Many of us had no expectation that the parties would draft a constitution with so many wonderful provisions. It is far more progressive than the previous ones. It was the UPCN (Maoist) which carried the agenda of a constitution through the Constituent Assembly (CA), and it has now been institutionalised. The Nepali Congress was the first to raise the issue of CA back in 1950s. The NC and other parties had to accept the Maoists' agenda as it was the most effective way to draft a constitution by the people's representatives, though it was not easy for the NC leadership to accept the agenda of republicanism.

We had to work hard to convince the then Prime Minister and NC President Girija Prasad Koirala to shift from a twin pillar policy—monarchy and democracy. It had been tough for the NC leadership to recognise that monarchy and democracy could not go together. The agenda of CA would have never been materialised had the NC not owned it, but it is the UCPN (Maoist) which has to be credited for the new constitution.

Similarly federalism had not been prioritised by the mainstream parties as the Interim Constitution had not recognised it in the begging. The Madhes uprising institutionalised the agenda of federalism. Though the responsibility of managing progressive agendas is on the shoulder of the NC and CPN-UML, the Maoists and the Madhes-based parties get the credit for establishing them.

If we look at the current political developments, the Maoists played very active role in institutionalising its agendas and taking the credit for it. But the Madhes-based parties were not clever enough to understand this. The constitution has owned many agendas they have raised. They could have joined the CA process and continue their protests even if all of their agendas were not addressed.

The majority of provisions of the eight-point deal forged after the Madhes protests have been addressed. Except for the group enrolment in the Nepal Army, which was stopped by a Supreme Court verdict, all other points of the agreements have largely been implemented—five of the points have been explicitly included in the constitution.

Their major disagreement is with the state delineation. The first point of the eight point agreement was a single state in Madhes. But when the Maoists and Madhesi parties had a coalition government, they had agreed in principle that "one Madhes one autonomous state" was not possible to implement. So there is no point arguing in this issue.

There are three weaknesses with the Madhesi parties. First, they are not clear with their agendas. There should be a clear answer to what they want and what role did they play in the past to establish their agendas. Second, the party which signed the agreement has been split into numerous parties. Had they fixed their common agenda and built pressure jointly, their voice would have been strong. Now there is confusion over which of them is right. Lastly, they started the protests to express their anger as the agenda of an integrated province (Far-West) was addressed. This is output sadistic thinking.

Having said this, we cannot ignore the fact it was the Maoist conflict and the Madhes protest that compelled the government to listen to the voice of the marginalised communities. These two protests helped connect the Dalit, Madhesis, Janajatis and other marginalised and minority groups with the state. The Maoists might have failed to capture the state through violence, but they were successful not just in institutionalising their agendas, but also transforming the country as a whole.

So like the Maoists, the Madhesis should come into the mainstream to institutionalise their agendas and take ownership of what they have achieved. At the same time, they can also keep on building pressure to have their maximum voice incorporated. As there are different concerns of various communities in Tarai, its very unlikely all of them are addressed. The first priority of the Madhesis is identity, but it is not the issue for Tharus, Rajbanshis and Janajatis, rather inclusion and proportional representation are their main concerns.

Madhesis want a recognition as the same community with similar culture and caste who live in areas bordering to India. The state has still failed to recognise their identity, therefore they have a reading that the state betrayed them, which is natural for two reasons. The issues of Karnali and Baglung were immediately addressed and those killed in the protests there got compensation immediately, but when it came to the Tarai, the state seemed biased.

Against this backdrop, there remains a challenge for the implementation of the new constitution. The major parties have even failed to convince Madhesi lawmakers from their own parties that what they did to address the concerns of the Madhes. They have not taken any step in informing their lawmakers categorically that which issues have been addressed, which issues will be addressed in the future and which cannot be addressed. The same issues have to be informed to the general people as well. Therefore, top leaders have to organise mass meetings in various districts in the Tarai to inform the people about the present status.

The major parties should show generosity in forming a commission to decide over the three districts in the East and two districts in the Far West, and convince the Madhesi parties to agree on the seven-province model for now, and take further decision as per the suggestions of the commission. This is the responsibility of the major parties to reach out to the disgruntled parties.

I think even our friendly neighbouring countries want the same. If a commission is formed with consent from all the stakeholders, its recommendations will be acceptable to all. It is not that complex. The only problem is the vanity of the three parties, therefore they are not taking any concrete step in convincing the protesting parties and recognising their genuine demands. This is a serious problem.

Moreover, the same leaders who could not manage the constitution of 1990 despite claiming it to be the best in the world are now at the forefront to implement the new constitution. A serious question is can those who failed to manage the 1990's constitution implement the new constitution. But let's be hopeful the parties have learnt from past mistakes.

Acharya is a political analyst (As told to the Post)