Category: Opinions

The Government of India came to be the arbiter of the 1950-51 revolution, because of King Tribhuvan’s immaturity in taking refuge at the Indian embassy in Kathmandu without consulting the Nepali Congress

The promulgation of the Government of Nepal Act 1948 was a seismic change, for which the majority of the Ranas were not prepared. Padma Shamsher was tactical in promulgating the Act to alleviate some of the pressure for constitutional reform, although he was aware that those around him opposed it and may create future problems.

No sooner had he promulgated the Constitution, as expected, Padma Shamsher became insecure, as the Ranas were known for family feuds and power struggles. As such, Padma planned his decision to immediately resign, began concluding his important home affairs and left Kathmandu for Ranchi on 21 February 1948. In doing so, however, Padma left his entire constitutional project in limbo. Although medical reasons were cited for his visit to India, many of his well-wishers were aware of the intentions behind this move.

It is not clear why Padma Shamsher chose to move to Ranchi of all places. According to Adrian Sever, he purchased 16 hectares of land there at a nominal price with the support of the Indian government. He wanted to build houses for himself and several members of his family.Vijaya Shamsher, the son of Commander-in-Chief Mohan Shamsher, accompanied Padma when he left the country with this new mission. As the next hereditary prime minister in line, Mohan sent his son in order to watch over Padma Shamsher’s movements in India and secure his resignation letter to the King of Nepal. No sooner had Padma left, Mohan moved to the Singha Durbar, the official residence of the Prime Minister of Nepal. However, Padma delayed his resignation, contrary to the expectation of Mohan and other members of the Chandra Shamsher’s family. They were especially bothered by this delay, as they were desperately waiting for their fortune to arrive.

As several weeks passed without the arrival of Padma Shamsher’s resignation letter, Mohan Shamsher began fearing that Nepalese forces in India were pressuring Padma to reverse his plan. In reality, Sever notes, it appeared that the real reason behind the delay was because Padma Shamsher continued negotiating with the British revenue officials in his capacity as the reigning prime minister regarding his investments in the country. Finally, Padma tendered his resignation, effective from 30 April 1948 onwards. The resignation was then forwarded to the King of Nepal. Mohan Shamsher, the eldest son of Chandra Shamsher, was finally successful in becoming the reigning prime minister of Nepal. In this way, the process of constitutional reform through a liberal prime minister thus came to an end.

It is easy to analyze Padma Shumsher’s role in constitution-making in Nepal. Adrian Sever describes that this role was “caught on the horns of a dilemma.”It appears that Padma Shamsher genuinely believed in the necessity of introducing political reforms in the country and associating the people with the processes of government. However, he was not able to manage his situation in a way that allowed him to fulfill this purpose. Padma Shamsher was unable to compromise the future interests of the Ranas and their continued exploitation of the country as a family enterprise. He was not even able to negotiate a workable compromise between these two positions. Apparently, he lacked statesmanship and leadership qualities to get it done.

In the opinion of Shambh Bhakta Pant, a cursory glance at the Government of Nepal Act indicates that the will to preserve the status quo in the government was the motivating factor behind the act of promulgating the Constitution. Some favorable arguments about the 1948 Constitution are that it regularized the system of government for the first time in the history of Nepal and laid down a kind of a constitutional system of check and balance, however weak it may be, of the whimsical decisions of the ruling individual. Certainly, the Rana Constitution had, for the first time, accepted in principle some kind of representative rule and provided some fundamental rights, including the introduction of freedom of speech and immunity against arrest, even for members of the legislature while it was in session. Keeping in view the prevailing conditions and the system of government, admittedly, the Constitution was significant in its contribution to the evolution of the constitutional history of modern Nepal.

The Government of Nepal Act 1948 was promulgated on January 26, 1948. But this Constitution could not operate fully within a year, as had been promised, notes Pant, because of Mohan Shamsher’s antagonism; after becoming the Prime Minister and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, he suspended most of the Articles of the Constitution, especially those relating to fundamental rights, as they were objectionable in his point of view. Mohan Shamsher did so by virtue of the powers granted to the Ranas by Lal Mohar and Panjapatra received from the King. In place of the suspended fundamental rights, Mohan Shamsher introduced a new ordinance relating to the rights of citizens issued by the Muluki Adda, Sawal Department on 30 April 1948. On 18 September 1949, he promulgated an Act relating to personal freedom on the recommendation of the Constitutional Committee that he set up to prepare rules and regulations regarding the elections and the functions of the Panchayats. In this Act, there were altogether 21 articles, although it did not provide for political liberties.

In 1950, Pant elaborates, the Constitutional Committee framed laws to regulate the form and functions of all the Village Panchayats. The Village Panchayat Act 1950 and the Panchayat Court Act 1950, built on the Constitution of 1948, were issued by the government on the recommendation of the Constitutional Committee. The whole country was notified about the Acts by issuing sanad and istihar. The District Panchayat Act 1950 was brought into force on 16 August 2050 by announcement through sanad and isthihar on the recommendation of the Constitutional Committee. All this was a process towards the establishment of a comprehensive Panchayat structure from the level of the Village Panchayat to that of the National Assembly.

According to the report published by the Secretary of the Constitutional Committee, the Government instituted around 158Village Panchayats in 1950 out of the total 577 that were determined by the Village Panchayat Act of 1950. The elections to these bodies were held on the basis of adult franchise. On the recommendation of the Constitutional Committee, the District Panchayat Act was implemented and the numerous District Panchayats began sending their representatives to the National Assembly.

On September 22, 1950, Prime Minister Mohan Shamsher convened the legislature, to which he gave the nomenclature of ‘Parliament of Nepal,’ claiming that he had set up the Central Legislature in accordance with the Constitution of 1948. These measures reflected a very poor attempt on his part to execute the promised reforms. He summoned the so-called Parliament after 18 months of his rule, appointed one of the elected members of the National Assembly to his Council of Ministers and set up the Administrative Committee. However, all this meant nothing because the Prime Minister remained an autocrat in practice.

The armed revolution of 1950-51 had already begun on 6 November 2050. The political scenario was rapidly changing. Mohan Shamsher’s inaugural speech at the opening of the Central Legislature was too little, too late for the aspiring revolutionaries led by the Nepali Congress. He was never considered a liberal member of the Rana family. The special session of the legislature to dethrone King Tribhuvan, who took refuge in the Indian embassy and left for Delhi as a state guest, was another bad pill for political development. The decision to have Gyanendra, his grandson, fills Tribhuvan’s vacant position as King through the legislature was also not acceptable, nationally as well as internationally. Ranas were further exposed by this act. The next important move of the Central Legislature was to consider the letter from the Government of India relating to Indo-Nepal relations after King Tribhuvan took political asylum in India.

There were additional pitfalls. The Government of India came to be the arbiter of the revolution, because of King Tribhuvan’s immaturity in taking refuge at the Indian embassy in Kathmandu without consulting the Nepali Congress. It had wanted to take him to Palpa, declare the resumption of the royal power from there and rule the country with the aid and advice of the revolutionaries. Soon, the Nepali Congress lost its place at the negotiating table in Delhi, and India became the referee between the Ranas, the King and the Nepali Congress. It already suffered much because of its India based revolutionary activities.

The revolution was subdued by its power and strength. It has continued to have a bearing on all constitutional political developments thereafter. To win India’s favor, the Ranas obliged to India’s terms by consenting to a treaty that they never otherwise would have. Although Mohan Shamsher was able to take an oath as the first prime minister of democratic Nepal, as a reward, his utility vanished for India soon after.

[This article is part of the research work the author is conducting on the first Constitution of Nepal, issued in 1948.]

As noted by constitutional lawyer Ganesh Raj Sharma, initially, the Indian government attempted to echo the British way of adjusting with the Rana regime, which was by accommodating each other’s interests. With Padma Shamsher in his confidence, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru pressurized Nepali politicians in exile to forego the agitation in favor of cooperating with Padma Shamsher’s three-tiered partyless Panchayat system. Then, during the time Padma Shamsher announced the basic outlines of his reforms on 28 May, 1947, Nehru had an interesting conversation with M.P. Koirala and Ganesh Man Singh, NNC leaders at the time.

Padma Shamsher was appointed the hereditary prime minister of Nepal on November 29, 1945. His formal inauguration was not held until June 1946. On the 12th day of his rule, December 10, 1945, however, Padma Shamsher declared, “I regard myself as the servant of the nation.”His voice emotional with these words, and to the people who assembled to hear him, it foreshadowed the reform that was coming in the Rana rule during his tenure. None of the Rana prime ministers had ever used such an extraordinary expression, as it indicated that the people were sovereign and democratic rule would be maintained in the governance of the country. Padma Shamsher certainly broke the ice by stating that the prime minister, despite being a hereditary chief executive, is still a public servant.

Padma Shamsher’s declaration was made in the large assembly of officials and the general public at the Tundikhel grounds, where he outlined the policy and objectives of his administration. His predecessor, Juddha Shamsher, was prime minister for 13 years, between1932 to 1945. The new prime minister demonstrated his desire to facilitate a momentum, particularly a newness, to the current affairs. In a country that had not yet developed an elected parliament or deliberative house, Padma Shamsher wanted to deliver the policies and programmes to the general public in an open assembly. This communicated to the people that change was eminent.

In the British tradition, the opening of the parliament, of which the Ranas were already knowledgeable, marks the formal beginning of the parliamentary year, and the King’s Speech, which Padma Shamsher contemplated delivering, sets out the government’s agenda for the upcoming parliamentary session and outlines the proposed policies and legislation. In Britain, it is the only regular occasion when the three constituent parts of Parliament – the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons – meet. That Padma Shamsher wanted to follow this indicated a possible shift in constitutional traditions (even though Padma was not the king, and the Tundikhel was not the parliament).

As part of his new policies and programmes, Padma Shamsher prioritized certain changes, including educational reforms, transportation facilities, development of industries and pay raises for public servants. According to historian Adrian Sever, Padma Shamsher emphasized the need to invest in educational facilities in order to facilitate Nepal’s development and, likewise, announced his plans to establish a nationwide network of primary schools. He also promised the development of transport facilities, industry and the plans for the expansion of the ropeway, railway and road networks in Nepal.

In order to please the military, I. R. Aryal & T. P. Dhungyal have noted, Padma Shamsher added a cost of living allowance to military personnels’ basic pay and declared pay raises for junior officer corps and the lower echelons of the civil service. Additionally, at subsidized prices, civilians could buy rice at the rate of twelve and a half pice per ‘mana’ and the military at ten pice per ‘mana’. This arrangement pleased both the civilians and the military. But the people of the Tarai became increasing discontent, as they had to pay a certain amount of paddy in their payment of revenue. However, Padma Shamsher did not address this concern Additionally, he announced that from mid-March to mid-August, the government offices would open from ten to five and, for the month of mid-August to Mid-March, from eleven to four. Due to this measure, civil servants were pleased to some extent, and these reforms were not large challenges for the government.

Later, Padma Shumsher called a conference of the landlords of Nepal for consultation regarding agricultural reform and related issues. They discussed the means whereby the economic condition of the Terai region could be improved. As the Tarai was relatively open and vulnerable to political influence from India, the government was anxious to ensure the stability of the region by securing the continued support and cooperation of the landed class. The landed class, in turn, requested the prime minister to sanction wood for the purposes of embankments of the rivers, digging canals, irrigation and other such matters. The Muslim population of Tarai asked for licenses to enable it to sell its grains and other foods.

During his tenure, Grishma Bahadur Devkota has noted, Padma Shamsher operationalized elections of the municipalities and established the Nepal Literature Council; additionally, the ordinary people were allowed to keep radios at their houses. The publication of the Gorkhapatra, the oldest newspaper of Nepal, was increased from twice a week to thrice a week. A new feature, “Letter to the Editor,” was also introduced to the newspaper. The common people were allowed to comment on the activities of the civil servants in this column. On private initiatives, literary magazines were also allowed to be published. The government provided financial support to magazines like “Sahitya Shrot.”

In terms of relations with the state and international relations, Padma Shamsher introduced some additional reforms as well; for example, by easing restrictions on the royal family, King Tribhuvan was allowed to travel to India for medical purposes with his two younger sons, Prince Himalaya and Prince Basundhara. Additionally, Padma Shamsher also sent the Director General of the Industrial Development Board to the United Provinces and Punjab in order to study their industrial contexts. For increased relations with India, China and the United States, Padma Shamsher extended goodwill missions to Calcutta, Washington and Nanking in order to confer various orders and decorations.

Still, despite Padma Shamsher’s efforts to please his people, anti-establishment movements were ongoing, and public unrest and dissatisfaction against the Ranas continued to increase. According to Professor Ram Kumar Dahal, under the leadership of BP Koirala and other Nepalese youths and with the support of Indian socialist leaders (including Jaya P. Narayan and Ram Manohar Lohia), the Akhil Bharatiya Nepali Rastriya Congress (All India Nepali National Congress) was established on October 31, 1946. The party even received congratulatory messages from leaders of the Indian Congress Party (ICP) during its conference in Bhawanipur, Calcutta on January 25-26, 1947. Then in Nepal itself, Nepali National Congress (NNC) was established with the purpose of supporting the Indian National Movement (INM) and introducing a liberal democratic system under a constitutional monarchy. After his release from jail since 1941, founder Tanka Prasad Acharya of the NNC was elected as its first president, BP Koirala as its acting president and B.C. Sharma, Dilli Raman Regmi, GP Upadhaya, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and Rudra Prasad Giri as its members.

The establishment of the NNC in India inspired other sects of Nepalese people to revolt against the dictatorial Rana rule. Inspired by the NNC, the workers of the Jute and Cotton Mill in BP Koirala’s hometown of Biratnagar demanded an improvement in the condition of factory workers, leading to a general strike on March 4, 1947; during this strike, BP Koirala’s two brothers, Tarini Prasad Koirala and Girija Prasad Koirala, Man Mohan Adhikari and others were particularly active in exploiting the situation in their favour. BP Koirala and other workers reached Biratnagar and conducted a peaceful labour strike, which served as a test case for the newly-established party’s organizational strength against the Ranas in bringing the political issues to the forefront.

The Padma Shumsher government, in the course of suppressing the strikes, sent 250 military men to Biratnagar, and when they reached on March 25, 1947, they arrested top-ranking leaders of the NNC, including BP Koirala, Girija Prasad Koirala, Tarini Prasad Koirala, Man Mohan Adhikari as well as leaders of the Indian Socialist Party. Matrika Prasad Koirala continued leading the strikes after the arrest of the top-ranking leaders.

These firings and arrests had a great impact on the mindset of the Nepalese people. The NNC, in its executive meeting in Calcutta, threatened the Rana rulers that they would organize a countrywide people’s movement if the government did not stop its oppressive measures and release its leaders. However, the Rana government paid no heed to their threatening demands and instead jailed three Koirala brothers, MM Adhikari and others.

The NNC and others, in order to ratify the executive decision regarding the call for a nationwide movement, called its conference on April 9-10, 1947, in which 125 representatives from various parts of the country participated enthusiastically. The party conference decided to launch a nationwide movement on April 13, 1947. Accordingly, the Anti-Rana Movement was launched in various parts of the country, but focused on Biratnagar, Birgunj, Janakpur, Illam Nepalgunj and in three towns in the Kathmandu Valley.

Padma Shumsher’s declaration of constitutional reforms on May 16, 1947 became breaking news. He called a general meeting at his Bishal Nagar palace and announced that they were going to have a constitutional government in Nepal, which led to the dissolution of the ongoing NNC movement.

As noted by constitutional lawyer Ganesh Raj Sharma, initially, the Indian government attempted to echo the British way of adjusting with the Rana regime, which was by accommodating each other’s interests. With Padma Shamsher in his confidence, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru pressurized Nepali politicians in exile to forego the agitation in favor of cooperating with Padma Shamsher’s three-tiered partyless Panchayat system. Then, during the time Padma Shamsher announced the basic outlines of his reforms on 28 May, 1947, Nehru had an interesting conversation with M.P. Koirala and Ganesh Man Singh, NNC leaders at the time.

According to Sharma, an excerpt from the recorded advice of Nehru sheds light on the strategy adopted by India towards the political forces in Nepal: “How could you assert that your movement may not create more power to reactionaries? They may be bent to undertake any stringent measure and if they fall upon your movement relentlessly, this would mean complete setback of your toddling movement. If you call it off now and divert your energy in consolidating your power, expand your propaganda among the masses, you could be better equipped for your next struggle. Calling off does not mean you stop it forever. If you find that the government is not sincere and she had not given what she had declared, you could launch your movement again.”

Nehru emphasized, “Would it not be better if you let us to be stronger? The Nepal government has extended her hand of friendship towards us. You know other nations are also eager to exploit her to their benefit but India must not give that chance, she must take it. That is what I want and for this I have suggested to stop the movement for the present. Besides, Nepal government has sent objections regarding the base of your movement in British India. To give shelter to the politicians is a different thing and underground work also can be overlooked. But open bases to launch movement against one independent country is quite different thing. That is, however, significant at present but under heavy pressure our position will be rather delicate.”

Padma was considered a simple and credulous person. After his appointment as prime minister, he refused to move into Singha Durbar, the official residence of the Prime Minister, despite pressure from his family members and senior officials to do so. He ran his prime ministership from his relatively modest residence at Bishalnagar and, three times a week, he visited Singha Durbar to attend to business.

Ultimately, on January 26, 2048, Padma Shamsher, the self-declared “servant of the nation” made another important announcement regarding constitutional changes. Given the enormous pressure, Padma Shamsher’s liberal personality and his determination to push forward (despite the unwillingness of most of the Ranas), the first Constitution of Nepal known as Government of Nepal Act was promulgated.

The Nepalese opposition movement in Indian soil against the Ranas did not seek British support or mediation in working out a democratic deal with the Ranas. Rather, the opposition movement found common interests with the Indians fighting against the British. This gave a golden opportunity to Jawaharlal Nehru to broker a deal between the Ranas and the opposition leaders. The move had several consequences for the future of Nepal. Because the parties relied on Nehru and Padma Shamsher realized there is no escaping Nehru’s good office, both the Ranas and opposition leaders also lost the opportunity to ask the British before their return to restore the Nepalese territories lost to Britain during Anglo Nepal War 1814-16.

Prime Minister Padma Shamsher inherited the hereditary title of the prime minister when his uncle Prime Minister Juddha Shamsher abdicated in his favour in November 1945.

The nephew, Padma Shamsher, as opposed to his uncle, Juddha Shamsher, wanted to transform the feudal Rana system by somehow democratizing it. He recognized that in modern times, it was impossible to rule without the people’s help and cooperation, and, as soon as he came to power, he turned his attention to the necessary constitutional reforms. However, he was considered a weak Prime Minister who faced a multitude of challenges, including weak familial background, inheriting a financially insufficient treasury, and the British’s withdrawal from India.

The founder of the Rana rule, Jung Bahadur, had resorted to coup d’êtat in 1846, as the story goes, to end multiple contenders of powers and emerging instabilities in the country. The Rana rule however fell into the same trap. The Rana rulers married several wives or had relationships with concubines and allegedly low caste women. Because many such women gave birth to several children, the potential contenders for the hereditary prime ministership, a solo position, on the Roll of Succession grew. Consequently, Ranas who were legitimate sons began begrudging the sons of concubines and other lower caste wives with whom they had to contend the hereditary position.

According to John Whelpton, in 1920, Chandra Shamsher, the sixth of the seventeen sons of Dhir Shamsher Rana (the youngest brother of Jung Bahadur Rana), attempted to tackle this problem by creating a threefold classification of the family. As such, the A-Class Ranas were ones whose mothers were of equal caste status to the father and had been married with full religious rites; B-Class Ranas were those whose mothers were high caste (e.g. Thakuri and Chhetri), but had been married by a simpler ceremony (often the result of an existing relationship before marriage); and C-Class Ranas were illegitimate sons of mothers who often belonged to lower castes.

Chandra Shamsher declared that while the existing names on the Roll of Succession would be preserved, only A-Class Ranas would be added to the Roll from the time the decree went into effect. Thus, Bir Shamsher’s illegitimate sons retained their place on the Roll (added by their father in 1885-1901) and were in contention to the prime ministership. Bhim Shamsher, Padma Shamsher’s father, however, contradicting Chandra Shamsher’s decree, added his C-Class sons and grandsons to the list, as he had many children but only a single legitimate son.

During the time he assumed prime ministership, as Ludwig Stiller described, Padma Shamsher was sixty-two years old, with a small family, a simple life and a steady work ethic; he was an unlikely candidate for the position of prime minister. He additionally lacked two important components of maintaining his grip on power: wealth and a powerful family base, as Adrian Sever stated. Bhim Shamsher, Padma Shamsher’s father and himself a prime minister, was a wealthy man, but had not given Padma, his eldest son, his share of the properties. Padma Shamsher did not enjoy his father’s favor and confidence.

Adrian Sever argues that from the time he assumed office, Shamsher had a precarious hold on the supreme executive office. The treasury he inherited from his predecessor, Prime Minister Juddha Shamsher, was depleted, which kept him from becoming powerful and wealthy. Juddha had requisitioned private and public lands and spent much of his wealth from the government exchequer to provide for his 40 children from different wives.

Additionally, Juddha Shumsher had removed many of Bhim Shamsher’s wealthy half-brothers from the Roll of Succession. Because they had little prospect for power, they were in and out of Kathmandu without much vision or interest in ongoing politics. Additionally, his single A-Class son, Basant Shamsher, although democratic-minded, was too weak to help him with his quest. In this scenario, Padma Shamsher did not have strong support for constitutional reforms from his family.

Yet, Padma Shamsher understood the paradigm shift that was at work around the region, and his humble mannerisms allowed him to accommodate this change. He was effortful in trying to build his relations with the Chandra Shamsher and Juddha branches of the Rana family by sharing power with them in order to appeal for the necessary assistance and build his power base. Additionally, although his cousins had no intention of supporting him, Padma Shamsher tried to accommodate them. Thus, in a commendable gesture, Padma Shamsher reconfirmed Juddha’s eldest son, Bahadur Shumsher, in his position of the Hazuria General (ADC General) deputed to keep the King under surveillance under the Rana regime.

However, Bahadur Shumsher resigned his position as Hazuria General, and Padma Shamsher appointed Chandra’s son, Krishna Shamsher as replacement. Another of Chandra’s sons, Shankar Shamsher, was appointed Director General of Police. However, Krishna Shumsher also relinquished his position. He also withdrew from the Roll of Succession and left the country. Chandra’s other son, Keshar Shamsher, who was a strong claimant of a similar senior position, was not interested in politics, and preferred being appointed as the Ambassador to the Court of St. James, the royal court of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, Mohan Shamsher and Babar Shamsher, Chandra’s other sons, remained impatient for power, but had to wait until Padma Shamsher handed over his prime ministership.

Additionally, by the time Padma Shamsher became prime minister, the British in India had already become weak. The meeting between Lord Wavell, the Viceroy of India, and the major political leaders had just been convened in Simla to agree on and approve the Wavell Plan for Indian self-government. The last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, assumed the viceregal throne in New Delhi in February 1947 with a clear purpose of closing the chapter of colonial rule. As Leo E. Rose, in Nepal: Strategy for Survival (1971), has pointed out, the Ranas had difficulty accepting the reality that the British would withdraw from India and that major policy adjustments would also become necessary in Nepal, per the new scenario.

Still, the Ranas expected that, given the Hindu-Muslim riots taking place in northern India in 1946, the transfer of power from the British to Indians would be delayed. However, this expectation was shattered as, in August of that year, an interim government under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru of Congress was formed. The situation disabled Padma Shamsher from requesting the British to provide support in his constitution reform process.

Moreover, the Nepalese opposition movement in Indian soil against the Ranas did not seek British support or mediation in working out a democratic deal with the Ranas. Rather, the opposition movement found common interests with the Indians fighting against the British. This gave a golden opportunity to Jawaharlal Nehru to broker a deal between the Ranas and the opposition leaders. The move had several consequences for the future of Nepal. Because the parties relied on Nehru and Padma Shamsher realized there is no escaping Nehru’s good office, both the Ranas and opposition leaders also lost the opportunity to ask the British before their return to restore the Nepalese territories lost to Britain during Anglo Nepal War 1814-16.

Thus, writing a new constitution in the hotbed of such a scenario was certainly not an easy affair. Given that a weak prime minister, who faced many other challenges as highlighted above, was attempting this feat proved to be even more challenging.

The Ranas ruled Nepal for 103 years with the force of the oppressive hereditary prime ministershipinitiated by Jang Bahadur Rana in 1846. Padma Shamsher JBR, the 8th Rana to rule the country, was the prime minister for just two years andfive months, from 29 November 1945 to 30 April 1948. His most outstanding achievement was promulgating the first constitution of Nepal, the Government of Nepal Act, 1948, (Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, 1948).Even though the Constitution was short-lived, it was an important development for the eventual introduction of constitutional democracy in Nepal.

The first Constitution lacked the Rana regime’s decisive political back-up because Padma Shamsher, the main architect of the Constitution, resigned just a couple of months after its promulgation, and his successor, Mohan Shamsher, the ninth and the last hereditary prime minister, and his new coterie in the power structure were unable to honor it. This, in turn, helped magnify what Leo E Rose described as the ongoing, “small scale but persistent internal disorders” against the regime, which later transformed into an armed revolution.

Then, following the end of the Rana regime, King Tribhuvan introduced a new government together with the promulgation of the Interim Constitution Act 1951, known as the second constitution of Nepal; this Act promised to draft and adopt a full-fledged constitution through an elected constituent assembly. Article 73 of the new Act repealed Padma Shamsher’s Constitution.Opposition groups and civil societies were ready toabide by his Constitution, and he believed that this constitution would endure for ages, gradually opening new vistas for the otherwise closed and despotic country.

At 66, when Padma Shamsher wrote the first constitution,he had not inheriteda specific liberal legacy from his father, Prime Minister Bhim Shamsher, or from his mother,Kanchi Bada Maharani. Rather, his predecessor, Prime Minister Juddha Shamsher,had remained authoritarian, save for some reforms, and did not entertain any ideasabout constitutional change. Padma Shamsher’s successor, Mohan Shamsher failed at both introducing democracy in the country and quelling the evolving revolution. However, when the British exited the sub-continent, the Ranas lost the support they had traditionally received from the British. Ranas also feared that India might retaliate because Nepal had stood with Britain in its colonization of India.It was using democracy as a bargaining chip to protect its interests in Nepal.

Still, Padma Shamsher understood that themeagre possibility of continuity of the Rana regime, even for just a couple of more years, depended on the active implementation of aConstitution that, although notvery democratic,possessed some progressive elements in a politically-immobile country. In this environment, the aging Padma Shamsher was certainly a rare Rana who wanted to accommodate the growing democratic movement, and the possible Indian hostilities.Had the Constitution survived, arguably, the country would have celebrated the 71st constitutional anniversary in January 26, 2020.Now, the first Constitution simply possesses academic importance, but even after 71 years of its promulgation, it has not been seriously studied.

The first Constitution was first in its variousapproaches to government as well as constitutional functionaries. The idea of having a new written constitution to limit the exercise of power itself was a very high-sounding thought at the time. For the first time, with this new instrument, “fundamental rights”of the citizens(including the freedom of person, freedom of speech, liberty of press, and freedom of assembly and discussion) were officiatedinNepal. Acknowledging these rights explicitly would, as Padma Shamsher put it, create”provision for [citizens]in a manner similar to that which obtains in the advanced countries of the world.”

The creation of a Council of Ministers, which allowedrepresentation of popularly-elected members of the legislature,contrasted greatly with the feudal arrangement of Nepal. In an effort to moldthe elective system of the West with the local panchayat system at the village level,Padma Shamsher designed a central legislature based on the mixed model of election and nomination of members. Bicameralism at the center, with itsrecognized power and authorities, was to be instituted as a completely new constitutional feature,providingspace for both elected and nominated members. All adults were conceded with the right of the vote. The Act included a provision for the appointment of an Auditor-General to evaluate government finances and a Public Service Commission to select people for civil service.

The first Constitution also envisaged the establishment of an independent judiciary for the first time. The Supreme Court (Pradhan Nyayalaya) was to be established as a court of records, and a Judicial Committee was also to be formed from among the members of the legislature (two members from special qualifications from outside) to act as the Supreme Court of Appeal in special cases, frame rules and regulations for the administration of justice, and, more importantly, to interpret the Constitution in the case of disputes regarding its provisions. Together, continuity was given to the panchayati adalat system at the grassroots level. At the higher levels, justice was kept independent ofand separate from the executive. Judges were not liable to dismissal within the limit of their retiring age unless they were recommended for removal by the legislature, and their salaries were not subject to arbitrary increase or decrease.

The Constitution’s Article 68 (a) created hope for the commoners. The Prime Minister was to constitute a commission at the expiration of seven years, if not earlier, from the commencement of this Act for the purpose of inquiring into the government’s activitiesper the Constitution, the growth of education, and the development of representative institutions, and matters connected therewith. This commission was to report on whether and to what extent it is desirable to extend, modify or restrict the degree of constitutional advancement existing therein. Nearly half of the commissionwas to be elected by the legislature itself. The door for constitutional evolution was thus kept open.

Appearing to be apologetic for his tardiness in introducing constitutional reforms, Padma Shamsher noted during the promulgation ceremony of the Government of Nepal Act: “It is not a fact that no attempt was made during this long period to associate the people with the government in the administration of the country, but all attempts failed because the time was not yet ripe. For example, a parliamentary cutchery was established in Basantapur in the year 1851. The government of the day was so enamored of the British system that it desired to introduced the same kind of parliamentary institutions here, in which the people’s will might find expression. But the people showed energetic disapproval, because they thought that Nepal, which had previously been brought to the verge of catastrophe by the multiplicity of leadership, was again been led on the same path in imitation of foreign manners and customs. The experiment to introduce parliamentary institutions had perforce to be dropped.”

Referring to the second effort in this regard, he added further: “Again in 1918, an attempt was made in the same direction with the introduction of the elective system in the municipality of the capital[as a first step]. But there was much disorder in the city during the election, and communal quarrels and breaches of peace occurred among the city dwellers, who had been living heretofore in the peace and mutual co-operation, and so the election had to be abandoned and an arrangement had to be made for the selection of members by the government in order to carry on the municipal administration.”

In the pursuit of constitutional reforms, on February 13,1947, Padma Shamsher was on record for declaring that an arrangement that associated the people more closely with the government, which was the case in a greater part of the world, would contribute greatly to the progress of the country. However, he made no effort to engage with the common people in his constitution-drafting process, let alone dissatisfied groups and civil society. He consulted his cousins, nephews and councilors and conducted several deliberations with them on the subject of reform. He also formed aReforms Committee in April 1947 to study all such inputs.

Padma Shamsherthusnoted: “…the membersof the reforms committee discussed the subjects among themselves, and also held consultations with experts from India.” These experts were Prakash Gupta, Raghunath Singh and Ram Ugra Singh. “Though the draft of the consultations was soon ready,”he emphasized, “it took longer to frame the rules and regulations thatwere necessary to make it operative.”He reminded the people that “these constitutional reforms were intended to be very first step which other states, and our neighbours, did in two or three stages, and at long intervals.”

The Government of Nepal Act was certainly not up to the mark. It was better than what existed before, in terms of embodying democratic ideals, because nothing existed in contemporary Nepal that limited the power of the government. In its final form, the Constitution did not change the status of the titular king, who traditionally was the sovereign of the day, and did not constitutionalize multiparty democracy, which would make it possible to provide the necessary political representation of the people.The Constitution assumed the hereditary right of the Ranas family to the offices of the Prime Minister of Nepal and Maharajaship of Kaski and Lamjung. The hereditary prime minister, not the government of the day, was given the power to suspend orwithdraw the Constitution if emergency situationsso required. The Prime Minister had the power to veto any motion, and his assent was required for any bill to become law.The national budget was to originate from the Prime Minister who would lay it before the legislature.

Despite these challenges, the Constitution began and snowballed into something that had never happened before.This was the reason that B. P. Koirala, who provided intellectual leadership to the 1950-51 Revolution, was ready to give Padma Shamsher’s Constitution a chance. Of course, destiny proved to be different.

Legal Issues Associated with Tunnels and Underground Infrastructures – Final

संविधान दिवस विशेष

राजनीतिक र कानूनी गरी संविधानको दुईवटा पक्ष छन् । राजनीतिक रूपमा संविधानको कार्यान्वयन भइरहेको छ किन भने निर्वाचित जनप्रतिनिधि आएका छन्, मुलुकमा तीन तहका सरकार बनेको छ, संविधानले व्यवस्था गरे अनुसार काम कारबाही शुरू भएको छ । यसरी राजनीतिक रूपमा एउटा प्रारूप तयार भएका छ ।

संविधानको कानूनी पक्षमा मुलुकभित्र दर्जनौ नयाँ कानून निर्माण भई कार्यान्वयनमा आइसकेको छ। संविधान जारी भएपछिको शुरूका वर्षहरूमा रहेका कानूनी रिक्तता पूर्ति हुने क्रममा छ । तर संविधानको भावना अनुसार निष्ठा र कर्तव्यबोधका साथ संविधानलाई अगाडि बढाउन अझ धेरै विषयहरू बाँकी रहेका छन् । संविधानको कार्यान्वयन अधिकत्म फलदायी रूपमा नभई न्यूनतम रूपमा गरिएको देखिन्छ ।

अहिलेसम्मको संविधान कार्यान्वयनको अवस्थालाई म सन्तोषजनक भन्छु तर यसलाई अझ राम्रो बनाउन सकिन्थ्यो, कार्यान्वयनको गुणस्तरलाई अझ धेरै कायम गर्न सकिन्थ्यो किनभने अहिले हामीसँग दुई तिहाईको सरकार छ, स्थिरता छ, कुनै बाधा विरोध छैन । सहकारिताको भावना राखेर कामकारबाहीलाई अगाडि बढाउने प्रयाप्त अवसरहरू अहिले पनि छ।

कतिपय पक्षले संविधानलाई व्यवहारमा स्वीकार गरे पनि आलोचनात्म दृष्टिकोण राख्दछन् । संविधानबारे उनीहरूले गरेका टिका टिप्पणीलाई छलफलको माध्यमबाट निकास दिनुपर्ने अवस्था छ। अहिले स्थिर सरकार भएको हुनाले उनीहरूसँग छलफल गर्दा संविधानलाई नराम्रो हुँदैन । अहिलेको संविधान रूपान्तरणको एजेण्डामा नै आएको हो त्यसैले जो जो पछि परेका छन् वा जजले आफ्नो अस्तित्व बोध गर्न सकेको छैन उनीहरूका लागि प्रयाप्त अवसर जुटाइदिने जिम्मेवारी सङ्घीय सरकारको नै हुन आउँछ । सरकारले त्यो गरदिनुपर्छ । संविधान ठूलो जनसमर्थनबाट आएको छ, यस्तो अवस्थामा अहिलेसम्म ‘कर्नर’ मा रहेकाहरूलाई अझ पनि ‘एकोमोडेट’ गर्न सकिन्छ।

संविधान भनेको एउटा राजनीतिक दस्तावेज हो, राजनीतिक व्यक्तिहरूले राजनीतिक उद्देश्यका लागि संविधान निर्माण गरेका हुन्छन् । संविधानबारेको टिकाटिप्पणी अभिव्यक्ति स्वतन्त्रता अन्तर्गत नै पर्दछ । यस्तो अवस्थामा संविधानको समर्थन र विरोध गर्न पाइन्छ । यसको कमिकमजोरीबारे निरन्तर छलफल गर्न पाउनुपर्छ।

संविधान दिवसलाई कालो दिवस भन्ने कि नभन्ने आ–आफ्नो दृष्टिकोणको कुरा हो । सामान्यतः कुनै पनि संविधान सर्वसहमतिले बन्न सक्दैन । सुन्दा सर्वसहमति राम्रो लागे पनि लोकतन्त्रमा प्रायः त्यो सम्भव हुँदैन । विरोधहरूको समाधान खोज्ने प्रवृत्ति हामीले निरन्तर राख्नुपर्दछ । कालो दिवसलगायतका विरोध गर्नेहरूले मात्र राजनीतिक रूपले आफ्नो चुनावी क्षेत्र कायम गर्ने किसिमले मात्र कालो दिवस भन्नुपर्दैन, आफ्ना एजेण्डा सबैले बुझ्ने गरी स्पष्टताका साथ राख्नुपर्छ ।

संविधान दिवसलाई कालो किन भनिएको हो त्यो कुरा तथ्यपरक किसिमले स्पष्टताका साथ आउनुपर्दछ, जनतामा जानुपर्दछ, जनतालाई विश्वास दिलाउनुपर्दछ र निर्वाचनमा आफ्नो एजेण्डा विकाउन सक्नुपर्दछ । केवल कालो दिवस भनेर मात्र भन्नुभएन । संविधान कालो भएको कसरी पास हुन्थ्यो, त्यो कुरा पनि सोच्नु प¥यो ।

संविधानबारे प्रशस्त टिकापिप्पणी गरिए पनि संविधान बाहिर बस्न कोही पनि तयार देखिदैन । संविधानभित्र नै बसेर यसमा सङ्घर्ष गरौँ भन्ने इच्छा हो । यसरी कालो दिवस भन्ने गर्दा अलि अतिसयोक्ति जस्तो लाग्दछ । त्यसरी भन्नु हुँदैन किनकि त्यो जनमतको अपमान हुन्छ । तर कालो दिवस भनिए भने आन्दोलनको एजेण्डा छोडेके हो कि भन्ने जनताको आरोप खेप्ने डर पनि सम्बन्धित नेतृत्वमा लाग्न सक्दछ । जात, धर्म र प्रान्तको आधारमा कालो दिवस भन्न मिल्दैन । यो चाही केही मानिसको सोचाइ हो, तर त्यो नै चाँही सर्वथा सत्य होइन ।

मुलुकलाई परिवर्तन गर्ने एजेण्डा बोकेर नै यो संविधान आएको हो । जनताको सामाजिक, आर्थिक अवस्था परितर्वन गर्ने अभिभारासहित वर्तमान संविधान आएको हो । संविधानले परिकल्पना गरेका विषयहरूमा अब छलफल होइन सिधै त्यसको कार्यान्वयनमा जाने अहिलेको आवश्यकता हो । केन्द्रिकृत राज्यलाई रूपान्तरण गर्ने, शासनसम्म जनताको सरल पहुँच स्थापित गर्न, शासकीय संरचनालाई समावेशी बनाउन, जातीय, साँस्कृतिक रूपमा समतामूलक समाज निर्माण गर्ने लगायतका एजेण्डासहित नै नयाँ संविधानको निर्माण भएको हो । यी महत्वपूर्ण विषयम साँच्चिकै परिवर्तन हुनुप¥यो अनि मात्र मान्छेले भन्छ कि संविधानले जे भनेको छ त्यो नै हाम्रो बास्तविकता हो।

संविधान कार्यान्वयनको क्रममा सुशासनको कुरो जनताले पाएको छ । जनप्रतिनिधिहरूले आर्थिक अधिकार प्रयोग गर्दै छन् तर संविधानमा जुन रूपान्तरण खोजिएको छ त्यो चाँहि देखिरहेको छैन । अहिले मुलुकमा ७६१ वटा सरकार भए पनि भ्रष्टाचार एउटा ठूलो ‘इस्यू’ को रूपमा व्याप्त भएको छ । वित्तीय अनुशासनको अभाव देखिएको छ । परिवर्तनशील दृष्टिकोणमा समेत अभाव देखिएको छ ।
गृठी सम्बन्धी विधेयक, मिडिया काउन्सिल, अन्तर सरकारी वित्त व्यवस्थापन सम्बन्धीलगायतको विषयमा धेरै विरोधका स्वरहरू सुन्नुपरको छ । प्राकृतिक स्रोत तथा वित्त आयोगले काम गर्न सकेको छैन । सङ्घीय मापदण्डमा काम गर्न संविधानले खोजेको हो तर त्यस अनुसार हुन सकिरहेको छैन । अहिलेको सरकारले ठूला चुनौतीहरू बहन गर्न सक्दछ तर यी एजेण्डाहरूमा सरकारले ठूलो चुनौती लिएको छैन ।

रूपान्तरणका एजेण्डाहरू सामाजिक, आर्थिक तथा साँस्कृतिक विषयहरूसँग सम्बन्धित छन । यीनीहरू रातारात पुरा हुन सक्दैन । संविधान कार्यान्वयनको चरणमा त्यसको शुरूआत देखिए पनि गतिलो ‘स्पीड’ मा जान सकेको छैन । त्यसलाई लैजानुपर्छ भने विषयमा सबैको सहमति देखिए पनि शासन संयन्त्रलाई बहुआयामिक र समावेशी बनाउनुपर्दछ, त्यसलाई न्यायपूर्ण बनाउनु पर्दछ अनि पो संविधानका एजेण्डालाई समाप्ने ‘एलिमेन्ट’ हरू अगाडि बढ्न सक्दछ ।

महिला, दलित, मधेसी, जनजातिलगायतका तप्कालाई नेतत्व दिइएको अवस्थामा राज्य मार्फत उसले आफ्ना लागि राम्रो के हुने आफै गर्न सक्दछन् । विशेषगरी राजनीतिक नियुक्तिहरूमा यस्ता कुराहरू ध्यान दिनुप¥यो ।

संविधानले निर्दिष्ट गरेका विषयको कार्यान्वयनमा शासन संयन्त्रलाई अगाडि बढाउन सकिएको छैन । संविधानले स्थापित गर्न खोजेका मूल्यमान्यताहरू चर्चामा रहे पनि हाम्रो शासन संयन्त्रले यसलाई प्रयाप्त मात्रामा अगाडि बढाउन सकेको छैन । अहिले पनि निजामती प्रशासन उत्तरदायी हुन सकेको छैन । आमनागरिकलाई राजनीतिक परिवर्तन र संवैधानिक मूल्यमान्यताको प्रत्याभूती हुने गरी सेवा प्रशासनले दिन सकेको छैन । उनीहरूमा चेतनाको कमी होइन तर खाइपाइ आएको अधिकार, प्रयोग गर्दै आएको प्रशासनिक शक्ति निजामती होस या पुलिस, सेनामा परिवर्तन अनुसारको कार्यशैली देखिएको छैन ।

केन्द्र सरकारले संरक्षण दिन नसकेको अधिकांश प्रदेश सरकारको गुनासो छ । संविधानतः प्रदेश सरकार आफ्नो काम कारवाहीमा पूर्ण रूपमा स्वायत छन् । प्रदेश सरकार सङ्घीय सरकारको क्षेत्रीय प्रशासनिक इकाई होइन । प्रदेश राजनीतिक रूपमा फरक सरकार हो जसको संविधानमा प्रष्ट रूपमा अधिकारहरू निर्दिष्ट गरिएका छन् ।

ती अधिकारहरू कार्यान्वयन गर्ने क्रममा केही विषयमा सङ्घले निर्देशन दिन सक्दछ, कानून बनाउन सक्दछ, मापदण्ड बनाउन सक्दछ तर हात हाल्न सक्दैन । आफ्ना हरेक कामकारवाहीलाई सङ्घबाट अनुमोदन गराउनुप¥यो भने प्रदेश र स्थानीय सरकारले कसरी स्वायत हुन सक्दछ ? प्रदेश सरकारको हँसिया र खुर्पी सङ्घले लिनुहुँदैन, हँसियाँ र खुर्पी प्रदेश र स्थानीय सरकारको नै हो ।

संविधानमा केही विषयवस्तुहरू छन् जुन सङ्घीय सरकारको संरक्षणमा राखिएको छ । ती विषयवस्तु बाहेक प्रदेशहरूलाई स्वतन्त्र र स्वायत भएर काम गर्न दिनुपर्दछ । स्रोत साधन, क्षमता र अनुभवको अभाव रहेको अहिलेको अवस्थामा प्रदेश सरकारको स्वतन्त्रता र स्वायतताको कार्यान्वयनमा सङ्घले सहयोग र संरक्षण गर्नुपर्छ । तर यसमा कमिकमजोरी देखिएका छन् । केन्द्रीय सरकारले प्रदेश स्तरमा आफ्ना आकार प्रकार सानो बनाउँदै प्रादेशिक संरचनाहरूलाई फल्न फुल्न दिनुपर्छ । सङ्घीय सरकारको आवश्यकता प्रदेश सरकारले नै पुरा गर्नुपर्दछ ।

सङ्घले प्रदेशलाई आफ्ना विषयमा मार्ग निर्देशन दिने हो तर उसलाई सिक्न, बलियो बन्न अवसर दिनुपर्छ । तर प्रदेश सरकारले पनि नयाँ शैलीमा नेतृत्वदायी हुनुप¥यो । प्रदेशले आफूभित्रका जिल्ला समन्वय समिति र स्थानीय तहहरूसँग प्रयाप्त रूपमा समन्वय गर्नुप¥यो । हरेक शासकीय अधिकार सङ्घीय सरकारमा टुङ्ग्याउने हो भने प्रदेश र स्थानीय सरकार स्वायत्त र जनमुखी हुन सक्दैन । सङ्घ र प्रदेशबीच समस्या देखिएमा त्यसको निराकरणका लागि संविधान अन्तर्गत अन्तर प्रादेशिक परिषद्, प्रदेश समन्वय परिषद्को परिकल्पना गरिएको छ ।

स्थानीय तहका लागि नौ हजार भन्दा बढी कर्मचारीको नियुक्ति गर्ने अधिकार सङ्घीय लोकसेवा आयोगलाई दिनु हुँदैन्थ्यो । यो अधिकार प्रदेश सरकारहरूले पाउने अधिकार हो । यो क्रममा सङ्घीय सरकार चुकेको छ । ती कर्मचारीहरूको नियुक्ति प्रदेश सरकारले गरेको भए समतामूलक समाज निर्माणका आधारहरू कर्मचारी छनोटको प्रक्रियाबाट बलियो हुने थियो । प्रदेश सरकारहरू वलियो हुन्थ्यो र संविधान कार्यान्वयन भएको मानिन्थ्यो ।

यो संविधानले नेपालको संविधानवादलाई निकै नै अगाडि बढाएको छ । यो संविधानको प्रस्तावना र मौलिक अधिकारको रूपमा गरिएका परिकल्पनाहरूको कार्यान्वयन सम्भव छ तर त्यसका लागि नेतृत्वले संविधानको मूल्य मान्यतालाई मूलमन्त्र बनाएर अगाडि बढाउनुप¥यो र नयाँ कानूनहरू बनाएर संवैधानिक मूल्य मान्यता स्थापित गर्ने शुरू भएको छ त्यसलाई गतिशील बनाउनुप¥यो । संविधानमा केही समस्या भए पनि यसले दिएका आधारहरू ती समस्याभन्दा धेरै नै बलिया छन् । तीनवटै तहका सरकार संविधानको कार्यान्वयनमा लाग्नुप¥यो, यसमा उल्लेख गरिएका सबै कुरा सम्भव छ।

संविधानले परिकल्पना गरेको समतामूलक समाज निर्माण समेत सम्भव छ । हाम्रा प्रक्रियाहरू शुरू भएका छन् । शासकीय आधारहरू परिवर्तन भएका छन् । समतामूलक समाज निर्माणका लागि हाम्रा जनप्रतिनिधिहरूले पनि यो एजेण्डालाई बोक्नुपर्दछ ।

अहिले बनेका विधेयकहरूमा नियन्त्रणमुखी ‘ट्रेण्ड’ देखिएको छ, सङ्घले बढी ‘सुपरभिजन’ खोजेको छ । अहिले संसदमा रहेको सङ्घ, प्रदेश र स्थानीय सरकारको सम्बन्धलाई व्यवस्थापन गर्ने विधेयकमा पनि सङ्घीय सरकारले चाहेको खण्डमा जे पनि गर्न सक्ने व्यवस्था गरिएको छ । अहिले आएका विधेयकहरू संविधानको मूलमर्मसँग बाँझिएका छन् । संविधानतः सङ्घीय सरकारले आफ्नो सरकारको विषयमा ऐन बनाउन सक्दछ, मापदण्ड कायम गर्न सक्दछ, केही विषयमा निर्देशन दिन सक्दछ तर हालीमुहाली गर्न पाउँदैन ।

मेरो विचारमा संविधानमा आवश्यकताभन्दा बढी आयोगहरूको गठन भएको परिकल्पना गरिएको छ । एउटै समावेशी तथा समान अवसर आयोगको गठन गरेर सीमान्तकृत जात समुदायको माग र आवश्कता पुरा गर्न सकिन्छ । यस्तो आयोगको नेतृत्व सीमान्तकृत समुदायबाट गर्ने व्यवस्था मिलाउनुपर्छ ।

राष्ट्रिय मानवअधिकार आयोगलाई संविधानले दिएको सिफिारिस र कार्यान्वयन सम्बन्धी अधिकारहरूलाई असर गर्ने गरी महान्यायाधिवक्ताको कार्यालय मार्फत कार्यान्वयन गरिने व्यवस्थासहित जुन विधेयक संविधान सम्मत छैन । यस व्यवस्थाले आयोगको अधिकार क्षेत्रलाई साँघुरो बनाउन सक्दछ । संशोधन विधेयक अनुसार कारवाहीका लागि आयोगद्धारा गरिने सिफारिसहरूलाई महान्यायाधिवक्ताको कार्यालयले अनुसंधान तथा प्रमाण नपुगेको भन्दै ‘होल्ड’ मा राख्न सक्दछ र आयोगको सिफारिसलाई कार्यान्वयन हुनबाट समेत रोक्न सक्दछ । तर संविधानको आश्य यस्तो होइन । संविधानतः आयोगको हरेक सिफारिसलाई सरकारले कार्यान्वयन गर्नुपर्दछ ।

अन्त्यमा, संविधानको कार्यान्वयन सहअस्तित्व, सहकार्य र समन्वयका आधारमा हुनुपर्दछ जसमा प्रदेश र स्थानीय सरकारलाई समेत सक्रिय सहभागिता गराउनुपर्दछ । मुलुकको समग्र विकास र समतामूलक समाज निर्माणका लागि यो संविधानलाई अधिकतमतर्फ कसरी लैजान सकिन्छ भने कुरामा तीन तहकै सरकारको निरन्तर प्रयास कायम रहनुपर्छ । यसको प्रभावकारी कार्यान्वयनले संविधानमा कल्पना गरिएको समतामूलक र समाजवादोन्मुख समाजको निर्माण सम्भव र सुनिश्चित छ ।

नेपालको संविधान देशको पहिलो संविधान होइन। यसअघि मुलुकले विभिन्न प्रकारका ६ वटा संविधान प्रयोग गरिसकेको छ। यो संविधान केही अर्थमा नयाँ छ। किनकि संघीय संविधान पहिला कहिल्यै थिएन। समानुपातिक र समावेशीकरणको हक अहिले जुन रूपमा संविधानमा ल्याइएको छ, त्यस रूपमा यसअघि कहिल्यै आएको थिएन। यो संविधानलाई सामाजिक, आर्थिक तथा सांस्कृतिक रूपान्तरणको लक्ष्य बोकेको र त्यसका लागि सांगठनिक ढाँचाहरूसमेत कायम गरेको संविधान मान्न सकिन्छ। स्थानीय सरकारको वर्तमान स्वरूपको संवैधानिक आधार नेपालमा पहिलोपटकको प्रयोग हो। सामाजिक, आर्थिक तथा सांस्कृतिक क्षेत्रका मौलिक अधिकारलाई यसले पहिलेभन्दा दह्रो गरी स्थापित गरेको छ। भाषा, धर्म, संस्कृति र रीतिरिवाजको विविधतालाई स्वीकार गर्ने सैद्धान्तिक आधारसहित धर्मनिरपेक्षतालाई नयाँ संविधानको अर्को विशेषताका रूपमा लिन सकिन्छ।

कतिपयलाई गणतन्त्रको धोको थियो, त्यो धोको पनि यो संविधानले पूरा गरेको छ। त्यसैले यो संविधान विभिन्न अर्थमा नयाँ नै छ। संविधानका विशेषता नयाँ हुनु र यसले नयाँपनको आभास दिनु आफैंमा कुनै उपलब्धि होइन। प्रधानमन्त्री पद्मशमशेरले नेपाल सरकार वैधानिक कानुन २००४ ल्याउँदा त झनै सबै कुरा नयाँ थियो। यो पहिलो लिखित संविधान मात्र थिएन, राणाहरूको वैधतालाई नचलाई आधुनिक संवैधानिक प्रणालीमा प्रवेश गर्ने र जनसहभागितालाई परिचालन गर्दै आधुनिक राजनीतिक संगठनको प्रयोग गर्ने यसको उद्देश्य पनि दाबी गरिएको थियो। पद्मशमशेरले श्री पशुपतिनाथबाट संरक्षित यो पुण्यभूमि नेपाललाई सामाजिक, आर्थिक, राजनीतिक सबै सुधारद्वारा संसारको अग्रगामी राष्ट्रहरूको उन्नतिको दाँजोमा पुर्‍याउने आफ्नो गाढा इच्छा भएको उल्लेख गरेका थिए।

अझ राजा महेन्द्रको २०१९ सालको संविधान जारी गर्दा देशको माटोमा जरा हालेको र देशकै हावापानीमा हुर्कने र बढ्न सक्ने पञ्चायती व्यवस्था नै मुलुकको विकासका लागि उपयुक्त भएको शाही घोषणा नै आएको थियो। केवल लेखेर, बोलेर वा घोषणा गरेर मात्र प्रजातन्त्र वा संविधानवादको उद्देश्य पूरा हुन सक्दैन, कायम गरिएका मूल्य, मान्यता र सिद्धान्तहरूलाई आम जनताले स्वीकार गरेका छन् कि छैनन् तथा संविधानलाई कुन रूपमा कार्यान्वयन गरिँदै छ भन्ने कुरा महत्त्वपूर्ण हुन्छ। नेपालमा जारी भएका यसअगाडिका सबै संविधान असल नियतले प्रयोग हुन सकेनन्। यसको अभावमा संवैधानिक विकास जुन रूपमा हुन सक्थ्यो, त्यो रूपमा हुन सकेन। यो पक्ष सातौं संविधान कार्यान्वयनको सम्बन्धमा पनि बिर्सन नहुने तथ्य हो।

नयाँ संविधान राम्रो छ। यो जुन रूपमा कार्यान्वयन हुन्छ त्यस रूपमा यसको भविष्य लेखिने छ। ती शासकीय तहमा गरिएको पछिल्लो आम निर्वाचनले मुलुकलाई बलियो एकमना सरकार दिएको छ, राजनीतिक विभाजन भएका विविध घटक संविधानको मूल प्रवाहमा आउन चाहन्छन्। केही विवाद जो बाँकी छन्, तिनको पनि नेपाली जनताका आकांक्षाबमोजिम समाधान खोज्नुपर्छ। देशका सार्वभौमसत्ता, स्वतन्त्रता र अखण्डतालाई चीरकालसम्म कायम राख्ने गरी नेपाली स्वाभिमानको बलमा सुधार वा परिवर्तनको ढोका सधैं खुला रहनुपर्छ। यो प्रक्रिया जे संविधानमा लेखिएको छ र जुन सैद्धान्तिक आधारमा संविधान आएको छ, त्यसलाई सिंगो नेपालको हितमा निरपेक्ष रूपमा कार्यान्वयन गर्ने हो। यो प्रक्रियालाई छाडेर कुनै पनि संवैधानिक उद्देश्य पूरा हुन सक्दैन।

श्री ३ प्रधानमन्त्री पदमशमशेर वा राजा महेन्द्रको संविधानका घोषणाहरूका सांगठनिक आधारहरू कमजोर थिए। तर, २०१५ सालको संविधान वा २०४७ को संविधानमा यो समस्या थिएन। संविधान कार्यान्वयन गर्ने शक्तिहरू संविधानप्रति समर्पित नभएका कारणले दुवै संविधान दुर्घटनाग्रस्त हुन पुगे। यसका लागि नेपालकै राजनीतिक शक्तिहरू जिम्मेवार थिए। वर्तमान संविधान टिक्न सकेन भने यो संवैधानिक कारणबाट नभई यसलाई कार्यान्वयन गर्ने जिम्मेवारी पाएका आजका राजनीतिक शक्तिहरूको राष्ट्रवादमा देखिएको कमी तथा संविधानप्रतिको निष्ठामा आएको विचलन नै मान्नुपर्छ। पटकपटक भएका घटनाले विश्लेषकको निष्कर्ष अन्यत्र जान दिँदैन।

नयाँ संविधान जारी भएपछि यसलाई कार्यान्वयन गर्ने दर्जनौं नयाँ नीति तथा ऐनहरू पारित भइसकेका छन्। अहिले पनि संघीय संसद्मा तीन दर्जनजति नयाँ तथा संशोधन विधेयक प्रक्रियामा छन्। प्रदेश सरकार तथा स्थानीय सरकारहरूले पनि आफ्नो विधायिकी अधिकार प्रयोग गर्नेतर्फ पर्याप्त रूपमा चासो व्यक्त गरेको पाइन्छ। विशेषगरी नेपाल सरकारले स्थानीय तह तथा प्रदेश सरकारको निर्वाचनपछि तत्कालका लागि आवश्यक तर उनीहरूकै विधायिकी अधिकार प्रयोग गरी बनाउनुपर्ने ऐनकानुन तथा निर्देशिकाका लागि नमुना कानुनहरू उपलब्ध गराएर उल्लेखनीय रूपमा सहयोग गरेको पाइन्छ। तर, संघीय संसद्बाट निर्माण भएका तथा प्रदेश तथा स्थानीय तहले नमुनाबमोजिम पारित गराएर सबै ऐनकानुन मूलतः नियन्त्रणमुखी तथा संघीय सुपरिवेक्षकलाई नचाहिँदो महत्त्व दिई आएका कारण संघीय परिपाटीका मान्यताहरूलाई बल नपुगेको सरोकारवालाहरूले व्यक्त गरेका छन्।

यसतर्फ संघीय सरकारका आफ्ना सरोकार छन् नै, तर संघीय निजामती सेवा, संघीयकरणको वर्तमान चुनौती निर्वाह गर्न उत्साहित नभएको देखिन्छ। कानुन तथा नीतिनिर्माणमा सरोकारवालाको संलग्नता एकदमै कम रहनु, संसदीय समितिहरूले प्राविधिक तथा सैद्धान्तिक विषयमा सरकार तथा प्रतिपक्षसँग सहकार्य नगर्नु र सम्बन्धित मन्त्रीहरू संसद्को राजनीतिक प्रयोग गर्नेसम्म मात्र सीमित हुनुले यी नीति तथा कानुनहरूले व्यापक जनाधार पाउन नसकेको स्पष्ट बुझिन्छ। राजनीतिक रूपमा सरकार शक्तिशाली हुँदाहुँदै पनि शक्ति अभ्यासमा ठूला धरातल खोज्न नसक्नु विडम्बनापूर्ण नै हो। स्पष्ट छ– सरकारको हित केमा छ भन्नेबारेमा कतिपयलाई स्पष्टता छैन।

यस वर्ष गुठी विधेयकको विषयमा सरकारले धेरै बदनामी खप्नुपर्‍यो। यसलाई फिर्ता लिएर अनावश्यक विवादबाट सरकार बच्न सक्यो। तर मिडिया काउन्सिल विधेयक, राष्ट्रिय मानवअधिकार आयोग (पहिलो संशोधन) ऐन २०७५, संघीय निजामती सेवा विधेयक २०७६, संघ प्रदेश र स्थानीय तहको समन्वयसम्बन्धी विधेयक, लोकसेवा आयोग विधेयकजस्ता प्रस्तावहरू संघीय सरकारको एकपक्षीय प्रस्तावजस्ता देखिएको भनिन्छ। सुरुमा आएका राष्ट्रिय प्राकृतिक स्रोत तथा वित्त आयोग ऐन २०७४ र अन्तरसरकारी वित्त व्यवस्थापन ऐन २०७४ ले पनि स्थानीय सरकारको उपस्थिति तथा गर्न सक्ने योगदानलाई विचार गर्न सकेको छैन। मौलिक अधिकारसम्बन्धी लगभग सबै ऐनहरूले सम्पूर्णताको अपेक्षा राखेका छैनन्। प्रदेश सरकार तथा स्थानीय सरकारहरूको भूमिका यस सम्बन्धमा के हुने स्पष्ट हुन सकेको छैन। यी सबै विषयवस्तु हतारका कारणले पनि प्रभावित भएका छन्। त्यसभन्दा पनि बढी पर्याप्त छलफल एवं सहमतिमा पुग्ने प्रक्रियाको प्रयास नभएर पनि हो।

काम नभएको पटक्कै होइन। २०७२ असोज ३ मा जारी भएयता रूपान्तरित व्यवस्थापिका–संसद्को कार्यकालमा ८७ र संघीय संसद्बाट ४३ गरी हालसम्म १३० ऐन निर्माण भइसकेका छन्। सोमध्ये केही नयाँ र संशोधन कानुनहरू बनेको देखिन्छ। वास्तवमा संघीय संरचनासहितको वर्तमान संविधान नयाँ भएकाले संविधान जारी हुँदाको बखत कायम रहेको करिब तीन सय ऐनहरू प्रतिस्थापन गरी संघीय संसद्ले नयाँ कानुन बनाउनु उपयुक्त हुन्छ। २०७६ भदौ मसान्तसम्म मुलुकका आर्थिक कानुनसहित करिब तीन सय ८० ऐन नयाँ निर्माण भएको देखिन्छ। कानुन निर्माणतर्फको यो प्रगति विगतका संसदीय अभ्यास हेर्दा तुलनात्मक रूपमा सफल नै मान्नुपर्छ। तर, कुरा संख्याको मात्रै नभई गुणस्तरको पनि हो। यस सम्बन्धमा सरकारको तदारुकता चाहिन्छ।

संविधानको चार वर्षलाई सामाजिक रूपान्तरणको दृष्टिकोणले पनि हेर्नुपर्छ। सामाजिक रूपान्तरणका एजेन्डा देखिने गरी कार्यान्वयनमा आउन सकेका छैनन्। देशको सांस्कृतिक विविधता कायम राख्दै समानता एवं सहअस्तित्वका आधारमा विभिन्न जातजाति र समुदायको भाषा, लिपि, संस्कृति, साहित्य र कलाको संरक्षण र विकास परिवर्तनको उद्देश्यका रूपमा रहेको छ। आदिवासी तथा जनजातिको पहिचान र उनीहरूको ज्ञान, सीप र संस्कृति, सामाजिक परम्परा र अनुभवले राष्ट्रिय मूल प्रवाहमा निकास खोजेको छ। दलित, मधेसी तथा अल्पसंख्यकका लागि संविधानले दिएको उदार नीति सरकारको नीति तथा कार्यक्रममार्फत कुन रूपमा कार्यान्वयन हुँदै छन्, यस विषयको सार्वजनिक जानकारी धेरै कम पाइन्छ। संविधानको सफलता मुलुकको रूपान्तरणमा निर्भर गर्ने छ।

अन्ततः संविधानको भविष्य मुलुकको आर्थिक विकाससँग पनि जोडिएको छ। जुन मुलुकको रोजगारको बजार लाखौंलाख विदेशीका लागि सुरक्षित राखिएको छ। तर, जहाँ उद्योगधन्दा तथा व्यापारमा स्थानीय जनताको पकड समाप्त भइसकेको छ, आर्थिक विकासका चुनौतीलाई सही रूपमा बुझ्नुपर्ने हुन्छ। करिब ३५ लाख युवा विदेशमा रुमलिएको परिस्थितिमा मुलुकको भविष्य कसरी स्थापित हुन सक्छ ? अनि मात्र संविधानको सही प्रयोजन स्थापित हुन्छ।

(कुराकानीमा आधारित)

लामो अवधिपछि पनि बलिया सरकारहरु निर्धा भएर उभिनुपर्ने बाध्यतामा किन परिवर्तन आएको छैन ?

तत्कालीन श्री ३ महाराज पद्मशमशेरले मुलुकको प्रमुख सेनापतिसमेतको हैसियतमा जारी गरेको ‘नेपाल सरकार वैधानिक कानुन, २००४ लाई नेपालको पहिलो लिखित संविधान भनिन्छ । मुलुकमा बढ्दो राजनीतिक असन्तोष व्यवस्थापन गर्न तथा राणाशासनलाई वैधानिक रूपमा निरन्तरता दिन नै पद्मशमशेरले यसलाई जारी गरेको भनिन्छ ।

धेरै संविधान आए–गए, तर यो प्रक्रियाले विश्राम पाएको छैन । नेपाल अहिले सातौं संविधानको परीक्षण गर्दै छ । यसलाई सफल बनाउनु मुलुकको सबैभन्दा ठूलो चुनौती हो ।

वैधानिक कानुनसमेत गरी २०७२ मा जारी वर्तमान संविधान सातौं संविधान हो । यो अन्तरालमा नेपालका फरक–फरक राजनीतिक अनुभव रहे । संविधानसभाद्वारा निर्मित, संवैधानिक दृष्टिकोणले सबैभन्दा राम्रो तथा जनसहभागिता प्राप्त एवं सकेसम्मको सन्तुलनका आधारमा जारी यो संविधान सबैभन्दा आधुनिक भन्न मिल्छ । सामन्ती, निरंकुश, केन्द्रीकृत र एकात्मक राज्यव्यवस्थाले सिर्जना गरेका विभेद र उत्पीडनको अन्त्य यसको लक्ष्य हो ।

देशको बहुजातीय, बहुभाषिक, बहुधार्मिक, बहुसांस्कृतिक तथा भौगोलिक विविधतायुक्त विशेषतालाई आत्मसात् गर्दै वर्गीय, जातीय, क्षेत्रीय, भाषिक, धार्मिक, लैंगिक विभेद र जातीय छुवाछूत अन्त्य गरी समानुपातिक, समावेशी र सहभागितामूलक सिद्धान्तका आधारमा समतामूलक समाजको निर्माण गर्ने संकल्प संविधानको छ ।

नयाँ संविधानअनुसार देश संघीय बनेको छ । संघलगायत तीन तहका सरकारको व्यवस्थालाई आत्मसात् गर्दै ७६१ वटा सरकार बनेका छन् । निर्वाचनका आधारमा यत्रो ठूलो प्रयोग नेपालमा कहिल्यै भएको थिएन । संविधानले आर्थिक, सामाजिक वा शैक्षिक दृष्टिले पछाडि परेका महिला, दलित, आदिवासी जनजाति, मधेसी, थारू, मुस्लिम, अल्पसंख्यकलगायतलाई समानुपातिक समावेशी सिद्धान्तका आधारमा राज्यका निकायमा सहभागिताको हक सुनिश्चित गरेको छ । विविधता र पहिचानसम्बन्धी संवैधानिक आकांक्षालाई सहयोग गर्न अतिरिक्त आयोगहरूको व्यवस्था गरिएको छ । सामाजिक र सांस्कृतिक रूपान्तरणसम्बन्धी नीति तथा सामाजिक न्याय र समावेशीकरण नीति संविधानका मौलिक विषयवस्तु बनेका छन् ।

नेपालको राज्यशक्तिको प्रयोग संघ, प्रदेश र स्थानीय तहले संविधानबमोजिम गर्नुपर्ने व्यवस्था भएकाले अब सैद्धान्तिक धरातलमा अन्यथा सोच्नुपर्ने अवस्था तत्कालै देखिँदैन । त्यस्तै दुई तिहाइ बहुमत प्राप्त सरकार मुलुकमा हुँदा संविधान कार्यान्वयनमा आवश्यक रीतिथिति तथा कानुन निर्माणमा असजिलो हुनुपर्ने कारण छैन । वैधानिक स्थिरता निर्वाचनले दिएको छ । राजनीतिक स्थिरता सरकारले आफ्नो सुझबुझबाट प्राप्त गर्ने हो ।

नयाँ संविधानले स्थापित गरेका मूल्यमान्यता एवं रूपान्तरणका लक्ष्य धेरै ठूला छन् । तिनलाई कार्यान्वयन गर्न प्रशस्त समय, स्रोत र साधन चाहिने हुन्छ । यसभन्दा पनि बढी चाहिने सरकार तथा सार्वजनिक प्रशासनको निष्ठा हो । सरकारले संघीयता कार्यान्वयनलाई मूल आधार बनाई विभिन्न ऐन पारित गरेको छ । करिब ४० विधेयक अहिले पनि प्रतिनिधिसभा तथा राष्ट्रिय सभाका प्रक्रियामा छन् । नयाँ संविधान लागू भई रूपान्तरित व्यवस्थापिका संसद्ले नयाँ र संशोधन गरी ८७ विधेयक र संघीय संसद्बाट हालसम्म नयाँ र संशोधनसहित ४३ गरी कुल १३० कानुन निर्माण गरिसकेको छ ।

संघीयताको कार्यान्वयन र संघीय संरचनासँग प्रत्यक्ष रूपमा सम्बन्धित संघले नै बनाउनुपर्ने विभिन्न ऐन अझै संसद्को छलफलमा छन् । संघीय निजामती सेवा विधेयक २०७६, संघ, प्रदेश र स्थानीय तहको समन्वयसम्बन्धी विधेयक २०७६, नेपाल प्रहरी र प्रदेश प्रहरी (कार्य सञ्चालन, सुपरीवेक्षण र समन्वय) सम्बन्धी विधेयक २०७५, लोकसेवा आयोग विधेयक २०७५ तथा राष्ट्रिय प्राथमिकता प्राप्त आयोजनाको द्रुततर निर्माण तथा विकाससम्बन्धी विधेयक २०७५ लाई उदाहरणका रूपमा लिन सकिन्छ । संविधान जारी हुँदा कायम रहेका करिब ३०० ऐन प्रतिस्थापन गरी संघीय संसद्ले नयाँ कानुन बनाउनतर्फ लाग्नुपर्ने अवस्था छ । आजसम्म करिब ८० ऐन निर्माण भइसकेका छन् । अवश्यै यी सबै आजका उपलब्धि हुन् ।

यीमध्ये अधिकांश ऐन नियन्त्रणमुखी एवं संघीय सरकारको सुपरिवेक्षणलाई स्थापित गर्ने प्रयासमा समेत देखिन्छन् । कर्मचारी समायोजनसम्बन्धी व्यवस्था गर्न बनेको ऐनले प्रदेश र स्थानीय तहको आवश्यकता हेर्न सकेन । अन्तरसरकारी वित्त व्यवस्थापन ऐन एवं राष्ट्रिय प्राकृतिक स्रोत तथा वित्त आयोगसम्बन्धी ऐनमा ७५३ वटा स्थानीय सरकारको भावनाको प्रतिनिधित्व हुन सकेको छैन । भूउपयोग विधेयकमा भूव्यवस्थापनसम्बन्धी प्रादेशिक तथा स्थानीय सरकारको भूमिका बलियो हुन सकेको छैन । राष्ट्रिय मानव अधिकार आयोग पहिलो संशोधन ऐनले संवैधानिक सन्तुलनलाई असर गर्न खोजेको छ । मिडिया काउन्सिलसम्बन्धी ऐन विवादमा पर्‍यो । सरकारले नचाहिँदो भूमिका खोज्दा गुठीसम्बन्धी विधेयक फिर्ता लिनुपरेको तथ्य ताजै छ ।

कानुन निर्माणमा उपलब्धि भए पनि संविधानको धारा२३२ मा उल्लिखित तीनै तहबीचको सहकारिता, सहअस्तित्व र समन्वयको सिद्धान्तको पुष्टि हुन सकेको छैन । साझा अधिकार, राष्ट्रिय महत्त्वका विषय, प्रदेशहरूबीच समन्वय, दुई वा दुईभन्दा बढी प्रदेशको चासोका विषयमा संघ र प्रदेशको स्थानीय सरकारबीच समन्वय कायम गर्न प्राप्त अधिकार संघले एकल रूपमा प्रयोग गरेको र कानुन बनाउँदा वा निर्देशन दिँदा प्रदेश तथा स्थानीय सरकारसँग सहकार्य गर्न नसकेको पक्षलाई सम्बन्धित सरकारहरूले निरन्तर उठाइरहेका छन् । अन्तरसरकारी वित्त परिषद् प्रभावकारी हुन सकेको छैन । वित्तीय संघीयतामा प्राकृतिक स्रोत तथा वित्त आयोगले प्रभावकारी रूपमा सम्बन्धित सबैसँग उठबस गर्न सकेको छैन । स्थानीय सरकार सञ्चालन ऐन कार्यान्वयन देशव्यापी रूपमा हुँदै गरे पनि प्रदेश सरकार आफ्नो क्षेत्राधिकारभित्र समन्वयकारी हुन नपाएको र प्रदेश समन्वय परिषद् नियमित हुन नसकेको पनि यथार्थ नै हो । निःसन्देह अन्तरप्रदेश समन्वय परिषद् तथा प्रधानमन्त्रीको नेतृत्व एवं संरक्षणबिना यी सांगठनिक प्रयास सफल हुनेछैनन् ।

नेपाल संघीय बनाइनुहुन्थ्यो कि हुँदैनथ्यो भन्ने प्रश्नमा अब समय फाल्नु बुद्धिमानी हुन्न । यसका लागि मुलुकले ठूलो मूल्य चुकाइसकेको छ । अहिलेको चासो हो– संघीयतालाई संविधानको भावनाअनुसार बलियोसँग प्रयोग गर्नु र देशको रूपान्तरण एजेन्डाका लागि यसलाई वाहक बनाउनु । जसरी सातै प्रदेश तथा ७५३ वटा स्थानीय सरकारलाई सफल बनाउनु जरुरी छ, त्यसैगरी उपयुक्त संघीय कानुनबमोजिम सामाजिक–सांस्कृतिक संरक्षण वा आर्थिक विकासका लागि विशेष संरक्षित वा स्वायत्त क्षेत्र कायम गर्न पनि ढिलो भइसकेको छ । हिमाली क्षेत्रका १७ वटै जिल्लालाई अर्को आमनिर्वाचनअघि नै यो मापदण्डमा ल्याउन सकिन्छ । यसबाट देशले धेरै थोक पाउन सक्छ ।

आर्थिक विकासलाई अघि ल्याउन नसक्ने राजनीतिक परिवर्तन आफैं प्रश्न बनेर थन्किने सम्भावना हुन्छ । यसका लागि सांगठनिक विकास (इन्स्टिच्युसनलाइजेसन) अनिवार्य प्रक्रिया हो । राजनीतिले आधार दिन्छ भने आर्थिक विकासले आडभरोसा । कठोर नाकाबन्दीसमेत खपेर आएको नयाँ सरकारले दुःख पाएका जनतालाई दिएको आश्वासनको वर्तमान स्थिति के छ, शंका गर्नुपर्ने अवस्था छ । न केरुङसम्मको बाटो टु–लेनको बनाउनेतर्फ प्रगति भएको छ, न त नेपाल–चीन ट्रान्सहिमालयन रेलवेबारे काम अघि बढ्न सकेको छ । बुढीगण्डकी जलविद्युत् आयोजनामा पनि प्रगति हुन सकेको छैन । मुलुकको स्वाधीनताको प्रश्न र चीनसँगको पारवहन सन्धिमा टेकेर बनेको सरकारले यी विषय किन पन्छायो, आम मान्छेको चासो हो यो । प्रधानमन्त्रीका कार्यक्रम अन्ततः भारतीय रेलवेलाई काठमाडौं पुर्‍याउने र पाइपलाइन ओछ्याउने विकल्पलाई स्थापित गरेर बिदा हुने अवस्थामा पुगेका छन् ।

यत्रो ठूलो शक्ति र सामर्थ्य भएको सरकार यति चाँडै कसरी पूर्वाधार कार्यक्रमबाट पछि हट्यो, आश्चर्य लाग्छ । जनतालाई संलग्न गराउने कार्यक्रम नभए जनता पछाडि छुट्दै जान्छन् । त्यसपछि सरकार हल्लाउने खेल हुनु स्वाभाविकै हो । हालै प्रकाशित बीपी कोइरालाको डायरीमा २६ चैत २००८को टिपोटमा तत्कालीन परिस्थितिको मूल्यांकन गर्दै लेखिएको छ, ‘नेपाल कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी पुनः नेपाली कांग्रेसले गरिरहेको एकताको कोसिस बिथोल्न लागिपर्‍यो । पार्टीले दाजु मातृकाको सहयोग लिएर मलाई सरकारबाट हटायो । अब ऊ फेरि भद्रकालीलाई (मेरो हकमा जस्तै) ठूलदाजुका विरुद्ध उक्साउन कोसिस गरिरहेको थियो । आफ्नो दूतका रूपमा नेपाल कम्युनिस्ट पार्टीलाई प्रयोग गर्ने भारतको चाल बुझ्न सजिलो थिएन । यो मात्र बुझिन्थ्यो कि ऊ हाम्रो राजनीतिलाई गलाएर भारतमा विलय गराउन चाहन्थ्यो ।’

नेपाल कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी अहिले चालकको स्थानमा छ । हिजोको चेतना यसलाई जति आवश्यक छ, त्यति नै संविधानवाद तथा विधिको शासनप्रतिको निष्ठा पनि चाहिएको छ । संसद्, प्रतिपक्ष र सामाजिक संस्थाहरूसँग सहकार्य नभए सरकारका कार्यक्रम एकपक्षीय देखिन जान्छन् । वास्तवमा यत्रो लामो अवधिपछि पनि बलिया सरकारहरू निर्धा भएर उभिनुपर्ने बाध्यतामा किन परिवर्तन आएको छैन ? संविधानले हैसियत दिने हो, बाँकी कुरामा आमजनताले सरकारसँग अपेक्षा राखेका हुन्छन् । हरेक सरकारलाई यो स्पष्ट हुनुपर्छ ।

संविधान नयाँ आए पनि यसको वकालत गर्ने राजनीति देशमा अझै सुरु हुन सकेको छैन । रूपान्तरणका एजेन्डाले संविधानको उपादेयता सिद्ध गर्ने हुन् । यसको कार्यान्वयन गतिशील हुनुपर्छ । मुलुकमा व्याप्त भ्रष्टाचारले सबैतिर निराशा देखिनु नयाँ संविधानको भविष्यका लागि राम्रो संकेत होइन । यसतर्फ समयमै सचेत हुन सके देशका लागि अनन्त सम्भावना जीवितै छन् ।

It is important to review the situation and adopt an effective, yet a cautious, approach to the roles of the DAs and the DCCs in order to expedite the process of their development and institutionalization

The Government of Nepal and the concerned provincial gov­ernments need to address the growing concerns of the members of the District Assemblies (DA) and their executive arms, the District Coordination Committees (DCCs), regarding their functions, duties and powers.The sooner it is done, the better it is for the country, especially for the functioning of the three- tier sys­tem—federal, provincial and local. The delay is causing disillusionment not only at the DCC level, but also in village bodies, municipalities and the provincial governments, which have no clue about how to work with the DCCs under the existing constitutional regime.

The DCC is a district-level polit­ical authority in every district of Nepal. They were formed in March 2017 to replace the district develop­ment committees. At present, there are 77 DCCs. The framers of the new constitution had a choice as to whether to continue with the exist­ing administrative districts within the unitary system of government, or to allow them to be assimilated into the framework of the three tier federal system. They continued with it for a number of political reasons. Obviously, the decision reflected the opinion of the major political parties of the day, and the issue of their utility and viability under the federal system, especially with regard to the agenda of empow­erment and change, was not ade­quately discussed. But it is never too late to think about it and plan for the future.

Since the Panchayat era, Nepal had remained divided into 75 dis­tricts, 14 zones and five develop­ment regions. The new constitu­tion gave continuity to the districts, but split the districts of Rukum and Nawalparasi into two, thus increas­ing the number of districts to 77, while restructuring the country into a seven-province federal model. Thus, the constitution created 77 DAs to coordinate between the village bodies and municipalities within each district. As these assem­blies were crafted out as deliberative bodies, the constitution also gave them a leadership role. That role comes with the power of coordi­nation given to the DCCs by Article 220(7).

Article 220(7) enables the DAs to coordinate between the village bodies and municipalities (called palikas in Nepali) within the respec­tive districts, monitor development and construction works, coordinate between the federal and the provin­cial government offices and village bodies and municipalities, and per­form other functions as provided for by provincial laws. It is clear that the provinces were empowered to pass such laws, so that they could work out the details of the coordination roles of the DCCs and respond to the provincial requirements that may vary between provinces. But what has been done so far poses far more challenges than the framers of the constitution ever contemplated.

Last year, the Government of Nepal (the federal government), which has been supporting the local as well as provincial governments in developing their legal regimes, provided to the provinces a model law called the District Assembly and District Coordination Commit­tee Act 2075. The model covers the basic rules of internal operations of the DAs, their functions, duties and powers, restrictions on discussions and reporting procedures. It has three additional provisions that are significant. It creates the position of the District Coordination Officer as an executive under the Act. It is clearly mentioned that the budget­ary and personnel matters regard­ing the DAs will be handled by the federal laws. Additionally, the power to devise and enforce necessary pro­cedures, directives and standards in matters that fall under the DA’s jurisdiction has been given to the concerned DA. All seven provinces have passed the model law with little to no changes, but these provisions have fallen short of the anticipated legal requirements, although they have been able to help the DAs and the DCCs move on with these basic prerequisites.

Article 220 of the constitution and the DAs and DCCs it creates must be explained in the light of Nepal’s three-tier federal system. This Arti­cle does not create a fourth tier, and it should never be perceived that way. All powers have been divided between these three levels, and whatever the power of coordination may entail, it must not affect the con­stitutional balance in the division of powers. The framers of the con­stitution placed the DAs and DCCs under part 17, which eliminates any confusion that they also fall under the Local Executive, although they are not entitled to exercise the pow­ers provided under Schedules 8 and 9. They exercise only those powers that are conferred to them by Article 220(7) and the laws created by con­cerned provinces under its Clause (d). It need not be emphasized here that the federal government enjoys certain law or policy-mak­ing power under explicit consti­tutional provisions with regard to provincial and local governments. It also enjoys the power to issue necessary directions.

The model law that has been enacted into provincial legislation does not give any clue as to how the federal government or the provinces are connected with the concerned DAs and DCCs. As provided for by Article 220, each district’s DA con­sists of chairpersons and vice-chair­persons of the village executives and mayors and deputy mayors of the municipal executives within the district. The DA elects the DCC, consisting of a maximum of nine members, including one chief, one deputy chief, at least three women and at least one dalit or another member of a minority group. The DCC discharges all functions required to be carried out by the DA. A member of a village assembly or municipal assembly within the concerned district shall be eligible to be a candidate for the office of the chief, deputy chief or member of the DCC for a five-year term, and if elected to these positions, his or her office of the member of village assembly or of municipal assembly shall ipso facto lapse. As a politi­cal body, they have been created through a different electoral system and are supposed to have a clear link with the federal government. Given the nature of their coordination responsibility, such linkages need to be formal as well as substantive. The success of provincial govern­ments will also depend on how far they will be able to use the good offices of the DAs and the DCCs and coordinate with them in the overall interest of the province. The same is required in the case of the federal government as well. It is clear that the legal regime needs to be created, developed and consolidated.

In any case, such a law would be subjected to two apparent limita­tions. First, it cannot exceed the parameters of Article 227(7). The power of coordination needs to be carefully handled. Second, this law-making power cannot affect the scheme of the constitutional division of powers between the three levels of governments. By giving continu­ity to the districts, the dominant political parties were able to avoid the challenging task of restructuring the state all over again based only on identity, ethnopolitics and regional­ism. But the challenge of optimizing the role of the DAs and the DCCs remains to be handled. Under a suitable legal framework, they could support even the issues of identity, ethnopolitics and regionalism.

It is really difficult for the DCCs to work in the absence of procedures, directives and standards that enable them to work with all the village bodies and municipalities within the district. There is disillusion­ment regarding how to coordinate in the absence of such clear guide­lines. Under the model law, the DAs have the power to develop these procedures, directives and stan­dards themselves. But the support of the provincial government is very important in the given situation. The monitoring work of the DCCs has not begun in any meaningful sense, because they don’t know how to achieve efficient results, or do it with some sense of authority. They also expect recognition of their power by the local governments. Some DA members think the local govern­ments hardly have any respect for them, because their capacity has not been clear. Even a ward member has a clear role in the local government. No such role has been identified for the members of the DCC. Many think that had they still been in their con­stituency as ward members, they would have had busier schedules serving their people rather than being left out as members of the DA. On the top of that, they do not have enough budget and human resources to perform their jobs.

Recently, the DCCs in the country have formed a national federation to create a united front and have started lobbying for its rightful place in the system. But even the DCC Federation has no programmes, because their role will depend on the role of the DCCs and the legal regime created for them. It was possible for the framers of the constitution to avoid creating district-level political structures and, instead, allow the concerned provincial government to self-coordinate as far as their plans and programmes were concerned. The present provisions, even at the level of coordination, overlap with the palikas’ exercise of executive power as enabled by Schedules 8 and 9 of the constitution.

It is thus important to review the situation and adopt an effective, yet a cautious, approach to the roles of the DAs and the DCCs in order to expedite the process of their devel­opment and institutionalization.

नयाँ संविधान निर्माणका क्रममा मुलुकले खेपेका सामाजिक, आर्थिक एवं राजनीतिक चुनौती, त्यससँग जुध्दाका अनुभव र मुलुकको नवीन संवैधानिक व्यवस्था अन्तर्गत ठूलो ‘एजेन्डा’ मा निर्वाचित प्रथम प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा केपी शर्मा ओलीका विचारहरूको संकलन ‘दृष्टिकोण’ प्रकाशित भएको छ ।

प्रधानमन्त्री वा कार्यकारी राष्ट्राध्यक्षले पदमा हुँदै आफ्नो दृष्टिकोण पुस्तकाकारमा प्रकाशित गर्ने प्रचलन नौलो होइन । मूलत: संगठनका आधार विचार नै हुन्छन् । विचारले बौद्धिक चुनौती खेप्नु यसको दिगोपनका लागि जरुरी छ । बीपी कोइरालाले राजनीतिलाई सधैं बौद्धिक अभ्याससँग जोड्ने गरेकाले उहाँ आज पनि राजनीतिको मूलप्रवाहमा बगिरहेको हामी पाउँछौं । प्रधानमन्त्री हुँदाको उहाँका दृष्टिकोणको सँगालो प्रकाशित हुन नसके पनि ती व्यापक चर्चाका विषय बनिरहेका छन् । भारतका प्रधानमन्त्री नरेन्द्र मोदीको हालै प्रकाशित पुस्तक ‘एक्जाम वारियर्स’ तथा चीनका राष्ट्रपति सी चिनफिङको ‘द गभर्नेन्स अफ चाइना’ दुइटैले आ–आफ्ना पाठकमा अपेक्षित प्रभाव पारे । प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीको प्रस्तुत पुस्तकलाई पनि यही उद्देश्यले प्रकाशित गरिएको बुझ्न सकिन्छ ।

हरतरहले ‘समृद्ध नेपाल, सुखी नेपाली’ को ‘क्रेडो’ का लागि काम गर्ने उहाँको मूल उद्देश्य देखा पर्छ । ‘थ्योरी अफ पोटेन्सियालिज्म’ वा ‘पोटेन्सियल थ्योरी’ लाई उहाँले अवलम्बन गरेको प्रतीत हुन्छ । मुलुकको विकास तथा समृद्धिका लागि नेपालीसँग जे छ, जस्तो छ, जुन अवस्थामा छ, पानीको प्रत्येक थोपादेखि ज्ञान, विवेक तथा क्षमतासम्मको तत्काल प्रयोगको आवश्यकता उहाँ देख्नुहुन्छ । अर्थात्, नेपाली धरती तथा जनताको शक्तिको सदुपयोग ।

आर्थिक समृद्धिका लागि कृषिको आधुनिकीकरण र व्यवसायीकरण, आन्तरिक पुँजीको परिचालन, उद्योगहरूको स्थापना, संरक्षण, विकास, पूर्वाधार निर्माण, सामाजिक न्याय, रोजगार, सहकारिता, सुशासन, शासकीय सुधार तथा भ्रष्टाचार नियन्त्रणमार्फत ‘समृद्ध नेपाल तथा सुखी नेपाली’ को लक्ष्य प्राप्त हुने प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीको विश्वास छ । यही ‘थिम’ लाई उहाँले राष्ट्रिय संकल्प भन्नुभएको छ । देशको सर्वोपरि हितका लागि सञ्चार माध्ययमको प्रयोगको आवश्यकतामाथि उहाँको जोड छ । नेपालमा गलत शासकीय मनसाय, स्वार्थकेन्द्रित प्रवृत्ति, अव्यवस्था र योजनाहीनताले गर्दा विकास हुन नसकेको हो । पन्ध्रौं पञ्चवर्षीय योजनाले यो क्रमिकतालाई भंग गर्ने उहाँको विश्वास छ ।

‘दृष्टिकोण’ मा समेटिएका विषयवस्तु जति विविध छन्, त्यत्ति नै तिनले प्रधानमन्त्रीको मुलुकसँग सम्बन्धित विषयवस्तुमा उद्वेलित सोचलाई प्रतिविम्बित गर्छन् । उहाँमा आफूले बोल्ने, विषयवस्तुको ज्ञान मात्र नभई सटिक विश्लेषण क्षमता देखिन्छ । विकास र समृद्धिलाई जोड दिने क्रममा उहाँको अवस्था एउटा सरल, स्वप्नद्रष्टा बालकको जस्तो देखिन्छ, जोसँग ‘भिजन र मिसन’ छ । त्यसलाई कार्यान्वयन गर्ने हठ पनि छ । आवश्यक तथा ती विषयवस्तुप्रति प्रेरित संस्था छैन । उहाँ केवल दलीय संगठनको मात्र कुरा गरिरहनुभएको छ ।

सन् २०१२ मा डारोन आसेमोग्लु र जेम्स रबिन्सन लिखित ‘ह्वाई नेसन्स फेल’ पुस्तक यहाँ प्रासंगिक हुन्छ । उनीहरूले यो पुस्तकमा शक्ति, समृद्धि वा गरिबीको सूत्रपात कसरी हुन्छ भनी विश्लेषण गरेका छन् । हुन त यी विषयलाई ऊ बेलाका समाजशास्त्री म्याक्स वेबर वा आजका अर्थशास्त्री जेफरी साक्स र इतिहासकार जरेड डायमन्डले पनि छोएका छन् । अनुत्तरित प्रश्न के हो भने, उत्तर कोरिया किन दक्षिण कोरियाभन्दा दस गुणा गरिब छ ? भूमि, हावा, पानी र ‘पेनिन्सुला’ त एउटै हो । किन वारिपट्टि रहेका एरिजोना राज्यका नोगाल्स जातिले पारिपट्टिका मेक्सिकोका जनताभन्दा तीन गुणा बढी कमाउँछन् ? जातजाति, धर्म, संस्कृति, वर्ण वा लिंगकै कुरा हो त ? यस्तो किन भइरहेको छ ? आसेमोग्लु र रबिन्सनको दाबी छ— यो हावा, पानी, भूगोल वा संस्कृतिका कारणले होइन, उद्देश्य, नीति तथा कार्यक्रमलाई कार्यान्वयन गर्न चाहिने संघ, संस्था, मूल्य मान्यता र प्रक्रिया भएर हो । यसलाई नै उनीहरूले संस्था भनेका छन् ।

लेखकद्वयको लामो अध्ययनले के देखाउँछ भने, जुन मुलुकले संस्थाका लागि लगानी गरे, ती विकसित भए । जो यस प्रक्रियामा पछाडि परे, ती सबै कुरामा पछि परे । राज्यले केन्द्रीय रूपमा संस्थाहरूमा लगानी गर्नुपर्छ । ऊ बेलाको रोमन साम्राज्य, बेलायती ट्युडर वंशको शासनदेखि आधुनिक चीनसम्मको उदाहरण दिएर लेखकहरू दाबी गर्छन्— गरिब देशमा त्यस्ता संस्थाको खाँचो छ, जसले नौलो सोच (इन्नोभेसन), आर्थिक विस्तृतीकरण, छरिएको धन र सम्पत्तिलाई प्रयोग गर्छन् । मेहनत गर्ने र कमाएको धनलाई उचित रूपमा प्रयोग गर्न सक्ने क्षमता त्यस्ता संघसंस्थाको विद्यमानतामा मात्र सम्भव छ । विश्लेषक फ्रान्सिस फुकोयामा या इतिहासकार तथा पुरातत्वविद् इयान मोरिसले झैं यी लेखकले पनि अर्थशास्त्र, राजनीति र इतिहासलाई एकीकृत रूपमा हेर्छन् । गरिबी वा विकास वा समृद्धिको विषयमा संस्था नै कारक तत्त्व हुन् भनी दाबी गर्छन्, जुन मलाई विवेकपूर्ण लाग्छ ।

अझ नेपालका सन्दर्भमा लेखकद्वयको भनाइ छ— हामीले अति गरिब ३० देशको सूची बनायौं भने त्यसमा धेरैजसो सहारा मरुभूमिको दक्षिणतर्फका अफ्रिकी मुलुक पर्छन् । तिनीहरूसँग यताका अफगानिस्तान, हाइटी र नेपाललाई सँगै राख्न मिल्छ । हाम्रा केही संवेदनशील विषय ती अफ्रिकी मुलुकसँग मिल्छन् । ५० वर्ष अघिको स्थिति पनि यस्तै थियो । १०० वर्षअघि वा १५० वर्षअघि पनि धेरै भिन्नता थिएन । प्रविधि, राजनीतिक विकास वा समृद्धिका दृष्टिले यी सधैं पछाडि रहे । यी देशमा संस्थालाई विस्तार गर्न सक्ने राज्यको विकास धेरै ढिलो र कमजोर रूपमा भयो । जहाँजहाँ ती अस्तित्वमा आए, त्यहाँ ती प्राय: कंगोमा जस्तो स्वेच्छाचारी थिए र केही कालका लागि मात्र सफल हुन सके । केही त मुलुककै रूपमा पनि टिकेनन् । स्थिरता आर्थिक प्रगतिका लागि आवश्यक हुन्छ । स्थिरता संस्थाहरूले नै दिन्छन् । त्यो यी देशमा हुन सकेन ।

संस्थाहरूको निर्माण र विस्तारलाई उपर्युक्त समाजमा त्यही कारणले प्रतिरोध गरियो, जुन कारणले स्वेच्छाचारी सत्ताहरूले परिवर्तनलाई प्रतिरोध गर्छन् । परिवर्तनले राजनीतिक शक्तिलाई व्यक्ति तथा समूहबीच पुन: बाँडफाँट गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । त्यसैले जसरी स्वेच्छाचारिताले विविधता र आर्थिक परिवर्तनलाई अवरुद्ध गर्छ, त्यसरी नै परम्परागत सम्भ्रान्त वा जातीय समूहले यसको स्थापना र विस्तार आफ्नो हितमा देख्दैनन् । यसैको प्रभाव हो— अठारौं वा उन्नाइसौं शताब्दीमा संस्थाहरूको विस्तारलाई नअपनाउने समाजले औद्योगिकीकरणबाट फाइदा लिन सकेनन् । गृहयुद्ध, रोगव्याधि, भोकमरी खपेका आधुनिक इतिहास भएका अंगोला, क्यामरुन, चाड, प्रजातान्त्रिक कंगो गणतन्त्र, हाइटी, लाइबेरिया, नेपाल, सियरालियोन, सुडान र जिम्बाब्वे यसै कोटिका मुलुक मानिन्छन् । यो बलियो यथार्थप्रति प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीको ध्यान जानु जरुरी छ ।

नेपालले गत दुई दशकमा अकल्पनीय दुर्घटनाहरू खपेको छ । गरिबी, विकास वा समृद्धिको कुरा गर्दा हामी साह्रै गरिब र कमजोर मुलुकमा पर्छौं । नयाँ संविधानका लक्ष्य बमोजिम यसका मूल्यमान्यतामा टेकेर नेपालको रूपान्तरणको प्रक्रिया अघि बढ्दै छ । हाम्रा समस्याको समाधानका लागि ‘कन्स्टिट्युसन’ देखि ‘इन्स्टिट्युसन’ सम्मको व्यापकता चाहिएको छ । ‘कन्स्टिट्युसन’ भनेको पनि ‘इन्स्टिट्युसन’ नै हो । यसैको सुवासमा खुला समाजका संघसंस्था, मूल्यमान्यता र प्रक्रिया अगाडि बढ्ने हुन् । कुरा ‘भिजन र मिसन’ को मात्र होइन, ‘इन्स्टिट्युसन’ को पनि हो । किन नेपालमा ‘इन्स्टिट्युसन’ हरू बन्न सकेका छैनन् ? तिनलाई हुर्कन किन गाह्रो भएको हो ? किन तिनले आम जनतालाई परिचालन गर्न सकेका छैनन् ? संस्थाहरूको अभावमा प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीको अठोट र काँधले मात्र के यो देश बन्न सक्ला ? यसबारे उहाँको दृष्टिकोण अपेक्षित छ ।

पोहोर र यस पालिको बजेटको आकारले देखाउँछ— नेपालसँग पैसाको अभाव छैन । तर मुलुकलाई परिचालन गर्न सक्ने संस्थाहरूको सिर्जना हुन नसकेकै हो । भएका संस्थाले काम गर्न सकेका छैनन् । बलियो सरकार र संसद् छ, तर नेपाल मिडियाको नियमनमा अल्झिएको छ । कतिपय नेपालीलाई लाग्छ, नेपालको समस्या स्वतन्त्र मिडिया नै पो हो कि ? अहिले आएर राष्ट्रिय मानव अधिकार आयोग पहिलो संशोधन विधेयक विवादमा परेको छ । गुठी ऐनको विधेयक सरकारले फिर्ता लिएर एउटा वातावरण बनेको छ । तथापि, संस्थाहरूलाई बलियो बनाउने, मलजल गर्नेतर्फ भन्दा पनि तिनलाई नचाहिँदो नियन्त्रण गर्नेतर्फ नेपाल जाँदै छ कि ?

सरकारी संरचना संविधानमुखी भइदिएका भए फस्नु नपर्ने विवादमा संसदको अमूल्य समय खर्च हुने थिएन । मुलुकका ७६१ वटै सरकारलाई रूपान्तरणको प्रक्रियामा कसरी संलग्न गर्ने, अहिलेको प्रमुख विषय हो । संघीय सरकारको सहयोग वा आडभरोसाले मात्र पुग्दैन । महिला, दलित, जनजाति, मधेसीसमुदायको भाषा, धर्म, संस्कृति र समूल पहिचानका विषयमा प्रधानमन्त्री ओलीको नेतृत्व चाहिएको छ । प्रतिपक्षसँगको सहकार्यका लागि पनि यी विषयमा उहाँको वैचारिक संवाद चाहिन्छ । सामाजिक जागरणका लागि गैरसरकारी संस्थाहरूको भूमिका हुन्छ । त्यस्तो भूमिका साना–ठूला सबै संस्थाले निर्वाह गर्नुपर्छ । भूराजनीति त नेपालको सुरुदेखिकै व्यवस्थापन चुनौती हो, केवल ‘भिजन, मिसन र योजना’ ले मात्र काम गर्न सकिरहेको देखिँदैन ।

[प्रकाशित : असार १८, २०७६ ०८:१८]