Q. Why is the CPI(M) criticising the Indian government’s stand on the Nepal Constitution? Has there not been injustice done to the Madhesis which is a legitimate concern for India? How the deadlock caused by the agitation by the people in the Terai region would be resolved? B Sanyal, Varanasi The CPI(M) has welcomed the new Constitution of Nepal. After a prolonged struggle by the Nepalese people against the feudal monarchy and a protracted process of Constitution making, finally Nepal has a democratic, federal, secular and republican Constitution. The Constitution was adopted by an elected Constituent Assembly which represented all sections of the people. One may recall that the Constituent Assembly in India which drafted the Constitution was a body elected through limited franchise. The Nepal Constitution has many progressive and democratic features which make it the most advanced in South Asia. There is proportional representation, quotas for women, dalits, janjatis and other minorities. The fundamental rights section is more comprehensive than what is provided for in the Indian Constitution. The federal set-up envisages seven provinces. It is on the question of creation of provinces that there is unrest among people of Madhesi origin. The stand of the Modi government is totally unwarranted. It has sought to interfere in the Constitution making process of a sovereign country. Sending of the foreign secretary after the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution to try and prevent its promulgation is a blatant and highhanded interference. The Indian government has shown its displeasure by merely “noting” the passing of the Constitution. The Modi government has openly displayed its support and sympathy for the Madhesi agitation. The blockade created on the borders and the disruption of supplies by the agitators is seen to have support from the Indian side. Nepal is a landlocked country and it is totally dependent on the road route from India for essential commodities and for economic commerce. The Indian government has taken a narrow partisan stand in order to reap electoral benefits in Bihar, where in the neighbouring districts to Nepal people have close family and social relations across the border. There are reports of BJP traders and leaders financing and supplying food to the agitators across the border. The Modi government should give up its negative stand and extend all help to see the situation in the border is eased and free flow of traffic resumed. As far as the Madhesi grievances are concerned, the Nepali ruling establishment and major political parties should immediately address them. Creation of new provinces is provided for in the Constitution and a fair political solution should be found to accommodate the concerns of the Madhesis and the Tharus. The big brotherly attitude to Nepal, the closest neighbour, is an exhibition of the BJP’s Hindu nationalism. The RSS and the BJP are irked that Nepal decided to adopt a secular Constitution and rejected calls to declare Nepal a Hindu State. Q. Prime Minister Modi is reported to have had consultation with all political leaders in the country before signing an accord with NSCN (I-M) over the formation of ‘Nagalim” state comprising parts of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur with a total of 1.2 Naga population. Will not this move by Modi be a fillip to the already simmering demand for ethnic statehood like Gorkhaland, Khalistan, Sowrashtram etc. G Rajamani, Tamil Nadu This question was received a few weeks ago but the response was withheld because the ‘historic accord’ which later was re-named the ‘framework agreement’ between the NSCN (Isak0Muivah) had not been made public. Unfortunately, this has not happened till date but a response cannot be indefinitely delayed. It needs to be clarified that no political parties or leaders were consulted by the prime minister before he signed the accord. Of course, this excludes his own party and its leaders although, at the time, the home minister himself seemed to know very little about the agreement. Secondly, it is not as if a new state is being brought into existence. There is already a state of Nagaland with an elected government. There are, however, many unresolved issues between the central government and many Naga groups the most prominent of which is the NSCN (I-M) which is the only group that was taken on board as far as this agreement is concerned. The most contentious of these issues is the Naga demand for incorporation of all Naga-dominated areas and enclaves which are contiguous with its borders but are in Manipur and Arunachal into a new state ie, Nagalim. Of course, Manipur and Arunachal are strongly opposed to this and, it is also a fact, that the Naga-dominated areas include many minorities – Manipuris, Arunachalis, Biharis, UP people etc. When the agreement was signed, there were hints that the NSCN (I-M) had perhaps given up the demand for Nagalim but just two weeks later, unfurling the Nagalim flag, Muivah made it clear that this could never be done. There is, therefore, very little clarity on what has actually been agreed and many seasoned commentators feel that the occasion was one used more the usual prime ministerial bombast than anything very substantial. This does not mean that the Naga issue does not need to be resolved. It has a long history of insurgency, violence, atrocities committed by armed forces and terrible physical abuse of Naga women behind it. The need of the hour seems to be a holistic approach to the ethnic strife and conflict in the North East. North Eastern leaders and members of governments need to be consulted on issues that affect them and have the potential to create problems in their own states. Finally, it can be said that, despite the official rhetoric, there has been no Naga Accord. If a step has been taken towards resolving conflict, it should be welcomed and taken forward but complicated and sensitive problems should not be handled in an arbitrary and undemocratic fashion.