Breaking News

Writing 'Nepal' alone will not change the state structure

The cabinet meeting did not decide to write only 'Nepal' instead of 'Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal'. It has been questioned that the decision made during the tenth was not appropriate. This decision is more than a month before the tenth. 

This was not a decision made by the government secretly, secretly or without anyone knowing. Everything the government does is transparent. The government needs to clarify something. On June 3, 2065, I was in the government negotiating team at that time. I was also involved in writing the Interim Constitution. That decision of June 3 did not change the name of Nepal. The context was that the then CPN (Maoist) participated in the Interim Parliament in January 2008. Chait had joined the government. There was some disagreement about when the Constituent Assembly elections would be held.

The Maoists withdrew from the government in August 2008 after disagreements over the date of the election. At that time, there was contradiction between the parties. In order to address the contradictions, the Interim Constitution was amended in December 2008. We amended the Interim Constitution to allay fears that the government would be 'backed' by the republic. We have written in the constitution that the republic will be implemented from the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly.

At midnight on June 3, 2008, we announced the implementation of the Republic from the Parliament of the Republic of Nepal. Four lawmakers of the then Rastriya Prajatantra Party of Nepal disagreed. A dissenting lawmaker has passed away. That declaration was the declaration of the implementation of the republic, not the name change of Nepal. 

After the government's decision to write 'Nepal' instead of 'Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal', our debate has turned to what the official name of Nepal should be. The royalists' rally in Butwal last year and the government's decision were also compared. Protests like those of the royalists had taken place in the past as well. Chitra Bahadur KC's party has been protesting against federalism in the past.

Kamal Thapa was against the republic. He has repeatedly spoken out against the republic. At the same time, the former king was seen wandering in different places. With 2-4 processions coming out, the activities of the former king will not affect our republic. The foundation of our republic is not so weak as to be affected by such minor incidents. 

Our focus should be on how to place the republic in the minds of the people. How should the expectations of the people associated with the republic be realized? There is no balance between 2/4 rallies and the decision of the government. Interpreters can interpret in their own way. We could not say anything about 'Kundakunda Pani, Mundamunda Buddhi'.

As the English translation of the constitution has not been verified and the translation done by the law society and the House of Representatives has not been agreed upon, it is not necessary to bring it in the parliament. If the English translation had been verified, it would have been brought to Parliament for approval. It is positive to have the confidence of the parliament. However, this issue was not the work of Parliament.

In the past, when the UN and some other countries used official correspondence as 'Republic of Nepal', we were known as 'Nepal'. We have no dispute about the system of governance that the country will adopt. It is not necessary to link the system of governance and the formal name of the country.

We have already included the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal in the constitution. We wrote it as the constitution of Nepal. We do not write the constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. We write 'Nepal's flag'. We do not write 'Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal's flag'. We write the Government of Nepal, not the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal.

In 10/11 years after the peace process, no question arose about the name Nepal. Sarita Giri had raised the issue of Nepal's name in the Constituent Assembly. No one seems to have accepted his offer to discuss. There is a discussion on whether to use adjectives in the name of Nepal. The constitution did not make sense to keep adjectives. The provision of Article 56 of the Constitution is about the state structure of Nepal. Naming Nepal does not change the state structure. There are also examples from other countries in the world. India is a country with a federal system.

The 'Republic of India' is understood only as India. India's federalism is not over. South Africa is also a republic. The official name is South Africa. The essential difference of federalism is not brought by name. Adjectives are also omitted by Germany, Russia and others. Even though the United States is federal, it is known as the United States of America. Argentina, Brazil and others will not be federal states without federalism in front of their names.

Whether the country's governance system can be linked to the name can be debated. Not that it doesn't happen. Some countries have also linked the name of the country with the system of governance. To do that, we have to go to the constitution.

By amending the constitution, the name of Nepal cannot be changed to Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. In the constitution, the name of Nepal is 'Nepal'. Therefore, the essence of the decision is to write only Nepal in the official letter. In terms of governance and constitution, the name of Nepal is 'Independent, Indivisible, Sovereign, Inclusive, Democratic, Socialist-Oriented Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal'.

Doubts over the government's decision should not burn Lanka. If you don't like the government, the person, the prime minister, then you can connect them everywhere. If not, the government's decision is a purely technical matter. There is no reason to link it to the political system. It is not the current government that has come to rule by bringing democracy.

Many have shed blood for democracy. Some may have fought peacefully or some may have fought violently. We fought for democracy. Is the intention of the government to be linked? The issue of linking it with the adopted state system is not a government decision. If we want to add the names of some countries to the system of governance, then we have to amend the constitution. The government does not have a problem. It is a decision to put the name of Nepal in the constitution in the correspondence.

The Prime Minister's statement has been reacted to this decision of the government. Let's not form an opinion by listening to the one-sided issue of the Prime Minister saying that he is a unit of the Union of Provinces. It is said that the Prime Minister made such a statement. But what did the Prime Minister really say? We have not heard that aspect. We get to the wrong place when we make assumptions based on reporting from one side only. 

No comments