Nepal has got a Constitution which is essentially progressive and liberal. It is being compared to the post-apartheid South African constitution. Seven years in the making, the Constitution has struck some positive notes with regard to rights and entitlements of its citizens. In Part 3, which enshrines Fundamental Rights and Duties, Article 21 (2) says, “No law shall be made for capital punishment.” Article 21 is titled “Right to live with dignity”. Article 27 lays down “No person in detention shall be subjected to physical or mental torture, or be treated in a cruel, inhuman or degrading manner.” By enshrining Constitutional protections for the LGBT community, Nepal has joined that rare group of two other countries — South Africa and Ecuador. In many ways, this is a Constitution that has kept abreast of the humane and humanitarian norms of the times. This is a contemporary Constitution.
The political realities, however, remain intransigent with the Madhesis of Terai in the south of the country, which borders on Bihar, boycotting the ceremony formalising the Constitution as the basic law of the country.
Madhesis’ violent protests not only marred the celebratory mood in the country, but also led to police firing, killing 40 people. The complaint is that the Madhesis have not been granted a state based on their ethnic identity in the new federal set-up. Like in any other multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country, reconciling the competing demands of different communities and sections is never an easy task. Similarly, the Madhesis in Nepal too feel the mainstream Nepal political parties have not taken due cognisance of their legitimate demands.
Unfortunately, the Madhesi grievance has been complicated by the interest shown by India in the community’s concerns. New Delhi’s ostensible strategic concern is that the Madhesi discontent would create disturbances on the India-Nepal border. It is a legitimate concern, but in a very limited measure. It can be argued that the basic Indian presumption is that it has a right to be concerned about what happens in its “backyard”, which is international relations shorthand for sphere of influence. India considers itself to be the big regional power, which surely it is in the economic and military sense. But it must be remembered that neighbouring countries like Nepal have always resisted India’s Big Brother role.
The Madhesis, on their part, seem to believe that India will pressurise Nepalese leaders to protect their interests. It is akin to the position taken by the Lankan Tamils in Jaffna. The honest, respectable and right thing for India would be to accept the fact that Madhesis are Nepalese citizens, who will have to fight their own battle in their own country, and there is nothing much that India can do about it. In practice, it is indeed a tight-rope walk for India, keeping up diplomatic niceties on the one hand, and playing the strategic game on the other.
The responsibility of assuaging the recalcitrant Madhesis however squarely lies with the Nepalese leadership. A disgruntled Madhesi community will affect the political stability of Nepal. It is, therefore, imperative for the Nepalese leaders to keep the channels of dialogue open with the Madhesis. The country’s new Constitution strikes the ideal note of acknowledging that Nepal is a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. It is this inherent plurality of the society which impelled the leaders to declare the country a secular and not a Hindu state. It’s now the constitutional obligation of Nepal’s political leadership to address the needs and apprehensions of the restless Madhesis and acknowledge them as an equal stakeholder in the country’s mainstream politics and development.
