By Dr. Yubaraj Sangroula (KATHMANDU, Sept.26) – A flock of lambs lived happily in a beautiful landscape in certain part of the world. They were harmless and unprejudiced to anyone. A cunning wolf lived in the vicinity, with adequate scavenge around, and the lambs believed that the wolf would have no reason to deter and kill them because it had enough to eat. They believed no animal kills others if there is enough food for it. The wolf was however cynical and angered occasionally for no reason.
Hence, he engaged to divide the folk of the lambs. He said a few lambs that “your some brethren enjoy good meals secretly making you to starve”. Some lambs trusted the wolf’s deception. The wolf ate all of them. He was happy that he would obtain an easy meal. One day, a baby lamb ignorant of the wolf’s deception went to the river to satisfy its water thirst. The wolf in sun-bath watched the baby lamb drinking water. The wolf had big meal sometime before. However, it was greedy and jealous.
The lion accused the lamb, “why did you pollute the water that I am supposed to drink, didn’t you know that the river belongs to me?””Sorry to say Sir, I am below to you. So I how can I pollute your water, you are up in the place to me and the water flows down not up”, the baby lamb argued resolutely but politely.
“Oh, you little mouth, how could you dare to challenge me. Whether you are up or down, if I feel that the water is polluted by you it is polluted”, the arrogant lion said. “I should kill you and eat deliciously”, he added.
“But your rules says that you kill one only when you are hungry. I saw, you just had entire big lamb eaten. How could you kill me”, the little lamb retorted.”If I think to kill someone, I will just do it. Don’t you see my sharp teeth? Why they are made, are they just to mutter”! The lion said in full of wrath.
“But your rules say that you respect the life of other, and kill only to survive but not to make a fun of killing”, the baby lamb argued further.The lion jumped upon the lamb and devoured the baby lamb by sharp teeth. “Oh poor little lamb, you don’t know rules for the powerful is just a means of deceiving others. The baby lamb lost its life by his belief that the wolf does not kill someone if it is not hungry. The power and arrogance makes one blind and wrathful for no reason.
Nepalese people must consider this tale today. We have been in a situation of embargo from our powerful neighbor, and situation is exactly like the one between wolf and the lamb. Like the lamb, we believed that India would respect its Constitution that dictates that it will be engaged in promoting peace and security of the world by fully respecting the sovereign equality of other countries. India, according to its Constitution, is to follow the principles of Panchasila. Unfortunately, it sees that there is an insecurity from Nepal to for allowing transit transportation system bound to Nepal to take place. A group of people eat and stay inside the Indian border bazaars and come to the No-men land to strike against Nepal. The government of India says, there is violence in Nepal. Unfortunately, these people are fed and sheltered by Nepal.
Nepal made a constitution by 90 percent of members in the CA, an example never set forth in any part of the world before. The democratic America had 52 percent and India itself 65 percent members in favor of the final draft of the their Constitutions respectively. But India says, the Constitution must meet the demands of agitating parties who have 53 members in the parliament. For India over one hundred members in the parliament representing the people of Madhes are outcast members.
Constituent Assembly in any part of the world is created as an instrument of social contract people to elect members to make Constitution for them. As a matter of fact, this has not been a matter of diplomacy, rather it is a matter of ‘people’s sovereignty’. The constitution is made by a process pre-determined by the people through a working constitution, known as the Interim Constitution. So demands outside the CA cannot be included in the Constitution, if they are not brought in the form of Constitution amendment proposals. The agitating parties left the CA, and are demanding that their demands agreed by the government in the past must be satisfied. This absurd logic on the following grounds or logical arguments:
The agreements were made in a time when Nepal was in a process of ending the long fought insurgency. After the agreements, the CA election was conducted that gave the agitating parties enough mandate to “materialize the terms and conditions of the agreements”. They were in the government, and the majority of the members came from the parties agitating today. However, they never paid attention to these demands. They bargained for powers; they engaged against each other and their parties were shattered into many pieces because of the ill-motive for powers. Finally, they dissolved the CA as a part of conspiratorial design. But, they achieved a big blow in the second CA election. They lost their position, and could enjoy “butter” of power. The Second CA moved towards adoption of the Constitution, which left them nowhere. How they can morally argue and demand that “their demands must be met by the government which is freshly mandated by the people on their dishonesty and failure to work for the people”. The agitation is thus an act of immortality.
The issues of constitution can’t be addressed by an executive part of the State. The legislative body of the State is the sole authority to address the issues of Constitution. For this, they have to move amendment resolutions in the Legislative body of the State. If the issues are not able to achieve positive votes in the legislative body, they have to move to the fresh election for fresh mandate. Unfortunately, the agitating parties instead of moving to the legitimate body have moved to the government of an alien nation for support. This is senseless act of doing, and now they are putting their all efforts to let the nation down.
India has issued statements repeatedly in favor of the “agitating parties”, without valid justifications based on international law. India is taking a deceptive and cruel weapon of “indirect or undeclared embargo” in order to press Nepal to avail to the demands of the agitating parties, which eventually lead Nepal to loss its sovereignty as a nation. International law does not allow India to meddle in its Constitution making process, which is a sheer matter of internal affairs. Can America dictate India to amend its Constitution? No, it cannot. What does India do if such demand is made by America? Should a smaller nation must avail to the demands of the big country only on the ground that “the demander is powerful and bigger”?
No, not at all. Sovereignty is equal though national territories of countries are different. How India then against its own Constitution can require Nepal to change its constitution as demanded by India. Nepal has then been subjected to the victimization of the implicit aggression of a powerful neighbor. The international community regarded “movement of Russian troops to the border of Ukraine’ an act of aggression. Cannot we say that “support to the dissidents by India for blocking the transit of goods from India” an act of aggression. The use of force is apparent, if in case the blockade is resisted by the government of Nepal. The permission by India to the Nepalese agitators to use the no-men land is a sheer violation of international law.