campaign.

Reducing corruption and influence would certainly be good, but ongoing demands from the Maoists for 'donations' cost businesses as much as corruption does, and the lack of any accounting from the party for more than $15 million given to them by the government to support their troops in the cantonments doesn't bode well for transparency in a Maoist Nepal.
'We are still in the process of resolving political issues,' Prachanda told the business leaders. 'Therefore the country's modernization is a distant dream.' Those in his audience who took the rhetoric seriously may hope that Prachanda's dream remains far away, whether they consider themselves compradors or not.

Source: News Blaze, June 5, 2007

Security For Polls

PRIME Minister Girija Prasad Koirala has expressed the commitment to maintain perfect security to hold the constituent assembly election in a free, fair and peaceful manner. Speaking at a function in Kathmandu Monday, Prime Minister Koirala said that the government would take firm action against anyone who tries to take the law into his hand and create chaos in the country. There are institutions to enforce security, and it is the duty of all citizens to respect the law of the land. If something goes wrong, the law should be allowed to take its course, and the law enforcement agencies to take the necessary action. Democracy is a system of the rule of law, and there should be no attempts from any individual or groups to violate it. Prime Minister Koirala's remarks come in the light of attempts by certain groups to take the law in their hands. The rule of law and security must be strictly maintained so that people can feel safe and secure. Nepal is currently passing through a transitional stage. At times such as these, there are always unscrupulous people and groups trying to take advantage of the fluid situation. But the commitment of Prime Minister is strong, and, hopefully, lawbreakers will not be spared under any circumstances.

Nepal is in the process of holding the constituent assembly election to restructure the state, ensure inclusive democracy and complete the peace process. The eight political parties have agreed to hold the constituent assembly election by November this year. The election is a national priority. For holding a free, fair and fearless election, the law and order must be perfect so that people can cast their verdict without fear. It is the duty of all the political forces to create a conducive atmosphere for holding the constituent assembly election in time, which will chart out a new course of national politics and create a new Nepal. The acts of intimidation, kidnapping and threat are likely to destablise the ongoing political process in the country. There are some elements that are trying to sabotage the political process and the constituent assembly election. The acts of threat and intimidation not only violate law and order but are also against any democratic culture. Thus, the government must take stern action against such elements, and all democratic forces should work together for creating a conducive atmosphere for holding the constituent assembly polls.

Source: The Rising Nepal, June 6, 2007

Congress Unification Bid Gains Speed

Narayan Upadhyay

The bid to unite the Nepali Congress has been gaining unprecedented momentum. The Nepali Congress, which was reluctant to hold talks with the leaders of the Nepali Congress (Democratic) in the past, has now formed a three-member team to thrash out solutions to the much-expected party unification. Unlike in the past, both sides seem to be serious about party unification. The top party leaders of both the Congresses, who in the past had only given lip service to party integration, have been active in parleys to merge the parties.

Communist dominance

The current national political scenario in which the communist parties of different hues are declaring themselves as the dominant political force is the paramount reason that is bringing both the Congresses together after splitting five years ago. The fear of imminent unification among Nepal's left parties, including the Maoists and CPN-UML, might have impelled the Congress parties to come together in recent times.

Another reason why the leaders of both the Congresses and their ranks and files have been pushed towards unification is the upcoming Constituency Assembly (CA) elections. In the changed political context, the Constituent Assembly holds the key to charting out the kind of political, economic, social and cultural course the nation would follow in the future. After the success of the People's Movement in April last year, there has been a demand to replace the monarchy with republicanism. The communists, mainly the Maoists and the UML, are leading the republican agenda. Some sections within both the Congresses are, too, in favor of a republic, but the top brasses from both the Congresses have not made their intention clear about the fate of the monarchy. The communist parties are making a clarion call for declaring Nepal a republic from the Legislature Parliament, but leaders of both the Congresses do not support the communists. They want the issue of monarchy to be decided by the very first meeting of the upcoming constituent assembly.

There are other pressing issues that make the CA an important entity for the Nepali Congress. Apart from deciding on the future role for the monarch, the CA will help prepare a new constitution and decide on the model and style of how the government should function. The demands of an all-inclusive governing system, where people of different castes, sex, race and regions would have fair representation are also to be tackled. By now, it has become obvious that a political party, which can elect a majority of their members to the CA, can have their say when the CA takes up its epochal decisions on the various important political matters and socio-economic issues. Unification is, thus, necessary for the Congress parties to safeguard their interests when the historic CA takes place. If both these groups go to the CA elections separately, they are unlikely to win enough places, which would be suicidal for them.

As a party that has been waging a struggle to establish democracy in the nation for the past six decades, the Nepali Congress thinks that the onus of safeguarding democracy in the nation lies mainly on its shoulders. Amidst mounting fear that the Nepalese Left would form an alliance to dictate terms by taking advantage of the fluid political situation and capture the maximum number of positions in the CA, both the Congresses have no choice other than to hasten their unification attempt. Several other significant matters have also speeded up the Congress unification bid. Leaders of both the sides have realised that the democratisation of Nepal's politics has received a hammering following the split in the Nepali Congress five years ago. The forces harbouring a wish to play against democracy and supporting a dictatorial regime had the best of their times when former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and his supporters divided the Nepali Congress vertically. The break-up of the then ruling party gave enough leverage to the King to usurp power.

On the other hand, the split in the Congress not only made the voice of both the Nepali Congress and Nepali Congress (Democratic) weak, it also discredited the nation's entire democratic movement.At this hour of political turmoil, unification of the two strong political parties that pursue democratic principles and values is anticipated by a lager section of the Congress ranks and files.The recent meeting between Nepali Congress President Girija Prasad Koirala and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai is an indication that the unification process is moving in the right direction. The process has received further backing with the envoys of the world's largest democracies such as India, the USA, Great Britain and other European Nations pressing the top leaders of both the sides to merge their parties. The envoys are concerned that chaos may reign supreme should a party like the Nepali Congress remain divided for long.

Future course

The lingering political crisis, the rise of communist domination and a need to win a majority in the upcoming CA elections are reasons for the Congress parties to move firmly towards unification. The talk teams from both the sides must now act positively to bring the unification process to a logical end. The Congress leaders cannot afford to be indifferent to the much-awaited unification. Otherwise, the leaders and the Congress as a party will fail to become the main players in deciding the future course of Nepali politics. A united and consolidated Congress is necessary not only for its survival in the wake of the communists' rising dominance but also to steer the nation towards full-fledged democracy. In short, united the Congress would stand, divided it would fall.

Source: The Rising Nepal, June 6, 2007

Curtain up or down

The row over Sitaram Prasain, a former chairman of a development bank accused of committing financial irregularities amounting to 280 million rupees, threatens to affect the relationship between Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and the CPN-Maoist. The Young Communist League (YCL), the youth wing of the Maoists, had taken Prasain into custody on Sunday and made him public at the Open Air Theatre the next day, before handing him over to the Metropolitan Police at Hanuman Dhoka. The PM, responding to a complaint by an FNCCI delegation at Baluwatar on Monday, got into an angry mood and branded the YCL as “Young Criminal League” for its handling of Prasain, and declared, “I’ll spare nobody. Nobody is allowed to make a mockery of law and order”. But Krishna Bahadur Mahara, a Maoist minister and government spokesperson, yesterday replied by terming Koirala’s statements the result of a “criminal mindset”, and Sagar, chief of the YCL’s Valley Bureau, labelled Koirala as the PM of “a handful of corrupt and criminal people”, threatening to stage nationwide protests until he withdrew his comment.

But Prasain is not a person for Koirala and the Maoists to fight over. There is no doubt that Prasain’s case needs to be taken to its logical conclusion. But for that, the proceedings must be initiated. The Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) was reported to have sent a letter nine months ago (on Bhadra 26, 2063 BS) to the police headquarters asking the latter to arrest Prasain. But the authorities did not act on it, and he was rather seen to be hobnobbing with senior police officials and political leaders. That led to public doubts that he enjoyed political and official protection. The extent of his offence can be determined only after the due process of law is completed, but his public image is far from glorious. That is why Koirala’s remarks might prove a liability to him, besides the fact that he has proved helpless in dealing with financial crimes.

Nobody except a competent authority has the right to sit in judgement and pronounce verdicts. But any member of the public can help the authorities by getting hold of the accused and handing him or her to the police, as such instances abound in the country. Besides, governments have promoted the slogan that every citizen is a policeman or policewoman without uniform. The PM’s charge against YCL puts him under an obligation either to withdraw his charge or to act against the YCL. In addition, it is the duty of the government to provide justice to the shareholders who had invested 700 million rupees in the ill-fated bank. Of course, the accused should receive a fair trial. Koirala would improve the government’s and his own reputation by seizing the initiative to crack down on financial corruption, an evil that has eaten so much into the body politic that the general people seem to despair of any good coming of any commitments of the political leaders. No government can create a new Nepal by showing helplessness in the face of financial scandals and irregularities.

Source: The Himalayan Times, June 6, 2007

Poll preparations: The question of electoral model

Shailendra Kumar Upadhyay

The eight-party alliance (EPA) has finally declared the month for the CA polls. However, this does not ensure the quality of the polls, which ought to be free and fair. The very day the decision was announced, the country faced another ‘bandh’ called by the aboriginals and ethnic people.

The agreement between the government and the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) has raised certain basic questions on the modality of the election as well as the restructuring of the state apparatus. Although the announcement of an election month has given a sense of relief to all those who have been demanding it for quite sometime, the question of modality has been left undecided or it lacks consensus.

The working committee meeting of the Nepali Congress (NC) was right in reiterating that any question on which a unanimous decision has already been taken should not be raised over and over again. But as a democratic party, the NC leadership should have accepted that on issues where there was no unanimity and where a note of dissent had been formally recorded the dissenting party has the right to raise the issue whenever an occasion to do so arises.The EPA had unanimously adopted the Interim Constitution (IC) but reservations had been expressed by the CPN-UML and later by Sadbhawana (Anandidevi) on the modality of election. This time other leftist parties have also joined hands with the CPN-UML. So on this issue serious consideration has to be given to national consensus. It is clearly mentioned in the agreement between the MJF and the government that the MJF favours proportional representation. The Janajatis too have been in favour of proportional representation.

The NC and its president and prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala have a great responsibility to promote national consensus on issues that may divide the nation. It is, therefore, necessary for the NC either to convince others on the merits of the mixed electoral system or give up its adamant stand and accept proportional representation. A national consensus cannot be arrived at only by talking separately with the stakeholders. This process is long and difficult. The EPA must be ready to sit together and listen to various agitating groups. It must no longer ignore the newly emerged organisations and show readiness to work together with them.

While the accord between the MJF and the government has to be welcomed, a grave question cannot be left unattended. The MJF has insisted on the right of self-determination. It seems the government negotiator (a minister and a senior NC leader) has accepted it. But what is the right of self-determination? So far we have been talking of a federal system in which all the component states/provinces/ regions will have full authority and control over their own destiny. However, the right of self-determination means “determination of one’s own fate or course of action without compulsion”. In a federal system there is a compulsion to remain a part of the nation but with full authority and control in administering the area. But the right of self-determination can go as far as breaking away from the nation, declaring an independent nation or merging with other nations. Either the negotiator did not understand the meaning of the right of self-determination or he took it lightly without considering its implications.

After the success of the Jana Andolan II a consensus seems to have emerged on the need for restructuring the state and a federal system. A federal system is a system of government in which the central government enjoys limited authority. Matters relating to local development and administration will be the domain of the local governments. In Nepal’s case, the formation of new provinces should be on the basis of language and ethnicity. Once such provinces are created the people of that area would have full control and authority over that part of the country. However, full control and authority does not amount to the right of cession. We are for a new Nepal where people of all castes, creeds, cultures and ethnicities would have full right to decide their destiny. But this should leave no room for disintegration.

The issue of electoral model is a vital question as it involves representation of the ethnics, Dalits, Madhesis, etc. So there is need for consensus on this issue. If there is a consensus on the model as stipulated in the Interim Constitution then the question of constituency delineation has to be revised. But if the consensus is in favour of proportional representation the nation becomes one constituency and so the question of delineation becomes irrelevant.The questions of the nature of restructuring of the state and the electoral process have to be taken up seriously and all problems should be resolved quickly, otherwise the EC cannot make adequate preparation to hold elections in time. Any delay or further postponement of the election on any grounds would open the way for disastrous consequences.

Source: The Himalayan Times, June 6, 2007