A witness’ account of our political upheavals.

Apr 2, 2016- 

               The April earthquake and its aftershocks killed about 9,000 people and rendered almost one millions homeless; adding to the comparable number of people already affected by the decade-long Maoist insurgency. Be it man-made or natural, only calamity can compel Nepali politicians to think, not necessarily rationally and however briefly, putting aside their egos. After 16,000 deaths and loss of property that was worth billions, political parties had agreed on a new order of politics to address the existing issues of equality and justice by signing the 12-point agreement in 2005. After much political wrangling over the number of provinces and forms of governance, which delayed the constitution promulgation, it took a natural disaster to bring the political parties to promulgate the new constitution after adopting a fast-track route. When they reached an agreement, it took them five months to finalise the draft of the constitution and to authenticate it. The disaster-induced political ties was challenged by protests in Madhes with demand of amendments to the constitution, which left five dozen dead and hundreds of people injured. It was followed by the unofficial blockade by India imposed to allegedly ‘exert pressure to amend the constitution’, that caused economic loss of billions. Nepal government ultimately amended the constitution four months after its promulgation. Nepali politicians, perhaps, would have done better had they given thought to issues before the calamities occurred. The yearning for change has remained constant in this nation, not because of its resistance to change but rather because of the leadership’s lack of vision. Kamal Dev Bhattarai, in his debut book Sankramankal (Transition), details political deals and the country’s protracted transition to peace. Bhattarai chronicles major political events beginning from the signing of the 12-point agreement, a landmark point of departure in Nepal’s politics, through to the promulgation of the constitution. The agreement reached between the then rebels—the Maoist party—and the ruling Seven Party Alliance had brought the concept of politics of consensus and paved the way for the rebels to join mainstream politics. The agreement abruptly ended after the first Constituent Assembly. The rebel party CPN (Maoist) emerged as the winner in the poll, which boosted the party’s ego and assumption of superiority. In the course of accommodating the radical leftist party, the mainstream parties created a new buzzword, legislature-parliament, to keep the revolutionary image intact. The Maoists did not want to be portrayed as a communist party sucked up to the parliamentary system. The term legislature-parliament exists till date, which is an inept way to refer to the parliament. Bhattarai, in his book, discusses in detail the ideological deviation of the Maoist party over the period and the ultimate split of the party into five factions. The book, a reporter’s diary, as the author calls it, simply puts the political developments in a chronological order, with fair amount of interpretation on the Maoist’s rise and fall—a result of the author’s extensive reporting on Maoist politics in his decade-long journalism career. The book touches upon issues raised by the Madhes, the unofficial blockade and India’s role in playing out the promulgation of the constitution. However, the Madhes chapter, which could have well been a unique selling point, fails to delve deeper into the reasons behind the frustration of the Madhesis and other marginalised communities. The author seems to have taken the mainstream view of looking at things that took place in the southern plains. The Madhesis and Janajatis, who make up the majority of the country’s populace, have expressed disappointment over the new constitution, which is not something we haven’t heard before. The facts stated in the book do not go far enough, and many topics need to be further explored. Bhattarai’s book, which chronicles political events between 2005 to 2015, has come at a time when the age-old Nepal-India relationship is at its lowest. It should be noted here that the 12-point agreement was signed in mediation of India, which marked the beginning of the peace process. Anti-Indian sentiment is so intense now, towards the end of the peace process, a major task of which was to promulgate the constitution. Bhattarai, in his book, argues that the peace process, however, has not reached a logical conclusion. He has pointed out issues such as land-reform policies, democratisation of the Nepal Army and the transitional justice process as the remaining components in the peace process yet to be completed. Will it happen in another decade? The party that rebelled against the state once has now become the one that runs the state. If that is anything to go by: change is inevitable.