How ‘Hindu’ is ‘new’ Nepal?

Nazma Khatoon, a member of the Constituent Assembly (CA), put on a riot helmet before she occupied a chair to solicit public opinion on the preliminary draft of the constitution on Tuesday. Khatoon took the necessary precaution as top leaders like Madhav Kumar Nepal and Prachanda had faced public fury a day earlier, having to be rescued by security forces. People are divided on both the content of the draft as well as the manner in which public opinion is being solicited, with just 48 hours allotted to it. An overwhelming majority wants Nepal declared a “Hindu” state. This deals a near-fatal blow to the radical agenda imposed by the forces that have come to power since April 2006. India had mediated a settlement between the Maoists and seven other parties, bringing them together against the direct rule of King Gyanendra. The euphoric parties had thereafter refused to seek a larger public debate on crucial issues and unilaterally declared, in a phased manner, that Nepal would be federal, secular and a republic. Due process was not followed when these radical changes were made. The international community, led by India, had readily endorsed these changes, little realising that the direct involvement of the people was the best guarantee for institutionalising the changes. In fact, these nine years of change have been the most intolerant phase in Nepali politics, when anybody asking for democratic norms and respect for due process and dissenting voices was branded “regressive”. It was practically an eight-party dictatorship in Nepal, which had a brute majority in the CA and yet failed to deliver the constitution. A CA member having to wear a riot helmet shows the level of distrust between the people and their leaders. Public lack of trust in the constitutional draft is likewise growing in the same proportion. Despite being called a “Hindu state” in the constitution since 1962 with a “Hindu monarch”, the old Nepal was a more liberal society, tolerant of all faiths, although with strict laws against conversion. But the parties that assumed power in 2006, Nepal’s foreign donors, the international community and civil society appeared to be swayed by the argument that if Nepal had to become a republic, its “Hindu” identity must be done away with. The idea of secularism was never debated. Moreover, the West, international NGOs and some UN organs openly advocated the right to conversion as an integral part of secularism. Then British Ambassador Andrew Sparkes had to resign when the Nepal government reprimanded him for his open letter to CA members to lobby for the right to conversion. - See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/how-hindu-is-new-nepal/#sthash.6umUmf1m.dpuf