<div>After a protracted armed struggle, mass protests, political uncertainty, several missed deadlines and much wrangling, Nepal has promulgated a new constitution. This is an important milestone in the country’s history. It marks a huge improvement from the 1990 constitution that transformed Nepal from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one and put in place a multi-party democracy. The new constitution consolidates several gains made by the Jan Andolan and the interim constitution of 2007. It declares Nepal to be a secular, federal, democratic republic. Nepal has raced ahead of its giant neighbours on several fronts. Its constitution abolishes the death penalty and provides for equal rights for gays, lesbians and transgenders. However, there are shortcomings. This is not a consensus document. Almost a fifth of the Constituent Assembly – mainly legislators representing the Terai region – abstained from voting. The constitution provides for a federal arrangement and the creation of seven provinces but the proposed boundaries of the new provinces could lead to the political marginalisation of the Madhesis and the Tharus, who together make up nearly 40 per cent of Nepal’s population. The Madhesi demand for a province has been ignored and their population has been divided among three provinces. Delineation of electoral districts seems aimed at protecting the hill elite’s domination of the power structures.<br /><br />Violent protests have erupted in the Terai and over 40 people have been killed in police firing. The India-Nepal border is an open one and there are strong cross-border ethnic links. India is understandably concerned that the unrest in the Terai will spill over into Bihar, a state that has serious law and order issues and is going to the polls soon. However, suggesting “amendments” to the Nepali constitution, as has been reported in the Indian media, is certainly not the way that India should have responded. Extending gratuitous advice to a sovereign country is not only shabby diplomacy but is also counterproductive. It has already raised hackles in Nepal.<br /><br />While India can take pride in the support it extended the Nepali people in their quest for a modern democratic polity, its hectoring, big brother behaviour vis-à-vis Kathmandu annoys the Nepali people and provides its politicians with ammunition against India. Delhi’s recent suggestion of ‘amendments’ to the Nepali constitution will be seen there as yet another example of India’s micro-management of Nepal’s domestic affairs. If India is worried about the spillover effect of the Terai violence, it must beef up border security. It is for the Nepali people to fix the flaws in their constitution.<br /></div>
<div>After a protracted armed struggle, mass protests, political uncertainty, several missed deadlines and much wrangling, Nepal has promulgated a new constitution. This is an important milestone in the country’s history. It marks a huge improvement from the 1990 constitution that transformed Nepal from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one and put in place a multi-party democracy. The new constitution consolidates several gains made by the Jan Andolan and the interim constitution of 2007. It declares Nepal to be a secular, federal, democratic republic. Nepal has raced ahead of its giant neighbours on several fronts. Its constitution abolishes the death penalty and provides for equal rights for gays, lesbians and transgenders. However, there are shortcomings. This is not a consensus document. Almost a fifth of the Constituent Assembly – mainly legislators representing the Terai region – abstained from voting. The constitution provides for a federal arrangement and the creation of seven provinces but the proposed boundaries of the new provinces could lead to the political marginalisation of the Madhesis and the Tharus, who together make up nearly 40 per cent of Nepal’s population. The Madhesi demand for a province has been ignored and their population has been divided among three provinces. Delineation of electoral districts seems aimed at protecting the hill elite’s domination of the power structures.<br /><br />Violent protests have erupted in the Terai and over 40 people have been killed in police firing. The India-Nepal border is an open one and there are strong cross-border ethnic links. India is understandably concerned that the unrest in the Terai will spill over into Bihar, a state that has serious law and order issues and is going to the polls soon. However, suggesting “amendments” to the Nepali constitution, as has been reported in the Indian media, is certainly not the way that India should have responded. Extending gratuitous advice to a sovereign country is not only shabby diplomacy but is also counterproductive. It has already raised hackles in Nepal.<br /><br />While India can take pride in the support it extended the Nepali people in their quest for a modern democratic polity, its hectoring, big brother behaviour vis-à-vis Kathmandu annoys the Nepali people and provides its politicians with ammunition against India. Delhi’s recent suggestion of ‘amendments’ to the Nepali constitution will be seen there as yet another example of India’s micro-management of Nepal’s domestic affairs. If India is worried about the spillover effect of the Terai violence, it must beef up border security. It is for the Nepali people to fix the flaws in their constitution.<br /></div>
