Since the Bhadau uprising, political parties and intellectuals have been constantly accusing the Gen-G – ‘This generation knows nothing about the constitution, it does not know the political background of the constitution, it does not even know how the republic came about.’ Public statements by some individuals who represented the Gen-G in the negotiations held by the government after the uprising have also given further strength to this notion.

Personally, I am happy because political parties and intellectuals have finally come out of their small world and at least started thinking about what this generation thinks and how it thinks. But while criticizing, they have forgotten that what have they done so far to convey the constitution or its background to the people, especially our generation?

I also enjoy using words like Nepal's nationality, independence, and constitutional supremacy while sitting in a tea shop. At that time, I feel like I have all the knowledge in the world within me. Perhaps, when we set up a stage in a square, gather activists who are eager to attend, and give speeches with such vocabulary, it seems to our politicians that they have all the knowledge within them.

That is why they are now accusing this generation of 'not knowing this or that'. However, it was their responsibility to spread the knowledge 'filled' in them to the society. The responsibility of the state or political parties is not limited to just writing the constitution, the people should also feel that it is a constitution.

The constitution is called a ‘living document’ in legal language, but a constitution written on paper is not alive in itself. To make it truly ‘living’, the political will of the parties and the development of constitutional culture among the people are necessary, but even after a decade of the implementation of the constitution, we have not been able to realize that both of these tasks are necessary to make the constitution alive. Whether during the writing of the constitution or after it has been written, the discussions related to the constitution have not reached the people much. Many of us are not even aware of the most basic thing ensured by the constitution, our fundamental rights. There is no way for the general public to feel the emotional ownership of the constitution, which is sometimes difficult to understand even for people who have studied law.

Looking at the situation we are in now, we cannot move forward without accepting the fact that we have failed to make the constitution alive. I think that the people who have taken the main responsibility for implementing the constitution now also have a role behind this failure. The Constitution is not a document that we can throw away because we don't need it, but it is not necessary to worship it like the Bhagavad Gita is worshipped by Hindus, the Tripitaka by Buddhists, the Quran by Muslims, or the Bible by Christians.

Because of what we did, the emotional ownership of the Constitution has now narrowed to a limited group. The state's first responsibility was to deliver the Constitution to the people, but it failed. We, political and civil society figures, legal professionals, and law students, who believe that the Constitution belongs to us, who were at the forefront of the past movement to protect the Constitution, have also always kept the Constitution away from the common people.

When we say, 'You don't know, I have read it, I know it' in the process of explaining the importance of the Constitution, the Constitution is presented as an 'elite document' used only in our professional field, and its access to the common people is even less. We are still doing the same. Not only the Constitution, we sometimes try to monopolize other organs of the state that are connected to our professional field. While I am praising a certain part as a 'temple', if someone does not feel that place is a 'temple', how can he take ownership of it? Every structure of this state is his as much as it is mine. If we continue to make some places 'temple' despite so many irregularities, who will dare to question it? We have reached this situation today because we did not ask that question.

In order for the general public to feel ownership of the constitution, they must not only accept the basic values ​​and norms of the constitution, but also put them into practice. The current constitution is considered the people's first constitution. This constitution, which established Nepal as a federal democratic republic after the historical revolution, has envisioned democratic values ​​and norms such as secularism, sovereignty vested in the people, inclusiveness, independent judiciary, rule of law, and accountability. But today, questions are being raised on all sides, from federalism to accountability. Although it has only been 10 years since the implementation of the constitution, and the constitutions of successful countries have been in force for hundreds of years, it is considered successful, but even after 10 years, the fact that the people are questioning the fundamentals of the constitution is not a sign of its success.