The results of the Constituent Assembly elections
in Nepal have come as a shock to Indian policy
makers, the media including prominent Nepali
commentators, and the policy elite in the US,
European Union and others. The run up to these
elections, and even a short visit to Nepal would
have to the unbiased observer revealed the wave
of support to the CPN(Maoist), and the
concomitant disillusionment with the Nepali
Congress and the CPN(UML) in particular. Speaking
to Nepalese in Kathmandu on April 7 and 8, days
before the elections, it was clear that there was
a groundswell of support not only among the poor
but also among the middle class. Taxi drivers,
small and large shopkeepers, hotel and restaurant
staff were almost unanimous in their support for
the Maoists. We were observers for Gorkha, the
ancestral home of the Nepalese monarchy. Of the
3 Gorkha constituencies we observed on April 10,
constituency 2 had a high profile candidate in
Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, chief theoretician of the
Maoists and one of the most senior leaders.
In Kathmandu and Gorkha, the Maoist’s propaganda
and election work was staggering. There were
arches calling for Prachanda as President,
hoardings with photographs of Maoist martyrs from
the area and a flood of Maoist flags. There were
very few flags of the Nepali Congress, and even
less of the UML. The election became a festive
occasion. Queues of women voters formed as early
as 6 a.m. though voting was to commence only at
7a.m. Most of them were dressed in red, the
colour of festivity. Due to the fact that two
separate ballots had to be cast, one first past
the post, and the second for proportional
representation, voters had to wait two hours to
vote. There were no toilet facilities, no water,
no first aid. Yet some 60 per cent voted. Women
voters in almost all polling booths outvoted men.
Well before 5p.m., the end of polling, large
crowds gathered to ensure the safety of the
ballot boxes. Here too women were present in
large numbers. Observing 16 polling booths over
all three Gorkha constituencies, it became clear
from the spontaneous assertions by voters
especially women, that the Maoists would win.
Most of the other election observers from other
parts of Nepal had the same assessment.
Baburam Bhattarai was supremely confident of the
Maoists emerging as the single largest party by a
big margin. He also had no doubts that the
framing of the new constitution would be a
challenging task, but was confident that the
Maoists, working together with the Nepali
Congress and UML, along with the smaller parties,
would be able to keep their election promises. He
looked forward to a more equal relationship with
India, and hoped that the Indian establishment
recognized the transformation in the Maoists from
a guerrilla force to a peace loving one committed
to the constitutional process. Despite Indian
support to the Nepali Congress and its clear lack
of sympathy for the Maoists, he was willing to
let bygones be bygones, in the process of
building an independent, secular, democratic and
federal republic. The Maoist leader was
expressing widespread sentiments that are
supported across the political spectrum. Almost
all election observers reported no intimidation.
The vote for the Maoists appears to be a positive
one, not one caused by coercion and threat. In
fact, the Maoists appeared to make major gains
because of their electoral promises for the
abolition of monarchy, the establishment of a
secular republic, the framing of a constitution,
and their performance in their brief tenure in
government. Unlike the Nepali Congress and UML
which were unable to make major policy changes
during their much longer tenure, with the former
talking of constitutional monarchy, the Maoists
were consistently republican and not tarred by
their brief tenure in government. This is why
even in affluent Kathmandu, the Maoists won, and
Nepali Congress and UML stalwarts lost. In a deep
sense the vote for the Maoists was a vote for
change, even by a significant section that
opposed their armed struggle or found their
manifesto too radical. The changes in Nepal
appear irreversible. They are also historic.
Unlike its neighbours in South Asia, this
constituent assembly election was based on
universal adult franchise. The elections were
preceded by a national debate in almost all
various sections of society. Within in a few
years period the Nepalese will move from monarchy
to a republic. But they need international
support. Nepal is a poor country with its wealth
earlier appropriated by the feudal elite and
monarchy, and later by the rising capitalist
class. It is in India’s interest to accept the
profound changes in Nepal and pragmatically agree
to support the constitutional process and the
building of a pro-poor, pro-Dalit and janjatis,
federal republic, and help this tiny state to
keep its tryst with destiny. This is no minor
task. The Maoists also want to renegotiate
Indo-Nepal treaties which they consider unequal.
Here also India must be flexible. It agreed to
renegotiate the treaty with Bhutan. There is no
reason it should not with Nepal. For years the
Indian foreign policy establishment backed the
wrong horse. This is a time for course
correction, and for India to engage with the
Maoists.
The rest of South Asia, not to speak of other
countries of the South, might come to learn from
the Nepali experience. If the Maoists and their
allies have their way, the new constitution may
turn out to be profoundly federal, with
substantial autonomy for the Madhesis. It would
be socially radical with special measures for the
Dalits, janjatis and women. Its proposed
economic structure would permit globalization but
would have provisions to protect and promote
national industry and protect the rights of the
workers and the poor. Drafting such a
constitution for which there was an earlier
preliminary draft constitution, will be a
daunting task, since a minimum two-thirds
majority is required. But if it is done, and the
constitution is implemented, history will be made.