0%

A semantic puzzle hurled at public

The title of his organization has made it amply clear what his final goal is. It is, to say the least, to establish an independent Madhesh.

Aditya Man Shrestha

March 11, 2019

7 MIN READ

A semantic puzzle hurled at public

By the 11-point agreement with CK Raut, a secessionist campaigner for an independent Madhesh state, Nepal government is feeding the people with a semantic puzzle. The government claim that Raut has abandoned his separatist path and joined the mainstream national politics is utterly nebulous in character.

Because, in the same breath, the Raut side has claimed to have asserted themselves by making the government concur to their demand for an independent state through a referendum. People are at pains to distinguish what is real and what is apparent. Are they throwing dust into people’s eyes or are people taken for a ride?

Prime Minister KP Oli looks obviously aspirant to go down in history like Girija Prasad Koirala who is injudiciously credited for bringing the violent Maoists in peaceful democratic politics. That is why he compared Raut with Prachanda for their inherent guts revolting against the establishments.

The agreement is a big surprise. Both sides feel aplomb in arriving at it. Both tend to make it a win-win outcome. However, the net result is that both stand where they were. Raut’s success lies in legitimizing his stand whereas the government’s achievement is covered in its claim to have brought a secessionist group in a peaceful and democratic process.

Prime Minister KP Oli looks obviously aspirant to go down in history like Girija Prasad Koirala who is injudiciously credited for bringing the violent Maoists in peaceful democratic politics. That is why he compared Raut with Prachanda for their inherent guts revolting against the establishments.

Unfortunately, he failed to distinguish between an established violent element and a non-violent but separatist force. Prachanda did abandon the guns but Raut has not abandoned his separatist character. Rather he has reinforced his stand. He has nowhere confessed that he has given up the cause of secession. Raut has time and again reiterated that his stand has not changed but it has entered into a new phase of struggle.

It is evident that the Alliance for Independent Madhesh, as such, has not changed. The agreement does not oblige Raut to change the basic objective of the group. What he has agreed is to adopt the democratic way to achieve his objective. Has he not been pursuing his goal by a peaceful and democratic way? The title of his organization has made it amply clear what his final goal is. It is, to say the least, to establish an independent Madhesh.

On the other hand, the government will play with the words and try to shift the responsibility to the parliament. The constitution makes it obligatory to get a resolution passed by two-thirds majority of the members sitting and voting for holding a referendum.

For this, he will be over-ground instead of under-ground. He will enjoy validity and legal recognition in his movement what used to be considered seditious in the eyes of the state. He and his colleagues will enjoy political freedom that was hitherto denied to them.

All his jailed colleagues will be released. Compensation will be provided to those killed or injured during his movement. The agreement has committed the government to treat the Alliance for Independent Madhesh as a democratic political force. If so, the government has granted Raut to further pursue what he has been doing so far.

The agreement has brought and continues to bring, the term ‘referendum’ in sharp controversy. The term has already gained a special status in the constitution. It says that decision can be taken on the basis of a referendum on subjects of national importance. However, the constitution also prohibits any amendment that might have an adverse consequence on sovereignty, geographical integrity, independence and sovereign rights of the people. That means the main goal of the Raut’s alliance aims at hurting the geographical unity and integrity of Nepal. His group will insist that a referendum is called for deciding this question.

On the other hand, the government will play with the words and try to shift the responsibility to the parliament. The constitution makes it obligatory to get a resolution passed by two-thirds majority of the members sitting and voting for holding a referendum.

It is just like the agreement the government entered into with Dr. Govinda KC. When Prime Minister Oli broke the concurrence he shifted his responsibility to the parliament for endorsing his commitment. The parliament refused to listen to Dr. KC’s plea and passed the bill relating to medical education. The constitution leaves indeed wide space for all types of contending parties and arguments. This is going to apply in the case of agreement between the government and Raut. That will lead to never-ending debate.

The accord is full of contradictions. On the one hand, the signatories admit that Federal Democratic Nepal is an independent, sovereign and indivisible country. It is the duty of each Nepali citizen to safeguard the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nepal. On the other hand, it grants official recognition to the Alliance for Independent Madhesh, which is not possible without breaking the country into pieces.

It has also raised the question on the supremacy of the sovereign power of the people or the country. The agreement states that the signatories strongly believe that the achievement of various objectives including political, social and economic should be made through peaceful and democratic means. They have agreed to resolve existing dissatisfaction in different places including in Tarai-Madhesh through democratic means based on people’s mandate, in line with the spirit of the sovereignty vested in the hands of people in Nepal’s constitution.

It stipulates that the people, by virtue of exercising sovereign power, can change even the integral character of the country. In other words, people are entitled even to break the country. If that is so, the mandate of the people can go to the extent of dividing the country. However, the constitution as such does not allow such an action. Who is superior? Amidst such confusion, it is might that becomes right. Is this what the agreement looks for ahead?

0