Madhes, CA Election & International Community

Madhes, CA Election & International Community

Cordial Invitation to participate in an online exclusive discussion:

Dear All, we have decided to put the topic “Madhes, CA Election International Community” as major discussion topic of this week therefore; it would be great if you could write your comments, views, observation and suggestions on the issues. Please be informed that all significant writings and conversational transactions will be submitted to the concerned all governmental, parliamentary, judiciary, constitutional and political authorities and superior political personality of Nepal as well it could be possible to use your writings for media reports and research analyse too. Therefore, complete email signature in your writing would be highly appreciable.

1. Is it possible to conduct CA Election in due time without resolving the crisis of Madhes before CA election?

2. Since Madhes is suffering with various Arm and Unarmed Insurgencies, in such ground, is it possible to resolve such huge crisis charismatically within rest few days of CA election? If yes, how and what would be best ideas to resolve the issue in charismatic way?

3. What would be the best role and possible contribution of International community (including India and UNMIN) to resolve the Madhes issues and build a harmonious environment for CA election?

4. What about the legitimacy and validity of CA election if the majorities of Madhesi political powers as well as insurgents group ignore and disturb the CA election, in case government try to impose CA election without solving Madhesi issue? Does it suffer with the similar status as local election (7% vote were casted only) conducted during direct Gyanendra regime?

5. Is there any best idea, ways and approach to solve the Madhesi issues through peaceful means and conduct in CA election in due time? Please give some descriptive and empirical recommendations.

Please follow, observe, contribute or participate in our exclusive online discussion: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NepalOfficers/ or click me for direct access

Sincerely’

Krishna Hari Pushkar

‘Federalism will lead to a bloodbath’

‘Federalism will lead to a bloodbath’

Bhimarjan Acharya is a senior constitutional expert with a dozen books to his credit. He has been actively advocating against the SPA's decision that led to the Third Amendment to the Interim Constitution declaring Nepal a federal republic.

Acharya has been in the legal profession for the past decade. He thinks the country will disintegrate with a federal system. Acharya spoke with Puran P Bista and Kamal Raj Sigdel of The Kathmandu Post on why Nepal should not become a federal country.

Excerpts: Q: Federalism has become the buzzword. You are not in favor of it. Why is that?

Bhimarjan Acharya: There are three reasons why Nepal should not have a federal system. Federalism has certain pre-conditions that are not suitable to this country. For example, federalism is derived from the Latin feudus, which means treaty or an agreement between or among states. This certainly indicates a coming together of separate states after reaching an understanding. This is one of the pre-conditions for going federal. In Nepal's case, it is not a number of states joining to form a country. Secondly, federalism is a concept which is related to colonial states. Most of the states that have adopted a federal system came into being after obtaining independence from their colonial masters. So federalism is directly linked with colonialism. America, for instance, was a British colony; and there were several distinct states before they came together to become what is called the United States of America. Similarly, Switzerland has got its own history of how it became a federal country. Canada is another example. It has a different federal system. India became federal after it became independent in 1947. Argentina and Brazil are other examples. We are forcefully trying to make Nepal a federal country which has existed for centuries as an independent state. Many of us justify making Nepal a federal country because of its heterogeneity and diversity. Here, we must keep in mind that the approximately 24 federal countries in the world became federal not due to heterogeneity or diversity as such. I think that heterogeneous or diverse countries are most prone to disintegration. We can see homogeneous countries having a federal structure of governance. There are less chances of disintegration when a federal county is homogenous. Germany is a homogenous country - one language, one culture and one religion. Australia is another example. Americans speak one language. Countries such as Sudan, Ethiopia, Belgium and even Iraq have been facing serious internal conflicts though they are federal states. What is the reason behind the failure? It is just because of heterogeneity. So, Nepal cannot survive if it opts for federalism. We cannot federalize it if we look at our ground realities. It is impossible, even though our elite continue to advocate making Nepal a federal country. This is impossible. Federating an independent country is an unnatural task. See how Sudan, Ethiopia and Belgium have been on the verge of disintegration. The survival of these countries has been threatened. Secondly, if we examine our geo-politics and even culture, it is impossible to federalize this country.

Q: How are you going to make this country inclusive which is the new buzzword?

Acharya: Yes, our main concern is to make this country inclusive, and not to federalize it in order to make it inclusive. We just talk about inclusiveness on the basis of federalism. But federalism is just the opposite of inclusiveness. The main thing for inclusiveness is to devolve power in order to empower the people at the grassroots level. We have to have mechanisms which will redistribute the resources.

In a federal structure, you divide the strength of the country rather than the resources. Federalism divides power on the basis of resources. This system will not be inclusive, but it will make certain states exclusive. Demanding a federal state is to be exclusive so that it can break away at any time or provide space for external interference. Every community will be excluded from the benefits. A few elite in power will continue to play with the division of power. A developed and modern country does not allow the Madhesis to collect tax and spend it for their benefit or the hills to develop hydropower and spend it for the development of the hills only. An inclusive or developed state should redistribute natural resources for the benefit of the masses or share the economic burdens equally. Dalits consist of 13 percent of the total population of this country. Will this community ever enjoy the benefits of the country's economy when you talk about the income of Madhes for the Madhesis? So, let us not try to think of making Nepal a federal country. It will just lead to a bloodbath.

Q: The SPA has already amended the Interim Constitution declaring the country a federal republic. How will it be possible to reverse that?

Acharya: Yes, we can amend the Interim Constitution. The Seven-Party Alliance (SPA) decided to hold the constituent assembly elections within June 2007. Why couldn't the polls be held in June? The SPA again announced that they would be held on November 22, 2007. Why did the SPA fail to hold the CA polls on that day too? The SPA had promised to fulfill several demands of the people. It has signed pacts with the Janajatis and the Madhesi People's Right Forum. Why did it fail to implement the agreements? The question is not the amendment to the Interim Constitution. What has been decided so far may jeopardize the political course. All political commitments made by the SPA so far have been based on personal interests. No party has actually worked to fulfill the needs of the people. Why did the SPA raise the number of CA seats from 205 to 497 to 601? Did the people give them such a right? You cannot amend constitutional provisions to suit your own interests. You have to respect the political document and fulfill the needs of the people. After all, the people fought for their rights, and not the few political misfits who are reaping the benefits of the April movement. Secondly, the people of this country have not been demanding a federal Nepal. Can any politician prove that the people fought for a federal country? These politicians have been delivering verdicts instead of debating on the core issue. I was personally involved in the fight against King Gyanendra's autocracy. I have not yet read any news story that says that the people wanted to make this country a federal state. Why did the politicians decide something which was not the people's demand? Every individual talked about democracy and republic, but none uttered the word federalism. So it is easy to amend the Interim Constitution because federalism is not the people's demand. The politicians should not make wrong decisions. They cannot create a nation-state by making such wrong decisions. You cannot correct the wrong. I know the so-called elite are actively involved in turning this country federal. It was they who influenced the political decisions in this country. They must know that they do not represent the people's aspirations. They crave for power and think that federalizing this country would provide them a greater political stake. The main concern is to transform the political system of this country. How? The spirit of the April movement was not to make Nepal a federal state. So they should not work for that objective.

Q: Many defend federalism as the way to empower the people at the grassroots level. Is this assessment wrong?

Acharya: This is a wrong concept. There are differences between the unitary and federal systems. A unitary system tries to unite the country, while a federal system divides sovereignty and encourages disintegration. The necessity is not to partition sovereignty, but to devolve power within the unitary system. Why is the number of federal countries not increasing? Can you imagine Nepal remaining an integrated country if you federalize it? A federal state shares judicial, legislative and parliamentary powers. This is to divide power among the states. Such power divisions will encourage separatist movements as we have seen in Sudan, Belgium, Ethiopia and even in India. Professor Dias says federalism is suitable for homogeneous countries. It will not bring any unity in diversity. If we want to see unity in diversity, the unitary system is the best one. What we are doing is artificially trying to disintegrate the country before bringing it together. Q: But the Janajatis and Madhesis have been demanding a federal Nepal. How do you assess their demands when you know Nepal will disintegrate once it becomes a federal country? Acharya: As I said, it is not the demand of the Madhesis and Janajatis. A few elite who have been sidelined for years have come forward with such a demand. Honestly speaking, they want to seize power and become chief ministers of such federal states. They want to become another autocrat. Autonomy and the right to self-determination are again linked with colonial powers. No country has colonized Nepal. The 1960 UN Declaration clearly mentions certain provisions on self-determination and federal states. The people of a certain region enjoy the right to self-determination only if the country is under a colonial power. Or the people enjoy the right to self-determination only if the country is ruled by an external power. Where can you find such rights to self-determination applicable to territory when it has not been ruled by any external power? Madhes wants to be a separate state, which means the right to self-determination applicable to individuals and the state. This means the right to secede at any time. However, for the sake of simplicity, I said the right of self-determination applicable to individuals and the right to self-determination applicable to the community and not the state. The demand made by the Madhesis and Janajatis are the right to self-determination applicable to the state. This cannot be possible in an independent country like Nepal. If you are talking about the right to self-determination applicable to individuals, then it is possible. Even the UN declaration mentions that. But it is unnatural to break up a unitary state in order to federalize it. Federalism, by its very virtue, is division of power and sovereignty. Do you think the country will survive if you divide its sovereignty? The demand for the right to self-determination clearly underlines secession. If you want to form an independent country, then you can have the right to self-determination and advocate a federal Nepal. We are not fighting for independence. Are we going to lose our sovereignty? Again, self-governance and self-determination are totally different entities. You cannot equate the two ideas. We must know that unitary and centralized systems are not identical either. A unitary system can address the needs of the people, empower the local people and redistribute the available resources while the centralized system will not. I know the unitary system is something totally different and we can go for it.

Q: How will the unitary system devolve power to the people at the grassroots level?

Acharya: Certainly, there are several examples. A number of countries have adopted a unitary system of governance. We can decentralize power. If you think that federal countries have a better system of decentralizing power, why is the number of federal countries not increasing from 24 to 25 out of 230 countries? Federalism is an outdated 17th-century model. It is not applicable to Nepal.

Q: Why has federalism become the new buzzword?

Acharya: There are three reasons. There is a conviction among politicians that a federal Nepal will be a better option. Secondly, I wouldn't call them anti-establishment, but some people are raising the issue of federalism just to gain political mileage as they have been ignored or sidelined for a long time. They see this period of political transformation as an opportunity to destabilize the country. This group is very powerful. They move around politicians exerting influence on key political decisions. The prime minister announced at midnight on Magh 10, 2063 that Nepal would be a federal country. Nobody knew until then that the country would have a federal system. Who decided that - you, me or the people? Unfortunately, the Madhesi movement gained currency. The SPA amended the Interim Constitution, and again recently the SPA added a clause to it declaring that Nepal would be a federal republic. Federalism is a highly technical word. People are unaware of it. Yet the politicians under the influence of a few so-called intellectuals decided to make Nepal a federal country.

Source

FAQ commentary on Nepalese Women Leader

By Krishna Hari Pushkar, a FAQ commentary on Nepalese Women Leader

FAQ on Sujata Koirala

I would like to extend my sincere congratulations and warm greetings to Hon. Ms. Sujata Koirala for her outstanding political achievements.

Who is Sujata Koirala?

Newly appointed Hon. Minister Ms. Sujata Koirala is a strong and active women personality of Nepal Congress Party of Nepal, who holds special expertise in national and international political arena. She has been working as a capacity of chief: International Division of Nepali Congress Party. She is executive member of central committee of Nepali Congress Party and member of Interim Parliament too. Besides, only she has got a grand opportunity to observe the evolution of political and democratic development in Nepal since her childhood by empirical observation through the eyes of G.P Koirala. She is informally in active politics since her uncle BP and father GP Koirala were actively involved in the democratic revolution in Nepal despite of living and exiled life in India and after 1990 she adopted officially active political career.

Why Sujata is appointed as a Minister?

Basically her appointment is considered as a part of state commitments towards women inclusion in the overall State affairs & decisions making system. She holds more than enough political, legal and professional capabilities and is emerging as a most eligible candidate for Minister, in the Nepali Congress Party and nation too. Before blaming her as a part of nepotism or favouritism, one can also compare her with other existing and past women members of minister council. Obviously, she would be more eligible than others (7 indicators to conclude this.)

Beginning of political affiliation and activities, academic ground, professional capability, contribution for social development and welfare (She has been contributing more than the local State mechanisms through her NGOs/charity/foundations in various sector and part of Nepal), capabilities of international relation and political diplomacy, political and social hold in respective area and sector, popularity in national and international affairs, & Personal and political performance.

However, these comparisons must be based on the span of age and his/her achieved political productivity.

What are her major exclusive political contributions in Nepali Congress Party?

A. She must be congratulated for the greater role and contribution in women empowerment, and women mainstreaming works inside the parliament, government and her own male-dominated traditional political party of Nepal. B. She must be accredited for the Institutional development and internationalization of Nepali Congress party and its mechanisms. C. Her one of the major achievement is constitution and effective expansion of the various wings of Nepali Congress Party in various part of the world including Europe. D. She is only one the non-Madheshi central members of Nepali Congress Party who has been boldly raising and advocating the Madheshi and issue of minorities ethnic groups and harmoniously coordinating with various Madheshi and other ethnic leaders and parties to resolve the contemporary ethnic issues. & E. She has been maintaining very good relations with various donor agencies, global renowned personalities, international political leaders, diplomats and institutions on behalf of the Nepal Congress Party.

What are her major strengths for her political career?

A. She became top-brass women political national leader; B. She has an exceptional political backup C. She has a greater sympathy from women, and new generation’s political cadres and their supporters; D. She has one of the most strong and productive national and international political network and access E. She has emerged as a successor of existing Head of the State/Government, F. She has a strong political hold among the people and specially with the voters in respective constituency, & G decades long direct and active affiliations in social service, welfare and development through NGOs are also considered as her huge political strength

What are her major weaknesses?

A. She trusts anyone easily and speaks frankly in informal issues and ways in good faith without digging detail and analysing the people’s ground and environment B. She is considered little short tempered, highly emotional with less longanimity. C. She is straightforward and performs non-buttering/western behaviour which is still indigestible in Nepalese traditional societies and political culture D. She has failed to build an inclusive personal and professional advisory/assistive network and connections which are crucial in present context since she belongs to Madhesh region of Nepal. E. Her inefficient affiliation, role, tackle and interventional touch in national controversial issues. F. She has often difficulties to follow up, renew and maintain update for political relation and people to people interpersonal contact due to her unmanaged political and social daily schedule. & G. Until now, she is nor much strategic neither very tactful

Why Nepalese media often highlights & affiliates her name in corruption, smuggling, and intervention, illegal and un-democratic activities?

A. Normally it is being contempt due to political ideology and basically by communist and anti- Koirala family medias due to jealous and various self-centred grievances , however, they never ever have submitted or presented any officials proofs for her any bad-doings. B. They consider Ms. Sujata as successor and synonymous image of Mr. Girija Prasad Koirala, so all the personal and political enemies and competitors of Koirala’s consider her in similar way. C. Many political leaders as well as Nepalese anti-Koirala Medias don’t like to see Koirala family anymore as a national political power and sources. They are afraid of her emerging political strength and Nepalese circumstances of political transition. They think their controversial misinterpretation and unwanted accusation on her in various issues could badly damage her personality and finally they would be able to push down her political career, & which would later make it easy to achieve their self-centred individual interests. D.She is highly active and takes deep interest in various national issues of public interests, so it is obvious that the level of mistakes could possible in the quantity-quality of performance delivery and activities ratio. & E. The prejudiced Nepalese media and her opposers often present her only as a nutcase daughter and successor of existing Prime Minister of Nepal Girija Prasad Koirala, despite the fact that she has also her own exclusive active political role, contribution and affiliation in Nepali Congress Party since decades.

Why some people consider her as hated personality?

There are no any special reasons for such pathetic perception or feeling, though her prejudiced opposers claims that She does not have any political contributions in democratic movements of Nepal despite the fact that She holds decades long political contribution, affiliation and sacrifice in various personal, political and social phenomena. In addition, they also claim, She unwontedly intervene the decision making process to fulfil her personal interest by abusing the power and authority of her father, which is black and white lie because PM Koirala has his own world where Ms. Sujata rarely gets even a chance to have an access during the decision making process in kitchen cabinet of Mr Koirala. However, the relationship as father and daughter should be considered in natural manner. People should understand it is not her fault and neither should be considered as a disqualification for anything.

Who hates her?

I have asked plenty of her opposers that why you hate her? Unfortunately no ones were able to give me even any single satisfactory reasons for why he or she hates her! Most of her haters have either misinformation/misunderstanding or no idea who is Sujata in her real personal or political ground, her qualities, her capabilities, her activities and so on. They simply say I have heard or read something nonsense about her in media, so I hate her. I think it is totally insane to hate someone without knowing him/her.

How her haters are changing to her supporters/lovers?

In my observation, she is really nice, honest, friendly, cooperative and very social person. To be honest, it is hard to have a direct meeting with her but once you get an opportunity of direct conversation or access, you will certainly change to a supporter of her. She listens and considers all rational and legitimate problems and issues in natural manner, once she is convinced, she immediately approaches to help through all possible means without knowing your political and other grounds. She has not any nonsense habits like other Nepalese certified corrupt politicians who ask first about several grounds e.g. relation, contribution, political ideology, recommendations, address, cast, sources, money, and more before to listen your problems.

Why most of her supporters very often annoyed with her?

It is just due to her poor kitchen cabinet. Her secretariats or something similar and its affiliated actors are nor good neither efficient. They bar unwontedly even important people and visitors beyond the interest of Ms. Sujata. They do not often convey your serious message or issues of public interest even to Sujata and neither properly implements the orders and instructions of Ms. Koirala. They often put her in shadow and fulfil their own personal interest by misusing the name of her. It is also pity that she is not being able to monitor and supervise the true performances of her affiliated and recruited staffs and its mechanisms.

What should Ms. Sujata immediately do for her effective, efficient and productive performance?

A. She should immediately reform her personal kitchen cabinet and secretariats and its people with relevance to contemporary perspective of Nepal B. She should make inclusive team in official and personal secretaries and advisory team because it is must for her as she belongs to the Madheshi constituency and represents national women. C. She should develop a special election oriented master strategy with reference to the help for women mainstreaming, mobilization and resolving the crucial issue of Madhesh and Madheshi and other ethnic minorities too. & D. She should include direct and effective public relation and grievances handling schedule as a part of her compulsory daily activities and routine works

What are her major challenges for the election of constitutional assembly?

For instance, one of her major challenges is Madhesh issues and to get supports from the large number of Madheshi voters in her constituency, which is not an easy job. As Madheshi doesn’t consider her as a Madheshi ethnicity and neither seems until now in the mood to support the non-Madheshi candidate in the Madhesh. However, she has huge sympathy form the Madheshi and non-Madheshi women groups and communities and she is also exceptional non-Madheshi leader who has strong and good personal coordinative relation with Madheshi leaders and parties including the leader of MPRF, Sadbhawana, TMLP, RPP, NC, and UML etc. She also significantly raises and advocates the voices of Madheshi and other deprived ethnic group’s need and interests in various official and non official national and international forums. Therefore, it would not be impossible to manage the challenges, if she uses good and systematic efforts.

Another challenge is a high expectation of women from her leadership. In addition, there are plenty of existing Parliamentarians and future political cadres who have also huge expectation from her for parliamentary tickets, pecuniary supports and more. Hence, it is natural challenges and seems manageable for her, however, urgent dynamic role and visionary steps are essential.

(Author is a peace and conflict management professional and lives in Berlin, Germany, he holds special expertise about Nepalese affairs)