 |
Kathmandu Sunday September 23, 2001 Ashwin 07, 2058.
|
Referendum! What again ?
By Raman Raj Misra
What is wrong with the Nepali "netas"
(leaders)? Do they even know what they say? Or are they just making up issues to fool the
people. If they do not know what they are talking about then the leaders are fools. If, on
the other hand, they are just fooling the people, then they are downright liars and
cheats. Whether they are fools or liars, we the Nepalis have continued to consider them
our "netas". That is why, whatever they say, no matter how ludicrous gets
prominence in our media. It is good that such things are reported, because future
generations will have a documented report by which they can judge not only the quality and
calibre of our "netas", but also us for considering such people our leaders and
following them.
A number of papers reported one such ludicrous
issue raised by Padma Ratna Tuladhar on 7th September at a programme organised by the
Democratic National Youth Association (DNYA) in Kathmandu. Tuladhar, as may be recalled,
contested elections under the UML ticket, and then had the audacity to publicly go around
saying that he was an Independent Candidate! He was referred to by some as a millionaire
communist. Couple of years ago, though belonging to a Buddhist family, which should have
condemned all forms of killings, he had supported cow slaughter. Just a week or so back,
Tuladhar was reported to have defended and condoned the extortions carried out by the
Maoists. His motive for saying so may not be in tune with the principle of Human Rights,
but he may have said so to protect his own considerable property from likely extortion.
Anyway, we have accepted such a great leader, who is a Buddhist but advocates slaughter, a
great Human Rights campaigner who condones extortion, and a millionaire who calls himself
a communist.
Whatever he may have claimed to be in the past,
today we consider him a leftist intellectual and a Human Right Activist. We, of this
generation have accepted this, and future generations, if we can produce a better breed,
will no doubt laugh at us for this. Anyway, it is but natural that whatever he says should
get prominence in the media. A person whom we consider to be a great intellectual, has
shown the level of his own intelligence.
At the programme of the Democratic National
Youth Association (DNYA), he is reported to have called for a national referendum to
resolve the divergent stands taken by the Maoists and the current government regarding the
choice between a republic and constitutional monarchy. He is quoted as saying: "If a
national referendum was possible during the autocratic Panchayat regime, why is it not
possible in a democratic set up?" He is also quoted as saying: "The constitution
has endowed sovereign rights in the people and their decision is final and absolute."
When Mr Tuladhar made this profound announcement, he did (don’t laugh!) get applause
from the public, gathered by the Democratic National Youth Association of Kathmandu. They,
no doubt, thought that this was a brilliant idea. Referendum indeed!
Can Padma Ratna Tuladhar or those who cheered
and clapped at his speech even remember what happened to the verdict the people gave
through the referendum of 1980? Do they have the mental capacity to analyse the
implication of the referendum and the upheaval of 1990? Do they even know what is written
about the will of the people in the Preamble of our present constitution? The Preamble
explicitly refers, in the second paragraph, to: "...the desire of the Nepalese people
expressed through the recent people’s movement to bring about constitutional
changes." It may be recalled that the people’s movement was in fact unrest in
only eight districts of the country instigated by Indian politicians, who had come to
Ganesh Man Singh’s home, and that, at the time of the Indian economic blockade of
Nepal. The referendum of 1980 was the verdict of the people from the entire 75 districts
of Nepal. Yet the Preamble of our constitution has sanctified and legalised the
"people’s movement" as being superior to the verdict of a referendum. No
wonder we have had various forceful attempts to disrupt parliamentary proceedings,
forceful closures of trade and transport and of course the "Maoist People’s
Movement".
The implication of replacing a political system
endorsed by a referendum through street action is clear and simple. It shows that the will
of the Nepali people expressed through the referendum has no meaning at all. Such flouting
of the referendum verdict expressed by the people of Nepal had the international support
of democratic countries like the USA, Germany and India as can be inferred from the
congratulations received by those who had come to power in 1990. No foreign power
considered the verdict of the referendum of the people of Nepal to be of any worth.
The Preamble to our constitution has also
sanctified street unrest and flouted the referendum. Among the Nepalis who heeded the
instigation of Indian politicians in 1990, Padma Ratna Tuladhar was prominent. He, who had
flouted the peoples’ verdict as expressed by the 1980 referendum, has now displayed
profound intelligence by calling for yet another referendum! A referendum of the Nepali
people which, history has shown, has no validity. Which is not respected by the
international community, nor by people like Padma Ratna Tuladhar himself. Yet we still
call him an intellectual and our Neta!" Wonders never cease, do they? Padma Ratna
Tuladhar had also said that the constitution has endowed sovereign right to the people and
their decision is final and absolute. Such remarks coming from such a man makes one wonder
what the term "sovereign rights" actually means to him. If he really believed
that the people were sovereign then he should have supported the idea that the Panchayat
System, which was endorsed by the referendum, should have been removed only by another
referendum.
If the democrats were constrained by
geopolitical factors to do so at the time, they could at least have displayed their faith
in the people, whom they call sovereign, by subjecting this democratic constitution to a
referendum before it was promulgated. If the decision of the Nepali people was final and
absolute and if they were actually sovereign then why have they been denied the right to
endorse this democracy and this constitution which was drafted (mostly plagiarised) by
just eleven appointees? Is this the way of people with purported sovereign rights? As it
is said, deeds
speak louder than words. The referendum of the Nepali people has been totally ignored by
all.
So, it can be safe to say that conducting
another referendum is quite meaningless. The precedent, past events and the Preamble of
our constitution have paved a way for any political forces now or in the future to not
heed the verdict of the Nepali people if expressed through referendum. Revolts have been
sanctified and have been made effective. And among many within and without Nepal who had
contributed to making the referendum of the Nepali people useless in theory as well as in
practice was our Padma Ratna Tuladhar. Yet, he has called for yet another referendum! For
what? To make fools out of the people of Nepal or to comically display his own level of
intelligence?
Other Stories
|
