Author: Dhruba Adhikary
Publication: Asian Times
Date: March 3, 2010
URL: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LC04Df01.html
Nepal's transition from a Hindu monarchy to
a secular republic is not going smoothly, and not just over the fast-approaching
May 28 deadline for the nation's new constitution.
Nepal's three major parties are at loggerheads
in the special assembly formed to draft the constitution over the structure
of a proposed federal system. The opposition Maoists insist that federal states
be created on an ethnic basis, while the ruling Nepali Congress party and
its coalition partner believe the states should be formed on a geographic
basis.
The Constituent Assembly was formed after
a 2008 election when members voted overwhelmingly to abolish the monarchy
and restructure the country into autonomous states. The powers of the last
king, Gyanendra, had been steadily curtailed since a disastrous period of
his rule ended in April 2006 amid a popular revolt.
In the Constituent Assembly the opposition
Maoists, who form the largest block with 40% of the seats, favor an executive
presidency, while the Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal-Unified
Marxist are floating a parliamentary system.
At the same time, public opposition to the
idea of federalism is growing, as seen in the successful anti-federalism campaign
being carried out by the National People's Front (Rashtriya Janamorcha), a
small left-leaning party.
"Federalism is a recipe for Nepal to
disintegrate, like the former Yugoslavia," said Chitra Bahadur KC, the
party leader. In his view, Nepal's marginalized peoples would be better served
through greater decentralization. A successful general strike his party organized
in January is forcing the assembly to listen to his concerns.
Another small party, the royalist Rashtriya
Prajatantra Party-Nepal (RPP-Nepal), is calling for a national referendum
on federalism, as well as on secularism and a restoration of the monarchy.
It last week launched a general strike that brought Kathmandu Valley, which
encompasses the capital and two other districts, to a standstill.
RPP-Nepal has only four members in the national
assembly, but its protest campaign has attracted a wide following. Even the
powerful Maoists were forced to cancel an important meeting due to the chaos
and the RPP-Nepal's large rallies managed to block the entrance to Simha Durbar,
the seat of central government.
The party also wants a referendum to address
Nepal's status as the world's only remaining Hindu state, which was abolished
in 2008 when Nepal became a republic. More than 80% of the population are
from the Hindu faith, also known as Sanaatan Dharma (the eternal law).
Hinduism, the third-largest religion after
Christianity and Islam, is known for its tolerance towards other faiths. Nepal,
with a sizeable Muslim population, does not possess the type of religious
rivalries seen in India.
This, however, is undergoing a subtle change.
There are growing feelings that too much tolerance could impact on Nepal's
Hindu way of life, especially if there is a lack of reciprocity from other
faiths. The concern has grown since the proselytizing activities of Western
groups that had entered Nepal in the garb of non-governmental organizations
were exposed.
The Hindu backlash against Nepal becoming
a secular state has grown since 2006 when the monarchy first fell and the
state was established, but the leaders of some prominent political parties
believe the recent popular movements may also be a power play by right-wing
elements. And they are also jittery about a possible revival of the monarchy.
Kamal Thapa, who heads RPP-Nepal, denies that
his party is working to restore the monarchy's absolute rule. "All our
party believes in is the restoration of a ceremonial institution that provides
a symbol of unity for a country that is known for its ethnic diversity,"
Thapa told Asia Times Online.
Thapa's ideas appeal to many, as the 2006
declaration that made Nepal a secular nation was made without consulting the
people. The May 18 declaration was made in a parliament that had been restored
through royal proclamation, and the person who made it, Girija Prasad Koirala,
was sworn in as prime minister by Gyanendra himself.
That declaration was illegitimate and should
have been challenged there and then, according to Bishwanath Upadhayaya, a
former chief justice and the head of the panel that drafted the 1990 constitution.
If the changes were the outcome of a mass movement or a revolution, it should
have been documented as such, he maintains.
Instead, sweeping changes were abruptly announced
by Koirala on the grounds of bringing the Maoist insurgency (1996-2006) to
an end and bringing the rebels into mainstream politics at all costs.
Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal (popularly
known as Prachanda) has now become one of two important figures who concede
that the secularization of Nepal was a mistake. The other person is none other
than the incumbent President Ram Baran Yadav.
Yadav made this clear to a controversial Indian
holy man, Chandraswami, when he was on a pilgrimage to Nepal. Former prime
minister Koirala purportedly evaded the question. Unlike rulers in Delhi,
media reports indicate that India's Hindus want the religious identity of
neighboring Nepal to remain unchanged. For them, too, this is an emotional
issue.
If Nepal's secularization was a mistake, this
could be rectified when Nepal receives its new constitution. There is no need
for a simultaneous restoration of the monarchy, which ceased being the custodian
of the nation's Hindus after the notorious palace massacre of 2001. Nepal
could now learn to stand as a Hindu republic, not a kingdom.
- Dhruba Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist.
