Kathmandu: When Nepal promulgated its federal democratic republic constitution on September 20, 2015, the international community gave a mixed response–they appeared to welcome it and they appeared not to welcome it at the same time. While India only ‘noted’ it, the Western countries always expressed some caveats.
Soon after the promulgation of the constitution, the US called for ‘broadest possible agreement.’ A year later, the US continued to push for inclusion. “The government’s task now is to ensure that the new constitution—as well as any implementing law—is inclusive and has the broadest possible support in every part of the country and enshrines and protects basic human rights, including gender equality, equal rights to citizenship and religious freedom,” said the then Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Nisha Desai Biswal, while commenting on Nepal’s constitution in 2016. The UK also urged for broad ownership of the constitution.
The UK-India joint statement following Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Cameron’s meeting in London in November 2015 reads: “The two Prime Ministers stressed the importance of a lasting and inclusive constitutional settlement in Nepal that will address the remaining areas of concern and promote political stability and economic growth.”
The EU-India joint statement in March 2016 said Nepal needs “a lasting and inclusive constitutional settlement” that “will address the remaining Constitutional issues in a time bound manner, and promote political stability and economic growth.” They kept raising these concerns in the first few years of the constitution promulgation.
Fast forward to 2024, there appears to be a visible shift.
Nepali actors, including Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, the major stakeholders of the 2015 constitution, are talking about amendment to do away with bloated proportional representation structure. At least, this is what they told the people to justify the coalition between two largest forces in the federal parliament. Voices against provincial structure are gaining momentum. Parties like the National Democratic Party called the constitution day a black day. At the people’s level there is a strong voice against federalism, for good or bad reason. Many perceive that federal polity has made the situation of the country worse.
But the international community, which raised concerns in the initial years, have started to extend whole-hearted support for the constitution implementation. The focus of international donors such as the EU is on strengthening federalism.
Major Western countries extended best wishes to Nepal on the constitution and national day on Thursday.
The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken offered his “sincere congratulations to the people of Nepal” on the occasion of the Constitution Day. He also recognized “many of Nepal’s achievements, including the recent passage of historic transitional justice legislation, and we look forward to its successful implementation bringing justice for victims and survivors.” King Charles of the UK sent “heartfelt congratulations to Nepal” on the constitution day. The Delegation of the European Union in Nepal said the EU is “committed to supporting Nepal’s journey towards a more democratic, inclusive, and prosperous future.”
Is there anything to read between the lines here or should we take these Western responses normally? “This indicates realization on both the Nepali side as well as the international community,” said Jivesh Jha, critic and writer who has been consistently writing on Nepal’s constitution since 2015. “Back in 2015, emotion rather than reason guided people’s response to the constitution. Some saw it as the best ever document, others completely dismissed it. Now we have come a long way.”
This despite the fact that many things that the constitution promised have not yet been realized. For example, state institutions are still not fully inclusive, or even if there is inclusion it is limited to tokenism. Our federal cabinet appears to be the most exclusive structure with major dominance of one caste and gender. Could the international community also have realized it as such? “Possibly,” said Jha. “That the international community, which was critical in the past, is soft and welcoming means that they have sensed something,” he added. “They seem to be particularly alarmed by the voices raised against federalism and provincial structure.”
Comment