As Constituent Assembly (CA) endorses the first draft of the new constitution and looks forward to suggestions from the public, Anurag Acharya speaks to two leaders from two different parties: one opposing the draft and another supporting it. Excerpts:

‘We may sever ties with this state’

Laxman Lal Karna, Sadbhavana Party

 What is your first impression about the new constitution's draft?

We had a lot of expectations. We were hopeful that the draft will accommodate aspirations of all marginalised groups like Dalit, Janajati, Muslim and Madhesi, Tharu and Women. But it didn't, and left us disappointed. The draft ignored Interim Constitution’s guidelines for proportional representation of marginalised groups at all levels of the state.

But the draft guarantees an inclusive state, doesn't it?

Even the Panchayat-era constitution had called for an inclusive state, and the king handpicked a few from marginalised communities to garnish his institution. The question is not about whether the state wants to be inclusive, but about constitutional provisions that guarantee it. The word in itself carries no meaning unless proportional representation is guaranteed in the constitution.

How will Madhesi Front respond?

We have objected to the big parties' high-handedness by symbolically rejecting the draft. We could go a step further and dissociate ourselves from the constitution writing process.

You have torn up the draft inside the CA and burnt its copies outside. Does this mean you are already dissociating yourself from the process?

The front is now distancing it only from the way the constitution is being written. But if they do not address our issues, we will not only dissociate ourselves from the constitution drafting process, but this state itself.

 

 

‘The process will not stop’

Agni Kharel, CPN (UML)

What is your first impression about the draft?

I am aware that the draft has several contentious issues that require serious deliberation.

The Supreme Court issued an interim order against the 16-point deal. But the constitution's draft was prepared on the basis of this very agreement. Is it not a violation of the court's verdict?

I have read the full text of the verdict, and I find it difficult to believe that the SC actually issued it. I don't understand why the SC issued this kind of verdict without listening to our arguments. But we are clear that the statute drafting is a jurisdiction of the CA and no other state organ can take that away, not even the apex court.

The SC verdict states that deferring demarcation of federal units violates the Article 138 of the Interim Constitution, which gives the CA full mandate to restructure the state. Isn't that logical?

Drafting a statute is a political process, and every decision that is taken to this regard is also political. Having said that, the future legislature parliament that will take final decision on demarcation of federal units will have the same members of this CA. Simply put, the CA's involvement will not end with promulgation of the constitution.

So, the CA will not honour the SC's verdict?

We will not end the process because we have a mandate from people.