Delusional Supa Powa Indians, home to 1/3rd of the world's poor, turn the "You over-estimate yourself" statement to a real joke
.
That's really wrong ..Who can call it democracy ? That's discrimination as good as declaring them as second grade citizens ..Understanding Nepal's Constitutional Crisis: A Conversation With Prashant Jha
The Diplomat‘s Sanjay Kumar speaks with Prashant Jha about Nepal’s constitutional crisis.
By Sanjay Kumar
September 28, 2015
Nepal’s new constitution is its seventh iteration since 1950. Promulgated on September 20, 2015, the new document, which came into being after seven years of grueling effort, was supposed to be a representative document, at last compared to the previous six. However, it is proving to be as contentious and controversial as any of the past ones. Prashant Jha, a journalist who has followed Nepal’s recent evolution into a democratic republic from up close, expresses serious doubts about the inclusiveness of the constitution and its capacity to bring representative democracy to Nepal.
Author of the seminal book on Nepal, “Battles of the New Republic,” Jha spoke with The Diplomat, outlining his deep apprehension about the new constitution.
The Diplomat: Is Nepal’s new constitution a step forward or backward?
Jha: Nepal has had six constitutions so far and the problem in Nepal has not been writing the constitution but the ownership of constitutions. All the previous constitutions have not been owned by all sections of the society and all political forces. These constitutions have not been sustainable. Of course, there is a qualitative difference between the old ones and the new one. Previous constitutions were written by monarchs, but this has been written by elected people in the constituent assembly (CA). That is a positive difference.
The idea was that the CA would be a platform where people from the diverse social groups of Nepal would sit together and collectively participate in drafting a document and would have the same common rules for all. The idea was that the CA would bridge and overcome the social and ethnic divisions existing in Nepal. The idea was that the CA would create a political structure where different ethnic groups and social groups, particularly excluded ones, would get to exercise power and be a part of more inclusive order. Based on these principles, the CA has failed. It is a setback because the constitution is not owned by a substantial section of the country.
The Terai region in southern Nepal has been on strike for the last 40 days. The socially marginalized groups, like the Madhesis, who live mostly in the Terai area, Janajatis (indigenous people), and women have strong objection to the provisions of the constitution. They feel left out. So the constitution is not collectively owned by a large section of the citizenry. It represents a setback. It is not only the ownership, but also the process through which the constitution has been adopted that is questionable. The entire process has been hijacked by a few leaders, all belonging to the upper caste communities.
The CA was supposed to create inclusion and provide political access to marginalized social groups, but what has happened instead is that the constitution has been framed and political boundaries have been redrawn in a way that ensures the dominance of the traditional political elites: the upper caste people of the hills. It dilutes the principles of affirmative action and reservation. So to summarize: the CA represented a historic opportunity for Nepal, but what we finally landed up with is a lost opportunity.
Why you think that the three major parties rushed to pass the constitution?
It is inexplicable behavior if you go by rational calculations. These parties have been sitting together and writing the constitution for the last seven years; one wonders what was the immediate rush. The parties argue that the earthquake expedited the process. They say that they wanted to focus on reconstruction, but this is a claim that belies credibility. For the last four months, not a single task has been accomplished on the reconstruction front. The international treasure made available for reconstruction has not been used at all, and the parties have done little on the reconstruction front.
I think it is an excuse rather than a real reason. The real reason is convergence of the power ambitions of the leaders belonging to the three major political players in Nepal. Prime Minister Sushil Koirala aims to become the President of Nepal and leave a legacy. The leader of the second biggest party, the United Marxist Leninists (UML), Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, wants to be a prime minister, and Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, who is a marginal political player right now, sees an opportunity to leverage power in Kathmandu and further wants to insulate himself from any probes into his alleged financial corruption. Another Congress leader, Deb Bahadur Deuba, thought that he could become party president if the process is pushed through. Therefore, it is this convergence of power ambitions across various parties that explains the haste in constitution making.
So if one goes by your analysis, the new constitution does not guarantee stability in Nepal?
The constitution, by alienating the Terai, has introduced instability from the word “go.” The people in the area have close linguistic and ethnic ties with people across border in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in India. These are the people who have felt deeply alienated by the hill-dominated political structure. We have seen many such ethnonationalist movements taking a different kind of political shape across the world. The Nepali political elite has played with fire in ignoring and alienating the Terai.
Why did Nepal refuse to heed India’s advice and went ahead with the constitution despite New Delhi’s objections?
The fact is that India has been consistently telling Nepal for the past year to write a constitution based on consensus, a document that represents the aspirations of all sections of the society. In the past weeks, we saw the foreign minister issue a statement, the Indian foreign secretary, S. Jaishankar, going as Prime Minister Modi’s special envoy. We also saw the Indian ambassador in Kathmandu making public pronouncements. Despite all this, we saw that the Kathmandu-based political elites went ahead. They are actually trying to consolidate the power of the politically dominated communities and that became their primary political consideration.
They did not listen to Indian advice because, at the core, they just want to entrench elite power in Nepal. We have seen in the past when it comes to these kind of base political calculations external actors cannot play greater role. It is an internal balance of power which was in the favor of the upper caste groups. Another reason is the shared ambition. The ambition of various parties has come together; they all realize that they are in the same boat and they have their own political aspirations. This is more important than any Indian advice. Third, India reacted a bit late. It should have woken up to the crisis earlier. We know that the Indian embassy in Kathmandu was reporting on developments there on a regular basis. I think there was a bit of an absence of attention at the higher bureaucratic and political levels in Delhi. By the time India reacted, events had already unfolded in Nepal.
So this constitution won’t be sustainable?
This constitution, in the current form, is not going to sustain for long.This document has to go through substantial review to hold for long.
Understanding Nepal’s Constitutional Crisis: A Conversation With Prashant Jha | The Diplomat
None of the major Madhesh-based parties signed the Constitution, which has serious flaws. The new Constitution has a provision for a 165-member Parliament, but the constituencies have been demarcated in such a way that the people of the hill and mountain region would get 100 seats, despite the fact that their share in Nepal's total population is less than 50 per cent. On the other hand, the Terai region constituting over half of the country's population has been allocated only 65 seats.
Nepal's New Constitution: An Analysis from the Madheshi Perspective | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
Wont say much about Prashant Jha. You should go read his tweets and comments there . How people think he is highly radicalised journalist who openly called for India's intervention in Nepal.Understanding Nepal's Constitutional Crisis: A Conversation With Prashant Jha
The Diplomat‘s Sanjay Kumar speaks with Prashant Jha about Nepal’s constitutional crisis.
By Sanjay Kumar
September 28, 2015
Nepal’s new constitution is its seventh iteration since 1950. Promulgated on September 20, 2015, the new document, which came into being after seven years of grueling effort, was supposed to be a representative document, at last compared to the previous six. However, it is proving to be as contentious and controversial as any of the past ones. Prashant Jha, a journalist who has followed Nepal’s recent evolution into a democratic republic from up close, expresses serious doubts about the inclusiveness of the constitution and its capacity to bring representative democracy to Nepal.
Author of the seminal book on Nepal, “Battles of the New Republic,” Jha spoke with The Diplomat, outlining his deep apprehension about the new constitution.
The Diplomat: Is Nepal’s new constitution a step forward or backward?
Jha: Nepal has had six constitutions so far and the problem in Nepal has not been writing the constitution but the ownership of constitutions. All the previous constitutions have not been owned by all sections of the society and all political forces. These constitutions have not been sustainable. Of course, there is a qualitative difference between the old ones and the new one. Previous constitutions were written by monarchs, but this has been written by elected people in the constituent assembly (CA). That is a positive difference.
The idea was that the CA would be a platform where people from the diverse social groups of Nepal would sit together and collectively participate in drafting a document and would have the same common rules for all. The idea was that the CA would bridge and overcome the social and ethnic divisions existing in Nepal. The idea was that the CA would create a political structure where different ethnic groups and social groups, particularly excluded ones, would get to exercise power and be a part of more inclusive order. Based on these principles, the CA has failed. It is a setback because the constitution is not owned by a substantial section of the country.
The Terai region in southern Nepal has been on strike for the last 40 days. The socially marginalized groups, like the Madhesis, who live mostly in the Terai area, Janajatis (indigenous people), and women have strong objection to the provisions of the constitution. They feel left out. So the constitution is not collectively owned by a large section of the citizenry. It represents a setback. It is not only the ownership, but also the process through which the constitution has been adopted that is questionable. The entire process has been hijacked by a few leaders, all belonging to the upper caste communities.
The CA was supposed to create inclusion and provide political access to marginalized social groups, but what has happened instead is that the constitution has been framed and political boundaries have been redrawn in a way that ensures the dominance of the traditional political elites: the upper caste people of the hills. It dilutes the principles of affirmative action and reservation. So to summarize: the CA represented a historic opportunity for Nepal, but what we finally landed up with is a lost opportunity.
Why you think that the three major parties rushed to pass the constitution?
It is inexplicable behavior if you go by rational calculations. These parties have been sitting together and writing the constitution for the last seven years; one wonders what was the immediate rush. The parties argue that the earthquake expedited the process. They say that they wanted to focus on reconstruction, but this is a claim that belies credibility. For the last four months, not a single task has been accomplished on the reconstruction front. The international treasure made available for reconstruction has not been used at all, and the parties have done little on the reconstruction front.
I think it is an excuse rather than a real reason. The real reason is convergence of the power ambitions of the leaders belonging to the three major political players in Nepal. Prime Minister Sushil Koirala aims to become the President of Nepal and leave a legacy. The leader of the second biggest party, the United Marxist Leninists (UML), Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, wants to be a prime minister, and Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, who is a marginal political player right now, sees an opportunity to leverage power in Kathmandu and further wants to insulate himself from any probes into his alleged financial corruption. Another Congress leader, Deb Bahadur Deuba, thought that he could become party president if the process is pushed through. Therefore, it is this convergence of power ambitions across various parties that explains the haste in constitution making.
So if one goes by your analysis, the new constitution does not guarantee stability in Nepal?
The constitution, by alienating the Terai, has introduced instability from the word “go.” The people in the area have close linguistic and ethnic ties with people across border in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in India. These are the people who have felt deeply alienated by the hill-dominated political structure. We have seen many such ethnonationalist movements taking a different kind of political shape across the world. The Nepali political elite has played with fire in ignoring and alienating the Terai.
Why did Nepal refuse to heed India’s advice and went ahead with the constitution despite New Delhi’s objections?
The fact is that India has been consistently telling Nepal for the past year to write a constitution based on consensus, a document that represents the aspirations of all sections of the society. In the past weeks, we saw the foreign minister issue a statement, the Indian foreign secretary, S. Jaishankar, going as Prime Minister Modi’s special envoy. We also saw the Indian ambassador in Kathmandu making public pronouncements. Despite all this, we saw that the Kathmandu-based political elites went ahead. They are actually trying to consolidate the power of the politically dominated communities and that became their primary political consideration.
They did not listen to Indian advice because, at the core, they just want to entrench elite power in Nepal. We have seen in the past when it comes to these kind of base political calculations external actors cannot play greater role. It is an internal balance of power which was in the favor of the upper caste groups. Another reason is the shared ambition. The ambition of various parties has come together; they all realize that they are in the same boat and they have their own political aspirations. This is more important than any Indian advice. Third, India reacted a bit late. It should have woken up to the crisis earlier. We know that the Indian embassy in Kathmandu was reporting on developments there on a regular basis. I think there was a bit of an absence of attention at the higher bureaucratic and political levels in Delhi. By the time India reacted, events had already unfolded in Nepal.
So this constitution won’t be sustainable?
This constitution, in the current form, is not going to sustain for long.This document has to go through substantial review to hold for long.
Understanding Nepal’s Constitutional Crisis: A Conversation With Prashant Jha | The Diplomat
None of the major Madhesh-based parties signed the Constitution, which has serious flaws. The new Constitution has a provision for a 165-member Parliament, but the constituencies have been demarcated in such a way that the people of the hill and mountain region would get 100 seats, despite the fact that their share in Nepal's total population is less than 50 per cent. On the other hand, the Terai region constituting over half of the country's population has been allocated only 65 seats.
Nepal's New Constitution: An Analysis from the Madheshi Perspective | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
Also let me add , If states are carved in such a way that hill elites would make majority please also ask how did Pradesh 2 managed to have 85% ethnic majority of madhesis, highest of any. Also do ask why other ethnic states like Pradesh 1 which will reflect the identity of other minority the limbus are happy with the delineation.
Xi sees more profit in being good terms with India.
If you look at map of Nepal we have 75 districts. And acc to current constitution it guarantees atleast 1 MP to each districts. the districts in south occupies lesser area but have denser population whereas districts at north have bigger area and is sparsely populated. So according to new constitution every districts gets atleast 1 CA member so that no districts will be left out with any representatives and considering population further CA representatives would be. Added at given ratio which is same for both hills and terai. Which means if kathmandu or any densely populated hill cities gets 1 MP for every 1 lakh population so will madhes.
I would love to see how the chineses make proper rail and roads network through the himalayan mountain range. Himalayas can never be tamed.
If by your logic we apply the same formula in India then Rajasthan and Madhya pradesh in India would be sending more MPs than Uttar Pradesh and Bihar
Arey yar , area is not determining anything atleast 1 MP is given to one district however big or small the district is.I would love to see how the chineses make proper rail and roads network through the himalayan mountain range. Himalayas can never be tamed.
Nepal Topography.
If by your logic we apply the same formula in India then Rajasthan and Madhya pradesh in India would be sending more MPs than Uttar Pradesh and Bihar
Ladakh Sikkim are all exceptional cases. If we would tried pull the same stunt that you guys are doing we would have disintegrated in 500 pieces by now. No sizeable demographics would like their political influence undercut on such flimsy grounds. Protesting against India won't solve your constitutional problems, it would be better if you have a peaceful dialogue with agitating groups.
