PM UNFURLS FLAG, PRESIDENT DECLARES OPEN 6TH NATIONAL GAMES

PM UFURLS FLAG, PRESDENT DECLARES OPEN 6TH
NATIONAL GAMES UPDATE

Kathmandu, 26 Feb. President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav Sunday declared open in Dhangadi the week-long 6th national games thatbegan for the first in the far-West in 13 years.
The president hoped the national sporting event would promote
national unity.
Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai unfurled the flag of the games and
hoped the least developed region of the country would get a development boost.
Nnnn

INTERVIEW

POSSIBILITY OF COMPROMISE ON DELINEATION OF MADESH STATE SAYS UPENDRA YADAV
With just three months to the end of the final extension of Constituent Assembly tenure, political parties have intensified discussions on sorting out thorny peace process and constitution-related issues. As well as the Big Three parties, the Madhesi block will have a big say in the settlement of both the issues. Kosh Raj Koirala and Gani Ansari spoke to Chairman of the Madhesi People’s Right Forum Upendra Yadav, who has played an instrumental role in Madhesi politics since the 2007 Madhes Movement, on issues of inclusion, constitution and peace process.

Madhesi leaders have of late hinted that a fresh movement is brewing in Madhes driven by the growing frustration with their elected representatives. What is your view on this issue?

It is true that the disappointment among Madhesi people is growing. The place where all Madhesis, indigenous nationalities, dalits and others groups (i.e. Brahmans and Chhetris) can ensure their rights is the common platform of constitution. There can be inclusion in true sense of the term only if new constitution is promulgated. Without it, Madhesis, dalits and indigenous nationalities will remain where they are and those who are in powers will continue their rule. This is no solution to the problems we are facing. There must be an inclusive democratic system to address these problems. Some people still want to keep all powers in their hands. Such thinking has surfaced in constitution drafting as well.


We won’t be able to address the problems of Madhesi and indigenous nationalities, nor can we accommodate the diversity we have without a new constitution. Our country will plunge into a war if the message goes out that there won’t be a new constitution or if we fail to deliver it. A new constitution is the only means to avert the likelihood of our country sliding into chaos. The remarks top leaders of various big parties are making are against national interest. The misfortune of our country will start the day our political leadership starts considering diversity a burden. It is the responsibility of all of us to protect the country from such disaster.

How optimistic are you over the possibility of new constitution on time?

I still have a slim hope. I believe the leaders of the big parties will seriously think about the country’s future. Not all leaders are dishonest. But they are wasting valuable time. Though we cannot bring a new constitution through procedural manner, we can take a fast-track approach. Likewise, a new constitution without federalism will be very dangerous. We cannot keep the issue of federalism pending. People won’t accept that. It will be just add fuel to the fire. Therefore, we should draft a new constitution based on the principle of inclusive democracy and federalism. The vested interests of the Big Three are chiefly to be blamed for the delay in drafting the new constitution.

Can you elaborate on the fast-track method you hint at?

All I mean is we should amend the Constituent Assembly (CA) calendar of event and draft a new constitution based on consensus among parties. The process should move ahead on the basis of political decisions.

The issue of federalism has become complicated of late. The State Restructuring Commission (SRC) has also failed to produce a unanimous report.

It was a mistake to form the Commission in the first place. Instead of appointing experts, party activists were appointed in the commission. They did not have any knowledge about the country, people’s political consciousness and aspirations. They tried to carve out federal states without understanding the country’s ground realities. Nevertheless, theirs is just a suggestion; not a decision. The problem can be addressed by amending the suggestions in such a way that the federal states truly honor people’s feelings and aspirations.

What has become of the ‘One Madhes, one province’ idea that Madhes-based parties including MPRF have demanding? Other parties do not seem to have warmed up to the idea.

This is because other parties are headed by ‘other groups’. They still cling on to the concepts Nepali rulers have held for the last 250 years. This is why their perception about Madhesis, dalits, indigenous nationalities and even women has not changed. The country can find solutions to its problems only after such a mindset changes. Politics is an art of compromise. But we should keep in mind the expectations and aspirations of the people while making such compromises. Will the people concerned get justice through such compromises? So far as the issue of One Madhes is concerned, it will be a province of Nepal, not any other country. Following the success of Madhes movement, the then Seven Party Alliance agreed on a Madhes autonomous state along with other federal states.

In this sense, parties have already agreed to provincial autonomy for Madhes. Now they should work to implement the agreed points. We have demanded nothing new. There will be no problem if parties agreed to make the areas under Madhes one autonomous federal state. This is something already established by Madhes movement. But we don’t rule out the possibility of compromise on delineation of Madhes federal state if it ensures justice and equal rights, ends discrimination, as well as secures equal opportunity and equal participation with recognition of all identities. Of course, there can be a compromise. But we should step on the points we have already agreed. If not, it will create mistrust, which will ultimately poison the atmosphere of compromise.

What is the view of your party on system of governance?

We have a clear concept on the system of governance. There is no other party that has as clear concept on the issue. We believe that people should get a chance to directly elect the country’s rulers, i.e. president and parliamentarians. While the president should get a chance to form government, parliament should formulate rules and regulations and endorse legislations. We have seen anomalies resulting from designation of parliamentarians as ministers. The parliamentarians have done very little parliamentary works and engaged more in foul power plays. Parliamentarians for their part indulged in dirty horse trading in the past. So, we propose that the president be given a chance to form government on his own. Parliament should endorse the plan and policies developed by the president.

Parliament has nothing to do with development plans; this should be taken care of by the state or the government. We see a prospect of stability in such a system. The biggest problem in the last 60-odd years is political instability. The Westminster model of governance cannot solve this problem. There is no point in arguing that president could turn into a dictator as he has to fully abide by responsibilities enshrined in the constitution and other laws. We can provide for periodic elections and restrict a person’s election as president to two terms and ensure constitutional supremacy. In such a system, there will be a powerful parliament and strong executive president. There is no overlapping in this system as there is in the Westminster model.

If a parliamentarian becomes a minister, he will be a member of both the executive and the legislature. Is this a separation of powers in true sense? Likewise, there is no need to keep two power centers—president and prime minister. The tussle between these power centers could put underdeveloped countries like ours in real danger. How can a system that directly elects president be non-democratic? Such person can become dictator only when there is no constitutional supremacy or if he starts interfering with the judiciary.

Let’s go back to the peace process. What do you make of the debate on ranks Maoist combatants are liable to in the army?

I believe the peace process that started with the Delhi Agreement was in itself faulty, creating complications and difficulties. Then there was CA election, but this did not resolve the problem. After a long time, there have been some positive developments including regrouping and voluntary retirement of ex-Maoist combatants. But the peace process has not concluded yet. The failure to take peace process to its logical conclusion has made promulgation of new constitution impossible. It is the responsibility of the Maoists to conclude the peace process since they lead the government and the combatants in question also belong to the same party. The Nepal Army, where are the Maoist combatants are being integrated, is also under the same government.

There is no point in fighting over ranks and stalling the whole peace process. Ranks are secondary issue. The important thing is an agreement in principle. The issue of number to be integrated in the army is also not a big one. However, we should be clear how many soldiers we need and for what purpose. An underdeveloped landlocked country situated between two emerging superpowers cannot afford a large army. Likewise, everyone has accepted the fact that Nepal Army is not inclusive. The army needs to be democratized and made more inclusive. Without this, this army cannot have a true national character.

There have been allegations from various quarters that the Supreme Court rules against the interests of Madhesi people. A recent case in a point is the Supreme Court’s verdict on citizenship issue. What do you say on this?

The apex court has to pass verdict based on existing constitution and laws. What good can we expect when the constitution itself is discriminatory and laws biased? The Supreme Court does not do any politics. So far as the issue of citizenship certificate is concerned, all bona fide citizens of the country should get the certificate. It is the duty of the state to provide them citizenship certificates. The state has utterly failed to meet that obligation. Another important thing is that children of a citizen are naturally the citizens of the country. It is inhumane to deny citizenship to such children. No one can be denied his/her nationality. The state should correct this anomaly by amending the constitution, and laws if create legal hurdles.

The Tharu community has alleged that conspiracies are being hatched to make them Madhesis. They have also warned of street protests if the inclusion bill tabled in the parliament is not withdrawn.

They seem to have fallen prey to unwarranted rumors. We have never said that Tharus should not be included. They should be ensured inclusion in all state organs. There are some people who have been running business in the name of fighting for the cause of Tharus who have spread such rumors. What is true is that all Tharus are living in Madhes. Since they have been living in Madhes, they have been identified as Tharus of Madhes.

Senior UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal has proposed that each federal state be linked with India as failure to do so is likely to give more bargaining powers to southern states. What is your view on this issue?

The original idea of linking each federal state with India came from King Mahendra. This demand is not a reflection of Marxism, Leninism or Maoism but of Mahendrabaad. King Mahendra delineated zones on north-south basis. The rationale was to consolidate his power and control the people living in the south. I believe the proposal of UML leader Madhav Kumar is a carbon copy of the idea propounded by king Mahendra. King Birendra too adopted the same principle while delineating five development regions and 14 zones.

This failed to benefit the country in any way; it was only aimed at consolidating the king’s powers. I wonder how Madhav Kumar Nepal, who adheres to Marxism and Leninism, could propose such an obsolete idea. Nepali people won’t accept such proposal. This won’t be acceptable to Madhesi people at all. Madhesi people, let it be noted, haven’t asked that their state be linked to China.
nnnn



________________________________________


________________________________________