madheshee

मधेश्वनी इस्सुए

2010-05-04T01:03:00.000-07:00

लेट गजेन्द्र नारायण सिंह

2008-08-12T11:31:00.000-07:00

न्यू issue madheshvani

2008-08-12T11:29:00.000-07:00

Constituent Assembly Election and Madhesh Turmoil

2007-09-28T15:03:00.000-07:00

By Bindu Chaudhary

The Madhesi movement has reminded us of the need to take a critical look at dealing with the problem of intolerance and ethnic prejudice that has for centuries plagued the nation.

People of Nepal are, for the first time in history, going to draft a new constitution themselves through the Constitutional Assembly. This is certainly a landmark victory that has granted Nepalese their sovereign power to address the people’s aspirations and institutionalize the achievements of the popular movement.
It is a well known fact that even after the success of the 1990 people’s movement (Janandolan I), the political parties chose to ignore the rights of the oppressed nationalities including the Madheshis, reflected by the discriminatory provisions in the 1990 Constitution of Nepal. Again, the CPN-Maoists had promised federal state in MBindu Chaudharyadhesh, rights to self determination and many other assurances during their decade old revolution, and similar promises were made by the leaders of all other political parties following the 2006 April Revolution (Janandolan II). However, the interim constitution they promulgated reflected that their promises were merely to deceive Madheshis as it paid no attention to their representation in the decision-making body of the State - the ground that paved the way for the Madheshi movement (now called the Janandolan III).
Madheshis have been pressing for rights based constitution, which envisions constitution as a mechanism for entrenching and protecting individuals’ rights. As bona fide citizens of Nepal, Madheshis are the rights-bearers who are justified to claim their rights for constitutional participation on the basis of the right that they hold as individuals and on the basis of collective rights of an ethnic group. Getting a constitutional foothold and constitutional recognition will not only give Madheshis a sense of ‘inclusion’ and ‘self-esteem’, but constitutionalizing rights will also help the government comprehend that the Terai, which contains 49% of Nepal’s 26 million population, 23% land area and 20 of the 75 districts, belongs to Nepal as much as the Madheshis- it can’t be one and not the other.
The issue therefore relates to a movement against the state’s discriminatory politics, a fight for recognition of rights, and a struggle for equal representation and opportunity. The Madheshis are demanding nothing much but their rights of human worth and dignity, which they think can fairly be achieved by the right to self-determination; proportional representation in the constituent assembly; restructuring the constituencies based on population; federal system with regional autonomy; and elimination of all forms of discrimination practiced by the state mechanism.
Thanks to the unity expressed by Nepalese around the globe, and thanks to the international support, the movement has been successful in maintaining its momentum- sparking wide public attention and concerns about the lack of respect for equality of human beings and the violation of human rights through the plethora of racially discriminatory policies and practices.
The domestic front
Madheshis could not pin their faith in the Prime Minister’s first address to the nation on January 31st which was an attempt to mislead Madheshis by promising that the Constitution Assembly elections would address the Madheshi demands. On Feb 7, the Prime Minister had to address the nation again, in which he announced federal system of governance, increase electoral constituencies based on population growth and increase the number of seats for election to be held on the basis of proportional representation.
The interim constitution was amended twice within a few months of its promulgation, but failed to accommodate the demands raised by the Madheshis. In the same tune, the government made some headway by inviting Upendra Yadav led MJF for talks, but with the stipulated pre-conditions, the five rounds of talks remained inconclusive. Nevertheless, as it is said, “Rome was not built in a day”, thanks to the perseverance and firmness of the MJF, the sixth round of talk held with the government team led by Peace and Reconstruction Minister Ram Chandra Poudel on August 30 marked jubilation amongst the Madheshis.
The Government-MJF ultimately reached a 22-point agreement, which includes compensation to those killed during the Terai movement, guarantee of inclusion of Madheshis and other marginalized groups in the constituent assembly, autonomy to the states in the federal system to be designed by the constituent assembly, among others. The MJF similarly agreed to the constitutional provision of mixed electoral system for the upcoming constituent assembly election and announced withdrawal of all the agitation programs, stating that his party can now concentrate on its election campaign. The MJF has gained positive credibility in due course of the movement and has been elevated as a powerful political force in the country.
On the other front, the CPN (Maoist) has raised serious objection to the 22-point agreement between the Government and the MJF, stating that the agreement is a conspiracy inspired by the ‘divide and rule’ theory of the Government, and that it only added fuel to the Madhesh fire. Further, they have also called for the postponement of CA polls, and have threatened to launch a nationwide agitation if their demands, including declaration of Nepal a republic and removal of Army from the royal palace, are not met before the CA polls.
Security scenario is not that encouraging as more and more groups are emerging such as Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (Goit), JTMM (Jwala Singh), JTMM (Bishfot Singh), Madheshi Mukti Morcha, Madheshi Tiger, Terai Cobra Group, Madhesh Mukti Force, Terai Tiger, Terai Army, AASK Group, Tharu Mukti Morcha, Chure Bhawar Pradesh Ekta Samaj, Janajati Mahasangh, TM Don Group, Young Communist League etc., and many of them with militant characteristics are doing their best to strengthen their positions as new armed groups in Terai. In addition, the independent media in Terai faces hurdles in reporting, publication and distribution of newspapers. The situation is bad and getting worse.
The International front
Amid these, one thing that has remained most encouraging is the unity expressed by Madheshis around the globe. Following the movement, the media has been overwhelmed with news and views on Madheshi movement; there have been discussions and debates on the peaceful resolution of Madhesh issue; the Nepalese Diaspora have channelled possible resources, supports and encouragements to the victims and the survivors of the Janandolan III… in short, the number of Nepalese, including Madheshis and the concerned Pahadis who are working nationally and internationally, from micro to macro level, and through individual and organizational efforts trying to help Madheshis get their share of pie, is simply exemplary.
There has been intense pressure from the UN Human Rights Organizations and other International bodies on the government to play an active role in combating prejudice against the Madheshis and to hand over their rights. They have been impartial and have voiced out against illegal detentions, police brutalities and against biased reports even at times when most of the civil societies and Nepali Human Rights organizations had acted indifferent.
Nepal has already received support and words of assistance from India, United States, European Union, United Nations and other countries to conduct the election on time, in a free and fair manner and to get maximum, informed participation from the voters. They have emphasized that the legitimacy of the Nepal Government and the parties would be questioned if the election is deferred again.
The United Nations Electoral Expert Monitoring Team (EEMT) has emphasized on the need to improve the security situation in the country and has stressed on the need for cooperation among political parties to create adequate election climate and to expect free and fair election.
What Next?
It’s no use crying over the spilt milk. The present priority should be the formation of an inclusive and representative assembly to draft a right-based constitution as per the mandate of the movement. The government should mobilize the support of national and international communities including the United Nations, to ensure a timely, peaceful, free and fair CA election, the only available non-violent approach to help achieve lasting peace and consolidation of democracy in the country.
The electoral seats for CA election are 497, of which 240 would be elected directly, 240 by proportional election, and 17 would be nominated. Presuming that the election is held fairly under the mixed system, 164 Madheshi people would be represented including 38 women. For Madheshis, this could be an opportunity to collectively voice their opinions and democratically convince other CA members to address the issue of inclusion. Whereas, for the major political parties such as NC, UML, CPN-Maoists and NC (D), it might mean having to lose many seats in the CA election which they have been enjoying in the restored parliament.
The date for the CA election, which has already been postponed twice, is now fixed for 22 November. Nonetheless, owing to (i) the fear and insecurity of the political parties; (ii) the Maoists’ insistence of taking part in the election only if they are guaranteed with some safe seats, or manoeuvring to put off the November elections for CA till mid-April next year, or owing to (iii) the deteriorating law and order situation in the country, particularly the Terai region, there are doubts in the minds of many that if at all it would be possible to hold the election at the stipulated time and secondly, if the election could be held in a free and fair manner.
The ambiguity amongst people is legitimate in the absence of a favourable election climate when the election date is just a few weeks away. If the government is determined about the election date, which seems to be true until now, the ruling political parties need to issue a joint public statement expressing their unified commitment for conducting a timely election. They also have an important task of concentrating on issues like security, management of cantonments and spreading themselves out to the villages and towns to interact with people about the CA polls, encourage them to participate in the historic exercise and discuss with them about their election manifestos so that people have a perception of the state of things and are able to make informed decisions.
Furthermore, since CA election is going to be held for the first time in the history of Nepal, and the fact that there is very low level of understanding among the people about the mixed electoral system, the Election Commission, as part of its preparation for the CA polls, should also focus equally on making people aware and sensitized about the concept, process, and modalities of the electoral system and the technicality involved in the voting process.
One of the important requisites for holding a free, fair, peaceful and impartial election is a reliable, conducive and credible security arrangement. However, the irony is that the Maoist-affiliated Young Communist League (YCL), which is widely involved in terrorizing people, is likely to provide security for the CA election owing to tremendous pressure from Maoists. Besides the YCL, the government aims to recruit 80,000 temporary security personnel to create a secured environment for the election, while neglecting about the same number of well trained, equipped, experienced and readily available national army. The security arrangement seems to be in need of reassessment to ensure maximum voter participation who will feel free, secured and fearless to go to polling booths to cast their votes.
Last but not the least, the importance of peace journalism in the contemporary world, in particular at the time of internal conflict in Nepal need not be over-exaggerated. The Nepali media has been biased in tone, depiction and revelation while highlighting the unfolding events of the movement, many at times disregarding the Code of Conduct for Journalists. The reporters should understand that the decisions journalists make and the way conflicts are covered, or how they juxtapose and contextualize the conflict or what they choose to report or omit tends inescapably to contribute either towards the momentum of war or towards the momentum of peace. At this crucial juncture where Nepal is trying to get a face-lift, the media, being an important pillar of democracy, should play a crucial role in creating conducive atmosphere for polls by promoting favourable people’s opinion and enabling them to participate in the CA process in an informed and active way by communicating clear, comprehensive and accurate information to people in all parts of the country, including Himal, Pahad, and the Terai.
The Madhesi movement has reminded us of the need to take a critical look at dealing with the problem of intolerance and ethnic prejudice that has for centuries plagued the nation. The structural discrimination can have solution only through systemic reform guided by the principalities of equality, integration, representation and redistribution. Madheshis should find a meaningful participation in the Constituent Assembly and in all other aspects of peace-building and democratic transition. The ‘hegemonic control’ of the age-old ideology of domination of one caste, one language, one culture, one colour, one region, one religion… can and has to change to include and promote multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi socio-cultural Nepal.
(Presented at the Nepalese Association in Southeast America (NASeA) and Association of Nepalese in Midwest America (ANMA) Joint Convention, September 1 to 3, 2007, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.)
(The Author is a Social Worker (M.S.W.) and a Journalist for Human Rights and can be reached at binduc@gmail.com)

India welcomes Nepal's decision to meet demands of Madhesis

2007-09-28T14:57:00.000-07:00

India on Friday welcomed Nepal government's decision to meet demands of the Madhesi population and hoped that such issues would continue to be resolved through dialogue and negotiations.
New Delhi said it stands ready, as always, to extend its full support to the efforts of the government and people of Nepal in the ongoing process of democratic transition in which "significant milestones" have already been achieved.
"We welcome Prime Minister G P Koirala's address to the Nepalese nation on Wednesday, addressing the demands of the Madhesi population of the country and the fact that the address reflects a consensus among the eight political parties," External Affairs Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna said in New Delhi.
The reaction came after Koirala announced that all major political parties, including the Maoists, have unanimously agreed to declare the nation a federal state, meeting the key demand of the protesting Madhesis of Terai region.
In his address to the nation, Koirala said the government will immediately amend the Constitution to fulfill the genuine demands of the Terai people.
Terai has been witnessing widespread violent protests over the last few weeks over this demand.
"We are saddened by the loss of lives and violence in Terai in the last few weeks. It is our hope that the government and the friendly people of Nepal will continue to resolve such issues through dialogue and peaceful negotiations," Sarna said.

Madheshi Movement in Defense of Democracy

2007-09-08T21:53:00.001-07:00

Madheshi Movement in Defense of Democracy
and Madheshi Nationalism

Sarita GIRI

Madheshi movement has forced the politics of the country towards a new direction. The
dynamics generated by the movement have been so powerful that it has compelled the eight
parties to accept the need of amending the interim constitution within thirty-five days of its promulgation. The step itself is admittance of the fact that political negotiations concluded
earlier are flawed and inadequate. Earlier the dominant political elites chose to call it a regressive movement. Later on, they called it unforeseen and unexpected. But that does not
entail the truth.

The Madheshi movement is neither unexpected, nor unforeseen nor regressive. It is very much in defense of democracy and Madheshi nationalism. It is for the political acknowledgment of Madheshi nationalism within the widely divergent Nepali nationalism.The movement is as old as the democratic movement in this country. But till now the movement has been defined as an ethnic movement and the intrinsic nationalist aspirations of Madheshis have never been emphasized. But the way the movement is enduring against all odds, speaks loudly of the deeper meanings and emotional values that Madheshi people are willing to assign to the movement. It is due to Madheshi’s nationalist aspirations that an assurance of enhanced representation for Madhesh on the basis of population increase is not able to arrest or stop the movement.The seeds of the movement had been sown in the year 2008 when Tarai congress was formed within Nepali congress. The development at that stage made obvious the discriminatory and domineering tendencies of the hill elites towards Madheshi elites in apolitical party. The current madheshi movement has made obvious again the same domineering, exclusionary and subordinating attitudes prevailing against madheshis in almost all mainstream hill- centric political parties. Consequently, for the first time in the history of Nepal an autonomous Madheshi movement has emerged from within the people. Thus, a careful analysis of the movement is essential.
The movement is essentially a nationalist movement and it embodies deep cry for political acknowledgement of Madheshi’s identity and culture and political equality. It embodies goals of the creation of a new inclusive nation-state and democratization of politics. In the past, the process of democratization has always been thwarted by dominant hill elites to maintain their relentless political grip over the image and reality of the Nation. That in turn has made both democracy and nation building, failed projects in Nepal.
I intend to argue that the success of democracy and nation building will depend very much upon the successful conclusion of the ongoing Madheshi movement. I would also argue that the hill elites, of varying beliefs and ideology across the political spectrum have failed in institutionalizing democracy in the country so far not merely because of their exclusionary nationalist project but also because of other specific trends and tendencies associated with their origin, life circumstances and resulting psyche. I would propose that madheshi perspectives provide the best solution for crises of democracy and nation building in this country from political as well as economic angle. Adoption of federal principle for restructuring of the state is the first essential step in the direction.
Democracy as a political system can never survive for long if psychological, economic and cultural elements are not conducive and political structures not proper. The failure of democracy in Nepal so far is failure of hill perspective and hill psyche altogether. The hill people are mostly familiar with subsistence mode of life. They have never enough in the hills to support their lives and dreams. The culture of war making and migration is a consequence of that. They lack skills of entrepreneurship in lack of surplus in the hills. In lack of surplus, labour has not much meaning in the hills. Thus the labor in the hills gets its value either by migrating or by joining warfare. Consequently, the hill people lack basic aptitude and attributes for capitalist development by nature.
Their sense of nationalism is also disjointed because their attachment with their place of birth is emotional rather than both material and emotional. They understand that their space of origin would not provide them enough to fulfill common human aspirations. Colonization of the Madhesh and strangulation of madheshi identity became essential.Exclusionary nationalism became the foundation of Modern Nepali state. Even the democratic hill elites founded democracy on the foundation of Gorakhali nationalism. Before the advent of democracy, the designs of Shahas and Ranas for Nepali state have been imperialistic and feudalistic in nature. The political elites after 1990 have further built on that.People in Nepal have experience of very limited democracy so far even in democratic rule.Thus, the country suffers from three types of hegemonic traits: exclusionary nationalism,colonialism and feudalism. Consequently, seizure of power in Kathmandu and control of land in madhesh have remained indispensable for the emerging hill elites from 1950 onwards.While the seizure of state power provided the base for political nationalism, the colonization of Madhesh provided the economic base for reinforcing hill centric rule of the country. Thus from the very beginning, Madhesh has been placed at the service of the hills. And still democracy led by hill elites had not able to work. According to democratic hill elites, the king has remained the main obstacle for democracy. But the explanation is not adequate. In the new scenario, the leaders of different political parties and the king found themselves as rivals but the hill nationalism is the common interest that bound them together. Also at times, when rivalries among them for power become very intense, they do not lose sight of this very vital interest. The hill democratic elites have not abstained from making the king active and authoritarian when they have perceived a threat to hill nationalism or when things had gone beyond that control. They have done so on occasions in the past when rivalry among them for power had become very intense. Not surprisingly, power in the past has kept shuttling among the hill political elites including the king even in democracy. But the commonality of interest has kept the old network and old politics has remained intact throughout. Even today some parties are eager to keep the king as the lion in the cage who should be freed to wander and hunt for prey in most arbitrary and authoritarian manner, but should be brought back into the cage when mission is accomplished. The most ironical or interesting part of the design is that the lion will be made to blame for all the mischievous deeds without responsibility and will be caged and guarded by the same elites against any harm. “The king must live on despite of everything and anything” in the design of semi democratic hill elite.
Therefore, from 1950 onwards, Nepal has democratic version of old Bharadari politics rather
than genuine democratic politics where king also has been a key player but with tacit consent
of other elites.
Not much has seemingly changed after Jan Andolan II. The same dynamics of political game are still active. Nepali people are worst affected by such games played in the name of democracy as such political games thwarts the power to go to the people in real terms. And large section of hill elites do not intend the power to go to people in real terms as that would damage the prospects of maneuvering and brokerage in the realm of power. Thus the institution of monarchy is indispensable for them. They need monarchy to keep in place the conspiracy theories as that shield them from accepting responsibilities for wrongs done by themselves. The traditional hill elites would like to throw the King only when they would believe that they would be the ultimate winner in this country of diverse nationalities. The emerging madheshi and janajati movement for democratization and assorted Nepali nationalism could be such a threat to them. So one should not be surprised if the democratic exercise of constituent assembly election will be suspended in the face of emerging new political movements. Though the king and darbariyas will be blamed in the name of conspiracy theory but such an act will serve the common interest of all the hill elites and of those madheshis who are co opted by them. The madheshi movement has emerged as the most serious challenge to all traditional hegemonic interest. After the emergence of the modern centralized state, the hill elites, through the control of state power are virtually in control of natural resources such as forest and water resources. But they have badly failed in managing these resources for economic development. It is basically because of their “capture and seizure” mentality in the realm of governance. Because they fear that development of water resources and loosening of control over forest to local political units would empower madhesh and madheshi, the development of water resources is suspended. In this scenario, near absolute dependency upon foreign aid to run the state is a need of the Hill elites.

In case of land, they have faced resistance of Madheshis from the very beginning. The rise of communist movement led by hill elites is a response to that. Regarding landholding congress has not been much different from the communist parties. Madheshi jeemidars or landlords participated in the political revolution led by Nepali congress in 2007 because they wanted to get rid of Rana's autocratic control over land in Madhesh. It was essentially a bourgeoisie revolution as its success paved the way for having private property in land for the first time in Nepal. But the success of the revolution did not bring freedom and power to them. B. P. Koirala wanted to pursue radical land reform program along the principles of democratic socialism. His targeted was the land in madhesh and the madhesi elites. His whole idea was to institutionalize peasant economy in Madhesh as in the hills. Madheshi elites asked the question that was B.P. willing to have=the same egalitarian approach for sharing of political power? The answer was a big no. Thus, Tarai congress was formed within Nepali congress in form of protest. Land is the base of existence of Madhesis in Nepal. Because of their bonds with land, Madheshis are more nationalist than any other hill group. It is not only emotional as in case of hill people but also material as the land only has provided sustenance and nourishment to larger mass of madheshis of any class against all sorts of onslaught of the state. When B.P was keen on pursuing radical land reform, the madheshi elites were disgruntled. King Mahendra and his allies understood the discontent and capitalized on that. The royal coup was by and large unopposed in the Madhesh. But after imposing his absolute rule he initiated land reform programs that would essentially weaken the madheshi elites. King Mahendra himself was not sympathetic to the Madheshi elites, as he had become aware of rebellion potential of madheshi elites in 2007 revolution. His inner attitudes towards them were essentially not different from democratic hill elites. He used land reform and citizenship act to weaken and alienated all madheshis. Most of the land seized by the state has either been given to hill migrants known as sukumbasi or are with the state.Madheshi landless people were not identified by the state. The dual ownership ofland wasanother severe blow to the productive capacity of agricultural land. Because ofdualownership, people stopped investing in agriculture. Land disputes arose dramatically. The
citizenship acts barred huge number of Madheshi peasants and tenants to claim for land rights in the new regime. Over period of time agricultural farms in Madhesh gradually turned out to be a means of subsistence rather than surplus product A country which has been food exporter earlier became a net importer. Population as well aspoverty increased because of wrong land management policies. Land reform program in the past has served no other purposes (such as industrialization or economic growth) than weakening the Madheshis and strangulating Madhesh.
The worsening economic situation within the country and waves of democracy in Eastern Europe towards 1990 brought political awakening in favor of democracy in the country in 1990. As a consequence of 1990 movement Communists (led by hill elites) emerged as a formidable new force. Revolutionary land reform agenda has been now their political agenda. But it would be naive to say that it was no more the agenda of Nepali Congress.Prime -minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has agreed to reduce the ceiling to 4 to 5 bighas from 11 bighas in Madhesh. It was due to the movement led by Nepal Sadbhawana Party and supported by madheshi elites across parties that the government dropped its agenda.
And now in 2007 they are the Maoists who have designed to march ahead with their agenda of revolutionary land reform. It has explicitly been mentioned in the Interim Constitution. This time too, Nepal Sadbhawan Party (Anandi Devi) has written note of dissent against the revolutionary land reform program. The aim behind such an agenda is obviously to enhance the control of hill centric state over madhesh. This is the context against, which the current Madheshi movement and its demands of republicanism, autonomy, self-determination and federalism should be understood. It is false to call the present resistance movement merely as regressive movement. Madhesi movement has brought forth some of the essential traits of Madhesh.
Madhesh because of its land, culture, agricultural economy, and entrepreneurship skills has been able to contain all forms of extremism, be it that of the king or of any political ideology. And that is something that provides the best possibilities for success of democracy in Nepal, in case of madhesh is integrated on the basis of equality in the New Nepal. But the prior condition would be that madheshi are given political power on equal basis.
The concept of class struggle or class conflict will not have much appeal for madheshisas long as their nationality is not acknowledged within the new political framework. Madheshis participated in large number in the Maosit movemet not merely due to class appeal but because the movement gave them new hope for emancipation and equality. The large chunk of cadres and leaders of Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha and Madheshi Janadhikar Forum have had linkages with Nepal Communist Party (Maoist). Madheshis are not willing to surrender their national struggle for the sake of class interest. It is the call of nationalism which is bringing all madheshis together. A correct approach towards the movement will keep the country intact and pave way for economic development and sustainable democracy. A wrong or biased approach might lead the country towards bloody ethnic conflict.

Madheshi Movement in Defense of Democracy

2007-09-08T21:53:00.000-07:00

Madheshi Movement in Defense of Democracy
and Madheshi Nationalism

Sarita GIRI

Madheshi movement has forced the politics of the country towards a new direction. The
dynamics generated by the movement have been so powerful that it has compelled the eight
parties to accept the need of amending the interim constitution within thirty-five days of its
promulgation. The step itself is admittance of the fact that political negotiations concluded
earlier are flawed and inadequate. Earlier the dominant political elites chose to call it a
regressive movement. Later on, they called it unforeseen and unexpected. But that does not
entail the truth.

The Madheshi movement is neither unexpected, nor unforeseen nor regressive. It is very
much in defense of democracy and Madheshi nationalism. It is for the political
acknowledgment of Madheshi nationalism within the widely divergent Nepali nationalism.
The movement is as old as the democratic movement in this country. But till now the
movement has been defined as an ethnic movement and the intrinsic nationalist aspirations
of Madheshis have never been emphasized. But the way the movement is enduring against
all odds, speaks loudly of the deeper meanings and emotional values that Madheshi people
are willing to assign to the movement. It is due to Madheshi’s nationalist aspirations that an
assurance of enhanced representation for Madhesh on the basis of population increase is
not able to arrest or stop the movement.
The seeds of the movement had been sown in the year 2008 when Tarai congress was
formed within Nepali congress. The development at that stage made obvious the
discriminatory and domineering tendencies of the hill elites towards Madheshi elites in
apolitical party. The current madheshi movement has made obvious again the same
domineering, exclusionary and subordinating attitudes prevailing against madheshis in
almost all mainstream hill- centric political parties. Consequently, for the first time in the
history of Nepal an autonomous Madheshi movement has emerged from within the people.
Thus, a careful analysis of the movement is essential.
The movement is essentially a nationalist movement and it embodies deep cry for political
acknowledgement of Madheshi’s identity and culture and political equality. It embodies goals
of the creation of a new inclusive nation-state and democratization of politics. In the past, the
process of democratization has always been thwarted by dominant hill elites to maintain their
relentless political grip over the image and reality of the Nation. That in turn has made both
democracy and nation building, failed projects in Nepal.
I intend to argue that the success of democracy and nation building will depend very much
upon the successful conclusion of the ongoing Madheshi movement. I would also argue that
the hill elites, of varying beliefs and ideology across the political spectrum have failed in
institutionalizing democracy in the country so far not merely because of their exclusionary
nationalist project but also because of other specific trends and tendencies associated with
their origin, life circumstances and resulting psyche. I would propose that madheshi
perspectives provide the best solution for crises of democracy and nation building in this
country from political as well as economic angle. Adoption of federal principle for
restructuring of the state is the first essential step in the direction.
Democracy as a political system can never survive for long if psychological, economic and
cultural elements are not conducive and political structures not proper. The failure of
democracy in Nepal so far is failure of hill perspective and hill psyche altogether. The hill
people are mostly familiar with subsistence mode of life. They have never enough in the hills
to support their lives and dreams. The culture of war making and migration is a consequence
of that. They lack skills of entrepreneurship in lack of surplus in the hills. In lack of surplus,
labour has not much meaning in the hills. Thus the labor in the hills gets its value either by
migrating or by joining warfare. Consequently, the hill people lack basic aptitude and
attributes for capitalist development by nature.
Their sense of nationalism is also disjointed because their attachment with their place of birth
is emotional rather than both material and emotional. They understand that their space of
origin would not provide them enough to fulfill common human aspirations.
Colonization of the Madhesh and strangulation of madheshi identity became essential.
Exclusionary nationalism became the foundation of Modern Nepali state. Even the
democratic hill elites founded democracy on the foundation of Gorakhali nationalism. Before
the advent of democracy, the designs of Shahas and Ranas for Nepali state have been
imperialistic and feudalistic in nature. The political elites after 1990 have further built on that.
People in Nepal have experience of very limited democracy so far even in democratic rule.
Thus, the country suffers from three types of hegemonic traits: exclusionary nationalism,
colonialism and feudalism. Consequently, seizure of power in Kathmandu and control of land
in madhesh have remained indispensable for the emerging hill elites from 1950 onwards.
While the seizure of state power provided the base for political nationalism, the colonization
of Madhesh provided the economic base for reinforcing hill centric rule of the country. Thus
from the very beginning, Madhesh has been placed at the service of the hills. And still
democracy led by hill elites had not able to work. According to democratic hill elites, the king
has remained the main obstacle for democracy. But the explanation is not adequate. In the
new scenario, the leaders of different political parties and the king found themselves as rivals
but the hill nationalism is the common interest that bound them together. Also at times, when
rivalries among them for power become very intense, they do not lose sight of this very vital
interest. The hill democratic elites have not abstained from making the king active and
authoritarian when they have perceived a threat to hill nationalism or when things had gone
beyond that control. They have done so on occasions in the past when rivalry among them
for power had become very intense. Not surprisingly, power in the past has kept shuttling
among the hill political elites including the king even in democracy. But the commonality of
interest has kept the old network and old politics has remained intact throughout. Even today
some parties are eager to keep the king as the lion in the cage who should be freed to
wander and hunt for prey in most arbitrary and authoritarian manner, but should be brought
back into the cage when mission is accomplished. The most ironical or interesting part of the
design is that the lion will be made to blame for all the mischievous deeds without
responsibility and will be caged and guarded by the same elites against any harm. “The king
must live on despite of everything and anything” in the design of semi democratic hill elite.
Therefore, from 1950 onwards, Nepal has democratic version of old Bharadari politics rather
than genuine democratic politics where king also has been a key player but with tacit consent
of other elites.
Not much has seemingly changed after Jan Andolan II. The same dynamics of political game
are still active. Nepali people are worst affected by such games played in the name of
democracy as such political games thwarts the power to go to the people in real terms. And
large section of hill elites do not intend the power to go to people in real terms as that would
damage the prospects of maneuvering and brokerage in the realm of power. Thus the
institution of monarchy is indispensable for them. They need monarchy to keep in place the
conspiracy theories as that shield them from accepting responsibilities for wrongs done by
themselves. The traditional hill elites would like to throw the King only when they would
believe that they would be the ultimate winner in this country of diverse nationalities.
The emerging madheshi and janajati movement for democratization and assorted Nepali
nationalism could be such a threat to them. So one should not be surprised if the democratic
exercise of constituent assembly election will be suspended in the face of emerging new
political movements. Though the king and darbariyas will be blamed in the name of
conspiracy theory but such an act will serve the common interest of all the hill elites and of
those madheshis who are co opted by them. The madheshi movement has emerged as the
most serious challenge to all traditional hegemonic interest. After the emergence of the
modern centralized state, the hill elites, through the control of state power are virtually in
control of natural resources such as forest and water resources. But they have badly failed in
managing these resources for economic development. It is basically because of their
“capture and seizure” mentality in the realm of governance. Because they fear that
development of water resources and loosening of control over forest to local political units
would empower madhesh and madheshi, the development of water resources is suspended.
In this scenario, near absolute dependency upon foreign aid to run the state is a need of the
Hill elites.
In case of land, they have faced resistance of Madheshis from the very beginning. The rise of
communist movement led by hill elites is a response to that. Regarding landholding congress
has not been much different from the communist parties. Madheshi jeemidars or landlords
participated in the political revolution led by Nepali congress in 2007 because they wanted to
get rid of Rana's autocratic control over land in Madhesh. It was essentially a bourgeoisie
revolution as its success paved the way for having private property in land for the first time in
Nepal. But the success of the revolution did not bring freedom and power to them. B. P.
Koirala wanted to pursue radical land reform program along the principles of democratic
socialism. His targeted was the land in madhesh and the madhesi elites. His whole idea was
to institutionalize peasant economy in Madhesh as in the hills. Madheshi elites asked the
question that was B.P. willing to have=the same egalitarian approach for sharing of political
power? The answer was a big no. Thus, Tarai congress was formed within Nepali congress
in form of protest. Land is the base of existence of Madhesis in Nepal. Because of their
bonds with land, Madheshis are more nationalist than any other hill group. It is not only
emotional as in case of hill people but also material as the land only has provided
sustenance and nourishment to larger mass of madheshis of any class against all sorts of
onslaught of the state. When B.P was keen on pursuing radical land reform, the madheshi
elites were disgruntled. King Mahendra and his allies understood the discontent and
capitalized on that. The royal coup was by and large unopposed in the Madhesh. But after
imposing his absolute rule he initiated land reform programs that would essentially weaken
the madheshi elites. King Mahendra himself was not sympathetic to the Madheshi elites, as
he had become aware of rebellion potential of madheshi elites in 2007 revolution. His inner
attitudes towards them were essentially not different from democratic hill elites. He used land
reform and citizenship act to weaken and alienated all madheshis. Most of the land seized by
the state has either been given to hill migrants known as sukumbasi or are with the state.
Madheshi landless people were not identified by the state. The dual ownership ofland was
another severe blow to the productive capacity of agricultural land. Because ofdual
ownership, people stopped investing in agriculture. Land disputes arose dramatically. The
citizenship acts barred huge number of Madheshi peasants and tenants to claim for land
rights in the new regime. Over period of time agricultural farms in Madhesh gradually turned
out to be a means of subsistence rather than surplus product
A country which has been food exporter earlier became a net importer. Population as well as
poverty increased because of wrong land management policies. Land reform program in the
past has served no other purposes (such as industrialization or economic growth) than
weakening the Madheshis and strangulating Madhesh.
The worsening economic situation within the country and waves of democracy in Eastern
Europe towards 1990 brought political awakening in favor of democracy in the country in
1990. As a consequence of 1990 movement Communists (led by hill elites) emerged as a
formidable new force. Revolutionary land reform agenda has been now their political agenda.
But it would be naive to say that it was no more the agenda of Nepali Congress.Prime -
minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has agreed to reduce the ceiling to 4 to 5 bighas from 11
bighas in Madhesh. It was due to the movement led by Nepal Sadbhawana Party and
supported by madheshi elites across parties that the government dropped its agenda.
And now in 2007 they are the Maoists who have designed to march ahead with their agenda
of revolutionary land reform. It has explicitly been mentioned in the Interim Constitution. This
time too, Nepal Sadbhawan Party (Anandi Devi) has written note of dissent against the
revolutionary land reform program. The aim behind such an agenda is obviously to enhance
the control of hill centric state over madhesh. This is the context against, which the current
Madheshi movement and its demands of republicanism, autonomy, self-determination and
federalism should be understood. It is false to call the present resistance movement merely
as regressive movement. Madhesi movement has brought forth some of the essential traits
of Madhesh.
Madhesh because of its land, culture, agricultural economy, and entrepreneurship skills has
been able to contain all forms of extremism, be it that of the king or of any political ideology.
And that is something that provides the best possibilities for success of democracy in Nepal,
in case of madhesh is integrated on the basis of equality in the New Nepal. But the prior
condition would be that madheshi are given political power on equal basis.
The concept of class struggle or class conflict will not have much appeal for madheshisas
long as their nationality is not acknowledged within the new political framework. Madheshis
participated in large number in the Maosit movemet not merely due to class appeal but
because the movement gave them new hope for emancipation and equality. The large chunk
of cadres and leaders of Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha and Madheshi Janadhikar Forum
have had linkages with Nepal Communist Party (Maoist). Madheshis are not willing to
surrender their national struggle for the sake of class interest. It is the call of nationalism
which is bringing all madheshis together. A correct approach towards the movement will
keep the country intact and pave way for economic development and sustainable
democracy. A wrong or biased approach might lead the country towards bloody ethnic
conflict.

The Madhesi Issue in Nepal

2007-09-03T14:58:00.000-07:00

--K Yhome
The recent turmoil in Madhes (or the Terai plains bordering India) was a stark reflection of the challenges confronting the restructuring process in Nepal. It was also a reminder to the current interim government that the problems in Nepal are not yet over and that there are serious socio-economic and political issues that need to be addressed.
The Madhesi uprising in January was marked by bans, protests, and violence in some major areas of Nepal’s terai resulting in the death of over thirty people. This has in several ways changed the interim government’s approach to and the management of Nepal’s political restructuring and peace process. It has also raised many questions. Why was the violence so potent? Who was responsible? How will it affect the restructuring process? And so on.
These questions are palpable in the context of Nepal’s fragile political restructuring process that is underway. While exploring answers to these questions, however, there is a proclivity to misinterpret the Madhesi issue. Some (mis)conceptions that have come about in the wake of the uprising are not only erroneous but also dangerous.
The Madhesi issue is not a communal issue. It is not one of Madhesis (”people of the plains”) vs Pahadis (”people of the hills”) as some tend to view it. This misinterpretation of the Madhesi issue commits a serious mistake by making it a community-based issue that could have grave implications for the country. To view the issue as a problem between Madhesis and Pahadis reveals a poor understanding of Nepal’s complex society.
While one may have some facts supporting such an argument, it fails to explain the real issue of the Madhesis. There were also reports that certain “forces” (implicating the “Royal agents” and the “right wing” elements in India) of allegedly instigating the Terai riots to create trouble for the interim government in a bid to salvage the “monarchy” in Nepal. Hard evidence to ascertain the involvement of these forces is difficult to unearth, but many in Nepal point fingers at these forces as being responsible for the violence.
Whatever the motive of those behind the terai violence, many ordinary Madhesis have lost their lives. Madhesis out on the streets at the risk of their lives were there for a different reason. For them it was a fight for a genuine object - the Madhesi cause.
The Madhesi issue did not suddenly emerge in January 2007. A long history of a sense of discrimination is at the root of the Madhesi struggle. To explain the recent uprising it is necessary to understand the issue from the correct perspective. The issue relates to a movement against the state’s “discriminatory” politics. It is a fight for recognition of rights - political, cultural as well as economic - and a struggle for equal representation and opportunity. This forms the core ingredient of the Madhesi issue.
For over five decades, the Madhesis have been waging a movement against “discriminatory” laws of citizenship and language, as well as recruitment policies to the armed forces and bureaucracy. The struggle can be traced back to 1951 when a party called the Nepal Terai Congress was formed under the leadership of Vedananda Jha to advocate “regional autonomy” for the Madhesis.
Again, in 1983, Gajendra Narayan Singh established an organization called Nepal Sadbhavana Council with the aim of combat discrimination against the Madhesis. In the post-1990 era, the organization turned into a political party called Nepal Sadbhavana Party and in the general elections of 1991, 1994, and 1999, the party’s manifesto called for a federal system of government, a liberal policy on citizenship and a separate Madhesi battalion in the army.
Despite the long struggle, however, the Madhesi issue has not been resolved partly on account of Nepal’s five-decade history of being under autocratic rule - 1960 to 1990 and 2002 to 2006 - where political activities were restricted. Even during the short-lived democratic experiments in Nepal - 1950 to 1960 and 1991 to 2002 - the issue remained unresolved because of the lack of political will on the part of the successive governments.
The failure of the movement is also partly because of the internal divisions within the Madhesi leadership. The Sadbhavana Party has seen frequent infighting and splits that have further weakened the movement. It is in this context and in light of the predicaments mentioned that the Madhesi uprising of January needs to be understood.
The resolution of the Madhesi issue depends on how the interim parliament drafts a new constitution taking into account the various socio-political issues of the country. Should it fail to ensure the aspirations of the people, the recent outburst of violence in the terai will only be an indication of more chaos to follow.
Source::http://www.ipcs.org/whatsNewArticle11.jsp?action=showView&kValue=2243&status=article&mod=b

Burning Madhesh, Bleeding Madhesis- Govinda Neupane

2007-09-03T14:08:00.000-07:00

Burning Madhesh, Bleeding Madhesis
= What happened to Madhesis? Why they are bleeding? Why they are on the streets, particularly on the central and eastern part of Madhesh? Is this a new phenomenon or is it the continuation of something that has its roots in the past? Historically, Madhesh had been suffering from the oppression and suppression as an internal colony of the Khas rulers. The Gorkha Khas kings and their entire Khas brethren treated Madhesh as their private property. By extension, the feudal lords among the MongolKirats and Newars also sided with the Khas ruling clique. Hence, the Madheshis had been suffering for centuries under the brutal rule of the Khas kings.
Many politicians from non-Madhesi nationalities have been busy projecting the present movement called by Madhesi Janadhikar Forum as part of the exercise orchestrated by the regressive forces to create disturbances to block the election of the constituent assembly. There could be infiltration. Therefore, this could be true as a small part of the truth. But, the greater part of the truth is that the movement is for politico-economic equality, social justice and durable peace. Unfortunately, most of the politicians from the mainstream are queuing up to defame the Madhesi movement. Either they don’t understand the social composition, or they are politically blind. They are ready to go any far to quell ‘the destruction and anarchy’. It sounds that even they are ready to travel to the extent of breaking the country into pieces. The new leaders of the regime in Kathmandu have started to behave as new Khas feudal lords and are issuing similar decrees as once the infamous king was busy issuing. This all reveals the prejudiced views of the Khas leaders, Khas-dominated organizations, and their administration in Kathmandu.
The primary thrust of the Madhesi movement is simple to understand. They want to get rid of the past political arrangements based on the principles and practices of internal colonization. Now, they want Madhesi autonomous governance mechanism, federal system and proportional representation including in the election of the constituent assembly. Simply, they are asking for equitable power sharing. The Khas political masters and their so-called civil society brethren argue that these problems should be addressed by the constituent assembly. The simple logic here is that “we will get elected first through the election of non-proportional system based on existing constituencies. Submit your demands to us afterward.” This is one of the most non-inclusive logic. This is nothing other than a ploy to continue the dominance of the Khas masters. Not only for the Madhesis, but also this logic could deny representation for other non-Khas nationalities including MangolKirat (Janajati), Dalit and Newar. Therefore, the Kirats in the east have started their agitation against the Khas arrangements. The other nationalities and regions could follow the paths shown by them.
The king is gone, but the king is breathing. This is the mystery of the Khas arrangement. The election of the constituent assembly will be held to design an inclusive system, but the Khas supremacy will be maintained. This is another mystery of the Khas arrangement. But, after the impact of the mass awakening through out the period of the Maoist movement, the oppressed nationalities have developed critical understanding of the socio-political and economic realities. It is too difficult to deceive them, now.
As a person of Khas origin myself, I argue that the Khas leaders, the parties and organizations dominated by Khas personalities and the Khas administration should start to understand the reality. The days of Khas domination, subjugation and oppression are over. Now, let’s not be the part of problem; let’s not be the party to disintegrate the country and let’s not pretend that we and only we are Nepal. Let’s contribute to build a new multicultural Nepal. The building process is not so complex. Let’s agree to have a federal structure with autonomy to nationalities. Let’s agree to have proportional representation and for this purpose let’s have new demarcation of constituencies based upon the sole criteria of the size of the population. Let’s repent for all the injustices we Khas have committed and our ancestors had committed. Let’s offer our profound apology to all oppressed nationalities – be they Madhesi, Mangolkirat (janajati), Dalit or Newar and begin a healing process so as to build a new Nepal. If we will not accept the power sharing arrangement through the introduction of multiculturalism and federalism now, then the future political as well as social courses may create new arrangements that certainly would finish Khas supremacy through a communal and/or nationalities’ upsurge. In that case, we the most stupid and stubborn Khasas should have to pay a heavy price. According to a Chinese saying “Hundred years ago it was the best time to begin and today is the next best time to start”. Now, let’s start the healing process. Simply but definitely the new rulers in Kathmandu should stop to bleed the Madheshis; the Madhesis certainly would stop to burn Madhesh, their own beloved homeland.
source::http://parivartannepal.blogspot.com/2007/01/

NEPAL'S Madhesi Movement: Against Khas Chauvinism?

2007-09-03T13:49:00.000-07:00

"We Madhesis joined CPN (Maoist) believing that CPN (Maoist) was a scientific Marxist party. Many of us worked honestly as per the party's policy and direction. However, we found discrimination inside the party. We used to send People’s Liberation Army of our areas, but they would be bothered unnecessarily. There was discrimination from Pahade to Madhesi. We were unsatisfied with such domination. We said that since we are Madhesi fighters, Madhesi shall be an in-charge and a Madhesi regiment shall be established following party’s vision for Madhes. As some responsible Maoists termed it was dangerous to establish a Madhesi regiment separately in Tarai area, we left the party and are fighting for the liberation of Madhesis against the discrimination and exploitation of Pahade led executive, judiciary, legislature and bureaucracy."
Anonymous ex-Maoist leader
Madhes (Tarai) is derived from Sanskrit Madhya Desh (Middle Land) ranging from southern foothills of Himalaya to Northern foothills of Bindhaychal Mountains that covers Nepal and north-central India. The present Madhes, the southern plains of Nepal, covers 34,109 sq. km. that accounts 23% of topography and comprises 48.4% population in 20 districts, including all castes, ethnicities and Dalits migrated from hills and mountains along with Madhesis. The porous border with India runs two-thirds of the total 1,753 km, to the east, west and south. When Prithvi Narayan Shah started his concurs the southern plains were annexed, after the Sugauli Treaty with the British on 1816, the present borders were sketched and the land in western part including Banke and Bardiya were gifted by the British on 1857 after Nepal sent army to quench Sepoy mutiny in India.
Nepal is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious country. People of Nepal are socio-cultural portioned along the lines of caste (jat descent) and Janajati (ethnicities and indigenous) in both hill/mountains and Madhes or Tarai regions. The deep cultural pluralism of Nepal consists of at least 61 castes, sub-castes, ethnic and sub-ethnic groups[1]. There are about 103 socio-cultural groups - caste, ethnic and religion population, 90 languages and 10 religious communities[2]. Professor Tej Ratna Kanskar advocates for 141 linguistic groups, but, Armit Yonjan, language expert, differs with 112 groups[3]. The National Committee of Nationalities enlisted 59 distinct groups within Janajatis, and the Dalit Commission listed 28 cultural groups within Dalits, of which Madhesi Dalits consist of 18, Pahade 5 and Newar Dalits 5[4]. According to census 2001, 41 ethnicities/Janajati live in hills/mountains, whereas 18 in Madhes.
The 2001 census identified for group population 57.5%, Janajatis for 37.2%, religious minorities for 4.3%, and other groups for the remaining 1% of total population. Madhesi consist of different caste hierarchy: Brahun, Rajput, Janajati and Dalits; including Muslims. Tharu, Dhimal Satar, Rajbanshi and quite a few other minorities are the indigenous groups living in Tarai (See Annex 1).
Madhes is burning and bleeding. Abductions, killings, retaliations, extortions, torture are headlines in each day. Quite a few violent and non-violent/armed groups are existing and some are being born in Madhes. Right to life, liberty, security and dignity are being more and more endangered. Till now there are 22 armed and non-armed groups are working in eastern and central Madhes. They are: Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF), Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha (JTMM-Goit, Jwala Singh and Bisfot Singh factions), Janabadi Ganatantrik Mukti Morcha, Tarai Cobra (Naagraja), Defense Army, Tarai Army, National Army Nepal, Ulpha Group, Change Nepal, Nepal Gorkha Army and Madhesi Special Force. Similarly, others are: Madhesi Tigers, Taraibadi, Madhesi Mukti Force, Nepal Janatantrik Party, Madhesi Virus Cleaners, Madhes Mukti Tigers, Gorkha-Line Mukti Sena Samaj, CPN [Maoist (United Rebellion Front)], Far-Western Revolutionary Party and Chure-Bhawar Ekata Samaj (CBES).
The JTMM Goit and Jwala Singh factions are the most militant. Many see the Madhesi Movement as against Pahade, some see it as against Khas race, whereas some see it as a struggle for existence (because of their fight to finish amongst themselves). These groups active in nine – Morang, Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Dhanusa, Mahottari, Bara, Parsa and Rautahat – out of 20 districts, and are advancing as regionalist and secessionist forces in favor of Madhesis only. As a result, many Pahade officials/inhabitants of those districts have either left or gone underground. According to Kathmandu Post of August 5, 2007, more than 900 Pahade civil servants, including above 700 VDC secretaries and 200 staffs from Land Tax and Revenue Office and Inland Revenue Office, have vacated their offices. The Asian Development Bank has twice extended its huge projects for rural roads and livelihood, and consequently closed, due to lack of government employees in the districts.
After the peace accord, the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists (SPAM) focused on political agendas, paying little attention to a federalism, autonomy, inclusion, proportionate representation and republican Nepal[5]. Many of these are advancing with demands for regional secession and their numbers are mushrooming. The CBES, as a counter-Madhesi movement operated by Khas particularly Bahun and Chhetri is also active as a regional force along the northern side of East-West highway bordering Madhes. As a result, the mobility of Madhesi in hills and mountains and Pahade in Madhes has virtually less or stopped. On the main problem of the Madhes, Jwala Sing of the JTMM said, "There are three main issues in the Nepal-occupied Tarai. The first is the suppression by authoritarian Pahadi sectarian state and colonial exploitation of Madhes and Madhesi. Second is class difference in the Tarai and third is difference among different caste groups."
Major Demands of organizations involved in Madhesi Movement: independent state – federal democratic republic; proportionate electorate system; end of internal colonization; regional autonomous governance system that includes right to self-determination; rights on the land, natural resources and biological diversity of Madhes; end racial and regional discrimination; Pahade civil servants and security forces leave Madhes; and provide citizenship certificates to all Madhesis without discrimination, etc (Annex II and III). The trend of movement is inflammatory which is aiming to promote communal harmony.
Major demands of CBES: District headquarters to be established in Chure-Bhabar (inner-tarai between Shivalik and Mahabharat ranges); independent state; special security to Pahade-origin dwellers in Madhes; withdrawal of cases of its nine cadres under trial; compensation to families of their cadres killed; an inquiry into loss of property and lives by Madhesis in Chure-Bhavar, etc.
1. Identity theory
After the decade of unification land acquisition in Madhes by the government adopted direct and indirect methods. As settlement in Madhes through forced labor (direct) failed and Indians across the border were promoted to settle as tenants (indirectly)[6]. In 1956, the Nepal Malaria Eradication Organization was founded and announced that Malaria was eradicated in Nepal, which led to influx of Pahade. In 1920, the government initiated organized settlements in Rapti valley and Morang, the aim of which was to build settlements of Pahades in Madhes who were offered free facilities with minimum land tax. It was not successful, and in 1964, a Resettlement Company was established and resettlement programs were initiated based on Israeli model in Nawalparasi and Banke districts. Its main aim was Pahadization of Madhesis and control smuggling and dacoit along the border with India by settling ex-army families. Harald Skar states that Pahadization involves two streams: migrate modern Pahades to Madhes and establish old Pahade property owners politically[7]. A Task Force on Internal and International Migration was formed in 1983 headed by Dr. Harka Gurung, which led to influx of Pahades in Madhes and to Pahadization over Madhesi languages. As a result, in the census 1951, Pahades living in Madhes was mere 6%, whereas after 50 years, in census 2001it grew to 33%. The trend of Madhes movement seems to prioritize the return of the 33% Pahades to hills/mountains. Is this trend just? What affect will it have on the Pahades and how will they react?
Table 1: Central Committee Members of the Mainstream Political Parties in terms of Caste/Ethnicities
Categories
NC
UML
Maoist
NC-D
RPP
Total Population (%)

N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%

Bahun
17
46
36
56
17
46
12
35
4
13
12.7
Chhetri
3
8
6
9
8
22
10
30
13
42
17.3
Newar
3
8
4
6
3
8
2
6
2
7
5.5
Madhesi
4
11
4
6
1
3
3
8
6
19
21
Janajati*
5
13
8
12
5
13
4
12
5
16
31.7
Dalit *
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
3
0
0
12.8
Women
4
11
6
9
2
5
2
6
1
3
101
Total
37

65

37

34

31

50.04
* Pahade and Madhesi both Source: Informal/April and June 2007
In table 1, the number of Bahun and Chhetri, which is 30% in total population, are 54% in NC, 65% in UML and Maoist 68%. Newar, comprising 5.5% in total population is represented as 8% in NC, 6% in UML and 8% in Maoists. Madhesi, 21% of total population is 11% in NC, 6% UML, and 3% Maoist. In a nutshell, Madhesi, Janajatis and Dalits are not proportionately represented in the decision making level of any of the mainstream political parties.
Table 2: Caste/Ethnic Representation in Interim Parliament
Categories
NC
UML
Maoist
NC-D
RPP

N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Bahun
39
46
32
39
15
18
13
27
0
0
Chhetri
14
17
13
16
8
10
16
33
3
43
Newar
6
7
6
7
8
10
3
6
1
14
Madhesi
15
17
14
17
21
25
11
23
3
43
Janajati*
10
12
16
19
19
23
5
10
0
0
Dalit *
1
1
2
2
12
15
0
0
0
0
Total
85

83

83

48

7

Women
7
8
14
17
31
37
3
6
1
14

Source: Informal/April and June 2007
In table 2, Bahun and Chhetri comprise 63% in NC, 55% UML and 28% Maoist. Madhesi comprise 17% each in NC and UML, and 25% Maoist. Janajati consist of 12% in NC, 19% in UML and 23% Maoist, whereas Dalit 1% in NC, 2% in UML and 15% in Maoist. Women representation is 8% in NC, 17% in UML and 37% in Maoist. In an overall, Maoist is more close to population sizes. The issue of representation has been a major challenge in Nepal. The representation of Madhesi is very little (12%)[8] in legislative, executive, judiciary, civil service and NGOs, whereas their inclusion in Security Forces is negligible.
In an early May 2007, Tarai Tigers distributed the pamphlet in district headquarters of Bara and Parsa urging Khas including Janajati to leave tarai in one-month period. It stated that those who unwilling to leave their native land tarai during the said period will receive stern action by them. The highlights of the pamphlet are:
§ Pahades having grains of Madhes returned to their old habitat;
§ Pahade civil servants working in Madhes transferred to hills/mountains;
§ Pahade leaders go to hills/mountains for political activities and candidacy from Madhes shall not take;
§ Warn the police and administration not to mistreat the Madhesis, otherwise will face untimely death like the training officer of district education office;
§ Advocate Krishna Kafle sold his property in Madhes and fled to hills, others are preparing to sell and flee and all should do the same;
§ The Pahade Private School owners cheating Madhesis leave Madhes, you taught us a lot, but we do not need your education;
§ We are concerned of Madhesi children's lives, we will not be responsible if anything happens;
§ Tarai is ours, lands and grains are ours, so why we need Pahade rulers?
§ Why Pahade officers in Madhes?
§ There are 20 boarding schools in Bara of which five are run by Pahade, why there are no Pahade students in Madhesi run boarding schools?
§ Why the Municipality Mayors and MPs of Madhes are Pahades?
§ If Madhesis do not become aware on time, we will not be free from Pahade oppression, and our future generations will blame us for that.
JTMM–Goit killed Basu Dev Poudel, training officer of district education office, on charges of economic, cultural and political exploitation. It also demands Pahades to leave Madhes and called on May 25, 2007 all Pahade civil servants and security forces to leave Madhes with seven-day ultimatum.Altogether, different Madhesi groups have killed seven Pahade civil servants (from Engineer to Junior Technical Assistant) and countless have been abducted and tortured, along with extortions.
Fission and fusion amongst the Madhesi groups are frequent. The Sunsari in-charge of JTMM-Jwala Singh differing from its criminalization of politics left with 600 activists and joined JTMM-Goit, whereas Bisfot Singh broke away with eight other commanders from Goit faction and formed his own group and claims to have a company numbering 150 militants. He alleged that the Goit faction is engrossed in self-interest and an agent of Pahade in the name of liberation of Madhesi. Jaya Prakash Prasad Gupta, former NC leader and ex-minister, commented on MJF that it is not able to liberate Madhes due to the structure of the organization and serious drawbacks. Bijay Singh, former Central Vice-President, said that Upendra Yadav has deceived greatly the Madhesis, which is unforgivable. The Madhesi Student Front (MJF wing) President Keshab Jha said that they had formally dismantled their ties with MJF after the second Madhes Movement. Many Madhesis who do not believe with violence said that some leaders in the name of Madhesi are trying to grab an opportunity to popularize them.
In fact, the MJF have tried to create an impression of broader participation in the movement including Dalits, Janjatis, ethnicities, but in reality is completely different. None of Pahade living withTarai communities have participated in this movement due to their slogans of Madhes and Madhesis. Maithili communities such as Jha, Mishra, who are considered aborigino of the central tarai are spoken 13% of the population[9]. On the other hand, Tharus, Rajbhansis, Dhimals, Jhagars have not shown any interest to participate in this movement. In fact, Tharu community comprising 6.8% of the total population has informed publicly through press release, as it does not consider itself Madhesi community. None of the Tarai-based Dalit communities such as Mushar, Dom, Chamar, Harijan etc have found reasonable existence within armed and non-armed groups including MJF. The central committee members of the MJF belong to Yadav, Mahato, Mehta, Gupta, Kamath, Sah, and Das communities.
2. Resource theory
Madhes is known as the food-bowl of the country. Most of Industries locate here. There have been many debates and discussions based on resources originating from Madhes. Huge amount from the treasury has been spent for infrastructures of Madhes. The East-West Highway, Customs points, Dry Ports, Telecommunication, Education facilities, Hospitals, Irrigation canals, domestic airports etc. are in tarai. A large part of revenue is generated from Madhes. If there is problem in Madhes, the rest 77% hills/mountains, including Kathmandu, will be 'double landlocked'.
In June the Madhesi Tigers also reportedly distributed letters to Businessmen, civil servants and Medical Officers demanding amount varying from 100,000-500,000 Nepali Rupees and threatening those who failed to give the money with abduction and death. In middle of June, TJMM (Jwala Singh) issued letters to several I/NGOs in Eastern Region's Sunsari District, demanding varying amounts. The letters were reportedly followed by death threats to individual I/NGO workers who failed to comply with the demands. Many targeted of them are leave to Kathmandu, India and other safer place or some are made underground.
The major problem faced by Madhes is citizenship. The Citizenship Act 1964 and The Constitution of 1990 had played double standard role. According to which, people including Madhesi, had to offer land ownership deed. Birth certificate was not issued without the citizenship certificate of parents. Similarly, citizenship certificate was a must to get passport. But, land ownership could be obtained only with citizenship, which is a stringent criteria based on descendence. In the report of the 1994, the government accepted that 3.5 million people were deprived of citizenship certificates. But, after formation of the Interim Government, citizenship certificates were distributed at VDCs, which reduced the number. The major demand of Madhesi Movement is more or less fulfilled. The Interim Constitution has been revised twice within six months in order to address the issues raised by Madhesis. Pahades including few Madhesi elite have controlled all resources of the entire areas of the Madhes in general marginalize the Madhesi. Therefore, the armed and unarmed Madhesi movement is guided due to the huge discrepancy between rich and poor and exclusion of state including mainstream political parties policies their treatment of second class citizen to them.
3. Sanctuary
There has been a wide concern that most of the non-armed and armed groups are taking shelter in India and Indians are supporting the MJF. People are raising a lot of question of double standard, but it is obvious that all political parties such as NC, UML and other communist factions in the history of Nepal including the king Tribhuwan had used India as the shelters. When the Maoists started the People's War with many critics of India in their 40-point demands of nationality[10], they again chose India as a protective ground of shelter for their leadership. The 12-point understandings was also signed in New Delhi on the witness of India in between the seven party alliance (SPA) and the Maoists (SPAM) to toppling the Royal authoritarian regime at the end of 2005. Similarly, India is also providing protection and shelter to MJF and other armed d groups sometimes by people and sometimes by government level. Moreover, they have sympathy with them as they belong to similar socio-cultural patterns and behaviors. The recent visit in India of the president of the MJF, Upendra Yadav, and meting with the establishment forces in Delhi is not at all a new phenomenon in Nepal. Till date it has observed that all political roads of Nepal end in Delhi. However, the politicians are the champions to rebuke a lot to Indian government and politics in front of people to hide the fact of their closeness with India. It is to be sure that sometime they take shelter in government levels and sometime in regional government and people in general. Before Delhi agreement, the Maoists had been taking shelter in India with the cooperation of people and regional government.
Ragnunath Thakur of the Madhesi Janakrantikari Dal in 1960s went to India in the course to receive support and popularize their Madhesi movement from Indian government. He finally met the then President, Dr. Sharba Palli Radhakrishnan including Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and so forth[11]. He used to burn petrol on his forehead in front of Indian parliament. When asked what he was doing, Thakur replied, “Justice is lost or vanished from India and Nepal. I am in search of it with the help of petromax in the broad daylight”. While struggling for Madhesis, he died on June 21, 1981 with rulers’ conspiracy[12].
In the course of the Movement launched by Janadhikar Forum since 2007, Indian Political and Social groups have had opened shelters for displaced people in Jogbani, Raksaul, and Sitamadi (Indian towns bordering Biratnagar, Birgunj and Sarlahi). Wounded militants were also found to be treated there. Member of Parliament and of members of Legislative Assemblies participated in protest rallies on suppression of the Movement. Indians supported the Madhesi movement with money and muscle.
4. Challenge theory
After Democratic Movement in 1950s, Nepal Tarai Congress (NTC) proposed for Regional Autonomy. The NTC led by Bedananda Jha raised issues relating to recognition of Hindi as State language language, autonomous Tarai State, entry of Madhesis in Nepal's civil service, etc. But, Nepali was the medium of instruction in schools in Madhes. The Tarai Congress launched Save Hindi campaign, in which NC, Communist Party of Nepal, Rastriya Praja Parishad also supported the campaign. Violent clashes occurred between cadres of Save Hindi campaign and Nepali Pracharini Sabha (Nepali Campaign). In the First General Elections in 1959, NTC offered candidates to 21 constituencies and all were defeated, which led to collapse of the campaign. The then PM Bisheswar Prasad Koirala, who spent most of his time in Patna and Baneras (India), had said that the Movement for Hindi was appropriate. However, he forgot upon arriving at Kathmandu possibly seeing it as a threat for future. Until 1958, not only Indians but also Madhesis required getting permit to enter Kathmandu valley at Birgunj and they were checked at Chisapanigarhi, whereas Pahades did not require it. After Mahendra's coup, Nepali was recognized as national language.
After the first Popular Movement in 1950s, there were many movements for Madhes but the government was successful in suppressing those. Raghunath Thakur established Madhesi Liberation Movement, the demands were similar to Bedananda Jha, including appointment in security forces, bureaucracy and land ownership rights. Later, Ramji Mishra, Satyadev Mani Tripathi, Raghunath Ray Yadav and so on founded Madhesi People's Revolutionary Front in 1960s and initiated guerrilla warfare. In June 1963, Ramji was shot dead by police and in August 1967, Raghunath Ray Yadav was killed by military. Satyadev Mani Tripathi, the Chairperson, was also killed in August 1969 at Nautanawa, bordering India. Dr. Rabindra Thakur, who raised the question of Madhes during Panchayat regime, was murdered. After the Janandolan I in 1990, democracy was established in the country but Deb Narayan Yadav was also killed. Suraj Mahato, who was known as red star of Tarai, was also killed. In this way, the Pahadi government has killed the Madhesi fighters. The wondering part was that no media gave priority to this.
In 1983, Gajendra Narayan Singh established a Nepal Sadbhvana Council, which later changed into a political party in the name of Nepal Sadbhvana Party. It proposed: federal government structure, recognition of Hindi as major language for Tarai, reservation, and Madhesi battalion in the Nepal Army. But, rather than focused the voices and demands of Madhes, they prioritized power and politics. As the result, the desires of Madhes were neglected all the ways.
On June 23, MJF cadres reportedly damaged the CPN (Maoist) office in Parasi, Nawalparasi District. The incident took place after MJF had declared a bandh on June 22, during which some of its supporters smashed vehicles escorted by the police which were challenging the bandh. After the police arrested 11 persons in relation to the attack on the vehicles, the MJF demonstrated in Parasi to demand the release of the arrested members. On June 14, following the shooting of and serious injury to a VDC Secretary by TJMM (Jwala Singh), all the 49 VDC Secretaries of Sunsari District protested from June 14 to 25 demanding security security. On June 25, the protesting VDC Secretaries agreed to restart services only in the villages where the police posts were established. After the death of the Ram Hari Pokhrel, VDC Secretary of the Govindapur, Siraha three week ago and subsequently nation-wide protest done by VDC secretaries for a long time, the agreement reached between the government and association to work living in district headquarters if they fill insecure in the concerned VDC office. Thus, people do not deprive from the services of the VDCs, but also from local representatives again.
Chief of Tarai Cobra, Rajeswor Prasad Singh (Nagraja) got his both hand mutilated while preparing bombs. Police rescued and treated him at Nepal Medical College, Teaching Hospital, Jorpati, Kathmandu in a fake name. Mahanta Thakur, Science and Technology Minister (NC), Rajendra Mahato, Minister of Industry and Supplies (NSP), ex-minister Rameswar Ray Yadav (NSP) and NC MP Amaresh Kumar Singh visited him at the hospital. Similarly, the persons related an dclsoe to them are continually visiting him. The government also has not issued authoritative information of his arrest. Is this is not a game to save him? People are wondering if such people are behind the curtains of such groups in Madhes.
5. Conspiracy theory
There have been evidences of suspicious characters playing dubious roles in agitating the Madhes Movement. In the early February 2007, the arson to NC office in Sunsari was disclaimed by MJF, as it was campaigning then. Similarly, in Gaur incident, 30 Maoist cadres were killed in clashes between MJF and Maoists. Prabhu Sah, General Secretary of the Madhesi Rastriya Mukti Morcha (sister organization of Maoists) in a press release regarding the incident stated that Indian criminals were hired by MJF. The Medics and Police estimate that nine were burned alive to death and four women were raped prior to burning alive. All the Maoist cadres were of Pahade origin. Maoists blame MJF for the massacre, whereas MJF again alleged that it was the work of JTMM-Jwala Singh. Are not these plotted conspiracies? In the Lahan clash between MJF and Maoists, the security forces state that Indian professional criminals were seen with modern weapons. The UNOHCHR points to the local administration for the incidents. Some academics and conscious people indicate that the king is fishing in troubled waters by infiltrating violence in Madhes Movement.
On May 11, 2007, all the groups waging armed and unarmed movement in Madhes for "common slogan, common front and common leadership" organized a secret program at Patna, India. Ram Raja Prasad Singh was invited as the Chief Guest. The meeting proposed the following main agendas:
§ To protect Tarai, the motherland of Madhesis, identify throughout the globe as a separate country with facts and figures;
§ Advancement to liberate Tarai by preparing a 10-year plan uniting all the Madhesi forces;
§ Acquire foreign support from UN, China, Pakistan, US and especially India is pertinent for liberation of Madhes and build cordial relationship with them
§ To build cordial relation with Indian Embassy at Kathmandu for advancing the war in Tarai;
§ Understanding of aims and objectives of the different Madhesi groups fighting in Tarai
§ Develop strategy on common problem identification, common concept, common demand, common consensus and common tactics;
§ Establish Common National Madhesi Morcha or Sajha Tarai Mukti Morcha offices in each district to carry out political and administrative functions;
§ To make the media – press and radio – to realize their rights and duties to succeed Madhes Movement; and
§ Change the strategy from Tarai Bandh (strike) to Kathmandu Bandh;
Jwala Singh proposed Ram Raja Prasad Singh to lead all the Madhesi groups, but he declined and said that he is completely not in favor to Madhes as a separate state. He further said that secession of Madhes is not only wrong but is also not possible.
Most of the Indian politicians, civil servants, bureaucrats, diplomats, security force personnel, etc. conceive Nepal not as a foreign country and many say that it would take time for Madhesi people to get Madhes recognized as an independent state. A police officer in Lukhnow (India) said 'We are all one, Nepalese are our people.' Most of Indian politicians say that Nepal's politics should follow Indian model: possibly republican, most likely secular. Some politicians and bureaucrats supporting the Madhesi movement say that they know what Madhesis are going through in Nepal, because they had experienced the same treatment when they visited Nepal. An Indian former bureaucrat commented that China and the UN could not do anything without India and added that when we go ahead they cannot stop us. He further said that the UN was helping their cause right now and they need not worry. A Bihari (India) bureaucrat said that Madhesis are their own people (Indian origin) who settled in Nepal[13].
6. Ideology
As a few factions are fission from the CPN (Maoist), they have adopted the same ideology. However, great majority of the armed Madhesi groups are neither having ideology nor political means (objective) nor vision along with destination. The MJF, JTMM factions and others in Madhes Movement are not accepting the existence of one another and even furiously fighting amongst themselves. The fighting groups have no common aims, objectives and strategies Therefore; this movement seems not against Khas chauvinism rather showing off power to others who are similar. There is a lack of a regional/rational leadership. Even a small group seems to be huge when its members carry guns and bombs. The armed and unarmed movement categories into:
§ Type I: Those involved in Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology, seem to fight for class struggle, political economy and for scientific socialism. They seem to fight for class-interest, protection and liberation.
§ Type II: The splitters dissatisfied from Maoist class, region and culture; which are struggling to wipe out the Maoists from Madhes and extend control according their interests.
§ Type III: The forces that are against the CA elections fearing to loose are manipulating the whims of Madhesi people.
§ Type IV: The Indo-Nepal Hindu fundamentalists in cooperation with monarchy want to re-establish monarchy trying to fail the liberal democratic system.
§ Type V: The criminal forces that are capitalizing the unstable situation to fish in troubled waters for power, property and prestige, that is expanding the ranks of professional criminals.
All the forces wishing the decline of the communist ideology and organization are trying their best by providing overt or covert support the above-mentioned groups in order to create violence and disorder.
Conclusion
Some demands raised by them are genuine and some are quite unreasonable and illogical particularly on the issue of right to self-determination. Autonomy is today's high-sounding word to all but self-determination provides an autonomous geographical region as both a legal and political right on the course to segregate and declare itself as an independent state if it desires to do so. Geographically Madhes has plain and fertile land in terms of country's economy with maximum infrastructures concentrated in that area. In other words, the resources of the entire nation are in Tarai. If it separated, the rest of hill/mountain Nepal will be landlocked by double means: first by India and then by independent Tarai. If Madhes segregated, what about the demands of Kirant, Magarat, Tamuwan, Tharuwan, etc. and their economic activities as they are demanding for right to self-determination too.
Many Khas believed that Madhesi refers less or no Nepali inhabitants as the Parbatiya, which is known as Pahade, has always dominated to Madhesis. On the other, the Nepali culture is more inclined to Indian than Chinese/Tibetan is for instance Irish vs. English, Portugese vs. Spanish, and Ukrainian vs. Romanian. Indeed, the people migrating west Eurasia via Iranian plateau settled in Sindh-Ganges plains and some settled in the hills and mountains south of the Himalayas, both Indo-Aryans. Those settling in the former became Madhesi and those in the latter Khas/Pahade. There is no discrimination in the originality of both, but grew as there developed differences in topography, political, economic and cultural spheres.
The government has initiated and is continuing dialogue with some Madhesi and other groups. The Minister for Peace and Restructuration Ram Chandra Poudel is leading the government team, who himself is a Khas and his some influencial members consists of Khas too. The talks has not even taken the speed equal to a tortoise. The members in the talks team have no idea of the gravity of conflict nor able to analyze root causes and pros and cons. The more significant issue is that they lack proactiveness which is a prime tool of dialogue. There is no facilitator too. Poudel's role is significant, but devoid of qualities required for dialogue: commitment, sincerity, dedication, and capacity. He has not been able to break the chain of the feudo-elite circle. There is no much hope from this dialogue; except cosmetic change as a lollipop.
The talks is leading to a dead end; what has to be done? First of all, the proposals put forward by Maoists proportional electoral system and republican Nepal proclaimed prior to CA elections could solve the problem. Nevertheless, in the present circumstances there is no possibility for SPAM to proclaim such. Maoists could play a vital role to solve the present conflict utilizing their resources as a window opportunity. For that, Matrika Prasad Yadav (Maoist) should lead the team to talk with MJF. Secondly, if alliance is developed between these two, Upendra Yadav (MJF) could be an instrumental to talk with Goit, and other groups. If they could do alliance with NC to whom they fought for 10 years with 15,000 killings and damage of billions of properties, why not with MJF? The desire of the entire Nepali people today is the politics of fusion rather than fission and wants the new forces in the government rather than repeating the same feudo-elites. If these could happen, Indian government could support these forces including Maoist. Since, the attachment and concern of the Indian government over the Madhes Movement is more than other political parties in Nepal. Otherwise, imagination of CA would be an utopia because of security reasons. Ban Ki-Moon in his report on Nepal submitted to the Security Council on July 24, 20074, said, "The security situation in the Tarai has remained extremely disturbed and efforts to improve law and order have been halting at best."

=================
Contributed by Bishnu Pathak, PhD and Chitra Niraula
Assisted by Sabitra Pant, Shankar Poudyal and prem
[1] Pathak, Bishnu. 2006. Politics of People's War and Human Rights in Nepal. Kathmandu: Bimipa Publication. p.303
[2] Basnet, Lalit Bahadur. October 16, 2005. Restructuring State based on Caste/Ethnicity. In Kantipur. Kathmandu: Kantipur Publication
[3] Rai, Dhan Bahadur. October 27, 2006. Question on Indigenous List. In Kantipur. Kathmandu: Kantipur Publication.
[4] Pathak, Bishnu. 2006. Intra-Dalit Discrimination: Status of Tarai Dalits. Lancau. Nepal. Kathmandu
[5] Presently, the Madhesis are facing the problems of unity in Madhesi communities with high prevalence of untouchability; Nepali as national language; a Madhesi is considered as an Indian unless evidence of his citizenship is obtained; child marriage with high prevalence of dowry; gross domestic and structural gender based violence; huge discrepancy between rich and academia but the vast majority is poor and illiterate; exclusion, non participation, and so forth.
[6] Regmi, Mahesh Chandra. 1971. A Study in Nepali Economic History 1768-1867. New Delhi: Manjusri publishing House.
[7] The Myths of Origin the Janajati Movement, Local Traditions, Nationalism and Identities in Nepal. 1995. Contribution to Nepalese Studies. p. 31.
[8] Nepal's Troubled Tarai Region. International Crisis Group. July 2007.
[9] Bhojpuri by about 8% as mother language whereas Hindi is spoken merely by 0.47% (as mother tongue) as Census 2001 stated.
[10] Such as abrogate Nepal India Treaty 1950 and all other unequal agreements including Integrated Mahakali Treaty (IMT); regulate the open border between Nepal and India and prohibit entry of Indian number-plate vehicles; abrogate Gorkha recruitment; implement work permit and set up priority to Nepali workers; abolish monopoly[10] of foreign capital in Nepali economy; implement self-reliant national economy; and ban objectionable foreign media and control cultural pollution. Stop imperialist/hegemonic[10] encroachment through NGOs and INGOs.
[11] Acting Prime Minister Guljari lal Nanda , Prime Minister Morariji Desai, Agriculture Minister Jagjiban Ram , Home Minister Y.B. Chauhan, Industrial Development Minister Farukhdeen Ali Ahmed, Communication and Parliament Minister Ram Sughav Singh , Minerals and Mines Minister Channa Reddy, Transportation Minister Dr. B.K.R.B. Rao, Rail Minister C.N.Punatha, Law Minister Govinda Menon, Aviation Minister Dr. Karna Singh, Trade Minister Dinesh Singh, Information Minister K.K. Shah , Education Minister Dr. Trigul Sen, Planning Minister Ashok Mehata, Labour and resettlement minister Jai Sukhalal Hathi and other leaders like Dr.Ram Manohar Lohiya, Acharya J.B.Kripalani, MP Mrs. Sucheta Kripalani, Raghunath Thakur also meet with different newspapers editors, ambassadors and Chief Minister of Bihar Pandit Binodananda Jha, CM K.B. Shahaya and distributed his book about Madhesi people ((Goit, J.K.:http://madhesi.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/history-of-tarai-in-nepal).)
[12] Ibid
[13] Nepal's Troubled Tarai Region. Op. cit. pp.22-24

The Politics of Citizenship in Nepal

2006-09-03T03:54:00.000-07:00

The Politics of Citizenship in Nepal
August 6th, 2006
By Pramod Mishra , 08-Mar-02
The recent Citizenship Bill, passed by the ruling Nepali Congress, has already provoked strong criticism. The Bill’s stark contradiction stems from the abstention even by the Nepal Sadbhavana Party, for whom the issue of the rights of the Taraiwasi has been crucial for its raison d’être. The rest of the opposition parties, too, just walked out on the Bill when it came back to the Lower House after its rejection in the Upper House. Having passed the Bill by using its Whip, the Congress told the people of the Tarai that it and it alone is the true benefactor and representative of their interests. In short, it played politics, even though the initiative needs to be recognized. And the result of this politics is that the Bill might eventually fail to become law and spell trouble for Nepal’s unity.
The issue of people’s right within any political boundary, one of the most vexed issues in modern history, ought to have been handled better. The Jews and the Gypsies, even after centuries of habitation in Europe, remained deprived of the rights of citizenship. They could occupy only those marginal professions that others didn’t want; the state and its dominant population regularly subjected them to pogroms.
In the Third World, the biography of nation-states is mired in the messy politics of colonialism and the expediency that followed decolonization. Whatever one may think of King Prithvi’s successful efforts to unify Nepal, the Company government in India determined Nepal’s territorial boundary. We can only imagine the scenario if King Prithvi, Bahadur Shah and Bhimsen Thapa’s expansionist ambitions had not been later contained by the British in the treaty of Sugauli in 1816 and the Ganges were the natural border between India and Nepal. There would have been, for all justifiable reasons, another Uttarakhand movement in what is today Nepal. But the historical fact is that the treaty of Sugauli occurred and Jung Bahadur managed to form a strategic alliance with the British to let his domain alone, and Nepal came to survive in its present shape.
But the logic of nation-state formation in Europe on the basis of the identification of territory with one religion, one language, and a vague notion of one culture is flawed. And this European monster, given as a gift of colonialism to the rest of the world, has wreaked havoc in Africa, all over South Asia, let alone Europe itself. If one looks over South Asia, one can see the damage this flawed concept has done to almost all the countries there—India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, etc. And Nepal seems to be on its way to join its South Asian fraternity. In Nepal, one language, one literature, one ethnicity, one religion cannot be the grounds on which the state could safely be based for a trouble-free future.
There is one criterion, however, that could be successfully applied to justify Nepal’s independent, sovereign entity. And that is its historical justification. Because Nepal remained historically independent due to geographical difficulties, the strategies of the Rana rulers, and its own successful survival so far, it is and must always remain an independent nation-state with its own complex, evolving existence. And then, there are numerous other tangible benefits of staying a sovereign entity, besides a matter of pride and identity. But its geopolitical and geocultural reality also means that Nepal will always have to confront India in defining and imagining its nationhood and identity. Frankly, I do not know of any other nation-state that has such an open border with another country without any artificial, natural or ethnic barriers, with such open-border crossings from both sides.
But the history of sovereignty and biography of nation-states in the world have been dynamic historical processes, even though in political rhetoric the ideology may have been posed as timeless, immutable, and natural. Each dynamic nation-state has to evolve and redefine its image and reconceptualize its tenets in order to make smooth transition from one historical era to another. The world over, the tenure of nation-states has been uneven, but even within this unevenness, one can easily notice a few general trends. There are some nation-states, for example, that have possessed internal dialogic dynamic by virtue of the existence of institutions and cultures of open debate engaged in by their more informed civil society; they have been constantly in dialogue with themselves about their past, present and future identities and aspirations. As a result, they have successfully negotiated their rocky journey through history with periods of difficult transitions and crises, which the very nature of nation-state’s artificiality and constructedness occasions.
The dominance of nation-state as an organizing principle and reference point of thinking has more or less come to an end in a globalized world, even though the movement of capital and labor has not been the same across national boundaries. The Europeans, who fought numerous bloody wars with each other until recently, have once again taken the lead and formed the European Union, merging parts of their currencies, travel, citizenship, etc (even Germany has amended its citizenship laws), while retaining the basic structures of their sovereignty. Europe has formed this dual structure in order to face two rivals: the rise of the United States as a global power, on the one hand, and the potential prominence in the future of India, China, and other South East Asian countries. Where does Nepal, the yam between two boulders, stand in the company of nation-states in the post-Soviet world?
In Nepal, the issue of citizenship should not become for any one party to take credit for at the expense of others, nor a battering ram for one group against another. What are the benefits and losses of giving citizenship to people who have been living in Nepal for decades? Is the fear of many Nepalis justified that if citizenship laws are made logical, population from the populous neighboring states of Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar would overflow and overpower Nepal’s fundamental identity, marginalizing its own people? What would be the repercussions of this Bill in the rest of South Asia? What should be the right procedure for giving citizenship as a matter of people’s right rather than a humiliating experience? And who should be authorized to do so and why? All these and many such questions should have been debated in public before passing the Bill. A multiparty consensus ought to have been sought. At the end of the day, some parties might have opposed the Bill but the public at large would have been educated.
The fear of the loss of sovereignty needs to be thoroughly addressed in order to logically dispel such fears and defeat the vested interests of groups that have so far used ultra nationalist rhetoric, as in other places, to serve their narrow ethnic, caste, class and political ends. Because of the dominance of bureaucracy in Nepal’s public life, an imitation of the colonial rule in India and its model afterward, the people at the grassroots have little say in public matters. As a result, many who deserve citizenship have been deprived of it and others who have had easy access to towns and money have obtained it.
Not a single person who does not qualify for citizenship, whatever the agreed and debated qualification, should be given one just because the person has access to power, towns, and money. On the other hand, those who deserve, those who have lived in Nepal for several decades, serving and bringing together people of diverse ethnicities, even before Nepal’s national identity acquired its Panchayati contours, those for whom Nepal is not just another place to exploit by using its name but the only place, must get citizenship without delay and with all dignity and respect. Any delay is a violation of their human rights.
There are clear benefits of passing courageous, realistic, and unambiguous laws about citizenship in Nepal. The biggest achievement of this Bill would be the strengthening of the cohesiveness of the country in its multicultural paradigm. The Bhutanese refugee problem would, then, have clear moral as well as political direction. Nepal can then tell other nations in South Asia that they need to respect the people within their political boundaries as equal participants. Nepal can also compel India to persuade the Bhutanese authorities to resolve the Bhutanese refugee crisis by passing laws that would recognize the rights of the Bhutanese citizens of Nepali origin. Bhutan can no longer go on violating the human rights of its people. But as long as Nepal does not pass clear laws of citizenship for its own people, it not only would have no moral and political clout to resolve the Bhutanese refugee problem but the possibility of other refugees—such as Sikkimese, Assamese, Meghalayee or Manipuri, etc, of Nepali origin—would always hang as a sword over Nepal.
What’s more, if no Bill is passed, the Tarai problem will only fester. The wrong people with wrong intent will obtain citizenship anyway through power, access, and money, as they have always done. So far, the acquisition of Nepali citizenship has been a farce in the hands of Nepal’s bureaucracy.
In all this, Nepal needs to conduct its affairs with dignity, vision, and fortitude, like a genuinely sovereign nation-state. It cannot behave like another Indian state, such as the Assam of the seventies or Kashmir of today or any other small, geographically isolated ethnic enclave, like Uttarkhand of UP or Bodoland of Assam. It needs to put forward bold plans before the Indian government along with the administrations of Bihar, Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh for monitoring and provisioning for each other’s population movements into each other’s territories so that both India and Nepal can better manage their populations and envisage new policies and programs for them. It may be a misfortune for Nepal to be adjacent to Bihar but it is an inescapable geopolitical reality. The case of Bihar is a doomed one. And the possibility is that the moral chaos, expediency, caste-ism, and culture of hooliganism of the Biharis might soon overcome Nepal, if Nepal’s politicians and intellectuals do not take timely action and guide the Tarai away from the invisible clutches of Bihar.
On the other hand, as long as Bihar, Bengal, and UP (but particularly Bihar) do not get their acts together, Nepal will only hobble despite massive inflow of foreign aids. Nepal’s education system has failed partly because of the chaos in education in Bihar; Nepal’s administration has stumbled partly because Bihar’s corrupt example in running its system has only added to Nepal’s all too readiness to emulate its neighbor; and Nepal’s Parliament is showing all the signs of emulating the behaviors of Bihari politicians. To be historically independent and sovereign is not enough to stay sovereign and independent; nor is it enough to shout ultra nationalist slogans. Both complacency and fascism ultimately lead to damage to the long-term interests of the nation-state. A complex, landlocked Nepal needs to formulate a proactive national agenda in place of reactionary nationalism. As a long-time independent entity, unlike its South Asian neighbors, it is Nepal’s responsibility to lead by example by adopting innovative ways to solve its internal and external problems. So far, Nepal has been just trying to walk in the muddy and bloody footsteps of the rest of South Asia; it hasn’t looked seriously at the resilience and capacity of its cultures and peoples.
Therefore, let Nepal be a talking nation rather than one of silent and violent dictates, a dynamic one rather than one hijacked by conspiracy mongers and ultra nationalists, a bold nation ready to take on the challenges of the twenty-first century by taking rational, progressive steps rather than timid ones. It cannot lead a healthy national life by living in perennial fear of dissolution and disappearance. At any rate, Nepal needs to do the right thing with regard to the issue of citizenship for people who have lived in Nepal for several decades and have nowhere else to go.
(P. Mishra teaches academic writing at Duke University)

POLITICS-NEPAL: Now Ethnic Separatism

2006-09-03T03:51:00.000-07:00

POLITICS-NEPAL: Now Ethnic Separatism
August 21st, 2006

Suman Pradhan-

KATHMANDU, Aug 21 (IPS) - A splinter Maoist faction in Nepal’s southern Terai plains is calling for full sovereignty and independence in what is turning to be the first separatist movement in the country’s history.

The Terai Jantantrik Liberation Front (TJLF), led by former Maoist Jayakrishna Goit, has been battling Maoists since 2004 for control of the Terai agenda. But, to the dismay of many, his group has recently been hounding settlers from the hills, locally known as ‘Pahadiyas’, in a bid to drive them out of the Terai.

An impoverished, landlocked country facing a violent Maoist insurgency since 1996, Nepal can ill afford a separatist movement just when it is seeking to resolve the Maoist conflict. But ignorance of Terai grievances, where 48 percent the country’s 26 million people live, is fanning the flames of radicalism and separatism. Goit’s slogan that the Terai, known as Madhes, is only for the Madhesis is igniting fears of a separatist war and deepening the hills-plains divide in this country. Madhesis are people of Indian origin who have settled in the Terai for decades. Most are Nepali citizens but a huge number lack citizenship.

The separatism is being fuelled by two distinct factors: Goit’s fight with the Maoists, and the age-old discrimination felt by the Madhesi community at large. Last week, Goit gave voice to those feelings when he told a group of journalists, “We are fighting for independence because we have been discriminated against for too long.”

Goit’s separatist activities so far have been confined to only a handful of Terai districts, mostly in areas from Saptari to Rautahat in the east-central Terai.

Spanning Nepal’s entire south from east to west, the Terai is Nepal’s industrial and agricultural bread basket. For long dormant, as exclusion and inequalities within the hill community gained top priority in the national agenda, Terai grievances suddenly flared up in June when TJLF fighters kidnapped for ransom several Pahadiya government officers and forcibly closed down a few industries owned by Pahadiya settlers in Saptari district.

A July 2006 U.N. report by the Office of the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs, states: “The situation was rather volatile in Terai districts, especially in early June. The Janatantrik Terai Liberation Front (sic), a Maoist break away, issued threats against the hill ethnic groups settled in the Terai, asking them to go back to their villages.”

While Nepal remains focused on the difficulties surrounding delicate negotiations between the government and Maoist rebels, the Terai districts are on the brink of an upheaval. The issues encompass not only Maoist in-fighting but identity politics and a sense of discrimination felt by the Madhesis.

The trend is worrying Terai intellectuals and activists who oppose the dismemberment of Nepal. They argue that Nepal should remain united, and its leaders must address discrimination lest separatist tendencies grow.

“There is no support in the Madhesi community for an independent Madhes. We all want to be part of Nepal,” asserts Vijay Kant Karna, a Madhesi lecturer of political science and chairman of Jaghrit Nepal, a Madheshi-upliftment group. “But I cannot say what will happen in the future if Madhesis do not get due recognition in the state restructuring that is being talked about.”

“We Madhesis are looked down upon. Our language and culture are not respected. We are not represented adequately in the civil administration and other state institutions. These must stop or the fire will only grow,” says Jayaprakash Gupta, a Madhesi former government minister who is now general secretary of the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF).

A lifelong communist, Goit was lured into the Maoist fold by top Madhesi Maoist leader Matrika Prasad Yadav. Appointed the first chairman of the Maoists’ Terai Liberation Front, Goit split the Front in late 2004 and formed the TJLF after Yadav replaced him as chairman. The TJLF has an estimated 150-200 fighters.

People who have known Goit for years say the TJLF leader took up his radical agenda after falling out with the Maoists over three major issues - his replacement by Yadav in the Maoists’ Terai Liberation Front, anti-Madhesi discrimination even within the Maoist hierarchy, and the Maoists’ division of Madhes into two separate regions - the Madhes autonomous region which spans east to west-central Nepal, and Tharuwan autonomous region which encompasses western Terai.

“Goit was dissatisfied by the discrimination practiced by the Maoists within their own ranks. Very few Madhesis got leadership roles in the party’s organizational structure in Madhes. Almost all were sent from the hills,” says Karna.

“There was plenty of discrimination which resulted in dissatisfaction,” agrees Maoist leader Yadav. But now, Yadav asserts, these issues have largely been addressed.

But whatever rectification measures the Maoists implanted, Goit remained unsatisfied. Having lost his leadership position, and disagreeing vehemently with the Maoists’ division of Madhes, he split and formed the TJLF.

“Nepal’s ruling elites have forever been suspicious of Madhes because they think these people are of Indian origin, and therefore pro-Indian,” says MJF leader Gupta “That is not true. We Madhesis are as much Nepali and pro-Nepal as anyone else. But I am not surprised that Goit is seeing this division of Madhes by the Maoists as an attempt by the Pahadiyas to diffuse Madhes’ power. I too think that is the case.”

Even Maoist leader Yadav struggles to accept this division. “I am in favour of a unified Madhes,” he says. “But I also believe there can be separate regions within a unified Madhes. (END/2006)
Source::http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34406

The Politics Of State Restructuring

2006-09-03T03:46:00.000-07:00

The Politics Of State Restructuring
By C. D. Bhatta

Editorial, The Rising Nepal, 2006-9-1

The issue of state restructuring has dominated the Nepali political discourse since the last couple of months. Nevertheless it has not been defined scientifically to set some parameters. This has left ample space for maneuvering the issue by the political parties and their leaders. When I asked a well-known political scientist at Fredrich Ebert Stiftung, Dev Raj Dahal, he said this is moving towards ’substantive democracy’.

Territorial restructuring
Literature rather stresses that one cannot change fundamental features of the state vis-୶is the concrete territory; independent foreign and economic policy; existing distribution (location) of population and its organic identity merely to balance the imbalances. It generates some fundamental questions though as what ’state restructuring’ is all about and how it can be done so that state does not falter away in the future. That for a layman is perplexing enough, as one may welter whether it is linked with territorial restructuring of the state or internal democratisation of the state machinery.

Clearly, state restructuring is something that is directly associated with political re-imagination of the state as per the spirit of the time and is a continuous process in democracy. It primarily hinges on three organs of the state - the judiciary, legislature and the executive body. It deals with how best all the three organs of the state can be made more representative and pro-public so that more and more citizens are collectively taken into the institutional life of the state and no group/caste/ethnicity/religion is left behind. Rather some sort of ownership of the state is regenerated.

It is true that the corollary of state restructuring is far sighted and demands rigorous discussions on issues which have metaphorically impinged heavily on making the state more participatory, representative and pro-public before jumping into any conclusion. The state can be restructured in many ways - it can be transformed from a capitalist to a welfare one; from unitary to federalism; and from single party to multiparty democracy. There can be internal readjustments of the electoral constituencies, devolution of power to the local government(s), the state can be more democratised (inclusive democracy) and it can develop special arrangements for those who are historically left behind in the development paradigm. But the state cannot be restructured principally on the basis of fault lines (such as ethnicity, religion, population and even geography to some extent) which pose substantial threat to national unity in the event of mismanagement. These are some but key elements that need to be taken into account while restructuring the existing nature of the state.

Restructuring of the state is a continuous process in a democracy as the internal shape of the state need to be attuned to the spirit of the time and popular wish engendered both by the internal forces (movements per se) and external forces (globalisation per se). What has to be borne in mind basically is that the Westminster political edict of ‘winner takes all (majoritarian politics)’ should cease to exist, at least in countries like Nepal, in an endeavour to bring all the societal forces into the institutional life of the state. However, for this to happen, not only is internal political restructuring of the state necessary, but an inclusive political culture must also be instilled in the ruling classes. This will help to reconstruct a ‘commonwealth’ of the people (the mythical Ram Rajya) as against the Hobbesian state.

Paradoxically, the way the debate on state restructuring is taking place in Nepal is somewhat worrying as it posits more questions and challenges than it answers. Issues beyond the capacity of any state, let alone Nepal, are surfacing and their semanticity is attached less with the democratisation process and more with identity politics. The simultaneous emergence of ‘nationalities’ and vague political agenda of state restructuring have become major tactics to sustain the conflict rather than accommodating all the societal forces. In one way or the other, the country is moving towards communal politics.

The restructuring agendas have more ethnic flavour and less democratic values. This bias in understanding is further augmented by demands generated by the janjaties, ethnicities, dalits, nationalities; linguisticity, religiosity that have emerged at the transitional threshold; and haphazard proposition of geographical division of the state by the professional political elite (parties). It has been taken for granted that ‘federalism’ is the panacea for all problems as against the unitary state of the yesteryear which failed to establish a connection between the Kathmandu city state and the peripheral sub-states.

But is it really so that federalism deciphers all problems? What happens if the federal states are taken as private enterprises by the political elite? This is likely to happen unless there is a substantial change in the behaviour of politicians. Does the debate on state restructuring really hold water to keep the Nepali state moving ahead without any further cycles of violence? These are some but pertinent questions that remain unanswered. In fact, the state restructuring agenda should include sustainable and cohesive intermingling of the people of different regions, religions, castes and ethnicities. That said we just cannot restructure the state for a particular class, ethnic group, religion, region or language, which will prove suicidal in the long run.

Perception change
A scientific mechanism should be developed so as to represent those who are not well represented, particularly the janjatis, dalits and madhesi community in politics, bureaucracy and alike. Moreover, the people’s perception must change that things are wrong just because of a particular class, caste or religion (e.g. Brahmins, Chhetris and Hinduism). One must analyse his/her own weaknesses. The ‘nationalities’ including the donors accuse the Nepali bureaucracy of being usurped by Brahmins and Chhetris, but mind you, Gurungs, Rais, Magars and others are little interested in taking up government jobs.

In conclusion, every society has its own weaknesses, but they have to be rectified collectively with due sincerity by respecting each other. What we need at the end of the day is: a cohesive, tolerant and harmonious state and society. Overall, conflicts are resolved for perpetual peace (Kantian peace) not for perpetual war.

Another war erupts in Nepal

2006-09-03T03:41:00.000-07:00

Another war erupts in Nepal
Sudeshna Sarkar
KATHMANDU,
- Four months after the Maoists and the new government of Nepal called a ceasefire, violence continues to erupt in southern Nepal, raising the spectre of another insurgency. Yesterday, gunfight broke out in Siraha district in south-eastern Nepal as Maoists clashed with a newly formed outfit, the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha, and took captive a senior Morcha leader, Ram Bilas Yadav. Last month, the Morcha killed two Maoist leaders and abducted a government official, releasing him only after his family paid a ransom. The modus operandi of the Morcha seems to be patterned upon the Maoist method when the guerrillas began their “People’s War” 10 years ago. That’s hardly surprising, considering the fact that the Morcha is a disgruntled group that broke away from the Maoists two years ago under the leadership of Jaya Krishna Goit, who comes from Saptari district in southern Nepal. The Maoist war and its success has spawned a Madhesh war in Nepal with Madeshis ~ people of the terai plains ~ claiming their rights. There are no plains people in the army and just a handful in the bureaucracy and judiciary when plains people form about half of Nepal’s 27 million population. About 50,000 plains people have two citizenship, though they have been living in Nepal for generations, therefore cut off from government jobs, elections and the upcoming constituent assembly election that would decide Nepal’s future. Many of the plains people, who were once part of the Maoist revolt and suffered most at the hands of security forces, are now disenchanted with the guerrillas, accusing them of concentrating the leadership.The Nepal Sadbhavana Party, the only political party from the plains that is now a partner in the coalition government with a powerful minister in the cabinet, concedes Goit has just cause for grievance, Mr Rajendra Mahato, an MP from the party, has been urging both the government and the Maoists to call Goit for talks. “Peace talks shouldn’t take place piecemeal,” Mr Mahat says. “If the terai issues are not addressed, Nepal would know no peace in spite of the Maoist ceasefire. Ten years ago, no one listened to the Maoists. But after they took up the gun, they are getting a red carpet treatment. The example is spurring on the youth of terai and in another five years, the movement would escalate, just as the Maoist war did.”

The Problems Of Citizenship In Terai

2006-09-03T03:36:00.000-07:00

We Want To Solve The Problems Of Citizenship In Terai On A Broader Basis’
-- RAJENDRA MAHATO
General Secretary of Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandidevi) and parliamentary party leader RAJENDRA MAHATO represents Constituency 2 of Sarlahi district. Well educated general secretary Mahato is known as frank politician. He spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on various issues regarding the problems of citizenship certificate and other issues of Terai region. Excerpts:
How do you see the recent proclamation of House of Representatives to issue the citizenship certificate on the basis of mother's citizenship? Will it have any effect in Terai?
So far as the proclamation is concerned, it is historic in terms of guaranteeing the equal rights to women and some reservations to them. But, this resolution does not have anything to do with the problems related to citizenship in terai. Frankly speaking, the resolution is not to address the citizenship problems in terai. I don't think it will bring any substantial changes in the present state of citizenship problems. We want to solve the problems of citizenship in terai on a broader basis not on the piece-meal manner. Anyway, the resolution addresses only the problems related to women's right.
How do you see the problems of terai?
Although the historic proclamation of the House of Representatives also has the clause related to the citizenship, it is not enough to guarantee the citizenship right of people living in terai. Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandidevi) will table a resolution in parliament to translate the proclamation's commitment into reality. The proposed resolution will address the inclusive democracy and restructuring of the state on the basis of wishes expressed in People's Movement II. If we are unable to address the problems of terai, it will be betrayal to the Madhesis and the country and political parties will have to pay heavy prices for this. If all the problems of terai are not solved in democratic and peaceful manner, the violent groups will lead the movement. The organization like Terai Jantantrik Forum has already come into force in terai.
Some oppose the recent resolution saying it would pave the way for demographic change allowing the children of women marrying with foreigners to become citizens?
I told you that this is not going to solve the problems of citizenship in terai. There is nothing to resort to hue and cry.
Could you elaborate on the citizenship problems in Terai?
The problems of citizenship certificate have been there for long time in Madhesh (Terai) as a large number of Madhesis are yet to get the citizenship certificate. According to a report of High-level Citizenship Commission formed under the chairmanship of CPN-UML leader Dhanpati Upadhayay in 1995, there were about 3.4 million people without citizenship certificate and overwhelming of them are from Madhesh. In accordance to demographic change, the number may be now more than 5 million and overwhelming majority of these people are from terai.
Many people say the figure is highly exaggerated? How do you look at it?
We don't need to exaggerate the figure. You can go and see how difficult it is for the people of terai to get the citizenship certificate. Many people who have been living in terai for centuries have been denied the right of citizenship certificate. The laws are discriminatory against the people living in terai. Our party has been raising these issues for more than two decades.
Do you believe that the present parliament and the government will announce some package to solve the citizenship problems?
The proclamation has already made it clear that there is a need to solve the problems of citizenship certificate. Before the elections of Constituent Assembly, the government must issue citizenship certificate to all the Madheshis who don't have it.
How do you see the visit of prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala to India ?
Being two close neighbors, the visit of this kind helps to enhance bilateral friendly relations between the two countries. The relations between Nepal and India are very unique in the sense that both the countries share many commonalities. The people to people relation between two countries is centuries-old, which is bound by culture, religion, ethnicity and geography. The open border between Nepal and India is another major feature of two countries.
There is also demand to regulate open border between the two countries. How do you look at it?
A handful of persons in the valley have been raising these kinds of unnecessary demand without understanding the ground realities of terai region. Since Nepal and India border is geographically unique like our relationship, it will have far reaching consequences in the life of people living in terai who have several ties and frequent interactions with the people living on the other side of border. It is impossible to close the borders. Open border is the question of life and death of people living in terai region. Some people with vested interest always criticize open border to fan anti-India feelings. The open border is benefiting more to people living in terai than people living in Indian side of border. Kathmandu valley is not Nepal and people living in the valley do not understand contribution made by open border in the life of people living in terai. We must develop plans and programs to gain advantages from open border with India .
How do you see the efforts made by Nepal and India to exploit the benefits of open border?
For centuries the people living across the border are sharing the benefits as well as difficulties together. Since people living on two sides of border have similar culture, religion, language and ethnicity, they have many commonalities of interest. The manmade border line does not stop their interactions. People have their own system and ways to share the benefits, the governments of both the countries need to facilitate to make it easier. For Nepal , high economic growth rate across the border is going to become a boon. We must start to think the development in border areas from broader economic perspective.

Inclusion of the excluded Madheshis

2006-09-03T03:32:00.000-07:00

Inclusion of the excluded Madheshis
-Hari Bansh Jha

Exclusion is a process in which certain groups are systematically disadvantaged and are discriminated on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, sex, caste, descent, gender, age, disability and other such factors. It deprives such groups of choices and opportunities in social, economic and political spheres, which is a major cause of poverty, conflict and insecurity. In many countries, such a phenomenon is quite distinct in public institutions, legal system, education and health services.
At the global level, 891 million people are victims of discrimination on the basis of the ethnic, linguistic and religious identities. As in many other countries, in Nepal too, various groups of people have been excluded and marginalized socially, culturally, economically and politically due to the exclusionary policy of the state. Even after half-a-century of planning experiment, only a few ethnic and caste groups dominate the power structure as they have administrative and political connections, income, educational and cultural advantages and ability to capture public resources. As a legacy of exclusion, poverty incidence is high among several ethnic groups, including the Madheshis in Nepal.
In the Ninth Plan (1997-2002), the government came out with policies for the development of certain ethnic groups but it failed to recognize Madheshis as excluded group despite the fact that they are victims of discrimination in social, economic and political structure. The Madheshis who constitute nearly one-third of Nepal’s total population (31 percent) are in most disadvantageous position. The per capita income of the Nepalese is Rs. 17,040 or US $ 240; while the same is Rs. 13,200 for the Madheshi Dalits, Rs. 12,700 for the Madheshi Janajatis and Rs. 10,200 for the Madheshi Muslims.
Among the Madheshis, about 37 per cent of the Dalits and 32 per cent of the Janajatis do not won agricultural land. Among the Terai Dalit groups, 79 per cent of the Musahars are landless and the literacy rate among them is as low as 7 per cent. Similarly, female literacy rate in Madheshi Dalit and Muslim women is as low as 11 per cent. On the whole, 79 per cent of the Dalits, 54 per cent of the Janajatis and 42 per cent of the mid caste population in Terai are illiterate.
A study conducted by International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) clearly exhibits worst condition of Madheshis in terms of poverty and deprivation in nine Terai districts, including in Saptari, Siraha, Dhanusha, Mahottari, Sarlahi, Rautahat, Parsa, Bardiya and Kailali. These nine districts in the Terai are among the 25 districts identified as worst districts at the national level by ICIMOD. This brings these Terai districts in the same category of remote mountain and hill districts like Achham, Kalikot, Dailekh, Mugu, Bajhang, Humla, Jumla, Jajarkot, Baitadi and Rolpa. Even the conditions of some of the remote districts like Nuwakot, Darchula, Pyuthan, Dolpa and Myagadi which are in the intermediate category; and Parbat, Lamjung, Sankhuwasabha and Mustang ranked in best category are in better position than the nine worst districts of the Terai.
Unfortunately, it is out of fashion rather than due to the seriousness of purpose that some of the highly resourceful organizations like the World Bank (WB) and Department for International Development (DFID) have raised the issue of inclusion of the excluded groups. Many of facts and figures presented in the DFID/WB report in regard to Madheshis are erroneous. For example, the Brahmins, Rajputs, Kayasthas, Baniyas, Marwaris and Bengalis are put in the Brahmin-Chhetri (BC) category. How can the caste groups like Baniyas be put in BC category? Similarly, there is no rational as such in putting the Marwaris and Bengalis in BC category? These two communities – the Marwaris and Bengalis – are composite groups which consists all the caste groups from Brahmins to Sudras and as such it is not fair to confuse them with BC category. Even a layman having some understanding of caste groups of Madheshis cannot make such a blunder.
Even from economic perspective, question arises about the way the per capita income of the Madheshi caste groups has been accounted. The per capita income of 1.9 per cent of the so called upper caste Madheshis such as Brahmins, Rajputs, Kayasthas, Baniyas and Marwaris is given as Rs. 23,900, which is higher than the national average per capita income of Rs. 17,040. There is no rational as such to put the so called upper caste Madheshi community such as Brahmins, Rajputs and Kayasthas in the same category as Baniyas and Marwaris as they belong to two distinct economic classes. While the Brahmins, Rajputs and Kayasthas are basically priests/farmers/service holders; the Baniyas, Marwaris and Jains are mostly the business communities.
Moreover, the higher income of the Baniyas, Marwaris and Jains is likely to inflate the income of the other groups such as Brahmins, Rajputs and Kayasthas if the per capita income of these two distinct groups is put together. The question is how can the income of Marwari/Jain groups such as Kedia, Golchha, Mittal and other be equated with Brahmins, Kayasthas and Rajputs who belong to entirely different economic class and whose sources of income also vary?
It is equally faulty on the part of the report to segregate the Madheshi Dalits and Janajatis with the other Madheshi community in the Terai. In the Madheshi community, certain caste groups like the Brahmins, Kayasthas, Sudi, Teli and Yadavs have been put; whereas the Madheshi Dalits and Janajatis have been put separately as if they belong to non-Madheshi group. What is the logic of excluding the Madheshi Dalits and Janajatis from the Madheshi community as a whole? The Madheshi Dalits and Janajatis are as good Madheshis as any other caste groups in the region.
Recently, under the Norwegian fund, the SNV Nepal has treated Madheshis as excluded groups and jumped into race by allotting funds for researches. It is likely that many of the INGOs, bilateral and multilateral donor agencies might follow the suit. But in practice these organizations themselves exclude the Madheshis in the recruitment and decision-making process. What percentage of their total staff is Madheshi?
The WB, DFID, SNV Nepal and host of other bilateral and multilateral institutions preach one thing and do quite different. It is not likely to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and attain peace in the post-conflict situation so long as the Madheshi ethnic groups along with other such disadvantaged groups are excluded from the social, economic and political mainstream and in decision making process.

who Am I ? Nepalese of Indian origin, or Indian of Nepalese origin or Bihari ??

2006-04-22T10:19:00.000-07:00

BY- Ram Manohar

who Am I ? Nepalese of Indian origin, or Indian of Nepalese origin or Bihari ?? Who is asking the question ? This becomes very important because this is also very important question. If a person asking this question is next to my house then the question can be very interesting. But the person asking is from far land then I can only say in one word “Nepalese of Maithil origin”. If the person is my neighbour then I would like to re-frame this question and wants to challenge them, if you have fire in the belly and you have guts then, search and prove it. I opening declaring “I am Nepalese of Maithili Origin”. Let me talk about the Mithila. Word originated from Miti, a age old Saint, from whose name the kingdom Mithila was named. It is same Mithila where King Janak, father of Goddess Sita (Heroin of Hindu epic Ramayana), had their rule. The Mithila in the modern history is have good history from 10th century onward . It is the period when Maithili language was born, at the same time when other Indian subcontinent languages like Bangali, Hindi, Oriya, Gujraji, Marthi was evolving. Modern Mithila Kingdom had its presence as different names. Some time Mithila, Some time Tirhut, Some time Makwanpur and so on. The ancient geography of Mithila region stretched from Koshi river, to Ganga river to Himalaya to Braj bhumi. In the modern history of Nepal during Mallas dynasty, people were Maithili speaking, and most of the kings were writer too. Many of the literature of Maithili are today available in Maithili in library in Kathmandu. Makwanpur in its time was the most prosperous Kingdom of the region. Makwanpur had its origin even before the Nepal kingdom was born. King Prithivinarayan Shah (The founder of Nepal) was quite intelligent and married the Princeses, Sri Chautaria Maharani Indra Kumari Devi, of Makwanpur. The King at that time was Sri Sri Sri Maharaja Hemkarna Sen, Maharaja of Makwanpur. In this way Prithivinarayan shah was able to integrate Mithila region, belonging to Makwanpur, to the modern Nepal. And with this integration, Sri Maharaja Hemkarna Sen, Maharaja of Makwanpur and Prithivinarayan Shah wrote a history whose undesirable consequences are seen today. Though Makwanpur was integrated in Nepal, its integration was just Geographical. The cultural and historical(past history) integration has never occured. People of Mithila Kingdom were never accepted in the mainstream of Nepal. They were never given the administrative power. The result is today’s divided psychology of Nepalese. People of then Makwanpur kingdom are treated as “outside” in decent term. But many other terms are given to these people. To list some of them, Madhesia ( Means People of Madhyadesh, land between Himalaya and mainland Indian Subcontinent), Terai Basi ( People leaving in Terai region, term given by English people during their rule), Nepalese of Indian origin (term used by most of the non-maithil people of Nepal), Indian of Nepalese origin ( as Govt of other country other than Nepal treats), Bihari ( Gautum Budha Started their journey from these places, Bihars become the associated name with these lands). In the name of the National structuring, and whatever you can say( a long term discriminating vision or planning of the state), lands from Maithili were taken some 50 years back and distributed to non Maithili of Nepal. In this way Govt did good job in creating more harmony among the peoples of Maithili and non-Maithili. Once the productivity of fertile soil of Mithila was know to others the density of non-Maithili continued to grow. Non-Maithili and the Govt made very good arrangement and maithils started being neglected even on their own land. Gradually the time came when Maithili were labeled as “Nepalese of Indian Origin”. Now the so called “Nepalese of Indian Origin”, is being asked to return back to their state. I am asking which state ? Makwanpur or Mithila, or India. Was is not a long term strategic vision of state and the people for giving the tag “Nepalese of Indian Origin". Line "People of Indian origin" is mostly used for NRI( Non Resident Indians, whose forefather had once lived in Indian Land. Now the question is what should Maithils do with the tag " Nepalese of Indian origin ". Should the Maithils, the people of Makwanpur kingdom, now start asking the question " Where they are from" ?; "Where is their origin?"; "Where should they now start to go?", or "What should be their demand from the current state ?" If Kingdom and Non-Maithils are listening, I am demanding, return back their Old Makwanpur Kingdom. People will be manage to live with their Makwanpur kingdom. They will try to become happy with what they are left with. And the time will surely come when people will start raising this question, Where is "My" Makwanpur State? Return It Back to Me ? This article I have written in the time , when highly educated people are also raising the question of "Nepalese of Indian Origin". One of my classmate in post graduate today made me realize that, the issue is how much burning through out Nepalese Kingdom, irrespective of the intellectual level.

Cultural flows across a blurred boundary

2006-04-22T10:00:00.000-07:00

BY- CK LAL

South Asia’s blurred cultural boundaries are being given sharp edges with frontiers full of patrolling soldiers, the raising of border security forces, and even barbed barricades and floodlights. As time passes, the cultural rivers on the two sides find their own separate courses and the divergence begins. Fortunately, there is one frontier of South Asia that has not yet succumbed to this need to irreparably separate, demarcate, define. The thousand-kilometer open frontier between Nepal and India is often decried in both countries as an abomination, for it is said to undercut Nepali sovereignty on the one hand and India’s economic and political security on the other. However, this very lack of rigidity of the Nepal-India boundary is what makes it most natural and historically evolved. It reflects and nurtures the cultural sameness across the frontier, and could be a harbinger of the kind of frontier one would hope to see, for example, between India-Pakistan and India-Bangladesh. The story hidden under the topsoil of the Ganga plains is that two countries can have an unbolted border, a peopled frontier where communities are neighboring and friendly as they were meant to be in this part of the world. The border between the Nepal Tarai and Bihar/Uttar Pradesh provide the prototype for the other land frontiers of South Asia.
For being one of the most densely populated regions of the world, the rectangle which encompasses the northern bank of the Ganga all the way north to the Churay (Shiwalik) hills is the most neglected corner of South Asia. It is a region derided by the New Delhi intelligentsia as an unfathomable basket case and distrusted by Kathmandu’s elites as a region that would challenge their national sovereignty. The illustrious history and the current sociology of the Ganga Rectangle is thought to count for nothing, and all South Asia loses as a result.
In this essay, a Kathmandu-based columnist who hails from Janakpur in Mithila, emphasises the links between the Nepal Tarai and the rest of the Ganga plains, and proposes that the Nepal Tarai has the cultural dynamism to lead the entire Ganga Rectangle out of its present cul-de-sac.The very name ‘Nepal’ evokes the image of a country set amidst the majestic Himalayan peaks, where exotic valleys still harbour the serenity of the lost Shangri-La. Sold to the world by Western explorers and latter-day adventurers and travel writers, this portrayal of mountain exotica hides the fact that a considerable part of what constitutes the territory of Nepal is actually as flat as a table-top. This is the Nepal Tarai, a 15-20 km wide strip of plain that runs along the south of Nepal.
Despite its cultural, social and economic signi- ficance, however, the tarai receives scant attention. For the Nepali hill elite that would like to mould the country after its image, the tarai is a region to be exploited -- its resources are useful but its people (not the newly migrated hill folk, but the indigenous tribes and the Madhesi of the plains) are a liability. Meanwhile, as far as the world is concerned, the tarai is merely an extension of the Ganga plain. Little is written about the tarai, and even the celebrated People of Nepal by the anthropologist Dor Bahadur Bista is perfunctory about the region, preferring to focus on the mountains that till now have given Nepal its identity.
The demographic and economic trends, however, indicate that the tarai will no longer be the neglected front door of Nepal. With an overwhelming – and increasing – majority of the national population inhabiting the Nepali flatland, and the industrial and agricultural productivity of the country relying on it, the region cannot be ignored for long. This should draw the attention of the Kathmandu intelligentsia to what the tarai means for the country’s future. This ought also to be a matter of some interest to the intelligentsia and planners in New Delhi, who could well be surprised by the Nepal Tarai’s capacity to serve as an economic dynamo for the advancement of eastern Uttar Pradesh (UP) and northern Bihar, both densely populated and politically unstable backwaters that have been left behind by the Indian state and its modern economy.
Indeed, the wilful neglect of the tarai by Kathmandu Valley is repeated south of the border. In the grand tradition instituted by the British colonists, New Delhi’s academics and bureaucrats are more or less united in characterising Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh together as the basketcase of mal-governance and economic deprivation. And for these neo-colonists of New Delhi, Nepal’s tarai does not exist as a separate region either – it is simply regarded as an extension of the problematic Hindi belt. The blinkered view in both Kathmandu and New Delhi which refuses to acknowledge the dyna- mism of the past and future possibilities has permeated the intelligentsia of the cities of the region as well – the larger ones like Benaras, Lucknow and Patna or the smaller centres such as Gorakhpur, Muzzafarpur and Darbangha – to the extent that the region as a whole refuses seek its own economic, cultural and political release.
While the neglect of the region by the city-bred in Nepal and India is a reality, the people-to-people contact across the international boundary continue undiminished, unlike the boundary regions between India and Bangladesh and Pakistan, where these relations, as vibrant till just a few decades back, are beginning to dry up under the constant gaze of state supervision. The nature of life across this blurred South Asian Nepal-India boundary must be better understood, and the lessons of cultural flows across the tarai frontier need to be considered for their replicability elsewhere in South Asia and the world.The cultural legacy of MadhyadeshThe setting of the tarai is grand. Vision extends to a horizon where one can see the blue sky bowing down to embrace the brown earth. Standing amidst the great expanses of rice paddies are the tall and somewhat ludicrous phallus-shaped boundary pillars between the two countries, erected more than a century ago with brick and lime mortar. During the dry season, the ten yard stretch of no-man’s-land between the two countries is difficult to locate in many places. In populated areas, these strips are used to winnow grain, dry clothes or tether domestic animals in daytime. On summer evenings, charpoy string-beds are laid out in this peaceable frontier to catch the breeze. Indians and Nepali relatives and neighbours warm themselves around open hearths during the winter. Elsewhere, this strip is a common grazing ground, or serves as an open toilet for people whose citizenship papers may just as easily say ‘Nepal’ or ‘India’.
The tarai begins where the stretch of Churay (Shiwalik) hills ends, and forms one geographical continuum with the rest of plains stretching south to the west-east flow of the Ganga. The ecological character of this region is determined by the great and temperamental rivers that emerge from the deep valleys of the Himalaya, carrying melted snow and monsoon discharge – the Kosi past Biratnagar, the Gandak (called Narayani upstream) which joins the Ganga right by Patna, and the Ghaghara (Karnali) in the west. Over geological time, till the time they were bound within embankments in the last few decades, these rivers deposited their bed-load on the flats, which is what makes this one of the most fertile regions in the world. It is a food-bowl that supports one of the most populous of habitats – one-twentieth of humanity live between the Jamuna and Teesta, between the Churay and the Ganga, in the Ganga Rectangle.
In sociological terms, this stretch of plains is the heartland of the Subcontinent. Its swath of forests were cleared and habitation begun with eastward migration of Indo-Aryan speaking people from the Indus basin. The forests first fell in the Doab (the basin between the Jamuna and Ganga), and over the centuries the march continued eastwards right across the North Ganga Plain before culminating in present-day Assam, where the Brahmaputra joins in from the north and east. Indigenous peoples of this region either got assimilated into the emerging Indo-Aryan culture, or were forced further to the north, east and south.
Greek, Persian, Chinese, Buddhist and Hindu sources have left us colour- ful and sometimes mythologised ac- counts of this region’s ancient past in travelogues, narratives and stories. The point is not so much the exact veracity of the accounts as much as the broad identification of the extent of territory that partook of a common cultural heritage and process. The myths start with Manu, the Hindu lawgiver, who refers to the plains between Indra- prastha in the west, Magadh in the east, the Shiwalik in the north and the Vindhya in the south as “Madhya-desh” — “the central country”. And central it has been to the rise and fall of civilisations over the millennia. From the Alexandrine Greeks to the medieval Mughals, from imperial England to the revisionists of Akhanda Bharat, ideologues of every extreme hue have fought pitched battles on this great expanse in the belief that whoever got hold of the heart could ultimately end up controlling the body of India as well.
This populated, presently poverty-stricken expanse of the Ganga plain is thus one of the cradles of human civilisation, whose centrality is evident in both myth and history. Accounts of the past in stories such as those of the Mahabharat and Ramayan point to the existence of complex sedentary societies. Hindu scriptures portray the great churning that society from Mithila in the Kosi-Gandak basin to the Kirat people up in the high eastern mountains and the Khas in between underwent during the period of Indo-Aryan advance. They also indicate the shared cultural and ritual elements of this region. In the Valmiki Ramayan, Prince Ram and his four brothers travelled from Ayodhya – somewhere in present-day Uttar Pradesh (UP), but not necessarily where the town of Ayodhya today stands – all the way to Mithila, and were selected as grooms by Sita and her sisters in Janakpur.
This nursery of Vedic Hinduism also gave rise to another world-historic religion – Buddhism. Its founder, Prince Siddhartha Gautam, was born in Lumbini, fast by the present-day border in the central Nepal Tarai, and he acquired Buddha-hood in the wild lands further south. The credit for the spread of Lord Buddha’s teachings beyond the Ganga region and into the Indus region of the west, goes to the Shakyamuni’s most powerful devotee, the Mauryan Emperor Ashok. Eventually, the struggle for supremacy between Hinduism and Buddhism was to take place in these very plains. If the apogee of the Mauryan empire was also the heyday of Subcontinental Buddhism, by the 4th century AD, under the patronage of the Gupta empire, Hinduism, refurbished and given its final doctrinal form by Shankaracharya’s monistic advaita vedanta philosophy, made a strong come back after centuries of Buddhist dominance of these plains.
The inter-flows of culture within the region are also evident in the localised pantheons of Hinduism. The presiding deity of the Nepali House of Gorkhas was Guru Gorakhnath, an ascetic said to have been based in present-day Gorakhapur. True, the latter-day Shah and Rana rulers of Nepal hired hagiographers to trace their ancestry to obscure Rajput families on the fringe of Thar desert in Rajasthan in north-western India. One ruler even assumed the title “Bikram” from the Parmars of Ujjain on the slopes of the Vindhyas. But there could well be another side to the story. If the Shah family did not evolve from the Magar clans of the middle-hills of Nepal, then it could well be argued that they are descended from fleeing warrior castes from the region around Gorakhpur, escaping the political changes sweeping the Ganga maidaan during the Mughal period in Hindustan. This would explain why Gorakhnath is the presiding deity of the Gorkha principality, from where King Prithvi Narayan Shah emerged in the mid-1700s to conquer and consolidate the kingdom of Nepal.
Much before the Shahs, the Lichhavis from the plains as well as Karnats had progressed northward when pressed by circumstances in the plains. There, they mixed in with the culture of Kirats and Khasa, transformed them and themselves were transformed in the process. Ruling classes of Karnataka origin who established the once-prosperous principality of Simraungarh in what is now the Nepal Tarai, the Karnats ascended to Kathmandu Valley to become celebrated patrons of arts and craft as the Malla dynasty, which preceded the Shahs.
The free flow of people, goods and ideas within the vast plains as well as between the plains and the northern midhills continued over the centuries. The strip of sub-tropical jungle (known as the Charkoshe Jhadi) at the foot of the Churay hills did act as a barrier, but not enough to prevent the seepage of culture and commerce. The Charkoshe Jhadi also became a safe haven for aboriginals such as the Tharus, Kewats, Rautes and Santhals, pushed out as the civilisation of the sedentary cultivators took root everywhere. Over the centuries, these groups developed resistance to malaria, and established themselves in the deep forests of the tarai.
The divided plain
While an evolutionary social-historical process was weaving a common cultural fabric across the plain, more dramatic political processes have in the last few centuries carved it up into administrative units. This political separation, however, did not significantly erode the cultural unity. The genesis of the contem- porary political divisions are to be found in the Mughal administrative and revenue units of the North Ganga Plain. Within the Mughal empire, Awadh in UP became a prominent political and cultural centre of the Ganga-Jamuna doab. Bihar was incorporated into the province of Bengal at the point when the diwani of Bengal was passing into the hands of the English East India Company in the mid-18th century. Meanwhile the forested northern tracts of the plain remained outside the pale of Mughal authority.
This division was replicated and then reinforced when power passed from the Mughal Empire to the East India Company and eventually to the British Empire. Bihar remained within the Bengal presidency, while the United Provinces absorbed that segment of the plain that was eventually to become eastern Uttar Pradesh. Both of these areas however had one feature in common – they came within the zamindari revenue system of the British, which was to provide the basis for feudal and semi-feudal relations in agriculture, characterised by landlordism, insecure tenancy and rentier arrangements that hindered yield-increasing investments in land and obstructed the emergence of a reformist politics. This set them on a different economic trajectory from that of, say, western Uttar Pradesh, where a class of independent peasant proprietors was allowed to take root. The different revenue collection systems were to have a lasting effect in forging the agrarian relations of eastern UP and Bihar.
The decline of Mughal power and the ascendancy of the British coincided with the rise of the Gorkhalis in the northern hills of Nepal. In the inevitable clash between the two the cannon prevailed over the khukuri and the plain, on which the battle took place, was further subdivided. The partition of the plain into three distinct units (Nepal Tarai, Bihar and eastern UP) was completed with the demarcation of the southern boundary of modern Nepal as it exists today by the Treaty of Segowlee (Sugauli) which was forced on the Kathmandu court by the victorious British following the Anglo-Nepal war of 1814-1816.
The political and social bifurcation of the northern and southern parts of the plain was accentuated by the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 against the political rule of the East India Company. This revolt of the Company’s troops, joined by local chieftans, zamindars and disaffected elite, which reached its climax in the Awadh region, was the event that cemented the relationship between the sahibs of Company Bahadur and the Rana usurpers of Nepal. When the whole of the Ganga plains had risen in revolt, Jang Bahadur Rana rode down from Kathmandu into Lucknow at the head of a Gorkhali contingent and helped quell the mutiny. This brought the Gorkhalis closer to the British but alienated the indigenous Indian elites from the hill satraps.
Zamindars and neo-zamindars
However, despite the distribution of the north Ganga plain between three different political and admin- istrative dispensations, each unit was, in demographic and socio-economic profiles, practically a mirror image of the other. The political process by which the agrarian structure of the Nepal tarai emerged was very different from that of east UP or north Bihar, but the net result was the same. For over a century, the Shah kings reigned while the Ranas ruled Nepal. The cultivated tarai bordering British dominion provided most of the revenue to the court of Kathmandu. This revenue was to increase several-fold as the Charkoshe Jhadi emerged as a source of timber for the sleepers of the rapidly expanding Indian Railways.
The ruling class of Kathmandu wanted to populate the newly created clearings in order to further increase revenue, but the hill people chose to push eastwards toward Assam through the mid-hills instead of descending to the malarial plains. The demand for settlers was met by the peasantry fleeing the British oppression in Tirhut and Awadh, in today’s Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, respectively. Pauperised people of eastern UP (formerly United Provinces, now Uttar Pradesh) and Bihar crossed oceans in search of a better life and ended up as girmitiya labour in the plantations of Fiji, Trinidad and Mauritius. But quite a few simply walked across into Nepal—and straight into the exploitative arms of tarai birtawals – the courtiers of Kathmandu who were given large freehold parcels of recently-cleared forests for services rendered to the state. This gave rise to the class of neo-zamindars in the tarai.
Almost all land grantees in the tarai came from the peasant hill-stock. However, the fear of malaria kept them in the hills, and these absentee zamindars relied on local cultivators to extract the produce from the land. This helped develop a rentier mentality, and the hill landowners soon became an idle elite who lived off the labour of others even while despising them. This kind of disdain for the peasantry is most visible, even today, in the western tarai, where Jang Bahadur and his Rana descendants doled out parcels of land to Chhetri court faithfuls, poor Rana cousins, destitute Thakuri in-laws and sundry other Brahmin priests. The landowners used the brute power of the state machinery to enslave the local peasantry. As with the zamindars to the south, these neo-zamindars of the north indulged in the worst forms of feudal exploitation, pauperising the local Tharu farmers and turning them into kamaiya (bonded labour) slaves, creating a system that was not outlawed till the year 2000.
The colonisation pattern was somewhat different in the eastern tarai, but still ended up marginalising the indigenous people, Tharu, Rajbanshi and Sattar tribals. In the central tarai, where a civilisation (Tirhut, Mithila) flourished much before the formation of the Nepali state, title-holders of land from the hills were relatively more respectful towards the locals. But even here, the forest was cleared at a faster rate than it could be brought under cultivation by the local people alone, so the hill-elite encouraged in-migration from Bihar. Those who came over were mostly from the lower strata of society, more subservient to their masters, and so here too the hill land-owners got accustomed to lording it.
The common heritage of the divided plain does not end with the correspondence of their agrarian structures and rural classes. It extends as much to the communal and social compositions of their respective populations, their shared political heritage, the common threats facing their culture and their marginalisation within mainstream society.
The erosion of the cultural base is perhaps the most visible aspect of the divided plain and language is one area where the loss is felt most acutely. Both Nepali as well as Hindi belong to the same family of languages, derived largely from Sanskrit. Both have drawn extensively from the Persian and Arabic influences of the Mughal court of Lucknow. Another similarity between these two ‘official’ languages is that both have grown at the expense of the local languages of the Ganga plain. But, despite the patronage extended to the official languages, on both sides people prefer their mother tongues to their ‘official’ language. On the Indian side, east to west, they speak Maithili, Bhojpuri and Awadhi – languages that have been appropriated by Hindi zealots as different dialects (boli) of official Hindi. For long, these language have laboured under the domination of ‘Khadi Boli Hindi’. The state government of Bihar for a while recognised Maithili, but Laloo Yadav decided that it gave an unfair advantage to the Maithil Brahmins of North Bihar and therefore withdrew recognition. Bhojpuri and Awadhi, too, continue to languish.
Likewise, in Nepal the political power of the hill elites has ensured that the culture of the tarai has never been promoted by the state as part of the Nepali culture. The masterpieces of the great poet Vidyapati – poems based on the folk songs of Mithila – were composed as early as the 13th century, but the honour of being named the Aadi Kavi of Nepal (and not just of Nepali, as is the case in reality) goes to Bhanu Bhakta who came nearly six hundred years later.
Bride & Bread
Partaking as they do of a common legacy of past achievement and present neglect, political boundaries cannot suffice to arrest the mutual traffic between the northern and southern plains. In the hills of Nepal, India is referred to as Muglan (land of the Mughals). The colloquial term for the territory ‘beyond the border’ in Mathili, Bhojpuri as well as in Awadhi, is Magulan. Conversely, the word for Nepal in Maithili is Sarhad – the frontier. It is a name well deserved, as the southern flank of Nepal truly is the frontier of the Ganga civilisation.
The circulation of culture is across the plains societies is an everyday phenomenon. Pilgrimages take people across the border both ways. The Mithila Parikrama – or the circumambulation of the ancient capital of Mithila – takes devotees to sites on both sides of the border in the completion of the pilgrimage. The Pashupathinath temple continues to attract devotees in hordes to Nepal while Bishwanath of Benaras and Baijnath of Bihar are two very important shrines for Nepali Hindus. Festivals and cultural practices are nearly identical in the Nepal Tarai and the region to the south. Lakhs of Nepali ‘tarailis’ and Biharis together attend the Vivaha Panchami, Ram Navami and Panchkoshi Parikrama festivals in Janakpur. Legends communicate values across generations, and the plays based on Ramayan (Ramlila), Allahudal and King Salhesh are common to the communities on both sides of the border, as are the traditions of Jhanda (flag of Hanuman) and Daha (a Shia Muslim celebration). The tarailis celebrate Holi, Diwali and Dushhera with their counterparts across the lines on the map. The temple of Chhinnamasta, near Rajbiraj in the eastern Nepal Tarai, is revered by all the people of the Kosi belt in Nepal and Bihar. For the Muslims of the tarai and the Ganga plains, the influence of dargahs and madrasas is not blocked a whit by the international boundary.
The Anglo-Nepal war that settled the boundary in the central tarai left districts such as Mahotari, Rautahat, Bara and Parsa with a sizeable Muslim population. Much of the Awadh tarai was under the suzerainty of Lucknow, and the transfer of territory in “Naya Muluk” (Banke, Bardia, Kailai and Kanchanpur districts in the far west of Nepal) took place after the final fall of the Mughals in 1857, when the British rewarded Jang Bahadur for his loyalty during the Mutiny. This further added to Nepal’s muslim fold, a demographic category that is identical with Muslims across the boundary in India.
Many Muslim activists found temporary shelter in the tarai of ‘Hindu rashtra’ Nepal in the wake of the communal riots that engulfed North India after the demolition of Babri Masjid in December 1992. This prompted the RSS-inspired media to label madrasas in the Nepal Tarai as hotbeds of anti-India activity fuelled by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). In their characteristic zealousness, Hindu fundamentalists look suspiciously at every Nepali Muslim, and are appalled by the ‘leniency shown by the Nepali state. It is a tribute to the tolerance of Hindus of the Nepal Tarai, however, that the propaganda war being waged by the radically politicised Hindus of India has failed to make a dent in their behaviour towards fellow Muslims.
There was also a reverse flow of people from Nepal to the Indian part of the plain. Two kinds of taraili people have opted to go to Bihar and UP, one kind was the marginalised poor, from the lowest strata of society, exploited by the Nepali-speaking zamindars. The other kind of taraili were the very rich who wanted to gain respectability by becoming full-fledged zamindars. Nepali zamindars were merely revenue contractors for the Ranas, but one could gain ‘respect-ability’ by buying small villages in Bihar or UP.
A case in point in Mahotari is the clan of Shyamanadan Mishra, India’s foreign minister in the Charan Singh cabinet of the late 1970s. The Mishras had been residents of the Nepali zamindari of Pipra for over a century, and Shyam-anandan’s grandfather once went looking for a groom for his daughter, seeking some reputed Bhumihar families of Bihar. He was turned down because while the Mishras of Pipra, though very rich, were merely the subjects of the Ranas while the Bhumihars in Bihar were independent zamindars under the British. Incensed, he bought a huge zamindari bordering Nepal. This was how, in the contem-porary period, one of his grandsons become a minister in India (Shyam-anandan) while two others became ministers in Nepal (Bhadrakali Mishra and Ram Narayan Mishra).
This free movement of people within a common cultural region promoted not only political but also marital connec-tions. Marriage across the border is common to this day, so much so that the tarai-centered Sadhbhavana Party’s lawmaker Hridayesh Tripathi can justifiably point out that the relationship between the people of Bihar and UP on the one hand and tarailis on the other is that of roti-beti – bread and bride.
There is however a caveat to this account of similarities. There is between the northern and southern part of the plain a hierarchy of status. The attitude of the elites of UP and Bihar towards the ‘tarailis’ of Nepal has always been ambivalent. While they admired the ‘purity’ of Sarahadiyas, ruled as they were by Hindu kings (as opposed to being lorded over by Mughal vassals), these elites also viewed the Sarahadiyas as uncultured and uncivilized – in a phrase, country bumpkins. Thus, Bihari landlords happily gave their daughters in marriage to well-to-do Sarhadiya clans, but when it came to choosing brides they preferred to select among themselves. Such differences are the precursors of larger differences rooted in geopolitics and unequal relations between India and Nepal, some part of which at least has its base in cultural attitudes. Equally, they are the products of material stagnation and cultural erosion. Relegated societies need to invent differences of honour, status and lineage to retain a sense of self-worth, particularly if they happen to be legatees of an ancient civilisation. Clearly, the divided plain is in urgent need of some form of reintegration and revitalisation.
Heart of heartland
Culture is not only what is it understood to be, it is also what one does. It has to be dynamic and fluid, and in the context of the Ganga Rectangle which encapsulates the currently separated Nepal Tarai, eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, it has become necessary to give cultural flows an orientation towards the future. On both ‘sides’, a new generation is emerging that has not shared the shackles of either colonialism or despotism. For this generation, the fact that Fanishwar Nath Renu, the celebrated Hindi writer, spent his childhood in Koirala Niwas (the house of the Nepali political family of the Koiralas) in Biratnagar, or the fact that the first few stories by BP Koirala were written in Hindi and published in Hansa, an influential literary journal of that time produced in Allahabad, has little, if any, significance. The political games played by Kathmandu and New Delhi are steadily pushing shared values into the background, although they have not succeeded on this frontier as they have in others for the sheer volume of cultural baggage that is shared. Nevertheless, these days there is more acrimony over, say, who takes the blame for the monsoon floods. Historically the point was moot.
The political connections between Nepal and the Ganga maidaan were of course dictated by more than just happenstance and the need for upward mobility. Due to the free movement of people, the emergence of anti-colonial mass politics in India inspired the struggle against the Rana oligarchy in Nepal. Since open political activity was not possible within Nepal, much of this struggle was based in India side of the plains. The fire of British Indian jails baptised most of the leading lights of the anti-Rana struggle. The venues for the convention of newborn Nepali political parties were Patna, Benaras, Begusharai and Darbhanga. When an armed insurgency against the Ranas was launched, weapons were collected in Bihar and transported to the border. New Delhi came into the picture only when the movement had already entered the final phase of negotiation and settlement.
Nepal’s first experiment with democracy lasted just about a decade (1951-1960) and the first elected parliament of the country survived barely eighteen months. Soon thereafter, King Mahendra’s direct rule commenced and political parties were proscribed. Almost the entire leadership of the Nepali Congress was put behind bars. Once again, Bihar and UP became the springboard for the democratic struggle of Nepal as Nepali Congress leaders, as well as some Nepali communists, found refuge in Patna and Benaras. Not only did the highly political Koirala family reside in Bihar, exiled by the Rana regime in the 1920s, an entire generation of Nepali political leadership grew up in the border towns of Bihar and UP. Even in modern times, therefore, the myths and histories of people on both sides of the tarai border are inextricably inter-twined. Mahatma Gandhi, Jaya Prakash Narayan and Karpoori Thakur, of India, are equally respected in the Nepal Tarai. More recently, Laloo and Mulayam have been hailed as messiahs of Yadavs as much in Nepal as in Bihar and UP. This will come as news to Kathmandu’s insular elites, who prefer to fly over the tarai, Bihar and eastern UP on their way to the power centre of Delhi, neglectful of the contributions of the plains to the making of the hill’s polity.
In the Ganga Rectangle, the larger number of people by their tens of million inhabit of course eastern UP and Bihar. But if a cultural, economic and social revival is sought in this region, the very nature of the centralised Indian republic will not allow dynamic new energy to be generated in these regions. It is clear that the Nepalis of the tarai have to take the leadership to develop common flows into the future, which will benefit the larger fold. While the political establishment of India relies on the votes of this heart of the ‘Hindi heartland’, the region remains a neglected backwater left to wallow in its own underdevelopment and seeming incor-rigibility. On the other hand, the Nepal Tarai is emerging as a dynamic region in its own right, and will before long will be creating economic reverberations along the entire Gangetic belt.
The Nepal Tarai has certain attributes that eminently qualify it to assume leadership in the development of the Ganga Rectangle. It constitutes 23 percent of Nepal’s landmass, and today houses more than half of Nepal’s population. There is still a lot of green cover remaining, however, of the jungle, which is a remnant of the dense woodlands that once stretched from the Jamuna to the Brahmaputra. The tarai is the food bowl of Nepal, producing 70 percent of its rice and all kinds of cash crops including pulses, vegetables, tobacco, sugarcane and jute. Industrially, the tarai is even more important for the Nepali economy, as almost all consumer goods produced within the country are from factories that dot the tarai landscape. Out of about 60 towns of significant size, 40 are located in the tarai. Barring the Kathmandu and Pokhara valleys in the mid-hills, all other important urban settlements lie in the southern plains. Most crucially, even though only 20 out of 75 districts of Nepal fall in the tarai, together they send nearly half of all the lawmakers to the Lower House of the country’s Parliament. These factors combine to give the Nepal Terai a potential preponderance and influence within Nepal, compared to eastern UP and northern Bihar’s ‘relegated’ role within not only India, but also the states of UP and Bihar themselves. Not only New Delhi, but Lucknow and Patna can afford to neglect eastern UP and northern Bihar, whereas Kathmandu is required now to pay attention to the Nepal Terai even though it too has historically neglected it.
From a forested backwater of the Nepali nation-state, therefore, the tarai today is swiftly emerging as a well-populated economic powerhouse. Three decades of trying (and lots of foreign aid, including India’s) has completed the East-West Highway, which not only helps economically and socially integrate Nepal, but with feeder roads it provides a potential trunk route for the economy of the regions to the south as well. Above the flood line and well-built along most of its thousand-kilometre length, this highway – the brainchild of King Mahendra in the early 1960s – is all set to promote cross-border markets and industry. The 1996 trade treaty between Nepal and India, which is lenient on ‘local-content’ requirements for Nepali exports, coupled with Nepal’s potential for generating hydropower to spur industry and the prospects of good governance as and when the current Maoist problem is resolved – points to a time when the plains of Nepal will provide an economic backbone to the Hindi heartland of India. Already, some Indian corporates are taking advantage of the locational assets of the tarai, and there is no reason why this trend will not accelerate once the political teething problems of Nepali democracy are sorted out. The construction of the dry ports of Birgunj and Bhairawa have been completed, and once they are connected to Calcutta by Indian Railways’ containers, the economic boost will benefit both sides of the border. Likewise, as and when an international airport is developed in the tarai, either at Nijgadh or Bhairawa or elsewhere, this will provide another injection of energy to the Ganga Rectangle.
Education and health services are another important area where the tarai can lead the way, for whereas once Nepalis crossed the border points for learning, the roles are swiftly being reversed today as the quality of educational establishments and hospitals in Bihar and eastern UP plummet. On the other hand, the Nepali hills are seeing a renaissance of sorts in private schooling that is all set to spread to the tarai. In the meantime, it is the complaint of hospital administrators right across the Nepal Tarai that they are being swamped by the demands of Biharis and UPites. The Nepal Eye Care Foundation, on an average, sees about 5,000 patients from across the border per day. This is a far cry from the days when Nepali patients used to go to Sitapur and Aligarh in UP for minor eye operations. A cancer hospital in Bharatpur in the inner tarai of central Nepal sees patients from large parts of Bihar and UP, and a large Indian-aided teaching hospital in Dharan in east Nepal sees patients from as far afield as Assam, West Bengal and Bihar. Since it will be difficult for Nepal to restrict access to such facilities on the basis of nationality – the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Kathmandu and New Delhi, for one, requires equal treatment of each other’s citizens – there is clearly no way out for either side but to plan more of a future together.
Ganga culture
While economic growth is linked to political stability and will take its time, the tarai is already taking a clear lead over its neighbours in the cultural sphere. The languages of the Ganga maidaan – Maithili, Bhojpuri, and Awadhi – shared by the people of the Nepal Tarai, have started to benefit from the languages movement in Nepal. The speakers of these native tongues of the cross-border region, while they may not be overwhelming in absolute numbers, are a significant proportion of Nepal’s population nevertheless – together constituting about 26 percent of the total (Maithili – 12 percent, Bhojpuri – 7 percent, Tharu – 5 percent, and Awadhi – 2 percent). Even though Maithili may now benefit from the formation of Jharkhand – as Maithili-speaking areas become politically more significant in a truncated Bihar – the Nepali Tarai will remain a more receptive ground for the advancement of these languages. Bhojpuri and Awadhi enjoy higher respectability in Nepal’s Birgunj and Bhairawa than across the border in Motihari and Gorkhapur.
Due to the politics of numbers, the Nepali speakers of Parsa District or Deep Kumar Upadhyay of Kapilvastu District are proud to flaunt their Bhojpuri or Awadhi, while their counterparts across the border continue to try and gain respectability through using Hindi in Patna, Lucknow and New Delhi.
But, the Hindi spoken by the people of eastern UP and Bihar is the butt of jokes for Khadi Boli purists and Bollywood scriptwriters alike, but it continues to be the language for the upwardly in Bihar and eastern UP, even while there is a resurgence of mother tongues in the Nepal Tarai. Professor Dhireshwar Jha Dhirendra, perhaps the most respected Maithili scholar alive, has chosen to stay in Nepal despite his Indian citizenship, and is today a member of the govern-ment-backed Royal Nepal Academy. Indeed, the little innovations in Mai- thili are all happening on the Nepal side of the border, whether it is the production of books and cassettes in Maithila, or even CDs and films as has started. Though what is happening is hardly enough even, something similar is underway with Bhojpuri and Awadhi. Literatteurs of these lan-guages find a relatively more free atmosphere in Nepal than in Bihar and UP.
Thus, today Janakpur, Rajbiraj and Simraungadh are better placed to promote Maithili culture than Dar- bhanga, Madhubani and Muzza-ffarpur. Kalaiya and Birgunj have a more vibrant Bhojpuri flavour than the highly-criminalised Motihari. Lum-bini and Kapilvastu hold the potential of becoming seats of Awadhi resur-gence. But for things to prosper more culturally, the opinion-makers of Bihar and eastern UP need to realise that their cultural renaissance is possible only through a closer tie-up with their Sarhadiya brothers and sisters – who they have historically tended to revile as country bumpkins.
In cultural matters, it seems clear that the dynamism cannot come from Bihar or eastern UP. Thus, Nepal has released its FM radio airwaves to the public, and while there are many Nepali-language stations all over, there is already one which is broadcasting part-time in Awadhi. While Radio Nepal already airs news in Maithili and Bhojpuri on its short-wave bands, before long local FM radio based in Janakpur will be beaming local language programmes that can be caught all over the Mithila region. The same will be true of Bhojpuri. The fact that the two sides at the Birgunj-Raxaul border point have now been provided local telephone facility is another harbinger of closer interactions between the Nepal Tarai and neighbouring regions of the Ganga Plain.
Earlier, Maithili books by Hari Mohan Jha were big hits in the tarai, and these days the most active Maithili dramatist, Mahendra Malangiya, is based in Janakpur. Further consolidation of modern-day cultural linkages would lead to the publication of economically viable literary and news magazines in Maithili, Bhojpuri and Awadhi. The people of the region should also capture their culture for their own benefit. To begin with, there is no point in calling the same school of painting ‘Madhubani art’ in India/Bihar and ‘Mithila’ in Nepal. When it represents the cultural legacy of Mithila, why not call it that? Meanwhile, just as Mithila art has been rescued from the clutches of oblivion, there is urgent need to revive Bhojpuri pottery and Awadhi weaves.
Oil and water
Nepal’s national identity was sought to be built around the Gorkhali conquerors who established the Gorkhali state on the strength of their khukuri. This ‘Nepali culture’ is relatively young, hence very vibrant and assertive; but it is also insecure for the very same reason. In order to fortify its identity, it seeks to build walls around itself. The overwhelming results of opinion polls demanding “regulation” of the India-Nepal border are nothing but a reflection of this insecurity. But the statist-minded of Nepal will have to understand that those who are born Maithils will forever be Maithils regardless of their citizenship, be it Indian, Nepali, Canadian or Australian. The same is true for the remote neo-colonists of New Delhi or those somewhat closer in Lucknow or Patna. Cultural identities are deeper and stronger than political ties, and this unity of purpose needs to be exploited for mutual benefit by the people of Nepal and India, not denied or destroyed. For the taraili people, the challenge will be to convince the Kathmandu elite that the surge in cultural flows does not weaken national loyalties – you cannot dilute oil with water. They operate at separate levels and need to be treated as such. Cultural diversity is the strength of the Nepali state, not its weakness.
For the people of Bihar and UP living in the border region, it is important to realise that just as all their rivers flow down from Himalayas, the source of their cultural awakening may now lie in the Nepal Tarai. It may be politically expedient for New Delhi to brand all madrassas in the tarai as seats of Islamic extremism, but people on both sides of the border know that it is safer being a Muslim in ‘Hindu’ Nepal than it is in ‘secular’ Bihar or eastern UP. This is so because the dominant identity of people in Nepal is still cultural, while it has acquired communal and casteist overtones in India. The way to strengthen cultural identity is to make it more vibrant, and the tarai is well placed for the moment due to its enhanced place within Nepal to lead such a movement. In India, the New Delhi-centric intelligentsia would do well to look at the heart of the Hindi heartland and see how the nodes of its resurgence lie up north across the border in the Nepal Tarai.
Even for the Indian elite, the realisation must have dawned by now that the overarching national slogans of “Mera Bharat Mahan”, “Garva se kaho hum Hindu hain” and “Hindu-Muslim Bhai Bhai” cannot counter other deep-rooted identities like being the progeny of the mythical Yadu (Yadavs) or Parushram (the Bhumihar’s Ranvir Sena). To weaken such parochialism, however, it is necessary to strengthen the more inclusive cultural identities in this region such as the Maithili, Bhojpuri and Awadhi ones. Inspired by the history of nation-building in Europe, India’s freedom fighters copied their model from the British and forged the Indian identity around Hindi, Hindu and Hindustan, the thin veneer of secularism notwithstanding. This was a mistake, in the long term.
Cultural identities (nationalities) are to be seen as a resource; attempts at replacing them entirely with political citizenship will be fruitless, if not actually counter-productive. Strong nationalities give strength to citizenship in plural societies. People from both sides of the Indo-Nepal border have lived together, survived the vagaries of nature, and prospered by co-operating with each other. There is a need to make such ties stronger, rather than sacrifice them on the altar of statist nationalism.
The cultural awakening around Janakpur and Lumbini can lift the Mithila and Awadh regions from their present lassitude and depression. Industrial resurgence along the Birgunj-Butwal stretch can inspire the commercially moribund Vaishali-Motihari regions and their Bhojpuri-speaking population in Bihar. For places like Kishanganj, Saharasa, Darbhanga, Muzzaffarpur, Motihari, Siwan and Gorakhpaur, economic development in Nepal’s tarai will have a more immediate impact than the progress in Cyberabad or the Silicon Plateau. In many ways, the Nepal Tarai and even Kathmandu Valley today matter more for Bihar and eastern UP than New Delhi. In the same way, the tarai (and Kathmandu, ultimately) cannot escape from the follies of Lucknow and Patna and needs to be better aware of trends and events south of the border. For too long, have the intelligentsia from the two sides looking to Delhi Durbar than at each other.Dinkar, a Bihari poet, writing in Hindi, expresses his laments to the mountains in his poem titled “Addressed to the Himalaya”. He, at least, understood the symbiotic link between the adjacent region. This is how Dinkar voices his anguish:

Madheshees of Nepal: position & Direction

2006-04-22T09:47:00.000-07:00

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
Dr.Martin Luther King
Madhesees of Nepal: Position and Direction

JAY PRAKASH GUPTA
General Secretary, Madhesee Peoples Rights Forum-Nepal

There’s a common proverb: "There’s a gloom under the lamp." We, the Nepalese peoples of Madhes have been facing the same shaky and ignominious situation. Moreover, it’s but natural that the political KHAS JAMINDARS and local or International press who are extremely busy for their own cause, it is obvious to quite ignorant of this fact.
Who are the Madhesees of Nepal ? How do we live in Nepal ? What are our living conditions ? How have we been deprived of the universally acclaimed human rights ? What are our expectations ? Here, I want to present them in brief.
Reality of Nepal
Nepal is a multicultural and multilinguistic country. It is divided into two types of landforms: hills (mountains) and plains. The native Madhesees Peoples, who belongs to plains speaking mother tongues common in Indian culture like Hindi, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Tharu, Urdu, Abadhi and some other indigenous languages. The Madhesees of Nepal are not non-resident Indians, who migrated to Nepal some decades back became seeking jobs. The Madhesees of Nepal origin show different characteristics of living here. 240 years ago, before Nepal took the form of a state, our ancestors enjoyed a distinct entity on this land. Very ancient Hindu scriptures like Purans, Mahabharat and Ramayana, etc establish and testify the existence of human life and ancient states. In past, there flourished such renowned Jan pads and republics as Mithila, Videha, Tirhuti, Shakya, Koliya, Kochila and Birat. Janakpur, the capital of ancient Mithila, carrying a unique culture, still exists the plains of Nepal. The birth of Gautam Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, in another plain region of Lumbini, also evidences our ancient traditions.
Even before the unification of Nepal, there were many petty states in the present-day plains. Bijaypur state of the then Eastern Nepal spread in east up to Tista river of West Bengal, India, in west up to Koshi river, in north to Tibet and in south to Purnia district, Bihar, India. Its state language was Maithili, which is widely spoken in Bihar, and which has only recently been included by the Government of India in Section 8 of Indian Constitution. Similarly, Simraungadh was an important state of the Terai before Nepal transformed into a nation. The Muslim Emperor of India, Gayasuddin Tughlak, invaded it in 1334 AD. Consequently, many Muslims entered Nepalese territory, especially the Kathmandu Valley. Later, in the mid-15th and 16th centuries, they scattered from Kashmir to Lhasa, Tibet. Many more Muslims followed Begum Hajarat Mahal and Nawab Birjis Kadar of North India when they sought refuge in India following the 1857 sepoy mutiny of India. Thus the Madhesees of Nepal are native inhabitants of the land.
Historicity and Linguistic Facts of Madhes
The Madhes region is marked with linguistic and racial diversity. Out of 60 castes and ethnic people, 29 reside in the plains. Similarly, 48 out of 103 linguistic groups hail from the plains. This makes 32.2% of the total population of the kingdom. There is a great controversy about Nepalese census. This is not impartial. Freelance expert call it unreliable. Through population manipulation, recent censuses have shown gradual decline in the population of the Madhesees. State statistics prior to 1961 AD showed Hindi as prime language among all the languages of Indian origin. Then it was formally given a status of second nation language. It was recognized even in the Nepalese parliament. But later it was removed in practice and people of Madhes origin faced discrimination on national level. Very strategically, the linguistic data of the people of Madhes origin have been put at the lower rung of hierarchy. For example, 1971 census showed 5 million Maithili speakers. Thus it occupied second status in the nation language. It still retains the position, but 2001 census has reduced the number to 2.7 million only, almost half of the previous population. On the other hand, the number of Nepali-speaking people has been dramatically increased.
Madhes's [Terai’s] Contribution to Nepalese Economy
Terai people (Madhesees) have made significant contribution to the development of Nepalese economy. 60% of the total land of Nepal falls in the plains. Thus the plain people make 60% of contribution in the entire agriculture. Gross Development (GDP) made by the Madhesees is 65%. On the other hand, they contribute 72% to industrial inputs. They run about 49% of industries. Thus they contribute 76% to the revenue. All the major dry ports and transit points lie in plains on the Nepal-India borders. Indeed, the entire Nepalese territory north to India is inhabited by the Madhesees. They have intact relations with people of Sikkim, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and those on northern Indian borders.
Problems faced by the Nepalese Madhesees
Nepalese Madhesees face different problems and undergo several hazards. I want to mention some of them.
Problem of Identity and Recognition: The state tends to recognize only hill natives as Nepalese citizens. On the other hand, it shows reluctance to recognize the Terai people as the native citizens of certain region [Madhes]. Rather it treats them as recent migrants of India, which is quite wrong and malignant. It has deprived them of due recognition on the basis of their distinct Indian culture, language and lifestyle. It has also deprived them of the rights universally accepted as the ideals and norms of United Nations Organization. Instead, they are regarded and hated as the followers of Indian culture, speakers of Indian languages and people of Indian race.
Problem of participation and representation in state power: The Madhesees people do not have due say, participation or representation in those constitutional bodies patronized by the state as legislative, executive, judiciary, besides court (palace) services, army and police. They are not given any opportunity for the same. There has been an undeclared ban on them against policy-making and power exercise in the state.
Consequently, there are only 2 judges among 17 from Madhesees community in the apex court (Supreme Court) of Nepal. Except one yes-man of King, no single Madhesees is atop any constitutional body. Even the present cabinet has few ministers from the same community. Only one Madhesees official of the Foreign Services has been appointed as the ambassador. Especially, no Madhesees has been appointed for the same post representing different sectors on political level. Only one Madhesees is promoted and posted for the post of Secretary in the entire Nepalese government. According to some government data, only 259 Madhesees held the post of Section Officers out of a total 2,500 officials about some years ago. In fact, the government has adopted a policy of keeping the Madhesees at a bay and away from the mainstream of the state on account of complex constitutional and legal provisions.
Problem of citizenship or nationality: It is mandatory to acquire Nepalese citizenship for entering all government and non-government services. Lacking which, a citizen is deprived of all state privileges as provided by the constitution and existing laws. But the reality is that 4 million Madhesees origin people out of the total population of 22 million have been deprived of the Nepalese citizenship. Even different commissions erected by different governments in past have accepted and admitted this fact. Thus the government has forced them to live in their own native land stateless floating people. If the problem is not addressed and solved immediately, then the majority will be forced to quit Nepal and migrate to India, a situation like mass exodus or Noah’s flood.
Problem of recognition of language and culture: The Madhesees of Nepal speaks different languages like Hindi, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Tharu, Rajwanshi, Santhal, Tajpuriya, Bengali and Punjabi. The state plays no role in their promotion, prosperity, practice and protection. It has given no award and incentive for their development. The state - owned printing or publishing houses do not publish any books written in these languages. Hindi has long been a lingua franca among all sectors of Nepalese society. But the state makes clear discrimination against them. It gives no recognition to the regional dress of the Madhesees like dhoti, kurta, pyjama and gamchha. They are denied entry to National Secretariat (Parliament) and major government offices in dressed in those traditional garbs. Similarly, no distinction and honor is awarded to cultural events and festivals based on Indian culture like Chhatha, Dipawali, Holi, Judsital, Chaurchan, Samachakewa, Maghi, Jitiya, Id, Bakra-Id, which are observed by the Madhesees community.
Problem of internal colonialization: After the king exercised direct rule in Nepal, the state made intentional and strategic attempt to inhabit the people of hill origin in territory bordering India that is plains, where native Madhesees used to live. They were non-Madhesees like Burmese migrants, those driven out from northeastern states of India, and Bhutanese refugees. Thus began internal colonialization in the plains. This resulted into rapid decline in the population of Madhesees in their own native region, as is shown in different statistics of the government. Till recently, this region boasted of having lush green vegetation and thick forests. But the internal colonialization has turned it into a desert. Different studies have shown its adverse effect on the people inhabiting the Indian borders.
Literacy and opportunities in Madhes: The state has shown no interest in educating and developing the Terai people. According to government data, the average literacy of the Madhesees castes is 6.3% only. On the other hand, 51.2% the hill castes are highly literate though their population is 40.3% only. Moreover, 66.2% of them take part in ruling or government. But the Madhesees having 24.5% population have only 17.7% of high literacy. This biasness on the part of the state will be detrimental in the long run, leading to heavy disproportionateness and final extinction of the community. The women of this community face the same lot or fate.
Problem of right representation: The Constitution of Nepal has a provision stating that the sovereignty lies in people. But the latest political scenario speaks against it. In no case can sovereignty lie in the hands of the Terai people. Thus the state has deprived them of the constitutional rights by depriving them of true representation in state and government. The constituencies have been divided strategically to keep them away from the mainstream. Thus they have deprived of true representation in the legislative and thus sovereignty.
Solutions
Judicial recognition of the Madhesees: The prime political will of the Terai people is to secure free and independent identity. The state should confer due recognition all the castes, tribal and linguistic groups of this community as the native or indigenous people as it has regarded their native place as the inseparable part of Nepalese territory. It should also recognize their languages. It should adopt a "multilingual formula" as a lingua franca. Above all, it should accept that fact that Nepal is a common nation of Terai and hill natives.
Provision of citizenship: The Terai people will renounce any political solution that does not address their judicial representation. So they must be given due right to citizenship. That is 4 million Terai people, who have so far been deprived of Nepalese citizenship, should be granted the same. This is possible only through fundamental change in the complex provision of the constitution.
Reservation for representation in state power: There should be constitutional provision for equal representation of all the castes and ethnic groups on the basis of their population. Until and unless there is a proportionate human development of all classes and castes as per the principle of positive discrimination, there should be a provision for the reservation of the rights of the Terai people in representative bodies of policy making. It is quite essential as they lead a very miserable life as oppressed (dalit) and backward people.
Controlling internal colonialization: The state should make a regional structure on the basis of geographic, ethnic, linguistic and racial accounts, and make a legal provision against acquiring land in thus formed provinces in order to stop and check internal colonialization. There should be constitutional provision against making and implementing any anti - racial habitation policies in such provisions.
What should be the form of such province as wished by the Madhesees?
Nepal at present is undergoing an ordeal. On the one hand, the Maoists have waged an armed revolution for a republic state on the basis of communism. In this regard, 12,000 people have been killed in past 9 -10 years. Their struggle is solely terrorist in nature. On the other hand, the king has seized all executive power and is working against the parliamentary political system. Political parties have launched agitation against royal regression. The entire country is inflamed against it for about a year and half. Thus the whole nation is struggling for restructuring the state. The change is inevitable. The Madhes people believe in multiparty democracy. Therefore, they want to establish their rights and say in any forthcoming changes on the basis of their population. They have put forth their demand for central and regional governments within an indivisible Nepal and holding adult franchise for multiparty system. They very much wish for a federal rule.
Federal system and regional autonomy: It is the wish of every Madhesees. This is not possible through present constitution NAD unitary thought. So there is no alternative to Federal System for racial equality, social justice and equal opportunities. The Madhesees of Nepal want to have a federal system within an indivisible Nepalese territory. It will not only solve the problem of national unification on emotional grounds but also tie people of diverse castes, regions, languages and cultural groups in the same fabric of nationality. This alone will lend them and other nationalities equal rights in economic, social, political and cultural sectors, and end social discrimination based on caste, class, creed, culture and language.
Legal way to acquire federal system and autonomy: Since the existing constitution has failed to achieve federal system and autonomy, the only solution is holding elections for constitutional assembly. Their declaration will end the present political imbroglio. Otherwise it will flare up to a great extent.
Today, the Madhesees Peoples Rights Forum-Nepal want to draw your attention to this grave fact.

"Long live our struggle against the racial discrimination to Madhesees people of Nepal"

SOCIAL INCLUSION OF MADHESHI COMMUNITY IN NATION BUILDING

2006-03-22T08:47:00.001-08:00

SOCIAL INCLUSION OF MADHESHI COMMUNITY IN NATION BUILDING

Shree Govind Shah, Ph.D.
Ecologist and Policy Analyst
8 February 2006

1. INTRODUCTION

Madheshi community in spite of having a long history of origin and habitat within the present day Nepal is practically considered outsiders and they have been mostly marginalized and face exclusion in active political participation, administration and governance, decision-making and policy planning, and moreover, they face serious humanitarian problem i.e. of their true identity in their own native land. The Madheshi people feel highly discriminated and has almost lost ‘the sense of belongingness to this nation’. Since the early 1990s, Madheshi people have organized community groups and formed societies or organizations for the cause of Madheshi community. The issues of Madhesh and Madheshi community have been time and again raised by Jha (1997), Lawoti (2001), Shah (2002) Yadav (2003), Gupta (2004) and few others. Most of the Madheshi people feel that the entire Madhesh region and its inhabitants do not practically exist in Nepal’s consciousness and certainly in the consciousness of most of the donor community and much of the outside world. Lawoti (2001) reported a very low level of Madheshi people (11.2%) in the integrated index of governance with none in culture, academic and professional leadership.

The exclusion of Madheshi community from the national mainstream, which shares 32% of the country’s total human resources, has been the negative factor for the sound economic development in the country. Moreover, the spirit of harmonious partnership between the two groups of Pahadi and Madheshi community has never been developed. Socio-political and economic inclusion of Madhesh, initially considered as ‘bread basket’ and the major source of revenue generation, and the Madheshi people is what the country needs for building a more inclusive nation based on democratic norms and processes. This paper analyses the current status of Madhesh and Madheshi community, the emerging socio-political and economic issues, and recommends relevant research agenda on the issues of social inclusion and nation building. All the issues discussed here are data based; there are many minor issues talked very often but data and information related to those issues are not available.

2. TARAI REGION

2.1 Tarai Districts

The term Tarai is of recent origin describing the plain areas on the southern side of Siwalik range in South Asia. Tarai region, situated in the Outer Himalayan Zone, has been created by orogenic activity as well as by alluvial action in the Siwaliks and the Himalayan ranges (Spate and Learmonth, 1967). It has unique ecological features having tropical to subtropical climatic conditions. In Nepal, Tarai is geographically divided into ‘Outer Tarai’ and ‘Inner Tarai’, the later is also called ‘Vitri Madhes’ – the low lying river valleys north of Siwaliks.

This paper was presented at the Civil Society Forum Workshop for Research Programme on Social Inclusion and Nation Building in Nepal Organised by SNV on 13 February 2006, Kathmandu, Nepal
In 1963, government established 75 districts in the country and the previously 17 districts in Tarai were restructured into 20 districts which also included part of Siwalik range and hills. District demarcation was not based on ecological or social basis, which could have then included only the outer Tarai and Vitri Madhesh area. All the Tarai districts have varying proportion of Siwalik and mid mountain areas, the highest being 77.5% in Nawalparasi district, 51.5% in Chitwan district, 50.8 % in Banke district and 41% in Kailali district to the lowest 8.9% in Sunsari district and about 7% in Jhapa district; the average being 32.4% for the 20 districts.

It appears that the well calculated government decision including part of hills in Tarai district aimed at gradually increasing the dominance of hill people and their distinctive culture, practices, language and architectural style of the hill region in the plains. Gaige (1975) reported the hill culture and more flexible social traditions and practices penetrating the plain region where the people practiced vegetarianism, observing dietary restrictions and considering inter-caste marriage as social taboo. The inclusion of hill areas in Tarai districts increased the number of hill people in the district reducing chances of plain people to play decisive role in political arena and the governance system in their own area. It also made the holistic planning very difficult for the Tarai districts, which since 1963 are ecologically heterogeneous.

2.2 Area and Population

The total land area in the 20 Tarai districts is 34,109 sq km which accounts for 23.1% of the country’s total land area (Table 1). In 2001, 48.4% of the country’s total population of 23.2 million lived in Tarai districts with a density of 329 persons/sq km. Tarai plain and Vitri Madhesh together covers 15.6% of the country’s total area.

Table 1 Land Area in 20 Tarai Districts

Ecological area
Sq km
Percentage
% of Nepal
Mid mountain and Siwalik
11,041
34.2

Tarai plain including Vitri Madhesh
23,068
67.6

Total
34,109
100
23.1
Source: ISRSC (2004)
Note: Population for Nepal in 2001 was 23.151 million and 11.212 million for Tarai districts.
Country’s total area is 147,484 sq km.

3. MADHESH AND MADHESHI

3.1 Madhesh

The term Madhes implies to the Gangetic plain and the Vitri Madhesh area bordering India on the southern side and spreading north up to the foothill of Siwalik range. The word Madhesh is derived from Sanskrit word ‘Madhyadesh’ which extends from the foothill of the Himalayan region in the north to the Vidhyachal Parbat (mountain) in the south situated in central India. Though the terms Madhesh and Tarai are used synonymously, it is important to note that Madhesh does not cover all parts of Tarai districts; it excludes Siwalik and mid mountain areas. Madhesh is a well defined ecological region, which is approximately 885 km long from its western boundary, the Mahakali River, to its eastern boundary, the Mechi River while its average width along its entire east-west axis is only 26 km varying from 4 km to 52 km.

3.2 Madheshi

Madheshis are the non-hill origin people living in Madhesh region. The Madheshi community is composed of the traditional Hindu caste hierarchy such as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Baisya and Dalits, and indigenous Janjati ethnic groups, other native tribes and Muslims. Gaige (1975) used the terms ‘hill people’ and ‘plains people’ living in Tarai districts, and defined a) “plains people are those who speak plains languages as their mother tongues or first language, whether they were born or live in the plains or hills”; the plains languages being Maithili, Bjojpuri, Awadhi, Urdu, Hindi and Bengali, and dialects of these languages used by Janjati groups, and b) “hill people whose mother tongue or first language is one that predominates in the hill region of Nepal such as Nepali, Newari, Magar, Gurung, Rai and others. Sociologically, hill people belong to Hindu caste groups, hill Janjati groups and Newars. The hill people are also called ‘Pahadi’ or ‘Pahadiya’. Dahal (1996) divided Madheshi community into four groups a) Indigenous Janjati ethnic people living in Madhesh for generations, b) people belonging to traditional Hindu caste hierarchy, c) businessmen of Indian origin e.g. Marwadi, Sikh and others, and d) Muslims.

3.3 Historical Background

Madhesh has a long historical background dating back to the kingdom of Videha or Mithila established in eastern to central Madhesh and a part of the present day north Bihar, India (Malangia, 1997). In the mid western Madhesh, Shakya kings ruled in 600 BC, the Buddha belonging to the Shakya dynasty was born in 563 BC. Similarly, kingdoms were established in Simraun Garh in the present day Bara district. In Madhesh, several kingdoms were established and ruled by many dynasties (Thakur, 1956), which all perished with time and were abandoned and the land converted into forests. Gaige (1975) concluded: “the ancient and medieval history of this region is a cyclic one in which men and forests have dominated in terms”. Many ruins which are still to be identified and properly studied would tell the ancient history of this region. The history of Kathmandu Valley and some hill regions have been studied and reported by Pahadi scholars and historians in much detail while they ignored Madhesh region. Again, there are very few Madheshi historians and scholars who due to lack of resources have not yet studied in detail the complex ancient history of Madhesh. In recent decades, Lumbini area in Madhesh, the birth place of Buddh, received worldwide recognition and support for meaningful excavation, detail study and renovation of key sites.

The Madhesh region was annexed to Nepal during the Nepal unification period beginning the mid 1770s by Prithivi Naarayan Shah, however, much of the ancient Madhesh areas ruled by various kings and principalities for centuries are now in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh states of India. Again, the Anglo-Nepalese war between 1814 and 1816, and the resulting Treaty of Sugauli and subsequent treaties with British India reduced the Madhesh region. The outer Madhesh areas south of Dang and Chitwan valleys are under the Indian territory.

3.4 Migration and Population Distribution in Madhesh

Migration in Hills

The historical evidences indicate that most of the hill people excluding the indigenous ethnic groups migrated from various parts of India (Bista, 1967). During the Muslim invasions of the 12th-14th centuries in India, the Kshatriyas and Brahmins migrated to the mountain regions of the present day western Nepal and they established principalities in hills. They accommodated some aspects of hill tribe culture to their owns and developed the hill culture of to-day. Around the 12th century, there was eastward migration of people speaking a Sanskrit-based language – which later on developed as Nepali language (Clark, 1963). Comparatively inhospitable and resource poor western hills, and gradual overpopulation and agriculture deterioration pushed the hill people, both the migrants and the indigenous people, to eastern hills up to Darjeeling areas and Sikkim in India, which were less densely populated and were wetter (Gaige, 1975). This could be the reason of accepting speakers of Nepali and hill tribal languages from Darjeeling, Sikkim and nearby areas as ethnic Nepalese, who largely enjoy both the Indian and Nepali citizenship.

Migration to Madhesh

Between 1860s and 1951, government encouraged and made efforts to vertical migration of hill people in Madhesh region. The response was not much favourable due to the alien climatic conditions in Madhesh to hill people (Paudel, 1980). There were settlements in Madhesh region south from the dense forest area and Vitri Madhesh was inhabitated by indigenous Janjati people. As land, water and forest resources were abundant in Madhesh, people from the densely populated Indian districts bordering Madhesh region having similar cultures, tradition, practices and languages migrated to various parts of Madhesh between mid 19th and the mid 20th century.

Overpopulation, agriculture and economic deterioration, natural calamities resulting famine and many other reasons pushed the hill people of both Hindu castes and indigenous Janjati groups to out-migrate in Madhesh region. Better economic opportunities, abundant land and forest resources and the malaria eradication programme launched by the State encouraged involuntary migration into Madhesh (. People migrated mostly to northern Madhesh region and Vitri Madhesh areas, which were forested and had smaller settlements; large areas of forests were cleared for farming and settlements, which gradually reduced access to forest resources for Madheshi people. Hill people established settlements and farming areas along East-West Highway under construction. Very few hill people migrated to already established towns such as Janakpur and practically none to the large Madhesh settlements.

Table 2 Linguistic Characteristics of Population in Madhesh Districts

People speaking languages
% of population in 1961 1/
% of population in 1981 2/
Eastern
Mid western
Far western
Eastern
Mid western
Far western
Hill languages
2.1- 24.5
1.2 - 6.3
3.2 – 5.8
12.1- 86.2
28.9- 66.3
46.1- 80.7
Plains languages
75.5- 97.9
93.7- 97.8
94.2 – 96.8
13.8 – 87.9
33.7 – 71.1
19.3- 53.9
Source: 1/ Census of Nepal, 1961 (as cited by Gaige, 1975)
2/ Census of Nepal, 1981
NOTE: In 1963, Madhesh districts were restructured and their number increased from 17 to 20; pars of Siwaliks and mid mountains were included in Madhesh districts.

The linguistic characteristics of population in Madhesh districts significantly changed between 1961 and 1981 due to influx of hill population in Madhesh as well as inclusion of some parts of Siwaliks and mid mountains to Madhesh districts. This marginalized the population speaking plains languages. This resulted in dominance of hill culture, tradition, practices and languages in Madhesh region particularly in Jhapa, Chitwan, Dang and Kanchanpur districts where about 67% to 85% of the district’s total population consist of hill linguistic groups. The current trend of changing cultural equation indicates that in two to three decades time most of Chitwan, Jhapa, Kanchanpur, Dang, Nawalparasi, Kailali, and Morang districts, half and more of Sunsari, Rupendehi, Banke and Bardia, and the northern third of Sarlahi, Bara, Parsa and Rauthat districts the plains culture, tradition and practices would gradually reduce.

Population Distribution of Madheshi Community in 2001 (% of total population) is as follows:

Low 15.3 - 47.5% Chitwan, Jhapa, Kanchanpur, Dang, Nawalparasi, Kailali and Morang (7)
Medium 58.7 – 61.3 Sunsari, Rupandehi, Banke and Bardia (4)
High 77.5-93.5 8 districts between Koshi and Narayani rivers, and Kapilbastu
According to 1952/54 population census, only about 6% of the population in Madhesh districts was of hill origin and the rest 94% population was composed of Madheshis of Hindu caste hierarchy, indigenous Janjati groups, Muslims and other tribes. The population dynamics significantly changed in 1981 increasing the percentage of hill people from about 6% in 1952 to 43% in 1981. The Pahadi population increased many fold from merely 142,000 in 1952 to 4.1 million in 2001 while the Madheshi population increased just over two fold from 2.5 million to 5.3 million over the last 50 years (Table 3).

Table 3 Changes in Madheshi and Pahadi Population
(Population in ‘000)
Year
Highland group
Lowland group
Total
% of lowland group
1952/54
142
2,246
2,388
94.1
1981
2,795
3,762
6,557
57.4
1991
3,444
5,262
8,706
60.4
2001
4,120
7,092
11,212
63.3
Source: Gurung, H. (1998). Social Demography and Expressions, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1998
CBS (2001). Population Census.
Highland people = people of hill origin; Lowland people = people of plains, Madheshi

3.5 Madheshi Community in Nepal

The 59 castes and ethnic nationalities identified in 2001 census are broadly grouped into Hindu caste hierarchy, Indigenous Janjati and Muslims and their population both in 20 Tarai districts and in other remaining 55 districts are given in Table 4.

Baisya, Yadav and other Hindu caste group share 44.3% of the total Madheshi population followed by Indigenous Janjati (27.5%), Muslims (13.2%) and Dalits (11.9%). Indigenous Janjati, Dalits and Muslims are socio-economically more disadvantaged compared to other Hindu castes. Brahmin, Kshatriya and Kayastha are in minority but they are relatively well-educated, resource rich and more aggressive in politics, governance and in leadership role.
Table 4 Madheshi Community in Nepal

Madheshi Community
Population in ‘000
Nepal
% of Nepal
Tarai districts
Remaining districts
Hindu caste hierarchy

Brahmin/Kshtriya/Kayastha
215.7
13.3
229.0
3.1
Baisya, Yadav and others
3,126.6
168.9
3,295.5
44.3
Dalits
874.1
12.7
886.8
11.9
Indigenous Janjati
1,940.1
106.4
2,046.5
27.5
Muslim
935.5
41.7
972.3
13.2
Total
7,092
343
7,435
100
Source: CBS (2001)

Madheshi community tends to be less migratory in nature compared to hill people and they prefer to remain closely in their traditional settlements. This reduces their chances of integrating with new socio-economic environment as well as with other communities. In general, 95.4% of the Madheshi people live in Madhesh region while the remaining 4.6% live in hills and mountains. Whereas, about 18% of the hill people live in Madhesh region and they out-migrate more easily from their settlements. The hill Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars are well-educated, resource rich, more land and capital and they have achieved leadership dominance not only in their settlements or regions but also in Madhesh region.

4. RESOURCE USE AND MANAGEMENT

Most of the data and information available on natural resources such as land, forests, productivity and production, economic activities and general economics are given at district level. The data available for Madhesh region is briefly described here.

Table 5. Agriculture Land and Forests in 20 Tarai Districts

Area
Tarai districts
Madhesh region
Hilly region
Total area in Tarai districts
3,411
2,307
1,104
Arable land
1,414
1,234
180
Forest land
1,364
486
878
% of arable land
41.5
53.5
16.3
% of forest land
40.0
21.1
79.5
Source: ISRSC (2004)

The 20 Tarai districts have in total 1.414 million ha of arable land; 87.3% of the total arable land is in Madhesh region and the remaining 12.7% in hills (Table 5). Arable land covers 53.5% of the Madhesh region while only about 16% of hills in the Tarai districts are cultivated. This unbalanced arable land distribution could exert more pressure on Madhesh region for farmland resources.

Although the irrigation facility developed in the last 100 years or so cover about 62% of the total farmland but due to various technical and management problems only about 46% of the total farmland is actually irrigated at least during wet season (Shah and Singh, 2001). It has been estimated that only about 22% of the farmland is irrigated during winter months and just below 5% in spring. Multiple cropping and commercial crops would require water throughout the whole growing season. This would put barrier to economic development of Madhesh people whose economic activities are mainly agriculture based.

There is unbalanced forest distribution in Madhesh region; only about 21% of the Madhesh region is forested compared to about 80% in hilly areas of the 20 Tarai districts (Table 5). People in Madhesh region has very little access to forest resources, and again, a large chunk of the forests are located in national parks and wildlife reserves.

5. EXCLUSION OF MADHESH AND MADHESHI COMMUNITY

Nepal has become to a greater extent an unequal society in which some people or community and geographical area have prospered while many other communities and districts have not. There is strong conceptual debate around the notions that exclusion either social, economic, political or geographical have been the main causes of unequal society. Exclusion results in poverty, unequal distribution of resources and development initiatives, and inability of certain community or geographical area to participate in socio-economic and political development processes.

Social exclusion is defined as “the inability of our society to keep all groups and individuals within reach of what we expect as a society and the tendency to push vulnerable and difficult individuals in the least popular places”. Education, skills, social behaviour, social network and groups, social contact, welfare, health, child poverty and isolation and vulnerability are the key social exclusion indicators. Children living in poverty may enter a cycle of poor educational achievement, unmanageable behaviour, unemployment and homelessness.

Economic exclusion would primarily include unemployment, income, economic opportunity, social and support services such as health and drinking water and basic infrastructure. There is positive relation between social exclusion and economic exclusion; illiterate and poor individuals are even more excluded because their low ability to read and write prevents their adaptation, professional conversion and their social mobility (Layachi, 2001).

Political exclusion inhibits basic citizenship rights and when done on a large scale, it prevents communities and even geographical areas from participating in political arena, which inhibits democratic process. The key variables are basic citizenship rights, participation in political life, making public policies, decision-making process and representation.

5.1 Geographical Exclusion

In Nepal, there exist strong geographical inequalities in developing basic socio-economic infrastructures and facilities and providing development opportunity. In recent years, few researchers have linked the results of geographical exclusion such as wide spread poverty, inequality in resource distribution, increasing vulnerability and marginalizing the local inhabitants particularly in the mid-western and far-western region of Nepal with the Maoist insurgency (Nayak, 1998; Panday, 1999; Kumar, 2000; Upreti, 2002; and others).

There are examples of geographical disparity in other parts of the world e.g. Sri Lanka, Ireland, Bhutan and many other countries; in most of these countries the disparity is between the northern and the southern parts of the country. Tarai districts are located in the southern part of Nepal where 95.5% of the total Madheshi people (7.435 million) live. There are 20 districts in Tarai administrative area and 55 districts are located in hills and mountains where 82.2% of the Pahadi people live. Resource Endowment Ranking Index values are used to measure geographical disparity in the country.

a) Social Exclusion

Poverty

Worst poverty prevails in the Tarai districts. About 45% of the 20 Tarai districts have worst poverty rankings and only 25% are ranked as ‘best’ compared to 35% districts in hills and mountains are ranked as ‘best’ and 29% are ranked as ‘worst’. The Tarai districts having good access to transportation and marketing systems are also reported to have rich natural resources endowment rankings particularly the cultivated land (Table 6).

Table 6. Poverty and Natural Resources Ranking Index

(Number of Districts)
Index Ranking

Group

Poverty Ranking
NR Ranking
Tarai districts
H/M districts
Tarai districts
H/M districts
Ranking 1-25
Worst
9
16
0
25
Ranking 25-50
Intermediate
6
20
3
19
Ranking 51-75
Best
5
19
17
11
TOTAL

20
55
20
55
Source: Sharma and Shah (2002), ICIMOD (1997)

There appears to have ethnicity and poverty interaction. Rauthat, Siraha, Mahotari, Dhanusha and Sarlahi districts, where about 78-94% of the total population is Madhesi people, are ranked as having worst poverty cases; the poverty ranking index ranges from the lowest 4 in Rautahat to 13 in Sarlahi district. The poverty level is reported to be very low in Jhapa, Chitwan and Morang districts where majority of the people are of hill origin.

b) Education

About 90% of the Tarai districts have a large number of educationally deprived populations compared to only about 13% in hills and mountain districts (Table 7). Siraha, Bardia, Dhanusha, Mahotari, rauthat and Sarlahi have the largest number of educationally deprived people.

Fifty percent of the Tarai districts have ‘worst ranking’ for child literacy rates compared to 29$ in hills and mountain districts. Rauthat, Sarlahi and Mahotari are the worst in child literacy index values. Again, 40% of Tarai districts have lower overall literacy rates compared to 31% in hill districts.

Table 7. Educationally Deprived Population and Child Literacy Rates

(Number of Districts)
Index Ranking

Group

Educationally deprived population
Child literacy rates
Tarai districts
H/M districts
Tarai districts
H/M districts
Ranking 1-25
Worst
18
7
10
16
Ranking 25-50
Intermediate
1
25
7
17
Ranking 51-75
Best
1
23
3
22
TOTAL

20
55
20
55
Source: Sharma and Shah (2002)- New ERA, ICIMOD (1997)

b) Economic Exclusion

There is disparity in per capita budget allocation between Tarai and hill districts; 10 out of the 20 Tarai districts have ‘worst’ index values compared to about 17% of the hill districts. Similarly, more number of Tarai districts has lower primary sector development compared to hill districts (Table 8).

Table 8. Per Capita Budget Allocation and Primary Sector Development Index

(Number of Districts)
Index Ranking

Group

Per Capita budget allocation
Primary sector development
Tarai districts
H/M districts
Tarai districts
H/M districts
Ranking 1-25
Worst
10
9
8
16
Ranking 25-50
Intermediate
5
18
8
14
Ranking 51-75
Best
5
28
4
25
TOTAL

20
55
20
55
Source: Sharma and Shah (2002)- New ERA, ICIMOD (1997)

The data and information so far available indicate that the Tarai districts having higher proportion of Madheshi population have much lower socio-economic index values compared to districts where hill people are in dominance. However, there are no information and data available for comparing hill people and plains people living in the same district; the hill people generally live in the northern part of the district, along the highways and in growth centres whereas plains people mostly live in the rural areas with less accessibility to education, health and other development parameters.

Government and political organisations have been advocating and focusing poverty reduction programme mostly in the hills and mountains, and they have been advocating the donors that only the hills and mountains have large number of poor people. It appears that the politicians, policy makers, decision makers and national planners who are mostly of hill origin ignored the socio-economic development issues of Madhesh and the Madheshi community. The fact is that the Madheshi people are not in the right place and their voices are not heard or considered.

c) Political Exclusion

Electoral Constituencies

The average population per constituency is considerably higher in Tarai districts (127,414) than in the mountain (73,026) and 109,081 in the hill districts (Table 9). This reduces the number of parliamentarians representing Tarai region where about 96% of the country’s total Madheshi people live while increases their number from hills and mountains where 82% of the country’s total Pahadi people live.

Table 9. Political Constituency Delineation in Nepal

Mountain
Hills
Tarai
Total
Districts
16
39
20
75
Population (‘000)
4,141
10,398
8,644
23,183
Constituencies
23
94
88
205
Population/Constituency
73,026
109,081
127,414
103,174
Population/Constituency Range
9,587 to 121,996
67,434 to 154,549
114,056 to 157,349

Source: District Demographic profile of Nepal, Informal Sector Research & Study Centre, 2002, Kathmandu, Nepal

5.2 Exclusion of Madheshi Community

About 96% of the Madheshi community lives in 20 Tarai districts and 15 of these districts have intermediate to worst poverty situation. Although there is no authentic data available, the general observation indicate that the Madheshi people living in traditional settlements in rural areas have nominal access to social infrastructure and facilities and, moreover, the induced economic opportunities are practically non-existent in their habitats. Many of the modern day basic facilities have not yet reached Madhesh villages.

Nearly 40% of the Madheshi population is Dalits and indigenous Janjati who are inherently disadvantaged in many social and economic aspects. Again, poverty is very high among the Muslim population living in rural areas; they have average low rate of literacy and their socio-economic development voices have reached nowhere; they share 13% of the total Madheshi population

In fact, the Madheshi community has never been fully integrated in the overall political, socio-economic and human resource development agenda of the country. They have been excluded from the national mainstream. There is widespread feeling among the Madheshi community that they have been strongly discriminated and are not given proper opportunity in the country. They lack proper share in development activities and are not represented in politics or decision-making processes. Education facilities and job opportunities either in government or international organisations functioning in the country are not easily available for Madheshi people. They are not allowed to work in military service and very few people work in police service.

a) Social Exclusion

Poverty

Poverty line in Nepal is currently estimated to be 31%. However, about 46% of Dalits, 41% of Muslims and 33% of indigenous Janjati population are below the poverty line (World Bank, 2006). Together these three major ethnic groups have 52.6% of the total Madheshi population. The rest 47.4% of the Madheshi people have lower poverty level. The above poverty data indicates that a large proportion of Madheshi households are excluded from the mainstream development. Poverty itself is the main factor of exclusion; the poor people could not afford basic education, primary health care, sanitation practices and decent housing.

Land Assets

Landlessness has become a major problem among Madheshi community. The recent report indicates a grave situation particularly in Dalit, Janjati and Muslim ethnic community; about 37% of Dalits, and 32% of Janjati households do not own agricultural land while 41% of Muslims are landless. About 79% of Mushar, a Dalit community, do not own land; they have the lowest literacy rate of 7.3%.

Education

About 79% Dalits, 68% Muslims, 54% indigenous Janjati and 42% mid caste population are illiterate. The female literacy is very low, below 11%, among Dalits and Muslim. A large Madheshi population has been excluded from basic education. Again, the level of education in rural Madhesh is of much lower grade.

b) Economic Exclusion

Employment

Three castes/ethnic groups namely Brahmins, Chhetri and Newars have dominated the civil service in the country. In 1991 these three castes constituted 36% of total population in Nepal but occupied 89.2 percent of position in civil service, while Madheshi community accounted for 32% of population but occupied only 8.4% of position in civil service (Table 10). This indicates that Madheshi people have highly discriminated in government services. It is interesting to note that in 1971 these three castes had occupied 89% of posts in civil services. Thus the pattern of civil service had not much changed over the past twenty years having these Brahmin, Chhetris and Newars dominating the civil service over the years and it is very unlikely that this trend will change in near future.

Table 10. Representation of different Caste/Ethnic groups in Civil Service

Caste/Ethnic Group

% of Population in 1991
Share in Civil Service
(in Percent)
1971*
1991**
Brahmins
12.9
32.0
41.3
Chhetri & Thakuri
17.6
21.0
14.7
Newar
5.6
36.0
33.2
Tarai (Madheshi)
32.0
7.0
8.4
Hill Social Group
22.4
4.0
2.4
Others
8.3

Source:
* Pashupati Rana’s Nepal’s Fourth Plan: A Critique. (Yeti Pocket Book Ltd 1971) pp 18-19
** D.N. Dhungel’s article “ The Nepalese Administrative System” in Contemporary Nepal .P.P. 122-123.

Manpower involved in International organisations in Nepal and projects implemented under these organisations is given in Table11. About 81% of the total manpower involved in the 30 multilateral agencies working in Nepal and 61 projects funded by these agencies are from Pahadi community, 14.1% are foreigners and the rest 5.2% are Madheshi people.

Table 11 Manpower Involved in International Organisations in Nepal

Organisations/ Agencies
No.
Manpower Ivolved, 2001
Foreigner
Pahadi
Madhesi
Total
International (Multilateral)
30
121 (15.8%)
608 (79.2%)
38 (5.0%)
767
Projected implemented by Multilateral Agencies

61

21 (8.6%)

209 (85.3%)

15 (6.1%)

245
TOTAL
91
142 (14.1 %)
817 (80.7%)
53 (5.2%)
1,012
Source: UNDP (2001). Directory of the United Nations and Its related Specialized Agencies in Nepal, September 2001, UNDP, Kathmandu

Judiciary

Just over 8% of the total judges in the country are from Madheshi community, while the rest 92% are from Pahadi community (Table 12). Participation of judges from Madheshi community at the Appeal Court is about 13.0%, which could be considered a ‘high level of participation’ compared to 6.1% at the District Courts. The lower number of judges could probably be due to a) discrimination of Madheshi community to enter into the judiciary agencies, b) low number of law graduates from Madheshi community, and c) unwillingness to join the judiciary services for various reasons.

Table 12. Man Power Distribution in Judiciary, 2001

Type of Judiciary
Pahadi
Madhise
Total
% Madhise
Chief Justice & Supreme Court Justices
18
2
20
10.0
Chief Justices of Appeal Court
10
2
12
16.7
Judges of Appeal Court
64
9
73
12.3
Judges of District Court
123
8
131
6.1
First class officers in judicial services
18
0
18
0
TOTAL
233
21
254
8.3
Percentage
91.7
8.3

Source: HMG (2001). Nyaya Parishad Bulletin, Nyaya Parishad Secretariat, 18 December 2001 (3 Paush 1958)
Employment in Higher Posts

The Pahadi people particularly the Brahmins and Chhetris control most of the positions of power and influence the government, other governing institutions in their action. They consider Madheshi people as ‘non-Nepali’ or ‘less Nepali’ and the later gets excluded from a higher post unless a Madheshi person is in their high level of confidence. Table 13 shows a very low level of involvement of Madheshi people in constitutional bodies and in higher posts – these people make national policies, and are the key decision makers and policy implementers.

Table 13. Madheshi Representation in Cabinet, Constitutional Bodies and High Official Posts

Post and Organisations
Posts
Pahadi
Madheshi
% Madheshi
Ministers
24
21
4
16.7
Royal Standing Committee
8
7
1
12.5
Judges in Supreme Court
21
12
2
9.5
Chiefs of the Constitutional bodies
7
7
0
0
Members of Constitutional bodies
19
17
2
10.5
National Human Rights Commission
5
4
1
20.0
National Planning Commission
6
5
1
16.7
Ambassadors/Consulate Generals
23
22
1
4.3
Secretary/regional administrators
37
36
1
2.7
Vice-Chancellors
5
5
0
0
Vice-Chancellor RONAST, Royal Nepal Academy
2
2
0
0
Chief of Security forces
3
3
0
0
Dept. heads of HMG’
47
43
4
8.5
Chief of Govt. Corporations and Committees
56
52
4
7.1
Chief of Govt. Information and Communication agencies
4
4
0
0
Heads of Parliamentary bodies & committees
15
12
3
20.0
Source: Singh, A. (2003) Restructuring of Nepali State: A Madheshi Perspective
Note: Number of Minister is of Girija Prasad Kiorala cabinet in 2001, all the other data are before October 2002.

c) Political Exclusion

In the two houses of parliament composed after the 1991 election, Brahmins held 38.1% of the seats and Newars 8.3%, the highest proportion in all four legislatures which were the products of adult franchise (Table 14). Similarly, they continued to retain their numbers even in the election of 1999 where Brahmins and Newars held 39.6% and 8.3% respectively. Brahmins, Chhetri and Newar dominated the seats in combined upper and lower houses of parliament constituting 65.2% of seats while they represent 36% of population. On the other hand, Madhesh community constituted only 17.4% of seats while representing 32.0% of population. Thus one finds a serious imbalance in the representation in our law-making body so called national legislature.

Table 14. Representation of Various Caste and Ethnic Groups in National Legislature
(In per cent)
Caste/Ethnic Groups
National Legislature
Population

1959
1981*
1991
1999
1991
Brahmins
27.5
13.3
38.1
39.6
12.9
Chhetri/Thakuri
31.2
36.3
18.2
17.3
17.6
Newar
3.7
8.1
8.3
8.3
5.6
Subtotal
62.4
57.7
64.6
65.2
36.1
Madheshi
22.0
18.5
19.6
17.4
32.0
Hill SocialGroups
15.6
23.0
14.7
14.7
22.4
Others
---
0.7
1.2
1.5
8.3
Source: Pashupati Rana’s Article “The Evolution of Nepalese Nationalism” in Contemporary Nepal, pp 83
IIDS, The Fourth Parliamentary Election.
· Gurung, Harkha, The Sociology of Election in Nepal:1959-81, Asian Survey, Vol XXII, March 1982, p.313

The structure in the political parties is mostly centralized and is largely non-inclusive. Again, the major leaders in any political party are the hill Brahmins and Chhetris and normally they discriminate the Madheshi people in most actions. Central Committee of any political party is vital for formulating policies and the members make collective decision for important action. It appears that the Pahadi leaders do not have confidence over the Madheshi people and they tend to exclude the latter in policy formulation and decision-making jobs. Nepali Congress and the UML are the major democratic parties in the country but they have included only few Madheshi as members in their Central Committees (Table 15). They advocate the proportional representation but in action it does not happen.

Again, representation of Madheshi politicians in both Upper House and Lower House is considerably low (Table 16). This could greatly inhibit the democratization process in the country. The findings clearly indicate that Madheshi people are highly ignored and are under represented in the current political arena, which may, in long run, create vulnerable situation in the country.

Table 15. Central Committee Members in Major National Political Parties
Political Parties
Total
Pahadi
Madheshi
% Madheshi
Nepali Congress
38
35
3
7.9
Communist Party of Nepal (UML)
69
65
4
5.8
Nepali Congress Democratic
30
25
5
16.7
Jan Morcha Nepal
44
43
1
2.3
Source: Ahiraj (2006): Madhesh Vani, January 2006.

Table 16. Number of Madheshi Member of Parliament in 1999

Political Parties
Total MPs
Lower House
Upper House
Lower House
Upper House
Pahadi
Madheshi
Pahadi
Madheshi
Nepali Congress
113
24
90
23
21
3
Communist Party of Nepal (UML)
69
20
59
10
19
1
Rashtriya Prajatantra Party
11
5
7
4
5
0
Nepal Sadbhavna Party
5
1
1
4
0
1
Rashtriya Jana Morcha
5
0
5
0
0
0
Nepal Majdoor Kishan Party
1
0
1
0
0
0
United People’s Front
1
0
1
0
0
0
King’s Nominees
0
10
0
0
9
1
Total
205
60
164
41
54
6
% Madheshi

20.0

11.1
Source: Parliament Secretariat Records, Singha Durbar, Nepal, 1999.

Involvement of Madheshi People in Media
Both the government and private sector or non-government media sector have excluded Madheshi people from their management committee similar to the political parties (Table 17). Media seldom raises the socio-economic, development and political issues of Madhesh and Madheshi people positively. The voices and the grievances of the common Madheshi people unless they hold a major position are lost.

Table 17. Involvement of Madheshi people in Media

Total
Pahadi
Madheshi
% Madheshi
A. Government Media: Management Committee

Press council
13
10
1

Radio Nepal
5
4
1

Gorakhapatra
5
5
0

Nepal Television
5
5
0

Rastriya Samachar Samiti
5
5
0

Subtotal
33
29
2
6.01
B. Non-government Media

Nepal Patrakar Federation
24
23
1

Press Chautari
21
21
0

Nepal Press Union
12
12
0

Press Group
23
22
1

SAAF Nepal
25
25
0

Nepal Environment Media Group
13
15
0

Federation of National News Media
13
12
1

Subtotal
131
128
3
2.3
Source: Ahiraj (2006): Madhesh Vani, January 2006.

6. EMERGING ISSUES OF MADHESHI COMMUNITY

Madheshi community in general has been marginalized and the people suffer from a combination of linked problems such as illiteracy, poverty, poor skills, unemployment in public sector and the average low incomes. Undoubtedly, there is affluent society in Madhesh community such as Brahmin, Kshatriya and Kayastha who are relatively educated, well off, prosperous and lead a comfortable life, but they are in minority in number – just 3.1% of the total Madheshi population. The majority of the population belonging to Dalits, Janjati, Muslims and other caste groups living in rural areas are facing acute hardship. Poor investment, unplanned management of already deteriorating land resources, poor socio-economic infrastructures and facilities and lack of socio-economic planning have adversely affected the majority of the Madheshi people.

There have been little efforts to prevent social, economic and political exclusion and to reintegrate those who have become excluded through unemployment, landlessness, homelessness and so on. The past discriminatory public policies and the general unhealthy attitudes of the hill people who are in governance towards the average Madheshi have been detrimental to national integration. Their problems have not been solved or rather ignored by the State. The major emerging social, economic and political issues which need immediate to short term action are briefly described here.

a) Social Issues

1. Identity and Recognition

Most of the Madheshi people are loosing their identity since they are treated as ‘less Nepali’ or ‘non-Nepali’ by Pahadi people. One of the main reasons could be attributed to their socio-cultural, linguistic and physical affinity with the communities living immediately on the other side of the border in India, which historically was a part of Madhesh. Culture, tradition, practices and language have great influence on ‘identity’ of a person e.g. a Nepali or hill language speaking person from Darjeeling or Sikkim, who have been living their for generations, is readily accepted in Nepal as a Nepali and he or she enjoys all the socio-political benefits. Whereas a Madheshi who does not speak Nepali or any other hill language and who does not follow hill tradition and practices is not easily accepted as Nepali by hill Nepalese.

2. Illiteracy and Poor Skills

There is mass illiteracy among the Dalits, Janjati, Muslims, and the other caste people living in villages. Female education is practically non-existent among many communities living outside the urban centres. The traditional society has very little changed in the last fifty years or so and doe to the non-migratory nature they have little interaction with other community. Again, the level and quality of secondary or higher secondary education in Madhesh region is quite inferior compared to education in hill areas. Consequently, the Madheshi people getting all their education in Madhesh could not compete with Pahadi people having their education in hills where it is comparatively superior; they loose opportunities.

3. Poverty and Vulnerability

There is widespread poverty (45% of the Madhesh districts) among Madheshi community particularly Dalits, Muslims, Janjatis and other caste people living in traditional settlements who are nearly landless. They lack assets for economic production and the lack of food security has many widespread effects influencing health and nutritional standards as well as child education. It also forces them to have less concern for environmental considerations. Poverty and illiteracy increases vulnerability and in vulnerable society democratic values and democratization have very little meaning.

b) Economic Issues

1. Unemployment and Under Employment

In the absence of off-farm economic opportunities in villages, most of the people are under employed. In recent years, uneducated teenagers and the young people have temporarily migrated to India for economic opportunity – this has unbalanced labour supply to farming in many parts of Madhesh region. Again, there is unemployment for the educated Madheshi people in government or non-government organizations or in INGOs or international organizations working in Nepal primarily due to the exclusion behaviour of these institutions towards Madheshi. This is a serious issue to tackle.

2. Weak Social Organizations and Support Services

In the past two decades, social institutions advocating and working on social, economic and political development in Madhesh region have been formed by Madheshi community. Such entities are of varied natures and are based on castes and ethnicity, language, research and studies, human rights and advocacy, political rights, and socio-economic works. These organizations find hard to get financial and working support from the State as well as from the donor communities. In general, most of these organizations are committed to the cause of Madheshi community, but lack of coordination among them, missing unified vision, divided opinions, and unfocused objectives have made them inadequate in yielding desired results.

Again, the government support services are dwindling and have not yet reached in many villages where most of the households are Madheshi. Most of the project implementers at the district level are of hill origin and they tend to implement their programme in areas dominated by hill people due to various reasons such as good communication, high level of programme adaptation and so on.

3. Low Level of Investment and Lack of Economic Opportunity

Although government collects most of its revenue from Madhesh region, there is very little return in the form of investment in rural areas where majority of the Madhesi people live. Investment both from the government and the donor community in rural Madhesh appears to be very low. Most of the industries are located in urban centres and they could not much help the local rural people. Again, the agro-based industries established in the Madhesh region are not tied up with agriculture farming; they import raw materials from other countries which could be technically produced in Madhesh.

The issue of renovation and reconstruction of the Hulaki Road has been raised on many occasions. This road was constructed in early 20th century and connects the inner part of Madhesh region from Jhapa in the east to Kanchanpur in the west.

c) Political Issues

1. Basic Citizenship Rights

This is the major political issue still unresolved by the State or the political parties. Many of the Madheshi people who are landless or homeless – a large number of Dalits, Janjatis, Muslims and other caste people are landless- are denied of citizenship certificates. The government law and the public policies are not very clear and positive, and moreover, the persons at district level authorized to give citizenship certificates that are mostly high caste or affluent hill people usually show negative tendencies while granting citizenship. Denial of citizenship means no rights to get job in government, corporations or even private companies, can not get government support or loan from the bank or purchase land for housing or farming. Many Madheshi people have lost right to vote and it prevents them to participate in political life even at the village level. This is humiliating for the Madheshi people who are denied of their natural right.

2. Demarcation of Madhesh Districts

The current demarcation of Tarai districts does not follow any scientific, ecological or social basis. Amendment is required and a new demarcation needs to be done, which would include only the outer and Vitri Madhesh region for efficient socio-economic planning for holistic development. This would increase participation of Madheshi community decision-making process.

3. Participation in Political Arena

Low level of participation in policy and decision-making body of political parties such as central committees and lack of proportional representation in parliament are the emerging issues. The political parties have so far ignored emerging issues of Madhesh and Madheshi people and the under representation prohibits advocacy for betterment.

4. Census Mechanism

Many people believe that the results of the past census are not satisfactory; the data on Madhesh population and the resources they use do not seem to be accurate. Some sample survey done in the Madhesh area indicates much higher Madheshi population than shown in the last census.

5. Migration of People in Madhesh

Madhesh region is already over crowded and the resources are dwindling to maintain the increasing population. The issue of discouraging population to permanently migrate from hills and from the adjoining areas in India to Madhesh region has been very often raised.

7. RELEVANT RESEARCH AGENDA

The inclusion of Madheshi people in the national mainstream would be the main drag on the country’s economy. People believing in integration of societies often ask a question – how to achieve that goal? Social, economic and political exclusion exist in many countries and within a society or geographical area. However, there are some good examples of positively integrating the varied societies and nationalities within a country, which are all initiated at the economic and at the political level.

There is continued conceptual debate around the notions of exclusion and inclusion. How an excluded community or group could be included in the mainstream for nation building. Firstly, we need to understand the dynamic processes taking place which encourages different forms of exclusion in Nepal. The is lack of data and information on various sub components of social, economic and political exclusion. And then to investigate the institutional aspects which could prevent exclusion and promote recovery, regeneration and inclusion. These fact finding attributes would form the research agenda and discussed in a group before finalizing them.

The Inclusion of Madheshi community (33% of the country’s human resources) in the national mainstream would be the main drag on the country’s economy.

l We need to fully understand the dynamic processes taking place which causes different forms of exclusion or which could facilitate inclusion.

l There is lack of data and information on various sub-components of social, economic and political exclusion.

l Need to investigate ways and means to unite non-politically the scattered Madheshi social organisations representing all the ethnic Madheshi community for achieving the common goal of holistic development of Madhesh and Madheshi community.

l Data base to quantify strengths of Madheshi community: social organisations, studies and researches done in various field, literatures, people working in different area including physical, biological and social sciences.

l Need to investigate the institutional aspects, which could prevent exclusion and promote recovery and regeneration of the society and their inclusion.

l Need to investigate ways and means to unite non-politically the scattered Madheshi social organisations representing all the ethnic Madheshi community for achieving the common goal of holistic development of Madhesh and Madheshi community.

l Data base to quantify strengths of Madheshi community: social organisations, studies and researches done in various field, literatures, people working in different area including physical, biological and social sciences.

l Need to investigate the institutional aspects, which could prevent exclusion and promote recovery and regeneration of the society and their inclusion.

l Status of Madheshi women and children from all the castes and ethnic communities. Data base and authentic information to quantify the reasons for their backwardness in education, health, natural rights and in other relevant aspects. There is no or very little information on Madheshi women and children. This would be the major research agenda involving at least 70% of the total Madheshi population and needs to be funded adequately.

l All the major issues described earlier are the research agenda.

Address:
Dokhadol, Sanepa, Lalitpur
P.O.Box 8975; EPC 1830
Kathmandu, Nepal
Email: sgs@erma.wlink.com.np/ sgsjune10@yahoo.co.ukReferences

Ahiraj, R (2006). Madhesh Vani (fortnightly newspaper). January 2006, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bista, DB (1967). The people of Nepal. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, HMG, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1967.
Bista, DB (1991) Fatalism and Development Nepal’s Struggle for modernization, Patna Orient Longman, 1991.
Byrne, D (1999). Social Exclusion. Open University Press, 1999.
CBS (2002). Statistical Pocket Book Nepal. Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Clark, TW (1963). A First Year language Cpourse. Cambridge: Heffer, 1963
Dahal, DR (1996). Madhesiya Pahadiya Antar Sambandha (Madheshi Pahadi Inter-relationship). Himal, Kathmandu, September 1996.
Gaige, FH (1975). Regionalism and National Unity in Nepal. Vikram Publishing House, Delhi, India, 1975.
Gupta, J (2004). Madhesh: Social Demography and Discrimination. Madheshi Human Rights Conservation centre, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2004.
Gupta, J., Yadav., U., Jha, HB., and Jha, AN (2004). Nepali Madhesi Ka Samasya. Centre for Protection of Madheshee’s Human Rights, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Guring, H (1982). The Sociology of Election in Nepal: 1959-81, Asian Survey, Vol XXII, p.313, March 1982
ICIMOD (1997). Districts of Nepal: Indicators of Development. International centre for Integrated Mountain development, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1997.
ISRSC (2004) District Development Profile of Nepal 2004. Informal Sector Research and Study Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal, August 2004.
Jha., HB (1993). The Tarai Community and national Integration in Nepal. Centre for Economic and Technical Studies/ Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1993.
Lawoti, M (2001). Racial Discrimination toward the Indigenous peoples in Nepal. Non-government Report for the Third World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), Kathmandu, Nepal, 2001.
Layachi, A (2001). Reform and the Politivs of Inclusion in the Maghrib. The journal of North African Studies, Vol. 5, Issue 3.
Malangia, M (1997). Yo janakpur Ho (This is Janakpur). Majdoor Pustak Bhavan, janakpur, 1997.
Nayak, P (1998). Economic Development and Social Exclusion in India. Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, India, 1998.
Panday, DR (2001). Corruption, Governance and International Cooperation: Essays and Impressions on Nepal and South Asia. Transparency international, Kathmandu, 1998.
Rana, P (1982). The Evolution of Nepalese Nationalism in Contemporary Nepal, pp 83
The Fourth Parliamentary Election, IIDS, Kathmadu, Nepal
Shah, S (2001). The Politics of Exclusion. A paper presented at the American University in Washington DC, USA, March 2002.
Shah, SG and Singh, GN (2001). Irrigation Development in Nepal: Investment, Efficiency and Institution. Research report Series No. 47., Winrock International, Kathmandu, Nepal, December 2001.
Sharma, S. and Shah, SG (2002). Nepal report: The Link between Poverty and Environment – Situation Analysis and Strategy for Change. New ERA, November 2002.
Singh, A. (2003) Restructuring of Nepali State: A Madheshi Perspective, New Delhi, 2003.
Spate, OHK and Learmonth, ATA (1967). India and Pakistan: A General and Regional Geography, 3d ed., London, 1967.
Upreti, BR (2002). Nepal: A Nation in search of Peace and Development. A Country Assessment Report, Swiss Agency for development and Cooperation, Berne.
World Bank (2005). Citizens With (Out) Rights: Nepal Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment. Summary Report, The World Bank, Kathmandu Nepal, June 2005.
Yadav, U (2003). Madheshi Vani. Madheshi Jana Adhikar Forum, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2003.
Yadav, U (2005). Conspiracy against Madheshi. Madheshi People Rights Forum, Nepal, 2005.

Why Madheshvani

2006-03-22T08:43:00.000-08:00

Why Media Action And Research group 'MARG' Published Madheshvani?

Media Action and Research Group MARG is formed by a group of Madheshi Journalists who have been working in this field for more than a decades. MARG has clear objectives which fights the discrimination in the country through media and advocacy. MARG believes that National integrity is only possible when every Nepali citizen get to live with dignity. MARG has been publishing a fortnightly Madheshvani that advocates the Madheshi issues for last six months. MARG has also conducted few researches on Madhes issues. MARG as an organization has been affording all these things itself and has been using its full efforts to bring the issues to the nationaland international communities. It might sound bitter but this is the rality that Madhehis have been treated as second grade citizen by the state and have been deprived from many rights. What is necessary is this ongoing discrimination against Madheshis should be immediately stopped. MARG believes that this can be achieved by raising awareness among the Madhshi community through Newspapers and other electronic media. Considering these facts we request all the agencies to assist on their own level to continue this movement on the humanity background because without this the regional prosperity and peace can not be maintained.

Project Madheshvani
At present we are printing three thousand and five hundred copies of Madheshvani. This fortnightly has been able to raise many right based issues about Madhesh. It has gained the popularity in a very short span of time. If the circulation is made higher and more regular our mission will be achieved in very right time and right way. If the circulation is increased to ten thousand we believe that we will be able to reach almost in all the districts covering Madhesh. This will be a great achievement that we have been looking for. We also believe that ongoing discrimination against Madheshis in Nepal should be recognized to maintain the peace in the region. Since this newspaper is published on issue based matters it has a not been able to gain the commercial value in the course of time. We believe that once it reaches to the grass root level it will be able to get good support from the business houses also therefore to continue this mission we request you to support with the seeding amount for at least one year. We assure you that your support will be utilized in a very transparent way. Your cooperation will be highly praised.

Discrimination ……………… how far? How long?

2006-03-22T08:36:00.000-08:00

Nepal is a multi lingual and multi cultural country. Geographically, it is divided in to three major regions the Himalayas, the Mountains and the flat region called Terai. Terai is also called Madhesh. Madhesh is fertile and provides sufficient favorable conditions to live.Therefore about 50% population of Nepal live in this area. This is a fact that Madheshis are living in this region for the generations. In fact they are living here far before the time when Nepal was united as a single nation. It means they are also the native Nepali people. After the unification of the many small countries of Himalayas, Mountains and Madhesh regions Madhesh was always used and exploited for the benefit of the very few people or the rulers. The state never realized that this region is also a part of Nepal. People at this region have been treated as second grade citizen and many are yet to get the citizenship. About four million people are stateless. The rulers always tried to pick some of the Madheshi leaders and use them to exploit their own people. This is a bitter fact that Madhesh never got any chance to represent their true leaders in the government or any other area who would directly or indirectly benefit the Madhesh and Madheshi people. The long time conspiracy and discrimination against Madheshi are still going on and none of the Government has shown genuine interest in these issues rather they have tried to ignore it. What state believes is they need Madhesh but not the Madheshi people. They need vote but not the Madheshi candidates. They need grains but not the Madheshi farmers. The Madhesh provides more than 80% of the total revenue but investment is still far less than what mountain and Himalayas receive.
The discrimination is still on .How far and how long?……………..

· It is very unfortunate to mention that out of one thousand employees in the palace there is not even a single Madheshi working there. Answer?
Why does government always seek to share the lands only in the country?
Why not the property of the people no matter whether there is land or any other properties? Answer?
What is the position of Madheshis in the national security systems?
How about beaurocracy and diplomats, political appointments? Answer?
How many Madheshi leaders get chance to represent in the central committees of the national political parties?
Why is there only one secretary out of 37 in the country?
Why is there only one chief district officer out of 75 in the country?
And more yet to come. Please wait……..

Why MADHESHVANI?
Because the most of the Nepali media are also biased about Madhesh issues.
Media coverage is so less that most of international communities are ignorant of Madhesh.
Human right and such groups are absorbed in their own.
To warn the political parties about this discrimination.
To warn all the concern authorities about this issue.
To help make Nepal a peaceful and prosperous country where no any kind of discrimination take place.

More? In this websites…

http://www.madheshvani.com/
http://www.marg.org.np/
http://www.madheshee.blogspot.com/

Madhesees of Nepal: Position and Direction

2006-02-12T10:34:00.000-08:00

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
Dr.Martin Luther King
Madhesees of Nepal: Position and Direction

JAY PRAKASH GUPTA
General Secretary, Madhesee Peoples Rights Forum-Nepal

There’s a common proverb: "There’s a gloom under the lamp." We, the Nepalese peoples of Madhes have been facing the same shaky and ignominious situation. Moreover, it’s but natural that the political KHAS JAMINDARS and local or International press who are extremely busy for their own cause, it is obvious to quite ignorant of this fact.
Who are the Madhesees of Nepal ? How do we live in Nepal ? What are our living conditions ? How have we been deprived of the universally acclaimed human rights ? What are our expectations ? Here, I want to present them in brief.
Reality of Nepal
Nepal is a multicultural and multilinguistic country. It is divided into two types of landforms: hills (mountains) and plains. The native Madhesees Peoples, who belongs to plains speaking mother tongues common in Indian culture like Hindi, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Tharu, Urdu, Abadhi and some other indigenous languages. The Madhesees of Nepal are not non-resident Indians, who migrated to Nepal some decades back became seeking jobs. The Madhesees of Nepal origin show different characteristics of living here. 240 years ago, before Nepal took the form of a state, our ancestors enjoyed a distinct entity on this land. Very ancient Hindu scriptures like Purans, Mahabharat and Ramayana, etc establish and testify the existence of human life and ancient states. In past, there flourished such renowned Jan pads and republics as Mithila, Videha, Tirhuti, Shakya, Koliya, Kochila and Birat. Janakpur, the capital of ancient Mithila, carrying a unique culture, still exists the plains of Nepal. The birth of Gautam Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, in another plain region of Lumbini, also evidences our ancient traditions.
Even before the unification of Nepal, there were many petty states in the present-day plains. Bijaypur state of the then Eastern Nepal spread in east up to Tista river of West Bengal, India, in west up to Koshi river, in north to Tibet and in south to Purnia district, Bihar, India. Its state language was Maithili, which is widely spoken in Bihar, and which has only recently been included by the Government of India in Section 8 of Indian Constitution. Similarly, Simraungadh was an important state of the Terai before Nepal transformed into a nation. The Muslim Emperor of India, Gayasuddin Tughlak, invaded it in 1334 AD. Consequently, many Muslims entered Nepalese territory, especially the Kathmandu Valley. Later, in the mid-15th and 16th centuries, they scattered from Kashmir to Lhasa, Tibet. Many more Muslims followed Begum Hajarat Mahal and Nawab Birjis Kadar of North India when they sought refuge in India following the 1857 sepoy mutiny of India. Thus the Madhesees of Nepal are native inhabitants of the land.
Historicity and Linguistic Facts of Madhes
The Madhes region is marked with linguistic and racial diversity. Out of 60 castes and ethnic people, 29 reside in the plains. Similarly, 48 out of 103 linguistic groups hail from the plains. This makes 32.2% of the total population of the kingdom. There is a great controversy about Nepalese census. This is not impartial. Freelance expert call it unreliable. Through population manipulation, recent censuses have shown gradual decline in the population of the Madhesees. State statistics prior to 1961 AD showed Hindi as prime language among all the languages of Indian origin. Then it was formally given a status of second nation language. It was recognized even in the Nepalese parliament. But later it was removed in practice and people of Madhes origin faced discrimination on national level. Very strategically, the linguistic data of the people of Madhes origin have been put at the lower rung of hierarchy. For example, 1971 census showed 5 million Maithili speakers. Thus it occupied second status in the nation language. It still retains the position, but 2001 census has reduced the number to 2.7 million only, almost half of the previous population. On the other hand, the number of Nepali-speaking people has been dramatically increased.
Madhes's [Terai’s] Contribution to Nepalese Economy
Terai people (Madhesees) have made significant contribution to the development of Nepalese economy. 60% of the total land of Nepal falls in the plains. Thus the plain people make 60% of contribution in the entire agriculture. Gross Development (GDP) made by the Madhesees is 65%. On the other hand, they contribute 72% to industrial inputs. They run about 49% of industries. Thus they contribute 76% to the revenue. All the major dry ports and transit points lie in plains on the Nepal-India borders. Indeed, the entire Nepalese territory north to India is inhabited by the Madhesees. They have intact relations with people of Sikkim, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and those on northern Indian borders.
Problems faced by the Nepalese Madhesees
Nepalese Madhesees face different problems and undergo several hazards. I want to mention some of them.
Problem of Identity and Recognition: The state tends to recognize only hill natives as Nepalese citizens. On the other hand, it shows reluctance to recognize the Terai people as the native citizens of certain region [Madhes]. Rather it treats them as recent migrants of India, which is quite wrong and malignant. It has deprived them of due recognition on the basis of their distinct Indian culture, language and lifestyle. It has also deprived them of the rights universally accepted as the ideals and norms of United Nations Organization. Instead, they are regarded and hated as the followers of Indian culture, speakers of Indian languages and people of Indian race.
Problem of participation and representation in state power: The Madhesees people do not have due say, participation or representation in those constitutional bodies patronized by the state as legislative, executive, judiciary, besides court (palace) services, army and police. They are not given any opportunity for the same. There has been an undeclared ban on them against policy-making and power exercise in the state.
Consequently, there are only 2 judges among 17 from Madhesees community in the apex court (Supreme Court) of Nepal. Except one yes-man of King, no single Madhesees is atop any constitutional body. Even the present cabinet has few ministers from the same community. Only one Madhesees official of the Foreign Services has been appointed as the ambassador. Especially, no Madhesees has been appointed for the same post representing different sectors on political level. Only one Madhesees is promoted and posted for the post of Secretary in the entire Nepalese government. According to some government data, only 259 Madhesees held the post of Section Officers out of a total 2,500 officials about some years ago. In fact, the government has adopted a policy of keeping the Madhesees at a bay and away from the mainstream of the state on account of complex constitutional and legal provisions.
Problem of citizenship or nationality: It is mandatory to acquire Nepalese citizenship for entering all government and non-government services. Lacking which, a citizen is deprived of all state privileges as provided by the constitution and existing laws. But the reality is that 4 million Madhesees origin people out of the total population of 22 million have been deprived of the Nepalese citizenship. Even different commissions erected by different governments in past have accepted and admitted this fact. Thus the government has forced them to live in their own native land stateless floating people. If the problem is not addressed and solved immediately, then the majority will be forced to quit Nepal and migrate to India, a situation like mass exodus or Noah’s flood.
Problem of recognition of language and culture: The Madhesees of Nepal speaks different languages like Hindi, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Tharu, Rajwanshi, Santhal, Tajpuriya, Bengali and Punjabi. The state plays no role in their promotion, prosperity, practice and protection. It has given no award and incentive for their development. The state - owned printing or publishing houses do not publish any books written in these languages. Hindi has long been a lingua franca among all sectors of Nepalese society. But the state makes clear discrimination against them. It gives no recognition to the regional dress of the Madhesees like dhoti, kurta, pyjama and gamchha. They are denied entry to National Secretariat (Parliament) and major government offices in dressed in those traditional garbs. Similarly, no distinction and honor is awarded to cultural events and festivals based on Indian culture like Chhatha, Dipawali, Holi, Judsital, Chaurchan, Samachakewa, Maghi, Jitiya, Id, Bakra-Id, which are observed by the Madhesees community.
Problem of internal colonialization: After the king exercised direct rule in Nepal, the state made intentional and strategic attempt to inhabit the people of hill origin in territory bordering India that is plains, where native Madhesees used to live. They were non-Madhesees like Burmese migrants, those driven out from northeastern states of India, and Bhutanese refugees. Thus began internal colonialization in the plains. This resulted into rapid decline in the population of Madhesees in their own native region, as is shown in different statistics of the government. Till recently, this region boasted of having lush green vegetation and thick forests. But the internal colonialization has turned it into a desert. Different studies have shown its adverse effect on the people inhabiting the Indian borders.
Literacy and opportunities in Madhes: The state has shown no interest in educating and developing the Terai people. According to government data, the average literacy of the Madhesees castes is 6.3% only. On the other hand, 51.2% the hill castes are highly literate though their population is 40.3% only. Moreover, 66.2% of them take part in ruling or government. But the Madhesees having 24.5% population have only 17.7% of high literacy. This biasness on the part of the state will be detrimental in the long run, leading to heavy disproportionateness and final extinction of the community. The women of this community face the same lot or fate.
Problem of right representation: The Constitution of Nepal has a provision stating that the sovereignty lies in people. But the latest political scenario speaks against it. In no case can sovereignty lie in the hands of the Terai people. Thus the state has deprived them of the constitutional rights by depriving them of true representation in state and government. The constituencies have been divided strategically to keep them away from the mainstream. Thus they have deprived of true representation in the legislative and thus sovereignty.
Solutions
Judicial recognition of the Madhesees: The prime political will of the Terai people is to secure free and independent identity. The state should confer due recognition all the castes, tribal and linguistic groups of this community as the native or indigenous people as it has regarded their native place as the inseparable part of Nepalese territory. It should also recognize their languages. It should adopt a "multilingual formula" as a lingua franca. Above all, it should accept that fact that Nepal is a common nation of Terai and hill natives.
Provision of citizenship: The Terai people will renounce any political solution that does not address their judicial representation. So they must be given due right to citizenship. That is 4 million Terai people, who have so far been deprived of Nepalese citizenship, should be granted the same. This is possible only through fundamental change in the complex provision of the constitution.
Reservation for representation in state power: There should be constitutional provision for equal representation of all the castes and ethnic groups on the basis of their population. Until and unless there is a proportionate human development of all classes and castes as per the principle of positive discrimination, there should be a provision for the reservation of the rights of the Terai people in representative bodies of policy making. It is quite essential as they lead a very miserable life as oppressed (dalit) and backward people.
Controlling internal colonialization: The state should make a regional structure on the basis of geographic, ethnic, linguistic and racial accounts, and make a legal provision against acquiring land in thus formed provinces in order to stop and check internal colonialization. There should be constitutional provision against making and implementing any anti - racial habitation policies in such provisions.
What should be the form of such province as wished by the Madhesees?
Nepal at present is undergoing an ordeal. On the one hand, the Maoists have waged an armed revolution for a republic state on the basis of communism. In this regard, 12,000 people have been killed in past 9 -10 years. Their struggle is solely terrorist in nature. On the other hand, the king has seized all executive power and is working against the parliamentary political system. Political parties have launched agitation against royal regression. The entire country is inflamed against it for about a year and half. Thus the whole nation is struggling for restructuring the state. The change is inevitable. The Madhes people believe in multiparty democracy. Therefore, they want to establish their rights and say in any forthcoming changes on the basis of their population. They have put forth their demand for central and regional governments within an indivisible Nepal and holding adult franchise for multiparty system. They very much wish for a federal rule.
Federal system and regional autonomy: It is the wish of every Madhesees. This is not possible through present constitution NAD unitary thought. So there is no alternative to Federal System for racial equality, social justice and equal opportunities. The Madhesees of Nepal want to have a federal system within an indivisible Nepalese territory. It will not only solve the problem of national unification on emotional grounds but also tie people of diverse castes, regions, languages and cultural groups in the same fabric of nationality. This alone will lend them and other nationalities equal rights in economic, social, political and cultural sectors, and end social discrimination based on caste, class, creed, culture and language.
Legal way to acquire federal system and autonomy: Since the existing constitution has failed to achieve federal system and autonomy, the only solution is holding elections for constitutional assembly. Their declaration will end the present political imbroglio. Otherwise it will flare up to a great extent.
Today, the Madhesees Peoples Rights Forum-Nepal want to draw your attention to this grave fact.

"Long live our struggle against the racial discrimination to Madhesees people of Nepal"

Ahiraj

2006-02-11T09:44:00.000-08:00

Constituent Assembly

2006-02-11T09:39:00.000-08:00

Constituent Assembly

At present, Nepal is undergoing a complex transition due to the most dilemmatic and directionless situation in the history. The country has witnessed the failure of British-style multi-party, parliamentary monarchical system. The rule of state established by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 2047 (AD 1990), that resulted from the People's Movement, 2046 and through mutual agreement of Nepali Congress, United Left Front and the King, has been inactive, directionless and almost defunct. But the future constitution and new rule of state that could replace it has not taken any form yet. This makes inevitable constitutional change on the basis of a lawful and fixed procedure. To achieve this, people have already commenced debate, discussion and interaction on a new structure of the state. The major issue in this regard has been deciding about the outline (form) of future state through the Constituent Assembly. No aspect or sector of modern Nepalese national life has been untouched by this issue.
Today, the civil society has taken a grave interest in this issue. How should be the new constitution? What should be nature of the elections for the Constituent Assembly? Such issues have been a matter ofcommon interest for the Maoists, parliamentarians, royalists (monarchists) and common people. In fact, after the King unilaterally breached the tripartite political agreement (understanding) reached upon after the People's Revolution, 2046, there seems to be no other alternative than the Constituent Assembly in order to restore a complete democratic system. The view that the sovereignty seized from the people can be regained only through the Constitutional Assembly is gaining momentum in the country. The Madheshee Janadhikar Forum, Nepal has presented some relevant issues feeling a dire need to hold widespread discussion, debate and interaction on these issues.
1. Background of the Constituent Assembly in Nepal
The issue of the Constituent Assembly has been raised in Nepal since BS 2007. But it is still an important political agenda without being concluded. Due to the pressure exerted by the armed rebellion of Nepali Congress in 2007, the then Prime Minister of India, Jawahar Lal Nehru made a proposal. Accordingly, the Rana premier Mohan Shumsher addressed the nation on 24 Paush 2007 (ie 9 January 1951) and declared "to form a Constituent Assembly through adult franchise all over Nepal, and to hold the first meeting of the Assembly within 2009". It was first declaration about the Constituent Assembly in the Nepalese history. Soon after, King Tribhuvan made a royal declaration on 7 Falgun 2007 (ie 18 February 1951), "WE have wished and decided to have the rule of our subjects henceforth in accordance with the Republican Constitution drafted by a Constituent Assembly elcted by them." Accordingly, the Interim government of the Ranas and Nepali Congress drafted Interim Constitution 2007 for a provisional period till the Constitution was formed through the Constituent Assembly. But the elections for the same were not held as per the royal declaration. Later, after the death of King Tribhuvan, his son King Mahendra ascended the throne and began a direct rule of the king, and thus stopped the elections of the the Constituent Assembly. On 24 Shrawan 2012 (ie 8 August 1955), the King declared to hold elections since the Ashwin Poornima (Full Moon Day) of 2014 (ie October 1957). But many contemporary political parties protested saying that the elections should be held for the Constituent Assembly, rather than the parliament. So King Mahendra made another royal declaration withholding the said elections. Nepali Congress, Nepali National Congress and Praja Parishad jointly protested the royal declaration and decided to hold Civil Disobedience since 22 Marg 2014 (7 December 1957). It was also particpated in by Communist Party of Nepal (CPN). The Civil Disobedience mainly aimed at holding the elections for the Constituent Assembly. But the agitation was postponed when King Mahendra declared again to hold general elections on 7 Falgun 2015 (ie 18 February 1959). The parties abandoned their demand for the Constituent Assembly and started preparing for the general elections. Thus the national politics took a different direction. Consequently, the parliamentary elections were held in which Nepali Congress had a sweeping majority, and form a government. In 2017 King Mahendra dissolved the elected government through direct military intervention. Then the meeting of the Central Committee of agitating Nepali Congress raised its voice in 2026 for the necessity of the Constituent Assembly. Earlier, the communist leader Mohan Bikram Singh had proposed about the justification (relavance) of the Constituent Assembly in a plenum of CPN held in Durbhanga (India) in 2019. Quite later, that is in 2043, CPN (4th Convention) raised its voice in favour of the Constituent Assembly. It reiterated its demand right after the People's Movement, 2046. In this regard, its leader Nirmal Lama, and CPN (Masal) demanded that the new constitution should be drafted through the Constituent Assembly. Then Nepal Sadbhawana Parishad (later turned into Nepal Sadbhawana Party, NSP) also expressed its view in favour of the Constituent Assembly. But the allies of Nepali Congress and United Left Front did not give any importance to the issue of the Constituent Assembly. As a result, the king promulgated the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal at the recommendation of a Commission formed through the mutual agreement between United Left Front, Nepali Congress and the King. Later this constitution was neither discussed nor debated or endorsed in the elected parliament. It is in regard with this constitution that the people are raising different voices like "What to do to the Cosntitution - amend or reform, hold the elections for the Constituent Assembly or rewrite the Constitution?". On the one hand, different political parties like CPN (Maoist), NSP (Anandi Devi), CPN (ML), Madheshee Janadhikar Forum-Nepal, and other organizations have been raising their voices in favour of the Constituent Assembly. On the other, many leaders and workers (activists) of CPN (UML) and Nepali Congress have sided with the Constituent Assembly.
In fact, the issue of the Constituent Assembly is not unique and completely new in Nepal. It had already become the major agenda of the contemporary politics ever since the revolution of 2007 after which it gained efficiency. The revolution was postponed only after the royal declaration of King Tribhuvan that the future rule of the country would be guided and directed by the Constitution drafted by the Constituent Assembly. Then Nepali Congress, CPN, Gorkha Parishad and Nepali National Congress had also supported the issued of the Constituent Assembly. Therefore, the agenda of the Constituent Assembly is not a fundamental issue raised by the Maoists. This should be taken as a common agenda of all the groups fighting today for establishing complete democratic political system in the country. All the constitutions of Nepal have so far been promulgated by the king. No constitution has been drafted through the participation of elected representatives. Therefore no constitution could place the people's power over the power and influence of monarchy, nor could establish constitutional supremacy. No constitution established the people as the major source of sovereignty and state power. Therefore political exit (outlet) today means establishing the abovementioned norms and values in the constitution. This cannot be achieved by reviving the almost defunct constitution or reactivizing the power manifest in the king, nor can a democratic system and constitutional rule be established in the country in this way. Therefore, all the groups having faith and belief in complete democratic system should stand in favour of the Constituent Assembly.
e the rule of our s2. Examples of the Constituent Assembly in the World
The Constituent Assembly is taken everywhere as a democratic process of drafting new constitution, changing the existing one and amending the same. India, Sri Lanka, America, France, Kenya, USSR (after 1917 Revolution), and South Africa all held the elections of the Constituent Assembly for this purpose. Here are some examples for your perusal (study).
America (USA) : Till 1789 no European nation a written constitution. Then, for the first time in the world history, America propounded a unique rule through the Constituent Assembly that was more democratic than contemporary British rule. 13 colonies revolted against England and declared independence on 4 July 1776. Then they formed a federation on 15 November 1977. These newly independent colonies decided to draft a new constitution which could unite them within a stronger union. Thus the representatives of the previous colonies held a conference in 1787 in Philadelphia. This conference was termed as the Constituent Assembly. It was attended by 55 representatives from all the states. They were George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Maddison, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, John Dickenson, James Wilson and other dignitaries. Of them, 8 dignitaries had signed the Charter of the American Independence, and had taken part in almost all the revolutions. Jefferson even portrayed the Constituent Assembly as the "Assembly of the Avtars (Incarnations)". In fact, it was an assembly of extraordinary people. Despite prolonged debate and differences, they passed many proposals with a majority. The major ones were: Drafting a new republican constitution, provision of three organs in the state - Executive, Legislative and Judiciary, delegating more power to the states, providing the Congress a right to make laws, etc. The representatives of the conference made a coordination between principle and practice and drafted a constitution that established balance among different organs, and reduced the possibility of mutual disharmony among them.
The makers of the American constitution gave importance to 4 cardinal points in it:
1. To establish a system of good governance through the constitution. They made a provision of a powerful Executive for it.
2. To keep each organ mutually independent and balanced. For this, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary should be separated from each other while each exercizing check-and-balance.
3. To make the government responsible (accountable) to the people. This principle was implemented by making a constitutional provision to elect all the high officials of the administration, and holding periodical elections for the same.
4. The most important objective was: the question (issue) of individual freedom. Accordingly, Executive, Legislative and Judiciary were kept separate so that one could not make a tie (an alliance) with another and encroach upon individual freedom. Besides, the constitution safeguarded some rights of the individuals. Any breach of those rights entitled the concerned individuals to seek judicial treatment.
The Philadelphia Conference drafted the constitution in 1787 and presented the same to the Congress on 17 September of the same year for approval. After the Convention of the Congress endorsed it, the same was signed by all the state representatives, and presented to all the states for final approval. Thus the constitution was brought into effect only after it was passed and endorsed by majority of the states. In this way, the political history of America really starts only from the date when the states approved the constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America was enforced on 30 April 1789. This was a unique experiment in the world. The Preamble of the Constitution was very moving and inspiring. Indeed, the essence of the US Constitution lies therein. After the making of this constitution, the people learnt about their rights and had a strong feeling of nationalism. The vast majority of people were not only the citizens of different (separate) states but also had a sense of belonging to a vast nation.
India: During the Struggle for Freedom in India, the Indian National Congress firstly approved the proposal for the Constituent Assembly in 1934. Then only the British government was forced to accept it in August 1940. When the Labour Party formed government in England in 1945, it sent a cabinet mission to India to take important decisions. All the members of the cabinet mission and Viceroy and Governor-General presented a plan of action, and issued a joint communiqué regarding drafting the Constitution of India by the British government. Accrodingly, arrangements were made to elect the members of the Constituent Assembly by provincial assemblies. The Sikhs and Muslim legislators were allowed to elected their representatives as per quota on the basis of their population. It was according to the cabinet mission that the provincial assemblies elcted the members of the Constituent Assembly in July 1946. The provision was made to include altogether 389 members in assmebly the of constitution makers. It had one representative for each million. According to this, there were 292 members from 11 provinces, 93 from local principalities and 4 from union states. The provision was made to divide the number of members on the basis of population from among the major communities of each province at places where the elections for provincial assemblies were to be held. Moreover, the elections of the representatives of each community were to be held only by their members in the assemblies or as per different electoral system by the provincial assemblies.
On 9 Decembert 1946, the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly was held and was attended by 210 members only. They elected Dr Sachchidanand Sinha as a temporay President. Later on 11 December 1946, Dr Rajendra Prasad was elected as the President of the Constituent Assembly. The Muslim League, which was demanding a separate state for the Muslims, bycotted the Constituent Assembly and resorted to violent activities in the name of direct action. As per the agreement reached upon by some chief leaders of Indian National Congress and the leaders of Muslim League, the Viceroy declared and assented to partition India and form a new nation - Pakistan, on 3 June 1947. The partition of India changed the size of the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly was not a sovereign body. Rather it had to work under the plan and procedure of the cabinet mission. Its members were not directly elected by the people but were indirectly elected by the members of the provincial assemblies. The Constituent Assembly had representatives from all the major parties, classes, racial groups and religions. 210 members took part in its first meeting held in 1946. Of them, there were 155 Hindus, 30 scheduled castes, 4 Sikhs, 6 Indian Christians, 5 backward people, 3 Anglo-Indians, 3 Persians, and 4 Muslims. Seen from party viewpoint, representatives from almost all the political parties like Indian National Congress, Hindu Mahasabha, Scheduled Castes Association, Muslim League, etc were present in the Constituent Assembly. Another important aspect of the Constituent Assembly was the presence of the chief leaders of all the parties in it. From class perspective, representatives from all classes and interest groups, namely lawyers, doctors, landlords, professors, workers, journalists, judges, former administrators, capitalists and women, etc other elites were taking part in the Constituent Assembly.
d Judiciary should be separated from each other while eacOn 13 December 1936, the basic principles and objectives of the constitution were outlined in the objectives and proposal as presented by Pt Jawahar Lal Nehru. The proposal was approved of by the Constituent Assembly on 22 January 1947. In addition, the Constituent Assembly declared, "India will be an independent, sovereign and republican state, including autonomous units, and the people will constitute the source of power of the government. All the people will be given a right to justice, equality and independence. There will be essential provision for safeguarding the minorities, backward people, oppressed and other backward classes, and the integrity and sovereignty of the federal states will be retained." Later the proposal formed the basis of the Preamble of the Constitution.
On 29 August 1947, a 7-member draft committee was formed by the Constituent Assembly under the chairmanship of Dr Bhimrao Ambedakar. In addition, the Constituent Assembly formed other significant committees as well. They were federal Rights Committee, Federal Constitution Committee, Provincial Constitution Committee, Fundamental (Basic) Rights Committee, Minority Rights Committee, and so on. The draft of the Constituent Assembly was presented to the Chairperson on 21 February 1948. It was published in leading newspaper seeking the intellectuals' reactions to it. Then on 29 August 1947, Dr Ambedakar presented the draft formally to the Constituent Assembly. Altogether 7,635 amendment proposals were made to the proposed draft. Of them, 2,473 were widley discussed in the Constituent Assembly. Finally, the Constituent Assembly endorsed the draft constitution on 26 November 1949. It took 2 years 11 months and 18 days for the Constituent Assembly to draft a constitution in India. The last meeting of the Constituent Assembly was convened on 24 January 1950, when Dr Rajendra Prasad was selected as the First President of Indian Republic. Then all the members signed the constitution and decided to enforce the constitution on 26 January 1950. On the same date 20 years before, the Lahore Convention of Congress had declared their demand for complete autonomy (Swaraj).
France : The French Emperor Louis XVI (1774-93) decided to convene the parliament when he failed to solve the economic problem of the country. Accordingly, the parliamentary elections were held in 1789. It had three divisions or classes: The first class consisted of the aristocrats. The second class comprised of the clergymen. The third class was formed of the middle class workers and peasants' representatives sans any rights. The three classes had an unabridgeable gap among themselves (They held quite different opinions). Meanwhile, the first session of the parliament was held on 5 May 1789. But the meetings of the representatives of the three classes were convened separately. The representatives of the lower rung declared themselves as the only representative national assembly of France on 17 June 1789. They also decided to hold the national assembly themselves with following agendas: To end the prerogatives of the aristocrats and clergymen, declare human rights, seek solutions to economic problems, resolve the disputes related to the church, and above all, to draft a new constitution. The same national assembly drafted the new constitution. So it was called the Constituent Assembly. In 1791, the constitution was prepared by the national assembly and enforced after royal assent (emperor's approval). The constitution was based on Montesque's Theory of Separation of Power. The Constituent Assembly worked for about 2 years and 3 months, that is from 17 June 1789 to 30 September 1791. It was the first written constitution not only of France but also of the entire Europe. It established the first constitutional system in France. Though the constitution of 1791 is regarded as the landmark of progress in the French history, it did not last long. So the second elections for the Constituent Assembly were held on 23 April 1848.
Sri Lanka : In 1946 a new constitution was drafted after Ceylone got freedom from British colony. But, according to the constitution, the ultimate judiciary right was still reserved by the British privy council even after the coveted independence. Till then the Governor General of Sri Lanka was appointed by the British government. It went on till 1970/72. Thus Britain had retained Sri Lanka under modern colonialism. The people expressed great dissatisfaction over such constitutional framework of Sri Lanka. The voices were raised everywhere demanding the making of a new constitution by the representatives elected by the people. Meanwhile, general elections for the parliament were held in 1970. The Freedom Party of Sri Lanka won the election with about two-third majority. The party demanded that "the British sovereignty should recede from Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka should gain complete freedom". The elections gave a good opportunity to change the constitution. The parliament made a decision to convert the 157-member House of Representatives into the Constituent Assembly. Then the process of making a new constitution continued from 1970 to 1972. The Constituent Assembly passed 38 basic proposals. The new constitution established the President as the Head of State and the Supreme Commander of Army. The constitution lent supremacy to the national assembly. Thus the national assembly got complete right to change, amend and modify the constitution. Another important feature of the constitution was the concept of free and independent judiciary. Thus the new constitution of Sri Lanka was enforced in 1972. Then only an independent, sovereign and republican Sri Lanka was founded.
South Africa : The conflict against apartheid and racial discrimination ended in 1993 only through an agreement reach upon by the conflicting groups. There also the moot cause of conflict (bone of contention) was making a new constitution. The country was ruled by a minority group called National Party. The Constituent Assembly was unlikely to cater the interests of the minority groups. Political parties like Incatha Freedom Party also had the same opinion. But the African National Congress representing the majority of the Blacks strongly advocated for the Constituent Assembly. These two groups made a mutual agreement and held the first all-party roundtable conference. It was attended by all big and small political parties and organizations. They made free discussions and agreed upon the principles of the constitution. On the basis of those principles, the all-party conference made the first draft of internal constitution. It would direct the rule of the nation till the final constitution was made. Moreover, the all-party conference drafted necessary laws for democratic elections, and accordingly general elections for bicameral parliament were held in April 1974. It provided for national assembly and senate. The Constituent Assembly was formed of 490 members from both the Houses. It included representatives from all the parties. The number of the members of the Constituent Assembly was determined on the basis of the votes achieved by the party in the elections. This assembly prepared the final draft of the constitution. On 8 May 1996, a majority of 98% of the Constituent Assembly ratified the final draft and sent to the Constitutional Court for endorsement. The Constitutional Court saw whether the new draft complied to the pre-determined constitutional principles, and sent back to the Constituent Assembly, which re-endorsed the draft with certain amendments on 11 October 1996. On 10 December 1996, President Nelson Mandela signed the final draft, and promulgated the constitution to be enforced since 4 February 1997. Nepal can also learn a lot from politics and constitutional procedure of South Africa.
lasses had Kenya : Kenya had a different cycle of events. The Kenyan government did not take any initiative regarding the Constituent Assembly. It was rather done by the Kenya People's Commission, an ally of the civil society. The commission began to work independently without any assistance from the government. So the government started an all-party discussion fearing it would be separated from the process of making the constitution. Accordingly, it held the parliamentary elections, and made all the members of parliament ex-officio members of the Constituent Assembly. They made a study of different activities and steps necessary for making a new constitution and drafted an Act. The parliament also formed a constitutional commission, which was required to make a draft of the constitution and present to the Constituent Assembly. Later, a common process of review was begun by merging the legally formed commission and the one formed on civil level. It gave rise to heated debate, and many complications were seen regarding the agreement. The President insisted on getting parliamentary endorsement before giving finality to the constitution, as he had majority in the parliament. Moreover, the parliament had a parochial view about a new constitution. As a result, the President intervened to give finality to the constitution. Helpless, the civil society agreed to make a constitution on the basis of an agreement made with the President.
3. Issue of Amendment in the Present Constitution
The Constitution of Nepal was not made active and time-oriented in the last 14 years. Rather, it was kept static and untouched. Nor were any amendments made into it to cater the contemporary problems when the House of Representative elected by the people was active in the country. When Nepal Sadbhawana Party registered an ordinary proposal for constitutional amendment for solving the citizenship problem, it was defeated by a majority and thus the practice of constitutional amendment was blocked. It was but natural that all the political parties protested against it as the citizenship problem highly concerned the Madhesis. But many other problems were left unresolved as no amendment or reform was made into the constitution for its due modification. Parliamentary parties, especially Nepali Congress, CPN (UML) and even palace saw their interests being safeguarded in this very constitution. The palace and the political leaders feared that the constitutional amendment could alter the role of monarchy, subjugate the army under the parliament, and open a discussion about new structure of state, beside raising the vast issues of the rights of Madhesis, tribals, dalits, minorities, religious and linguistic communities, and women, which would hurt the old and traditional interests. No leaders of any political party dared to solve these problems in a constitutional way. Thus the process of constitutional development was not furthered by making timely amendment to the constitution.
At present, many norms and values, and basic structures of the present constitution have failed in the process of constitutional exercise. The norms and values provisioned in the constitution, namely multi-party system, constitutional monarchy, and sovereignty manifest in people have failed in practice. It has been historically proved that the Nepalese monarchs are not ready to abide by the principle of constitutional monarchy. The promise made by King Tribhuvan in BS 2007 failed when he was still alive in BS 2010. In BS 2015, parliamentary elections were held, but the parliamentary government was banned within a year and a half. Since King Mahendra defied the principles of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy, he imposed an autocratic no-party Panchayat system with active monarchy. The historical movement of BS 2046 restored the system of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. But King Birendra was not satisfied with it as well. Seeing the actvities and expressions after the event of 18 Ashwin 2059 (ie 2 October 2002), King Gyanendra does seem willing to abide by the norms and values of constitutional monarchy. Thus since the kings of Nepal have so far been reluctant to abide by the principles of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy, the system is frequently under the threat of erasure, and people's fundamental rights have been curbed. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 2047 copied the British-style system of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy, but failed to adopt the principles of democracy (people's rule), powerful parliament and parliamentary supremacy. Indeed, this experiment has been a complete failure in Nepal.
Another important aspect of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 2047 is sovereignty manifest in people. But, in reality, Nepalese could never be the source of state power and fully sovereign. They could never enjoy the sovereign rights. Neither they promulgated the constitution, nor was the constitution discussed, debated and endorsed in elected House of Representatives. Nor could the House make any amendments to it. Consequently, the declaration of Ashwin 18 (ie 2 October) has invaved the main spirit of the constitution itself.
Today there is a heated debate in the country as to elect the Constituent Assembly or to make constitutional amendments. Not only the Maoists, but alslo people of different levels and classes have turned rebels. So the slogan of the political parties in favour of the constitutional amendment has lost its meaning as opposed to many voices raised in street in favour of republic state, constitutional assembly and new structure of state. The reality bite is the constitutional amendment can neither solve the present political problem (imbroglio), nor can it give a forward-moving exit to the country. The major agendas to be fixed in country now are: to change in the state structure for a complete democratic system, to subjugate the army under a civil government, to make people alone the major source of state power and fully sovereign, to make all aspects of the constitution alterable through a national referendum, the constitutional amendment end the British-style democracy which has been proved a failure and give a new alternative, the constitutional amendment make a provision for federal structure as well as regional or racial autonomy and right to self decision, to secure equality, impartiality and social justice for Madhesis, tribals, dalits and women, to establish constitutional or parliamentary supremacy, to make changes in election procedure, to democratize the multi-party system, to establish the rule of law, to facilitate the access of people of all communities to state power, means and resources without any discrimination, to end the racial discrimination, to end internal colonization against Madheshor were any amendments made into it to cat and Madhesis practised perennially (for centuries), to establish fundamental human rights. These cannot be achieved by sheer amendment in the constitution. Only the Constitutional Assembly can awaken a feeling in the sovereign people that the state belongs to them, and can address the strong slogans in favour of republic state and restructuring of the state. This needs a completely new constitution. There is no other way out for the political imbroglio caused by the present armed conflict in the country than the Constitutional Assembly. The new constitution must at least provide the people an unconditional right to make decisions on monarchy or republic and other national affairs through peaceful, constitutional process through the Constitutional Assembly. It must include essential factors of a democratic constitution like federalism, proportionate rule and representation, regional or racial autonomy, division of state power, multi-party system, establishment of fundamental human rights, and end of all sorts of discrimination, that is colour, sex, language, religion, region, race and culture, in a constitutional way. The present constitution has many obstacles which hinder the process of making the people sovereign in real sense by altering certain provisions in it through national referendum. It is not at all possible to effect restructuring the state by amending the constitution "without altering the spirit or sentiment of the Preamble of the Constitution".
The unitary structure founded by King Prithvi Narayan Shah of Gorkha through force, power and deceit after demolishing the autonomous and republican states scattered in different parts of the country, like Madhes, hills and valley during his expansion campaign in the name of unification, was just an autocratic, unitary system of state. It fosters the policy of "One Language and One Dress", which lends supremacy only to two high castes, one or two tribes, one language, one religion, one dress, and one class. Without altering this struture and form of unitary system, and without establishing federal system and regional or provincial autonomy, the hilly Brahmins and Kshatriyas will retain their supremacy, and the Hindu religion, Nepali language, and hilly dress will exercise their prerogative in practice, no matter how much we talk about equality, democracy and forward-moving outlet, and who leads a party or government. No revolutionary slogan or document of any party can check it. During the Gurkha expansion, Prithvi Narayan Shah had seized the sovereignty of different racial republic and subjected their peoples. The people of those subjugated republics must now enjoy autonomy or the feeling of autonomy through a political change. This requires altering the present unitary structure, multi-party parliamentary system and state structure. This is not possible through constitutional amendment. It needs the establishment of the Constituent Assembly.
4. Formation of the Constituent Assembly
At present, the issue of the Constituent Assembly begins with such queries as - Who should declare the Constituent Assembly, and how should it be formed? Certainly, this is the most relevant matter. First and foremost, there must be mutual agreement among the king, Maoists and major parliamentary parties regarding the Constituent Assembly. Then the the Constituent Assembly must be declared through an all-party conference or roundtable conference, and an interim constitution should be drafted to cater for the time being till a new one is drafted and finalized. The conference must also define the procedure of the Constituent Assembly, election procedire and rules and regulations.
Since the Constituent Assembly is formed by the representatives elected directly by the people, the latter will have a direct participation in the making of a constitution. The best method is to hold the elections for the Constituent Assembly through proportionate election procedure. Another method may be like the present parliamentary elections. But while holding elections in this way requires redefining the constituencies for the Constituent Assembly on the basis of population. Otherwise, it would lead to destruction, violence and civil war. Each and every political party and organization can carry their agendas to be included in the constitution through their respective manifestoes for people's opinion in the elections. They can field candidates advocating their views. The Constituent Assembly thus elected directly by the people will be automatically dissolved after the promulgation of the constitution. Then all the activities will be done and made in accordance with the new constitution. The assembly of thus elected representatives will form a committee to draft a constitution. It will do accordingly, and present the same to the assembly for debate, discussion and endorsement. The assembly will also define its working methods and procedures. Thus the assembly will make a wide discussion on the draft constitution presented to it. A draft committee alone cannot complete all the tasks of making a constitution. There must be many sub-committees for defining the structure of the state, division of state power, and power balance, and so on. These sub-committees consist of politicians and constitution experts. They discuss on different matters and agendas and give finality to the draft constitution. The Constituent Assembly finalizes most of them unequivocally, and others through voting. After the Constituent Assembly passes it, the people make the final declaration of the constitution. The king need not give any assent or put his seal once the constitution is made. The constitution can be promulgated by the Head of the Constituent Assembly himself or herself.
To hold free and impartial elections, an all-party interim government must be formed to check the misuse of state means and resources and power by any political party or individual. International organizations and bodies should be invited to watch and observe the elections. Their presence must be guaranteed from the elections of the Constituent Assembly to the enforcement of the constitution. The constitution thus made by the Constituent Assembly must be committed and determined to respect and regard the people's mandate., sex, language, religion, reg

1. Racial Structure of Nepal :
Nepal has always been divided in three vast regions - Himalayas, hills and Madhesh - as per the formation of mountain ranges. They are called Madhesh (Terai or plains), hills and mountains (Himalayas). These three regions have many differences (are diverse) in terms of their landforms, and racial, social and cultural structure (features), and language. The Himalayan region is inhabited by the Bhotes (Tibetans), Sherpas, Thakalis, Tamangs, Vyasis, Lepchas, and the like. The hills are occupied prominently by different castes like Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Wadis (), Damais (Tailors), Gaines (Troubadours<<), Kamis (Blacksmiths), Sannyasis (Ascetics), Sarkis (Cobblers), Thakuris, etc and ethnic groups like Chepangs, Gurungs, Jirels, Lepchas, Limbus, Magars, Newars, Rais, Danuwars, Tamangs, Dhamis, etc. The Madhesh region is further divided as Inner Plains and Outer Plains. The Madheshee castes include Botes, ? Danuwars, Darais, Brahmins, Lohars (Luhars = Ironsmiths), Badhais (Carpenters), Chamars (Shoemakers), Dhobis (Washermen), Batars, Dusadhs, Tatmas, Gangais, Haluwais (Confectioners), Doms (Sweepers), Kanus, Mehtars (Sweepers), Kayasths (Scribes), Amats, Barais, Bins (Fishermen), Chidimars (Bird Hunters), Kahars (Carriers), Dhuniyas (Carders), Kamars, Lodhis, Kewats, Kaibaraths, Khatwes, Kumhars (Kumhales = Potters), Malis (Gardeners and Florists), Kurmis, Shikaris (Hunters), Kushwahas, Rauniyars (Businessmen), Malahs (Fishermen), Stogi, Musahars, Kathbaniyas, Rajdhobs, Gaderis, Sarbariyas, Rajbhars, Rajputs, Telis (Oilsellers), Sudis, Kalwars, Yadavs/Ahirs (Cow/Buffalo Tenders), Danuwars??, Dhanuks, Sonars (Sunars or Bandas = Goldsmiths), Dhimals, Hajams/Nais (Barbers), Kushmas, Meche, Koche, Rajvanshis, Tharus, Kisans (Farmers), Satars/Santhals, Jhagads, Mundas, Tajpuriyas, Bengalis, Marwadis, Muslims, Sikhs, and so on. Of them, the Sikhs and Muslims are known as religious groups or sects. The Muslim community is subdivided as Shekh, Syed, Pathan, Dhuniya, Julaha (Weaver), etc. These castes are collectively termed as Madhesis. Though Nepal is regarded as the only Hindu Kingdom of the world, it is inhabited by people of different religions and cults like Hindus, Buddhists, Islams, Kirants, Christians, Jains, Shikhs, etc. Accroding to National Census, 2001, there are about 100 languages and doalects.
We can also talk about the origins and traditional sites of many castes and communities of Nepal. In general, the Upper Kirant in the eastern hills (across the Arun River) is a site of the Limbus. They mainly speak Limbu. The Middle Kirant (from Indrawati to Arun) is inhabited traditionally by the Rais. Sankhuwasabha, Bhojpur, Solukhumbu, Khotang, Okhaldhunga, Dhankuta and some parts of Udaypur is occupied by the Rais (Khambus). They mainly speak Khambu languages. The Tamangs live around the Mahabharat Range, especially the hilly areas around the Kathmandu Valley. They speak Tamang language in their ancestral land. The Gurungs are traditionally scattered between Budhi Gandaki and Kali Gandaki. The ancient habitats of Tamu (Gurungs) are Gorkha, Lamjung, Manang, Kaski, Syangja and Tanahun. Their chief language is Gurung. The Magars have settle in 12 Magarat, that is Tanahun, Kaski through Western Syangja, Parvat, Palpa up to Rolpa, Rukum and Jajarkot. They predominate the area and speak Magar language. The Newars are the major inhabitants of the Kathmandu Valley. They live mostly in Kathmandu, Bhaktapur and Lalitpur. Their major language is Nepal Bhasha or Newari. Similarly, the Khas people (Khasiyas) live mainly in Karnali region. The Khas region covers Salyan, Arghakhanchi, Gulmi, Baglung, Dolpa, Jajarkot, Surkhet, Dailekh, Jumla, Mugu, Kalikot, Humla, Doti, Darchula, Baitadi, Bajhang, Bajura, Dadeldhura, Achham, a major part of the Khas state in the western Nepal, one of the two major provinces of the Sinja state - Khasan and Jadan. The latter two had earlier been under the Khas state. The major language, here, is Khas. Likewise, the entire belt ranging from Mechi in the east and Mahakali in the west, the Inner Terai in the north and the plains extending up to the Indian border is called Madhesh (Terai or the plains). Madhesh (Terai) is the plain or surface land in the southern Nepal. The major districts of the Madhesh are Kailali, Kanchanpur, Banke, Bardiya, Rupandehi, Kapilvastu, Nawalparasi, Parsa, Bara, Rautahat, Sarlahi, Dhanusha, Mahottari, Siraha, Saptari, Sunsari, Morang and Jhapa. The Inner Madhesh comprises of Dang, Chitwan, Makwanpur, Sindhuli and some parts of Udaypur. There live Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Shikhs and Jains. They speak Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Dhimali, Santhali, Jhangad, Bengali, Urdu, Rajvanshi, Surjapuri, Bajjika, Tharu, Hindi, etc. Linguistically speaking, Hindi is a common language or lingua franca among the entire Madheshee people.
2. Need for Change in Rule (Ruling System) and New State Structure :
At present, there is a widespread debate, discussion and interaction in the country regarding the new form or structure of state. It has a great significance. Though the Constitution of Nepal, 2047 has defined Nepal as a multilingual, multiracial and multicultural country, it was not addressed from a political angle. The Constitution established Nepal merely as constitutional monarchical multi-party democracy under unitary system. It gave constitutional recognition to the traditional policy of autocratic Panchayat of "One Language, One Dress". Thus it retained constitutional discrimination, disregard and segregation towards people of other many languages, dresses, religions and regions than those speaking Nepali, following Hinduism and wearing hilly dress (daura, suruwal and topi). Nepal did not have such unitary system before Prithvi Narayan Shah expanded the Gorkha kingdom. Instead there were ethnic republics and landforms in every region based on independent, autonomous structure. The Kathmandu Valley had Newari states, the eastern hills had Kirat states, the mid western hills had Baisi-Chaubise states (Twenty-Two and Twenty-Four Principalities), western hills had Khas stste, Magarat region had Magar states, and Madhesh had autonomous Madheshee states. Prithvi Narayan Shah and his successors destroyed all these states and republics through military force and annexed them in Gorkha. After the rise of Rana regime, it made its rule more centralized, and the central power grew to a great extreme. They (Ranas) imposed their autocratic rule on the Madhesh and Madhesis as well as the tribals and ethnic groups of the hills. During the Shah rule and Ranarchy, imperialism and semi-colonization reached its apex. Moreover, the rulers accelerated their grip and vigilance on the hilly people. Ever since Prithvi Narayan annexed the Madhesh in his state, the Madhesis became a prey to racial or ethnic torture. Since they have won over the Madhes, the aristocrats and Khasiyas did not trust the Madhesis. They tried to prolong and prop their rule with the help of the hilly people. Due to the lack of trust in the Madhesis, they built a highway along the central Madheshms are known as religious groups and settled the hilly people on either side.
The changes made in the Panchayat regime following the revoluion of BS 2007, and even later had no impact on the centralized unitary rule of the state. Even the Constitution of Nepal-2047, following the people's movement in 2046, tried to retain the state in centralized unitary system. As in past, the new constitution could not reflect the ethnic diversity and multiplicity of Nepal. Therefore, it is high time to bring Nepal into decentralized structure. Now it is time to end the undemocratic, centralized, unitarism. Democracy cannot be restored in Nepal without changing the state structure and ruling system. It is not at all possible to restore complete democracy in a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural country like Nepal without providing regional or racial autonomy under a federal system. Since Nepal is a multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious country, the constitution must adopt a broader national character by embracing and addressing these social and racial features. Present democracy must not be confied to political democracy but reflect the social justice as well. Political democracy without social one does not hold significance in a country like ours. Therefore, the present democratic system must have a provision of proportionate representation at all levels of the government - federal, state and local levels. This should be practised at all levels, that is Executive, Legislative and Judiciary, as well as army, police and entire bureaucracy.
pur. Their major language is Nepal Bhasha 3. Federal Rule :
The term "Federalism" derives from Latin "Foidus". It means "treaty" or "agreement". The essential feature of the modern federal state is that two or more independent regions or states make a mutual agreement to form a new state.
First of all, the federal system was introduced in 1789 when America drafted its constitution. It is recognized as "the permanent union of sovereign states". Similarly, Russia was later renamed as Soviet Union. The federal rule empasizes on "union" rather than "unity". All the state or province taking part in it get an opportunity to make progress as they retain their national character. The Supreme Court has a very significant role in the federal system, especially regarding the rights of the central government, state government or provincial government, in interpreting the constitutional terms, and in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens.
At present, around 21 nations have successfully experimenting federal and semi-federal systems, and federal constitution. Even great nations, inhabiting almost over half the world population and covering as much land, have adopted federal system of rule. They are: United States of America, Switzerland, Australia, India, Canada, Pakistan, Germany, Nigeria, Malaysia, Indonesia, Libya, Ethiopia, Mali Federation, Uganda, Cameroon Republic, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, West Indies, Austria, Belgium, Spain, Russia and so on. Though the United Kingdom (Britain) has adopted unitary system, it has provided regional autonomy to some extent in order to cater to the demands of its units. Britain is making an experiment in unitary system. It has carefully recognized the independent nature and feature of Wales, Scotland and Ireland as multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic countries. But there are many countries in the world which have not adopted unitary system, so they are fighting against their people for local and regional autonomy, racial self-rule and cultural rights. The neighbouring country, Sri Lanka, has adopted unitary system and given prominence to Sinhalese people and language at the cost of the Tamil people and language. Thus it has landed itself in a volcanic situation of racial conflict (civil war) for past two decades. So far about 68 thousand people have lost their lives. But countries have easily solved such problems and strengthened national unity by adopting federal system. According to the experience of the contemporary world, the federal system has lessened the racial, regional and linguistc conflicts. Not that the federal countries are rid of all problems, but they are solved by autonomous local and regional governments through decentralization and democratic process. So there is little likeliness of communal riots or eth nic violence. Since every ethnic group has got autonomy, their conflicts are usually resolved peacefully through mutual understanding. The problems of Basques of Spain, Moros of the Phillippines, and Miskitos of Nicaragua and the like have been solved just by providing ethnic and regional autonomy. Our neighbouring India has recognized ethnic diversity and has solved many problems like Gorkhaland, Jharkhand, Chhatisgadh, Telangana, Uttaranchal, Mizo, Naga, and the like, and has been solving many other problems of the same nature.
4. Approaches of Federal Rule :
Different views have been expressed at different periods on federal system. Theoretically, the countries running under federal system have adopted one of the three prominent approaches: Anglo-American System, German system, and Soviet system. Yet there have two prominent approaches in practice - traditional approaches and modern approaches (perspectives). According to the traditional approach, the rights to make decisions on state affairs are manifested traditionally and constitutionally in central authorities and different regional officials. But, according to the modern approach, the dynamic federal system emphasizes the essential variables of the unification (integrity) of social and economic powers as well as national unification, and solving different problems arising at different times on their own. Accroding a famous scholar, A K Dickey, the federal system means power division among central, state or regional governments. Accroding to this concept, power division is the main basis of the federal system. The Supreme Court gives the final verdict as per constitutional provision on any dispute arising between the central and state governments. Central government and state government do not interfere with each other's affairs and rights. Similarly, another view gives prominence to federal principles in federal constitution. According to this, federal principles means equal and independent division of state power within the common sphere of the central governments. Under this system, state power and authority has been equally and independently distributed among the federal government, central government, regional autonomous governments and state governments within a common national boundary. This has been regarded as a very practical approach.
Most of the scholars of modern age have promoted this approach of federal system. At present, many countries of the world having social diversity have started adopting federal system. It has three major bases: First, each federation enjoys different achievements made through their activities. These achievements may be political, economic or military or all of them. The country has a written constitution as a supreme law. Both central and regional governments derive their rights from it. Second, the issues and rights of common or national interests of all the unions of federal region or country fall under the jurisdiction of central, national or federal government. For example, Foreign Affairs, Defence, Communication and Finance (Monetary). Issues of local or regional importance like police, jail, social security, subordinate courts, local governance, electricity, local roads and public transport, drinking water supply, health, agriculture, finance, public welfare, education, industry, etc fall under the jurisdiction of the central government, or that of the state government, if not mentioned in the constitution. Some rights fall under the jurisdiction of both federal and state governments. For example: citizenship, rights of elections, public loans, higher education, agriculture, irrigation, natural resources, etc. Third, while making power division between the central or federal states, their jurisdictions are defined in a way to retain their autonomy. Therefore, federal system is indeed balanced distribution of power and authorities inherent with central and state governments. No state can separate itself from the union, nor can the federal government interfere with state affairs.
The centre has central government, supreme court, central legislative and national assembly, and people's parliaments. The latter has direct representation of people. It has representatives elected by the people on the basis of proportionate population from each state. On the other hand, national assembly consists of reprentatives hailing from all regions or states as well as all castes, people speaking different languages and representing various classes and sectors. Similarly, each state has their own constitution, regional or state government. Each makes their own plans and budgets. Each state can impose their taxation. These rights should be practised in accordance with the jurisdiction provided in the constitution. A two-third majority of supreme people's parliament and national assembly should pass and state or regional legislatives should endorse the amendment in the federal constitution or alteration of any provisions. Some countries have a provision of amending the constitution through referendum.
hey are solved by autonomous local and regional governmAfter gaining regional or racial autonomy under the federal system, each caste makes political, economic, social, cultural development and progress and retains their national identity within the framework of their self-rule. The principle of the existence (entity) of all castes and specific identity in racial understanding within the country is a major agenda. It is attained by relieving themselves of racial exploitation, oppression and discrimination, and developing language, culture, art and literature of each caste/tribe on the basis of the principle of mutual racial cooperation and respect. It obviates intervention from the state. The centre or regime should give prominence to implementing racial understanding regarding the structure of central, federal, regional local strata and perspective about the races. Here the state must needs be sensitive towards imparting education in the mother tongue of the racial communities, following the multi-lingual policy of the state, providing reservation to those classes which have not been embraced in the national mainstream, maintaining secularism, safeguarding and developing the existing cultures, protecting and empowering castes/tribes, and developing human resources, and promoting proportionate participation in state operation. It should provide regional or racial autonomy to different communities to develop their languages, cultures and personalities, and should encourage building autonomous entitites on the levels of district, town, ilaka, village and so on.
In this way, the federal system works as the backbone of national unification of multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-lingual country.
5. Concept of Federal System and New State in Nepal :
Federal system is now inevitable in Nepal to end the existing discriminatory rule in the context of its being a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural country. This alone can provide autonomy to different linguistic, cultural and racial communities. Different communities can make economic development and develop the concept of national identity only through this system. Then only can end the age-long racial discrimination in the country and effect national unification emotionally. In addition, it alone can solve the existing racial and regional conflicts.
We all know that the state and the people backed by it have been practising political and social discrimination against the Madhesis in Nepal. The dsicrimination was retained even during the parliamentary practices made in the last 14 years. Only the federal system can end the discrimination between the Madhesis and hilly people (Pahadis). So far the country has retained a discriminatory unitary rule on the basis of caste, language, creed and sex. Instead, we should decentralize the central rule and form regionally autonomous states or provinces. Thus we would expand the government up to local autonomous bodies. Then only can we make the rule fully democratic and participatory in an authentic way. Only the federal system can make it possible to have proportionate representation in the government by the people having different langauges, castes/tribes, creeds and cultures. Many countries like Austria, Holland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Germany, Papua New Guinea and Belgium have solved the racial problem like Nepal through this system, and have presented themselves as a model of development.
The primary impact of the unitary system of Nepal is erasing the independent identity of the Madhesis, and imposing the hilly culture, Nepali language and labeda suruwal (so called national dress) as the one and only national identity. Besides, the state has weakened the economic wellbeing of the Madhesh by transporting the local means and resources to the hills and capital city, Kathmandu, and thus strengthened the existing state power. The tendency of backing and imposing the hilly identity as the only national identity has counterdeveloped a dangerous tendency of recognizing and establishing the hilly people as the only bona fide citizens of Nepal, and denigrating the Madhesis as Indian immigrants. Ever since the development of Gorkha state as Nepal, the Madhesh has been the greatest source of revenue for any government. Indeed, Madhesh has proved a "milch cow" for the ruling people in Kathmandu and the hilly people of the mountains. After the expansionist Gurkhas seized the Madhes, the government tried to cut down the local population to a minority by deforesting the Charkose Jhadi and inhabiting hundreds of thousands of hilly migrants along it. This has led to a crisis identity among the Madhesis of the Madhes. The Gurkhas established a rule of internal colonization after capturing the Madhes. The Madhesh and the Madhesis cannot develop so long they get rid of it. Therefore, the major political problem of the Madhesh and the Madhesis has been relieving them(selves) of the pain, oppression and exploitation inflicted bt the internal colonization. Till then the Madhesis will be disregarded as the second citizens. So the government should provide regional autonomy to the entire and undivided Madhes, ranging from Mechi in east and Mahakali in west, inner Terai in north and the sourthern plains bordering India, and recognize their ancestral land or birthplace as their homeland. Only after the establishment of regional autonomy in Madhesh can end the trend of internal colonization imposed by the Gurkha expansionists. The hilly rulers have always retained this sort of exploitation and oppression through different conspiracies, deceits, and have sown a seed of division, conflict and weakness among the Madhesis in the name of castes/tribes, languages and religions ever since Ranarchy and Panchayat autocracy. For centuries, the state has been indulged in such activities as separating the Tharus for general Madhesis and exploiting them as a weaker class, dividing the Muslims in the name of religion and tempting them with a distinct entity as a minority of scheduled caste in the fashion of Indian constitution, creating an environment of conflcit among the people speaking Bhojpuri, Awadhi and Maithili, using the oppressed class of Madhesis against the general Madhesis, presenting the Rajbanshis, Gangais, Dhimals, Santhals, etc as non-Madhesis, denying the recognition of the Madhesh area east to Koashi as Madhes, seizing the land of the Madhesis and rehabilitating the non-Madhesis or hilly people thereupon in the name of landless squatters (sukumbasis), political victims, rehabilitation company, etc. Similarly, to talk about racial autonomy or racial self-rule instead of regional or provincial autonomy is just an extremely aristocratic thought representing hilly people's racial arrogance and neo-imperialism. Therefore, the concept of regional autonomy is and will be better than racial self-rule. Racialism stands for collective feeling of a certain class of people living in a place on the basis of language, culture, tradition and ancestry. So it is a common culture and emotional belongingness on the basis of historical experience. It need not have any relation to certain land area. Yet the issue of racial regionalism cannot be separated from caste and land area. The Gurkha king Prithvi Narayan Shah expanded his kingdom by destablizing the native people or their kings or chieftains through force and fraud. He also captured the states and principalities of the non-Hindus of the Madheshon emotionally. In addition, it alone and hills, and thus established the Hindu kingdom. He called it the "real Hindusthan" (site of Hindus). It was a cultural campaign of building a Hindu state. Because only later did he establish the prominence and predominance of Hindu norms and thoughts (schools) on the basis of the state mechanism. As a result, many non-Hindu castes felt a crisis of cultural identity. In the contemporary context, issues like non-discrimination and equality (equal sharing) in political, economic, social opportunities, linguistic and cultural recognition, racial autonomy and self-decision always come along with that of racialism.
Some political groups and racial organizations have been raising the issue of racial autonomy or racial region as a political agenda. But the concept seems to be very complex and practically very difficult. Today, the trend of migration, and development transport and information technology (IT) has effected fundamental change in Nepalese structure. A village without racial diversity is almost a rarity in present-day Nepal. For centuries, migration of the Khas Brahmins from western hills to the eastern ones, that from hills to the Madhesh and from villages to the cities, and from other parts of the country to Kathmandu in a centralized way has made it difficult to separate racial provinces having prominence of secular population. Racial provinces may be named on the basis of the traditional habitats of different castes, but the castes with historic population will fall in great minority in terms of population in most of the districts. The majority of dalits do not have any defined site as they have scattered all over. Where will the majority of Khas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Ranas, Thakuris and Muslim community) seek shelter? Those claiming to provide "racial state or self-rule" without proper homework in a country like Nepal which has probably the rarest racial structure and problem in the world have cheated the tribals. About 100 rethnic groups have been recorded in 2001 census. Except some districts, no district has up to 51% of any caste. Of them 9 districts have up to 50% of Kshatriyas, 1 district has Tamangs, 1 district has Magars, 1 district has Gurungs, and 1 district has Newars. The districts said to have predominance of Brahmins, Rais and Limbus have less than 50% of of their population in comparison to the entire population. How can a racial state be formed in such a condition? Thus the state formed on the basis of the name of a race cannot solve the problem. Can the racial states guarantee the participation and euality in opportunity and contribution in basic cultural, religious, linguistc and national identity? Since the major goals of the state are to attain economic achievements, they are not possible through forming states purely on the basis of races. What will be the effect of on other majority races inhabiting those racial states? Without addressing or solving such issues, the country cannot give any forward moving outlet.
In the new state structure, decentralization should be made on regional basis. Racial self-rule is manifest within regional autonomy. Therefore decentralization enforced purely on racial basis cannot be forward moving. Indeed, such decentralization can only be aristocratic and racially egoistic. It is neither democratic, nor people-oriented, nor socialist. There might be many dangers of forming a union as a racial unit on racial basis. For example, the Serbs have caused such problem in Yugoslavia. In sich a condition, the majority can chase away the minorities. It can lead to another separatist danger in the country.
After the Gurkha king Prithvi Narayan Shah expanded his empire, a trend developed of regarding the highly centralized aristocratic rulers, Hindus, Nepali speakers, and those wearing daura and suruwal as the only Nepalese citizens. A handful of rulers of certain caste (especially Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Shahas, Thakuris, etc) overshadowed the needs of other castes. All the means and resources, and opportunities were exploited to cater their own interests. This made the Madhesis, tribals and dalits the most marginalized, oppressed and exploited groups as well as a prey to racial discrimination, and led to country to internal rife. Neglected for long by the ruling people, these racial or ethnic groups have now been raising the voice for a need to have the right to self-rule. To solve this, we need regional or provincial autonomy in the country on the basis of federal structure involving different states and provinces. These structures should be based on language, ethnic groups, socio-cultural structure, population and geography. The rights of each state to cultural autonomy, ethnic self-rule and self decision should be constitutionally guaranteed. All legal, political, economic and cultural provisions and practices causing ethnic, regional and other sorts of discrimination among the peoples should be uprooted. This problem can be solved by making provisions for proportionate rule and representation of all castes/tribals in federal or central bodies as well as state or regional nad local ones, that is all state affairs. Even the minorities, as linguistic, racial and religious communities, can raise their problems and present their demands in an effective way through their state governments. These cannot be achieved by exerting pressure on unitary and centralized state system as they fall in a petty group and have a very poor say. As the minority groups of certain race and language cannot build a separate state, the federal system allows building national autonomous areas for their development. Thus an environment conducive to decentralizing the centralized unitary system into a federal one, and extending the same to provincial or regional structure and local autonomous bodies therein, and making the governance authentically democratic and participatory, and making the structure representative. Therefore, we firmly affirm that the forthcoming constitution should accommodate following major features:
a. People's Sovereignty : The forthcoming constitution should be based on the principle of sovereignty in people. There should be no dilemma that the people should be made sovereign. People alone should be invested with full sovereignty and be established as the major source of state power. Their supremacy should be established in the very constitution by making a provision therein in writing that "WE Nepalese citizens build and establish this constitution of the state". The constitution should establish a representative and democratic rule.
b. Structure of State or Governance : All the democracies of the world can be divided into two structures: One is majority structure, that is Westminster Style, and another is agreement type, that is one based on sharing the state power. The first is based on British style of democracy. It is one of the oldest strutures of democracy. Its major feature is that those having majority own everything. That is to say, all the power is manifest in cabinet or Council of Ministers formed by the party with majority votes or seats. All the decisions are made through the majority of the parliament or Members of Parliament. The minority or Opposition expresses their view but to no avail, as their view is not considered or implemented in the parliament. It has to wait for another parliamentary elections and sweep the majority votes to have its say. This is the major principle of the majority rule. At present, Nepal is following this type of majority rule. But the experiment of last 12/14 years has proved it a failure. We have borne many grave or dire consequences of the parliament selecting the Prime Minister on the central level, and the latter dissolving the parliament any time at his or her whim. In the 12 years prior to the direct rule of the king, there were 11 governments formed in the country. They could not solve any of the national problems.
ic achievements, thThe agreement type of structure or one sharing the state power is enforced in Switzerland, Austria and Carribean nations. This model is adopted in South Africa as well. It is a type of structure in which only a party having majority does not rule. It includes other minority parties, too. It provides due place and opportunity to all political parties to express their views or vent their opinions. It provides proportionate share in the government. It invites all social and cultural groups to take part in policy making. The majority type of governance or democracy has been proved highly detrimental to a multiracial, multicultural and multilingual country like Nepal where we cannot ignore the presence of the minorities. This system has been discriminatory in real practice. Here, the majority takes all. As a result, it cannot respect the political, social and economic expectations of the minorities. They cannot take part in the governance. Therefore, only agreement type of democracy can be suitable in our country.
c. Managing the Army : The army should be mobilized and managed through a body formed under democratic principles. The army should be of national struture. It should be mobilized, controlled and managed essentially through the supreme people's organization, that is, elected parliament and the Executive or government accountable to it. The present unitary form of the army should be abolished and there must be due provision for inclusion and participation of the Madhesis, dalits and different castes/tribals on a proportionate level.
d. Provision of Reservation : There must be a provision of representational organization of extremely marginalized dalits in economic and political terms, very poor people and women, and for reservation in education and job sectors. The dalit groups which have been marginalized for thousands of years, cannot even imagine to reach the level of (at par with) other citizens of the country without reservation. It is a compensation to social injustice.
e. Election Procedure : We should adopt a proportionate election procedure instead of the present one to include all the castes/tribals, women and backward people and classes in the state affairs. It means sharing the seats on the basis of the votes attained by the political parties. It has been popular in Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Columbia, Denmark, Finland, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and so on. In this system of election, the political parties prepare a list of their candidates before holding the elections. Later, they get certain seats as per the votes they bag in the elections. Thus every vote is meaningul in this system. It gives importance to political rather than individual relations among the voters and political workers. It can accommodate all the castes, tribes, sectors, classes and languages, and it is just as well. It has nominal role of position (rule), pelf and power. Therefore, the elections are less expensive and more impartial. Every vote is counted directly, and ends the rat race and revengeful politics. So the proportionate election system is more democratic than other systems. It promotes proportionate representation of all political levels and bodies.
f. Rights to Self-decision : Rights to self-decision are a basic principle of international law. These are also included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These do not imply the rights to form a separate racial state, but "internal autonomy" as defined by the United Nations Organization.
g. Separation of Powers : All the three powers of the government, namely Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, should be separated for democracy and indiviual independence. That is, these three organs (bodies) of the government should be mutual separate and independent. Thus each can check another's tyranny, or can control another for striking balance in the government.
h. Republicanism : Theoretically, real constitutional monarchy means the state system that adopts basically adopts the republican values. Whatever be the future state structure in form, it should be republican in element. The basic principles of the republic system are: strong presence of elected Executive and Legistaive. The major feature of the republican state is that the Executive post should not be confined to a particular individual, caste or family (dynasty). Each and every individual, even the commonest one, hopes and wishes to reach every post, even the supreme post, of the state.
i. Declaration of a Secular State : Religion is a matter pertaining to individual faith and belief of people. It should have no relation with the state. The state should not stand in favour of one religion and against another. Religious matters and political affairs are two poles apart. There must be complete religious freedom for human rights and democracy. Nepal is a multi-religious country. Therefore, it should be declared as "a secular state" instead of a Hindu kingdom. It should provide equal freedom to all religions. The state should not back one or another religion, and should remain neutral in such affairs.
j. Supremacy of Constitution : Constitutional supremacy is considered the most significant principle or faith of in a federal democracy. Since the federal constitution is an impentrable agreement for the co-existence of federal government or central government and state governments, its clauses should essentially be agreeable to both. The constitution reigns higher than both the centre and the state. Besides, the constitution is essentially lent supremacy for implementing "a rule of law". Therefore, federal constitution reigns atop all the institutions of the national governance - central government, state constitutions, state governments and local governments.
k. Provision of Referendum : There must be a constitutional provision of referendum for making amendments in any of constitutional provisions by the parliament, as per demand in accordance with the procedure provisioned in the constitution. The constitution must provide the citizens every right to constitutional initiative. If the results of the refendum go in favour of a group, it can change or amend any of its provisions. Sovereign people can alter the entire constitution if they wish so. There should nothing unalterable in it. Sovereign people must essentially have a right to initiative and right to referendum.

Status of Madheshi in Nepal

2006-02-11T09:37:00.000-08:00

Introduction
Nepal is a country of strange diversities. There are varied geophysical, climatic and biological diversities culminatios into the diverse socio-econimc, political and cultural patterns in the country. Nepal lies in the youngest fold of the mountains, Himalaya, the roof of the world. It ranges from about 60 metre elevation to the 8848m, the highest point of the world. From the climatic point of view, it ranges from tropical to the tundra from south to north. Southern belt is almost plain and the northen belt is rocky and mountainous gradually elevated to thousands of snow peaks. The Mahabharat range lying inbetween these two belts is a gently sloping land having river - valleys and tars.
The biggest Terai belt lies in the Southern Nepal adjacent to Indian border. It is elevated upto 600 metres from the sea level. It comprises 23% of the total land areas of Nepal and 56% of its cultivated land. It has been formed out alluvium constantly deposited by rivers flowing down the Gangetic plain. The Terai land is fertile for agriculture where wide varities of crops are grown. Terai is mainly irrigated by the major river systems, namely Koshi, Gandaki, Karnali, Mechi, Kankai, Kamala, Bagmati, Tinau, Rapti, Mahakali, Ratu, Lal Bakaiya, Mohana etc.
From the economic point of view, Terai is primarily an agricultural belt with the midland of Terai being mostly the fruit growing area. The northen part of Terai is very beautiful area suitable for development of tourism and live stock farming. In this way, natural diversity is reflected through social, cultural, political and other aspects of life. These natural phenomena make Nepal a unique country in the map of the world.
The word Terai is of relatively recent origin and is used interchangeably for 'Madhesh' which is derived from the sanskirt word 'Madhyadesh' meaning the land between the foot hills of Himalayan mountain in the north and the Vindhya mountain on the south. People living in this region have been called Madheshee or Madheshiyas. Manu, the law maker of the Hindus, also mentioned the term Madhyadesh. The word Madhesh is also found in Buddhist pali literature e.g. the Vinayapitaka.
The Madhesh or Terai therefore, has been referred to the plain strip of the land lying within the boundary of Nepal. Likewise the word Madheshee or the term Terai people refers not to all the inhabitants of the Madhesh but indigenous ones of this region. They are also called the Nepali citizen of Indian origin.
2. Geopolitics of the Madhesh or Terai :
The Madhesh is the most important region of the Nepal, geographically and culturally distinct from the hills. The high mountains of Nepal, or the hills attracted the attention of adventurous travellers, mountain climbers and scholars ever since Nepal was opened to the outside world after 1950. However, the Terai region or the Madhesh of Nepal, could attract comparatively little attention of foreign scholars because it is hot, dusty and malarious. Consequently, little interest was taken about the Terai's geographical, historical, economic or cultural characteristics, despite the fact that it comprises 21% Nepal's land area which inhabits more than 50% of Nepali population. This neglect is striking, because the Madhesh is the backbone of Nepal's economy, producing about 65% of the nations gross domestic product (GDP) yielding about 76% of the governments revenue, and 60% agricultural products of the country. Nepal Terai is approximately 500 miles long from western boundary, the Mahakali river, to it's eastern boundary, the Mechi river. This east to west border line between the Nepal Terai and Indian states touches Uttranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal. An average width of the Terai is 20 miles. Two geographical terms are frequently used in Nepal, "inner terai" and "outer terai". The inner Terai refers to Bhitari Madhesh containing flat land north of Siwalik or churia range in Sindhuli, Makwanpur and Dang districts. The Bahari Terai is the plain region touching Indo-Nepal border South of the Siwaliks. Outer Terai consists of 19 districts, namely Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Dhanusa, Mahottari, Sarlahi, Routahat, Bara, Parsa, Chitwan, Nawalparasi, Rupandehi, Kapilvastu, Banke, Bardia, Kailali and Kanchanpur. Geographically and culturally Terai is a transitional region between the hills and the plains. The transitional nature of the Terai creates problems for Nepal associated in respect of integration of the region into the main-stream of national economic and political programme. Most of the Terai inhabitants are Madheshee. In connectin with religion, language, culture, life style and other social rituals they share with people living across the border in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal. During past decades, hill people migrated and settled in the terai on mass scale making perceptible change in political and cultural change.
3. A historical background :
The Mithila or Videha kingdom existed in ancient times with its capital at Janakpur claiming to be the birth-place of Sita. Similarly, their existed Lumbini, birth place of the Buddha with Kingship at Kapilvastu under the Shakyas and Debdaha under the Koliyas. Archaeological findings around this area indicate habitation going back to the 9th century B.C. though the most ancient heritage of Nepalese history is in the Terai, but the ruling class is drawing our attention back to the Kathmandu valley.
Madheshee people are indigenous inhabitants of the Madhesh or Terai and experienced all sorts of hardship and trials throughout history under ancient rulers, the Mughals, the East India Company and Shah dynasty. However, after the campaign of unification of Nepal in the 18th Century the Gorkha dominance, persisted over the developed culture of the Madheshee. The British government returned the Terai land to the Nepalese king in 1816, a year after the Sugauli treaty and determined well devised boundaries of the kingdom. It entered into an agreement with the king that the Madheshee people should not be persecuted in anyway. The Article 7 of the Memorandum of approval and acceptance of the Rajah of Nepal stipulated on December 8, 1816 is an evidence. It was through treaty of Sugauli that the Terai was handed over by the British East India Company to Nepal and as such is present situation, India is expected to safeguard the interests of the Madheshee community. But contrary to this commitment real mission remained far from being fulfilled. Ever since the treaty was signed between two countries, the Madheshee have been facing national identity crisis.
In course of past historical stages Nepal experienced a succession of many political systems : absolute monarchy under the Shah Kings (1769-1846), an oligarchy under Rana Prime Ministers (1846-1951), followed by temporary regimes of democracy (1951-59), parliamentary system (1959-60), revival of aboslute monarchy (1960-90), restoration of multi-party system (1990-2002)and then finally direct-rule of present monarchy after royal coup. If one goes to distant past the Terai was ruled by a number of petty chieftains, some of whom owed merely nominal allegiance to the pre-Shah rulers. In this connection efforts have always been made by the ruling elites to enable the Terai people for reserving economic interest of Kathmandu based aristocracy having little participation in national polity. "The ruling elites both Shah and the Ranas believed that the development of Terai was not in their longterm interest".
4. Distribution of population : Caste/ethnic groups
The 2001 census identified more than 50 castes/ethnic groups in the Madhesh. Overall, the Madheshee caste/ethnic group is largely rural (92.55%). Classification of population according to caste and language is only tentative. Madheshee ethnic groups includes Kishan, Gangai, Jhangar, Tajpuria, Tharu, Danuwar, Dhanuk, Dhimal, Meche/Bodo, Rajbansi/Koche, Satar/Santhal etc. caste and other ferred to the plain strip of the land lgroups includes Yadav, Teli, Chamar, Kushwaha/Koiri, Kurmi, Musahar, Dusadh/Paswan, Sonar, Kebat, Brahmin, Baniya, Mallah, Kalwar, Hazzam/Thakur, Kanu, Sudhi, Lohar, Tatma, Khatway, Dhobi, Nooniya, Kumhar, Halwai, Rajput, Kaystha, Badhai, Marwadi, Banter, Barai, Barai, Kahar, Rajbhar, Lodhi, Bind/Binda, Noorang, Gaderi, Chidimar, Mali, Bengali, Dom, Kamar, Halkhor, Panjabi/Sikha, Dhunia, Jain, Munda, Muslim, Patharkatta/Kushwadia, Sarbaria, Kallar etc.
5. Languages of the population
The madheshee's langauges can be broadly categoried as Indo-Aryan ones. In addition to these there are several regional languages such as Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Tharu, Rajbansi, Bazzika, Surjapuri, and a few local dialects. Santhali is microscopic tongue spoken by tribal people. Besides, there are Marwadi, Tajpuria, Dhimal and Mechie. Among them Maithili is a dominant language in the eastern - Terai, Bhojpuri in the mid-Terai and Awadhi in the western Terai. Hindi, of couse, serves as a link language spoken among the Madheshee people from Mechi to Mahakali.
6. Religious faiths in Madhesh
Nepal is officially declared as a Hindu country. According to 2001 census, population of Hindus in the country is over 80.62%. Buddhist 10.74%, Islam 4.20%, Kirat 3.60%, Christian 0.5%, Sikh 0.0%, Jain 0.0% and others 0.4%. In terai, the second largest religion is Islam and Buddhism occupies third position.
7. Population explosion in the Terai due to migration
In the light of population composition Nepal is traditionally an area formed by immigrants from the Indo-Aryan and Mangoloid stocks. Intermixture of racial, cultural and religious strains has produced broadly two outlooks, one influenced culturally by the north, the other by the south.
The madheshee (Terai people) are bound to live like a second-rate citizen. For the last decades, parbatia (hill people) from the north have been resettled in some strength, not without political aims on fresh reclaimed forest land in the Terai. The Nepalese people of Indian origin, the Desi people as they are called, are placed in the third category of socially underprevileged people. The way the government has demarcated five development region and fourteen administrative zones in the kingdom. it is not without a calculated purpose. In fact the zonal boundaries do not always coincide with natural divisions. Had geographical factors been allowed to determine zonal boundaries, the entire Terai belt would have formed a single natural zone. But the biased ruling class relished their own class despite the Terai people's apparent majority. Contrary to natural law the zonal division have been fixed from north to south, disecting the Terai strip with all its ethnic, linguistic and regional unity, into ten different administrative blocks placed under the rule of zonal commissioners drawn from the ruling class. This arrangement positively helped the rulers in preventing progress of Terai area. Development was a threat to their monopoly of political power. The privileged classes have used this tactics to segregate the Terai population from the main stream of political life.
Analysis of the census 1991 shows that the population density is about 24 person per square km. in mountain, 141.3 person per sq.km. in hill and 274.5 person per sq.km. in Terai. But according to the census 2001, the population density is about 33 person per sq.km. in mountain, 167 person per sq.km. in hill and the 18th Century the Gorkha dominance, persisted over 330 person per sq.km. is in Terai.
Among internal migrants in Nepal, majority migrated from the mountain and hill to the Terai, while population at the national level increased by 60% during 1971-91; it nearly doubled in Terai during the same period. As a matter of fact there is no charm of job and other opportunities in Nepal which may motivate the Indians to rush to Nepal. Efforts were strongly made by the HMG Nepal to encourage the process of migration of population from the hills to the Terai. Rapti valley development plan (1954), Nepal resettlement company (1964), Jhapa resettlement company, Kanchanpur resettlement project, Nawalparasi resettlement project etc. were implemented by clearing the dense forest land of Madhesh. Apart from internal immigrants, Nepali speaking refugee from Burma, Assam, Sikkim, West Bengal and Bhutan and other places were encouraged to settle there. One the contrary the landless Madheshee people in the Terai were rarely given any land in this wave of resettlement projects. Big politicians and hill elites in the name of the "political victims" were allotted land in Madhesh by clearing the dense forest.
By 1927 a little less than half of the Terai land was covered with dense forest. But by 1977 the percentage of the forest land reduced to one fifth of its total area. Between 1977 and 1992 there was hardly any forest left anywhere except in National Parks. Because of over strain on use of natural resources, such as forest, agricultural land, environment and river, there has been shortage of rainfall, decline in water table in rivers and soil, irregular monsoon and desertification in several parts of the Madhesh.
Migration of population has created imbalances in the Terai. Many people are forced to migrate outside in search of jobs. Madheshee labour of the Terai now go to the different parts of India, Delhi, Punjab and Hariyana states. Many Madheshee people, Tharus, Santhal/Satar are forced to migrate to India. In the past thousands of Tharus from Dang, Banke, Bardia, Kailali and Kanchanpur migrated to India as a result of Kamaiya (bounded labour) System. There was also a large scale migration of the Tharus from Chitwan district to adjacent Indian teritory.
8. The governments imposing policy on language
The constitution of the kingdom of Nepal 1990 accepted that all languages spoken as mother tongues in Nepal would be treated as national languages. The Article 18 of the fundamental rights of the constitution clearly states "Each community residing within the kingdom of Nepal shall have right to preserve and promote its languages, script and culture". There is no guarantee of support from the state to their development. Policy of repression through philosophy of national language 'Nepali' is threat to the survival of other languages spoken by people of Madhesh. Khaskura or SinjaliBhasa has been promoted to status of national Nepali languages as well as "official language". Languages spoken by Madheshee like Hindi, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Rajbansi etc. are derecognised. Most of the languages have been ignored in the curriculum of schools. At the end of the panchayat system the government derecognised even the degree of M.A. in Hindi, Maithili and Newari. Languages other than Nepali and English have been dercognised for the public service commission. Sajha Prakashn has also stopped publishing books in prohibited languages. The Royal Nepal Academy has turned a deaf ear to the development of these prohibited languages. Ruling class does not visualise the force of local languages in the integration of nation. It is known to all that Pakistan suffered division in 1971 on account of forceful implimentation of Urdu language over the Bengali speaking people in East Pakistan. Language is also one of bitter factors of rift between the Tamil and Sinhali speaking people of Sri Lanka. In Nepal as many as 100 languages and dilects are spoken. But HMG Nepal and sectarian ruling class do not realise the real force of local languages of the people. It is highly pernicious to the peace and prosperity of Nepal.
9. Discriminatory policies and practices of the rulers
In all principalities unified to form modern Nepal the ruling elites come from upper caste, Brahmins, Chhetris, Thakuris and Ranas. Their ranks have subsequently been joined by the Newars after the Kathmandu valley became the nation's centre. According to a study conducted by the centre for Economic Development and Administration (CEDA) 80% of the position of power and profit are held by the hill Brahamins, Chhetris and Newars although they represent a small ad geographical factors been allowed to determine minority of Nepal. A subsequent survey has revealed that more than half of the government civil servants is drawn from the Kathmandu valley only which contains about 3% of the population of Nepal. The social inequalities created by under representation and symbolic representation of Madheshee people in civil services and security forces, disproportionate representation in legislative and executive bodies; and opportunities to certain caste people in political appointments are some examples of injustice, and exploitation of Madheshee people of Nepal. Infact the seeds of disunity and fanaticism were sown by Prithvi Narayan Shah. The inhabitants of the Madhesh were not given important assignment during his rule. High posts were reserved for certain hill caste groups. First preference was given to the hill people and second to richman or landlord in Terai. Till 1950, the Madheshee people were treated like slaves. Untill 1958, it was essential for them to acquire way receipt (passport) before entering into Kathmandu.
According to the Dhanapati Upadhaya citizenship commission 2051 B.S. (1994), approximately 40 lakh genuine Nepali have been denied of citizenship certificates. Majority of them are Madheshee people living in the Terai. Denial of citizenship has created many problems. First, they do not get service in the government, corporation and private institutions. Secondly, they cannot run industry and trade. Thirdly, denial of citizenship in one's own country means humiliation as one treated as a foreigner in own country. And fourthly, the denial of citizenship is the denial of the basic human rights to hold property. The reality is that no body in Nepal is liable to purchase land in absence of citizenship.
The land reform programme was used as a vehicle for transferring to the hill people, the landholdings of plain's people.
a. Civil service
In Nepal, high official posts have been occupied by hill Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars while majority Madheshee people have been excluded from these positions. The composition of the higher grades of bureaucracy demonstrates a strong bias against weaker section of Madheshee people. Social, economic and political benefits destributed only to the hill Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars has deep historical roots. These communities enjoyed Rana patronage and got civil service, opportunities for modern education, and training of abroad for learned professions. Though a minority, they are powerful ones. A vast majority of teachers, university professors, academicians, intellectuals and Journalists are the high caste Hindus.
Table-1
Caste/Ethnic Composition of senior officials
Post Brahmin Chhetri Newar Terai Others Total
01. Secretary 12 5 8 4 1 30
02. Add. Secretary 16 5 11 1 1 34
03. Joint Secretary - - - - - -
04. Adm. Service 56 9 17 5 3 90
05. Health Service 22 9 36 4 2 73
06. Education Service 11 2 12 4 1 30
07. Judicial Service 3 10 3 3 1 20
08. Audit Service 1 2 2 - - 5
09. Legislative Service 1 - 2 - - 3
10. Engineering 33 13 36 17 4 103
11. Agriculture 11 6 17 3 2 39
12. Forest Service 12 4 12 - 1 29
Total 178 65 157 41 15 456
Percentage 39.03 14.25 34.42 8.99 3.29 100
Source : Nijamati Kitab Khana (quoted in contemporary Nepal, 1998:122)
Till December 1991 there were 456 senior level officers (Joint Secretary and above), both administrative and technicals. Of these 30, 34 and 392 were in the ranks of Secretary, Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary respectively. Hill Brahmins, Chhetris, Newars altogether holding 87.7% of high position. The Madheshees are only 8.99% and highly dominated. At present there are 178 senior officials (first class) but only two are Madheshee in government service.
Table - 2
Caste/Ethnic compositions of Senior Officials including those of under Secretary (Administrative Service) level.
Post Brahmin Chhetri Newar Terai Others Total
01. Secretary 12 5 8 4 1 30
02. Add. Secretary 16 5 11 1 1 34
03. Joint Secretary - - - - - -
04. Adm. Service 56 9 17 5 3 90
05. Health 22 9 36 4 2 73
06. Education 11 2 12 4 1 30
07. Judicial 3 10 3 3 1 20
08. Audit 1 2 2 - - 5
09. Legislative 1 - 2 - - 3
10. Engineering 33 13 36 17 4 103
11. Agriculture 11 6 17 3 2 39
12. Forest 12 4 12 - 1 29
13. Total 178 65 157 41 15 456
14. Under Secretary 238 83 177 44 9 551
Grand Total 416 148 334 85 24 1007
Percentage 41.33 14.7 33.16 8.4 2.38 100
Source : Nijamati Kitab Khana (Qoted in contemporary Nepal, 1998 : 122)
If the number of officers under secretary level of administrative service is added the total goes up to 1007 officers. Olinf these 41.33% are hill Brahmins, 33.16% Newars, 14.7% Chehetris and only 8.4% are Madheshees.
Regarding geographic representation. Kathmandu dominates other geographic areas 51.95% representation. The hill region represent 29.22% and the Terai (including both Madheshee and hill people) 18.83% respectively. The Terai people or Madheshees have genuine grievances in so far as they are not adequately represented in power structure of Nepal, be it in army, security forces, administration, national legislature or the cabinet.
Table - 3
Geographical representation of Senior most officials
S.No. Post Kathmandu Hill Terai Total
1. Secretary 14 7 9 30
2. Additional Secretary 21 7 6 34
3. Joint Secretary* 45 31 14 90
Total 80 45 29 154
Percentage 51.95 29.22 18.83 100
*only those belonged to the administrative service have been included.
Source : Contemporary Nepal 1998 : 123
b. Security Forces :
Inspite of existence of ethnic groups in Nepal higher posts as Senior Officers in army and police forces have been monopolised by hill people.
Table - 4
Position of Madheshee Community in Security Forces :
Department and Position No. of Officers No. of Madheshee
1. Most Senior officers in
Royal Nepal Army (RNA) 18 0
2. Chief of Police, armed
police and national
investigation department 3 0
Police AIGP 4 0
Police DIG 16 0
Police SSP 41 0
3. Armed Police AIGP 3 0
Armed Police DIG 8 0
Armed Police SSP 13 0
Armed Police SP 37 0
Source : Madhesh : Social demography and discrimination, 2004 : 48
Madheshee People have no acess to the Royal Nepal Army. A similar situation prevails in the police force too. The Madheshee people share only 2-3% in lower rank of Nepal police.As a result, the Madheshee people are excluded from high post responsibility of the Security Forces of their own motherland. Certain elite groups in Nepal argue that none but the Gorkhas (hill people) belong to martial race. Therefore other communities are not relished as capable for the army without reliable logic behind it. It is a historical fact that Harisimha Deva an eminent Karnata king of Terai region had recruited a number of Madheshee people in his army. He was a historical personality. It is also a fact that when Prithvi Narayan Shah attacked Jay Prakash Malla, the latter had twelve thousand strong Madheshees recruited in his army who were called "Tirhutia Army". The Tirhutia army fought very bravely against the organised force of Prithvi Narayan Shah. Following the defeat of Jay Prakash Malla Prithvi Narayan Shah intentionally discontinued the Service of Madheshee Army. After that there is hardly any evidence of recruitment of Madheshee people in the Royal Nepal Army (RNA).
c. Political Participation
In regard to representation in Parliament, the number of Brahmins and Chhetris of the hilly region is comparatively high. Both in the panchayat system and in the current multi-party system. Brahmins and Chhetris of hilly region are dominant political elements in national politics.
Table-5
Madheshee MPs in Parliament

Source : Himal, May/June 1992, Election Commission bulletins 1994 & 1999.
Above mentioned table shows that the representation of Madheshee MPs in Parliament in 1959, 1978, 1991, 1994 & 1999 elections. Madheshee MPs in Parliament accounted 22% in 1959 which fell all the time low to 15% in 1978. The foregoing observation about advantaged and disadvantaged groups in national politics of Nepal can bronage and got civil service, opportunities foe substantiated with a reference to data available on communal representation in national politics. A comparision of membership in two elective bodies, the 1959 parliament and 1967 National Panchayat is highly instructive. An increase was marked in representation of hill people from 78% in the Parliament to 90% in National Assembly and corresponding decrease from 22% to 8.30% of Madheshees. Of all, the people who had been member of the national panchayat from 1963 to 1988, 380 out of total 501, 76% hailed from the upper caste groups Brahmin, Chhetri etc. of the hilly region.
One foreign observer remarked that "during the past decade, the crown had became the pivot around which the traditional interest groups, the sacred elite, the military and the landowning aristocracy still revolve. These groups gain access to the Royal palace through their supporters and representatives on the staff of the palace secretariat. The palace secretariat has become the nerve centre of administration and the political structure in Nepal, even though its dominant policy and decision making role is not defined via law or within the constitution of this country. The functions of the palace secretariat can be closely compared with previous, all powerful functions of the hereditary Rana Prime Ministers Office".
Table - 6
Representation in the House of Representative by caste and Ethnicity (Total no. 205)
Caste/Ethnicity Ratio of population 1991 1994 1999
Election Election Election
Hill High Caste 7023220 114 129 122
(30.89%) (55.61%) (62.93%) (59.51%)
Hill Dalit 1616592 1 - -
(7.11%) (0.48%)
Hill Ethnic 5011631 34 24 28
(22.04%) (16.59%) (11.71%) (16.66%)
Newar 1245232 14 12 14
(5.48%) (6.83%) (5.85%) (6.83%)
Inner Terai Ethnic 251117 1 - -
(1.11%) (0.48%)
Terai Caste 3464249 18 22 29
(15.24%) (8.78%) (10.73%) (14.15%)
Terai Dalit 904924 - - -
(3.99%)
Terai Ethnic 2814927 18 14 10
(8.11%) (8.78%) (6.83%) (4.88%)
Muslim 971056 5 4 2
(4.27%) (2.43%) (1.9%) (0.97%)
Women 11377556 7 7 12
(50.04%) (3.41%) (3.41%) (5.85%)
Men 11359378 198 198 193
(49.96%) (96.56%) (96.56%) (94.15%)
Source : CBS 2002 and Election commission, 1991, 1994 and 1999.
If we look at the pattern of representation in both the houses of Parliament, House of Representatives and National Assembly (see Table 6 and 7) in each of the elections, it is apparent that the experiment with democracy could not address the problems of exclusion of Madheshee, deprived caste and communities. The dominant caste groups are over-represented in both houses.
Table-7
Representation in the National Assembly by caste and ethnicity
(Total no. 60)
Caste/Ethnicity 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
Hill High Caste 33 37 33 33 33 36
(55%) (61.37%) (55%) (55%) (55%) (60%)
Hill Dalit 2 2 3 3 4 3
(3.33%) (3.33%) (5%) (5%) (6.67%) (5%)
Hill Ethnic 8 7 5 7 8 9
(13.33%) (11.67%) (8.33%) (11.67%) (13.33%) (15%)
Newar 8 5 9 9 8 5
(13.33%) (8.35%) (15%) (15) (13.33%) (8.33%)
Terai Caste 6 6 6 5 5 4
(10%) (10%) (10%) (8.33%) (8.33%) (6.67%)
Terai Dalit -- -- -- -- -- 1
(1.67%)
Terai Ethnic 2 3 4 2 1 1
(3.33%) (5%) (6.67%) (3.33%) (1.67%) (1.67%)
Muslim 1 -- -- 1 1 1
(1.67%) (1.67%) (1.67%) (1.67%)
Women 3 3 5 7 7 7
(5%) (5%) (8.33%) (11.67%) (11.67%) (11.67%)
Men 57 57 55 53 53 53
(95%) (95%) (91.67%) (88.33%) (88.33%) (88.33%)
Source: National Assembly Secretariat.
The House of Representative has 205 member elected on the basis of adult franchise. The National Assembly, the upper house of igation department 3 0
Police AIGP 4 0
Polithe Parliament is a 60 member house and the member come from different constituencies: 35, including Three women members elected by HOR on the basis of proportional representation; 15 i.e. Three each from five development regions elected by the representatives of the local bodies and 10 nominated by the king.
Although the major political parties, particularly the Communists, often insist that National Assembly should be made the house of nationalities in order to compensate for under-representation of Madheshees and various other groups, the candidates they field do not comply to that position and the house remains dominated by Brahmins and chhetris of hilly region, who occupy more than 50% of the total seats. likewise ethnic groups, women and dalits are least represented.
Table-8 Shows that the Madheshee ministers in the council of minister during the panchayat regime between 1960 and 1989 was 16%. The situation has not improved even after the restoration of multiparty parliamentary democracy in 1990.
Table-8
Representation of Madheshee Community in the council of Ministers

Ministers (1960-1989) 35 16% 181 84% 216 100
Ministers (1992-1993) 4 17% 20 83% 24 100
Cabinet ministers
(1994-1995) 0 0% 9 100% 9 100
Deuba's cabinet ministers
2004 nominate by king 5 20% 20 80% 25 100
Source: Ethinicity in democracy (paper), Nepal Rajpatra 2051/814 B.S and Gorkhaptra
The share of the Madheshee ministers in the council of ministers headed by Prime minister G.P. Koirala account for 17%. But in the council of minister headed by Prime minister so called communist leader Man Mohan Adhikari on behalf of CPN (UML) government Madheshee minister was nil in his cabinet.
Table-9
Representation of Madheshee Community in the central level
organisation/committee of political parties.
Political Parties Total Central Madheshee
Committee Member Member
Nepali Congress 35 3
CPN (UML) 65 1 (alternate member)
Nepali Congress (D) 35 3
RPP 45 7
Janmorcha Nepal 51 1
Source : Madhesh : Social Demography and Discrimination, 2004:51
The representation of Madheshee community in central working committee of larger Parliamentary Political Parties e.g. Nepali Congress, Nepali Congress (D), CPN (UML), RPP in Nepal was inadequate. The hill Brahmins & Chhetris controlled the central leadership of major Political Parties. This is one of the reasons why Madheshee working in these Political Parties are treated with distrust by the hill leadership. Qualities as talent and self-respect have been disqualifying rather than qualifying factors for the Madheshee. Persons having talent and self-respect have been discouraged and sometimes even punished. There is no any vital role given to Madheshee leaders in these political parties.
d. On the decline of employment condition :
According to the various studies, the number of unemployment is larger in Madhesh/Terai than mountain and hilly regions. In Madhesh unemployment rate is 6.5%, mountain 2.1% and hilly region 3.7%.
Table 10
Unemployment rate of different geographical regions
Geographical regions Unemployment rate (%)
01. Mountain 2.1
02. Hill 3.7
03. Madhesh/Terai 6.5
Source : Living standards survey report 1996.
e. On the decline of per capita income of Madhesh/Terai :
Yearly, per capita income of Madheshee (plain's people) is slightly much than inhabitants of mountain but more less than hilly people. Yearly, per capita income of the people of mountain is Rs. 5,938 and hilly region is Rs. 8,433 but Madhesh is Rs. 7,322. According to the International Standards 66%, people of Nepal are living below the poverty line. Whereas 64% are in hill and 68% in Terai. ll High Caste 7023220 114 129 122
(30.89%) Which shows that Madheshee are economically most deprived. Because one-third of the total population of Madhesh are landless and unemployed.
Table - 11
Per capita income (yearly) in Rs.
Geographical regions Per capita income (1995-96) in Rs.
01. Mountain 5,938
02. Hill 8,433
03. Madhesh/Terai 7,322
Source : Living standards survey report 1996.
f. Threat for livelihood.
The socio-economic condition of the Madheshees in Nepal is deplorable, along with the loss of their national and cultural identities such as language and culture due to unbearable domination of the hill people. Although forest is the main source of livelihood - especially to certain Madheshee People like Satar/Santhal, Jhangar etc., the growing deforestation in the last years caused enormous environmental degredation and a threat to their sustainable living. Additionally poor sanitation, poor health, illiteracy and unemployment are common phenomena in the Madhesh. As a result, the Madheshee people are increasingly entering into the labour market in Nepal, India and abroad.
The racial discrimination practised in Nepal also contains elements of genocide. Which may also interpreted to mean "extermination of the race or a nation", after the conclusion of world war II when the horrified world learned of the extermination of whole peoples by the Nazis. As we see, in fact, genocide is committed in four ways : physical genocide, i.e. physical extermination of whole groups of the population for racial, national, caste/ethnic or religious reasons; Social and economic genocide, i.e. deliberate creation of living conditions for such population groups, that lead to their complete or partial extermination; biological genocide, i.e. measures preventing child-birth among members of such groups, and, last but not least, national and cultural genocide, i.e. acts calculated to destroy the cultural and other spiritual values of the groups in question. All these methods were extensively employed by Nazi Germany during world war II against Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, and other people. According to the international law genocide is a crime against humanity.
10. Problems of national integration
The Gorkha Conquest had given Nepal a single name and strong centralised administration and government. Even the people from the Terai region of Nepal needed a permit from their own government to visit Kathmandu. They were not employed in the military services, few of them were accomodated in the civil service. It created for them a problem of identification in psychological terms. The problems of national integration in Nepal, becomes more serious as the demands for an equitable allocation of developmental resources to different region acquire force.
In Nepal territorial expansion in the second half of the eighteenth and the first decade of the nineteenth centuries provided a sense of emotional unity and identity among the people of various ethnic and linguistic groups who had just been brought together into one kingdom.
Similarly, in the changed circumstances people living in the Madhesh, mountain and hill can be imbued with a sense of identity, if inhabitants of those regions are allowed to participate without discrimination in the administrative, political and economic process of Modernisation.
For physical, psychological and historical reasons the government in Nepal has failed to enforce an equitable distribution of goods and services. For a long time the vision of the government at Kathmandu did not extend beyond the confines of the valley. More than half of the development budget has for a long time been spent entirely on the Kathmandu valley and its environs. Indeed the Kathmandu valley alone was treated as Nepal for all practical purposes. Madheshees have not been recognised as the Son of the soil, even today. The exploitative nature of the old political style still presists unchanged.
The Madheshee people of the Terai have their identity problems, similar to those of people who have emerged from colonial experiences. Neither Nepal's history nor Nepal's hill culture or the ruling elite satisfy thier identity needs, because they have not been associated with either, National symbols with which the Madheshee people could easily identify are missing. The Nepali language, perhaps even more than crown itself, is a powerful and pervasive symbol of Nepalese nationalism in the hill region. Nepali is spoken by relatively few Madheshee people, even as a second language. Hindi, the common language or lingua franca of the region and a significant symbol for many Madheshee people, has been rejected as a second national or even one that is recognised for government use at the regional level.
The present political system and the constitution of the kingdom of Nepal 1990 is itself defective in promoting national integration. Under existing system, it is the mountain, river and land that are represented and not the people. This is so because representation is not held on the basis of population but on the basis of the geographical area. As such, in a district like Manang or Mustang where population is only 6,358 according to the voter list of 1991 having one MP. But in the district like Sarlahi, Saptari, Siraha in the Terai, there is a provison to have an MP on the basis of at lest 75000 to 100000 population. National integration cannot be promoted so long as election for the house of representative is not held on the basis of population. Present system is a mockery.
Rs. 5,938 and hilly region is Rs. 8,433 but Madhesh is Rs. Until the citadels of privilege, higher education scholarship abroad, the higher ranks of both the civil and military services are made accessible to the disadvantaged ethnic groups, unless the structure of power reflects the rich diversity of our nation, the process of national integration will be incomplete. There are deep structural inequalities in the nation. The privileged castes and classes of hilly region must rise above their narrow interests to promote the cause of the disadvantaged and unprivileged, to provide them with not merely equal but enhanced opportunities for improving their lot. Thus representation and distribution are the major mechanism required to resolve the conflict of this phase of 'Created Nationalism' in Nepal. Multi-party democracy must create a multi-ethnic power structure, for this new state structure is essential.
All this, however, Presupposes a change in the attitude of the dominant minority power-elite. unless the legitimate grievances of the hitherto neglected majority are properly needed and a greater oppertunity is provided for the upward mobility of various ethnic groups, the process of development may create a highly explosive situation in the country.
11. Conclusions
The Madheshee population is subjected to extreme national oppression, poverty and exploitation, lack of all democratic rights. Madhesh is the internal colony of hill people's ruling class. It is the combination of the worst features both of racial discrimination and internal colonialism within a single national frontier which determines the special nature of the Nepalese polity.
The Madheshee people of Nepal have been politically economically, socially and culturally depressed and are under the threat of extinction. They have been strategically forced to migrate to India, their landholdings have been confiscated, their linguistic and cultural identity is under crisis. They have been kept out of the realm of power sharing and decision making bodies. They still do not feel integrated into the Nepali natioality. Mal-nutrition, poverty, illiteracy and unemployment including political and economic discrimination are their major problems. Fundamental human rights such as (i) civil and political rights (ii) economic, social and cultural rights of the plain's people (Madheshee) in Nepal are not well respected. Madheshee peoples of Nepal have been subjected to domination, exploitation, discrimination and supression of their human rights and fundamental freedom since the foundation of the state of Nepal, still continue at all levels.
The government has not yet developed any specific policy and programme in this regard or they are discriminatory, and ineffective. There is a strong need for the recognition of the human rights, national identity, languages and culltures of the Madheshee people and the adoption of a fair national policy to recognise their role in the national socio-econmic and political mainstream.
We, the Madheshee people of Nepal, declare for all our country and the world to know that Nepal belongs to all who live in it, Madheshee and non-Madheshee. There shall be equal status in the bodies of state for all national groups, races and caste/ethnics; all people shall have equal right to use their own languages, and to develop their own culture and customs; all national groups shall be protected by laws against insult to their ethnicity, race and national pride; the preaching and practice of national and racial discrimination and contempt shall be a punishable crime; all discriminatory laws, policies and practices shall be set aside constitutionally.
Nepal is a landlocked semi-feudal, multi-national, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi- religious country. Current constitutional and political system of the unitary system of government cannot solve the Madheshee and other ethnic crisis of the country. So there should be a radical change in the state structure and current socio-economic and political system. Constitutional provision for regional autonomy or autonomous states within federal system and the right to self -determination, complete multi-party democratic system, proportional representation in polity, secularism, reservation and multi-lingual policy is a crying necessity for its development, democratisation, modernisation, maintaining national integrity and strengthening national unity. The country should be demarcated into different political autonomous states or units on the basis of similarity in matter of language, culture, customs, appearances, economic way of life, social structure and geography. Madhesh should be a political unit and should be declared an autonomous state or province. This will go a long way in correcting the regional imbalances and in ending the racial, cultural, political, linguistic and administrative discriminations.

- Jayprakash Gupta
General Secretary
Madheshee Janadhikar Forum,

The future of democracy in Nepal

2006-02-11T09:27:00.000-08:00

The future of democracy in Nepal

King Gyanendra has succeeded the throne from Dependra who himself had succeeded being crown prince his slain father Birendra his two day reign spent on artificial respiration in the history's most tragic court massacre in June 2001. He has restored to the final option-direct royal rule enforced by the Royal Nepal Army (RNA), knocked out in the process was the political parties and the institutions of multiparty democracy. On 1 February, 2005, the King Gyanendra dismissed a party-based government and seized all powers. He imposed a state of emergency in the country in which fundamental rights were suspended and a kind of martial law was imposed (Nepalese constitution 1990 doesn't provide for a martial law).
Invoking Article 115 of the constitution, the king suspended all the fundamental rights of the Nepalese citizen, including the freedom of opinion and expression, the freedom of the press and publication, the rights to information, the rights to constitutional remedy and the rights to property. Placing key political party leaders and democratic rights activist in jails, imposing press censorship, even (temporarily) curtailing communication links within and without the country. The military captured the telecommunication offices, turning the phone lines off to prevent the people from meeting and networking with each other. The army's signal corps disconnected all the transponder satellite links. Even the Amadeus satellite link serving commercial airlines connectivity was shutdown. The international airport was sealed. Up to a dozen armed security personnel guarded the house of prominent civil society personalities. Nepalese can no longer assembled peacefully public rallies of any kind - except those supporting the coup have been fired upon and scattered by the security forces. Protesters had been killed, beaten, arrested and tortured in detention. This last exception is a concession to the fact that Nepal had, for over a year, the highest number of 'disappeared' people in the world. Thus Nepal has been turned into the largest prison for the people. This unconstitutional, undemocratic, anti-people activities and actions of the king itself proved that "in Nepal constitutional monarchism and multiparty parliamentary democracy can't run simultaneously" this experiment has already failed.
Modern Nepal was founded in 1767 by King Prithvi Narayan Shah a ruler of Gorkha, a central highland principality in west Nepal. In early 15th century, his ancestors persecuted by Muslim invaders of India, migrated from Udaipur (Rajasthan) to mountain hide-out in the north-eastern Himalayas and founded a small principality with its administrative seat in Gorkha. By 1767 Prithvi Narayan had already subjugated "Baisi" and "chubisi" minor principalities of western Nepal. The conquest of east Nepal, ruled by Sen and Kirati rajas, was followed by unification under Gorkha banner of the entire kingdom in its present dimensions. Earlier, the state of Nepal was virtually run by the families belonging to Shah and Rana clans with support from smaller groups of Bhardars or aristocrats. When Prithvi Narayan Shah conquered Kathmandu and made it his headquarters, he introduced a simple aristocratic system of administration inherited from his predecessors. The system was known as 'Thar-Ghar' in which members of six elite families belonging to Aryal. Pandey, Khanal, Pant, Thapa and Basnet clans supported the Shah kings as military generals, advisors and administrators. Madheshee communities of the Terai were highly discriminated and marginalized along with Dalits and Janjatis (hill ethnic groups). The capital of Shah rulers shifted from Gorkha to Kathmandu. The Gorkha Kings of Nepal ruled the state directly till 1846.
In 1846 Jang Bahadur Rana, captured the power, after the successful "kot massacre" conspiracy and became prime minister and army general. In 1856 he forced the king Surendra Bikram Shah to surrender to him all powers of the state and remain a nominal ruler. Jung Bahadur, who had risen by court intrigue and bloodshed, obtained from king a decree conferring in perpetuity on him and his descendants the hereditary office of Prime Minister with the succession passing on to the seniormost brother in the family.
The Rana Prime Ministers kept the Shah Kings under strict vigil in the royal palace. They assumed "Sri Teen Maharaja" while the king's title remained "Maharajadhiraj". Political power during the following 104 years remained close preserve of the Rana family. All political activities in Kathmandu centred on intrigue and conspiracy for power. The Rana family ruled the country with absolute power replacing the system by Ranacracy in which members of the Rana family occupied all the higher echelons of administration and military. The system was extensively misused for expropriating the wealth of the peasant, especially that of Madheshee and indigenous people and their territories using a centralised taxation system, privatising land tenure, imposition of corvee labour and birta land grant practice. The Shah and Rana both sharing of the appropriated resource with groups of parbatiya (hill) high caste lead aristocracy and bureaucracy benefited both the groups greatly. While this Mechanism helped sustain their monopoly over powers, the economy of the people became stagnant if not irrecoverably damaged. More specifically, the loss of land which was the base of subsistence livelihood of the Madheshee, indigenous and ethnic people contributed to loss of their land, history, culture and national identity. So Madheshee people still have identity crisis.
Democracy was first introduced in Nepal, in 1951 following a popular uprising which ended the century-old family oligarchy of the Ranas, Nepalese Society, until then, kept in isolation lacked even the minimum political and civil infrastructure to practice democracy and democratic governance. Caste-based hierarchical discrimination, exploitation and superstition had been the fate of average Nepalese people. The Ranas in Nepal never permitted any civil and political organisation or activities within the country. With neither institutions nor legal provisions, there was little basis for civil administration.
King Tribhuvan, who was restored to the throne in 1951, promised a democratic constitution to be framed by an elected Constituent Assembly based on adult franchise. Until then an interim constitutional arrangement was instituted which provided for the 'king-in-council' system to run the government and administration. The interim government, a Rana-Congress coalition, was short lived. The king assumed power to appoint and dismiss the government at his discretion and exercise full state authority. Election for the Constituent Assembly, as promised by the Delhi settlement between king Tribhuvan, Rana Prime Minister and Nepali Congress, were never held.
In 1959 king Mahendra, who assumed the throne in 1955 after the death of Tribhuvan, approved a constitution which provided for a parliamentary system of government based on the westminster model following which general election was held for the Parliament. Elections demonstrated that the Nepali Congress, own the election by two-third majority. The legislature Nepali Congress party elected B.P. Koirala its leader. First elected government was formed in the history of Nepal under the leadership of B.P. Koirala.
The king Mahendra for his dramatic coup of 15 December 1960, however, dismissed the elected government, dissolved the Parliament and political leaders detained. On 5 January 1961, the king banned the functioning of political organisations under his emergency powers. In 1962 the new constitution was proclaimed and king Mahendra envisaged a new form of government - the partyless panchayat system which provided a cover to the absolute powers of the monarchy. The monarchy remained at the helm of the political affairs for a long period between 1962-1990. Rastriya Panchayat, a Parliament of sorts, with members both nominated and elected on an individual basis. Rastriya Panchayat was also dominated by segments of society with high ritual status who were loyal to the king. Subsequently in 1963, similar panchayat or assemblies were created at the district and village levels by setting up of 75 districts and 14 zones as political administrative units within the country. The autocratic constitution of Nepal, had for the first time declared Nepal as a 'Hindu Kingdom' pushing the agenda of 'National Integration' through the process of homogenisation and assimilation of cultural diversity. Since common culture was thought essential to the nation-building, policies of one language, one dress' (i.e. khas language and hill people's dress) were officially promoted, privileging the khas - Nepali language and parbatiya (hill) Hindu culture as 'National'. During this era debate and action pertaining to ethnicity and culture other than 'national' cultural was discouraged as 'communal' and 'anti-national' and therefore, ensure strong official opposition. Discriminations based on religion, language and culture of the Madheshee, Janjatis or ethnic groups, indigenous people, Minorities, Women and dalits and their further exclusion and marginalisation emerged as major issues of contestation, contributing to a delegitimization of the panchayat government.
Even though the autocratic panchayat system, compared to the previous Rana regime, increased involvement in state structure, it only included the population belonging to hill peoples traditional high caste ruling elites.
In 1990, the people revolted against the partyless panchayat system, and Janandolan (people's democratic movement) launchedimensions. by the Nepali Congress and United Left Front succeeded in persuading the king to introduce incomplete and limited multiparty democracy, paved the way for the institutionalisation of constitutional monarchy. King Birendra, agreed to abide by the principles and norms of democracy and limited his role to that of 'constitutional monarch'. Later on the constitution of the kingdom of Nepal 1990 was proclaimed by the king Birendra with consent of Nepali Congress and United Left Front as the settlement of the dispute. The new constitution was framed on the bass of multiparty democracy, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary system of government based on westminster model. Relatively the new constitution had some positive features 'first articulated the people as the source of sovereign authority', second the king was designated as a 'constitutional monarch'; Third, Article 4(1) officially recognised the country as 'multi-ethnic and multi-lingual' and last, it guaranteed freedom to political parties, associations and expression.
The democratic and progressive people, for example argue that the king still holds real sovereign authority since he is characterised as the provider and the protector of the constitution [Preamble and Article 27 (3)] and emergency power is vested in him (Article 115). The ethnic activists on the other hand contend that the constitution carries the basic characteristic of a 'communal' state from the past and contradicts the real democratic spirit, the new constitution, for example, reaffirms Nepal as a Hindu state where the king has to be a 'descendant of the great king Prithvi Narayan Shah and adherent of Aryan culture and the Hindu religion [Article 27(1)]. It fails to recognise the country as 'multi-religious or secular' and Article 4 privileges that the Nepali language as the 'language of the nation' and to be used as the official language. The present structure of Nepali state doesn't reflect the socio-cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity of the society and nation necessitating the need for restructuring the state as a federal system.
The constitutional provisions to acquire citizenship is targeted against the nationality or national identity of the Madheshee people similarly, contrary to the fundamental rights granted by the constitution, Article 112(3) prohibits formation of any political organisation or party on the basis of religion, community, caste, tribe or region.
Thus, institutions of the state, even after the restoration of multiparty parliamentary democracy, continued to draw upon its past legacy of Shah-Rana regime and autocratic panchayat system. Even after the major political changes of 1990, aristocracy continued to control national politics and state affairs, with major landowners and comprador bourgeoise and the so called high caste of the hill community dominating the higher echelons of police, military and bureaucracy. The structure established as an out-come of the 1990 democratic movement also failed to ensure a sharing of power and resources among Madheshee, Janajatis, women, dalits and other ordinary people. According to the new constitution, the executive power of the kingdom of Nepal is vested in the council of Ministers and all functions of the king and royal palace, except those to be discharged by him, should be carried out with the advice and consent of the council of ministers. However, in practice the king still holds the key to power in the country as the chief of the military. Senior officials of the military and police are usually related to the members of the royal family.
Political change and the constitution of Nepal 1990 failed to properly settle the question of 'state sovereignty' traditionally claimed by the monarchy leaving the final 'state authority' and control over the Royal Nepal Army (RNA) in the hands of monarchy. The political change of 1990, gradually returned to the fold of the monarchy. The structure of the monarchy and palace could not changed. In Nepal's 235 years old history, maximum time period was under the active monarchy and it remains a central element of Nepalese polity. There had always been conflict between the king and the people, be it in 1950, 1960 and 1990. King Tribhuvan promised election to the Constituent Assembly but the did not comply. King Mahendra usurped power militarily and king Birendra continued the same. The present king also seems to be doing the same. We need to settle this issue once and for all because assertive monarchy itself is the real barrier to democratisation and development in the country. Monarchy has never been linked with the substance and essence of democracy and democracy needs to be redefined independent of monarchy. The position of monarchy was not made clear when the constitution was framed. The democracy we introduced in Nepal was basically the representative liberal democracy with several compromises with the palace. The 1990 constitution did not keep the king within the constitutional boundary. Article 127 in the constitution allowed the king to play with the constitution. Unfortunately, the resumption of multi-party democracy following a people's movement in 1990, failed to provide responsible governance and up hold the aspiration of the Nepalese people.
Three general elections 1990, 1994 and 1999 all returned fractured verdicts. The political parties proved incapable of structuring stable coalitions or even avert splits in their own organisations. The role and functioning of the political parties and their leaders had been far from satisfactory. They had indulged in politics of expedience and sought to achieve short-term advantages for themselves rather than strengthening the democratic system in the country. In 14 years of multi-party democracy, Nepal has had 14 governments all failed to make an impact on the lives of the vast majority of the country's 24 million people. Moreover, the parliamentary forces during their 15 years long rule inbetween, did nothing to bring about a progressive transformation in the traditionally feudal and increasingly comprador and bureaucratic capitalist socio-economic and cultural base of the society. The basic challenge of consolidation of democracy, and ensuring the sovereignty of the people, the parties have not been able to take a stand on the fundamental issues. They have a tendency to compromise. There was insufficient progress in improving the development indicators. The behaviour of political parties, both within and out side the Parliament, contributed to sullying their image as self-seeking and corrupt, more bothered about personal and sectional ends than national good. It is difficult for outsiders to appreciate the exclusionary, and thus non-representative, character of the Nepali system, with a few hill based, upper caste male Hindu groups hegemonising the position and resources in all domains - legislative, executive and judiciary in the process marginalising a vast majority of citizens from any effective participation in formal decision making.
The political parties clearly failed to provide a stable government in Nepal. Political leaders got involved in personal and party interest rather than national. All most all the major political parties have been characterized by internal feud and fragmentation, groupism, leadership clashes, weak social bases, declineitutional monarchy and parliamentary system of go of ideology and rise of intra-party disputes. The political ambitions of party leaders and factionalism have given rise to splits and further weakening of the party system. Meanwhile the king has become powerful due to party divisions. The parties also failed to build up sufficient democratic space in the country. This may possibly explain why popular needs and aspirations remained unrealised and people's frustration increased. The composition of the governing elites of Nepal interms of caste, class, ethnicity and gender between 1846 and 1999 remained more or less the same. For example, the members from hill Brahmin and Chhetri caste groups, who constitute 28.5% of the total population of the country, continued to occupy about 60% of the position as legislators, while Madheshee constituting more than 50% of the total population occupied less than 20% seats, similarly, Janajatis or indigenous nationalities accounted for less than 15% of the MPs in 1999. The dalits are virtually non existent in the legislature. Condition of women, too, is not encouraging.
Hill high caste male people continue to dominate the major political parties too. The presence of Madheshee, ethnic groups, dalits and women in the leadership hierarchy of these political parties is negligible. As a result, Madheshee, various ethnic groups and dalits caste groups remain peripheral to both party politics and the national political main-stream. These groups have lost confidence in these political parties. Besides these, the political system, patterns of representation, party structure and leadership and over all political orientations have thus helped to reinforce the unitary system of government and administration and the continued exclusion of deprived castes and communities. It also fuelled Maoist insurgency in the country.
In February, 1996 a left extremist group, the communist party of Nepal (Maoist) launched an armed revolution in the name of 'people's war' with the declared objective of overthrowing the 1990 constitutional system to establish its own regime, a 'people's republic' based on Marxism-Leninism ad Maoism. The rebellion, beginning with isolated incidents of violence in the remote villages of some mid-western and few other districts, has now grown into a full-scale nation wide insurgency. As a result, the writ of the constitutional state has been drastically reduced to the district headquarters and a few urban centres. The constitutional process has been rendered dysfunctional, bringing into question the very legitimacy of the polity. The present polity has failed to contain them both administratively and politically.
The Maoists are not in a position to militarily overrun the Nepali state and capture power on their own, merely with the gun. They politically represent the legitimate aspirations of Nepal's long neglected and suppressed rural poor. That is why they are willing to work with the political parties within a multiparty political structure, if there is a complete and genuine transfer of power from the king to the people of Nepal.
The social composition of this party, the hill high caste domination in the leadership of the CPN (Maoist), which is currently involved in violent insurgency with the aim of establishing a people's republic with ethnic autonomy, shows that even a radical left party is also unable to ensure equitable representation. Single caste domination is a paradox for parties which claim to represent the people as a whole or a class of proletariat and workers. Without changing the composition and character of the party leadership, democratization in a larger context is impossible.
The extremist Maoist's savage and dictatorial methods are abhorrent. However, their popularity curve declined as the maoist adopted brutal tactics. Their basic demands are not, infact, the Nepali Congress Party and the Communist Party have, since the forties, demanded a Constituent Assembly and has also given up this demand upon various opportunities to share power with the palace-military complex. The Maoist have simply co-opted these demands strategically and claimed them as their own.
Then, the Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba negotiated a ceasefire and succeeded in bringing the Maoists to the negotiation table. Between August and mid-November 2001, three rounds of talks were held between the government and Maoists. However, the Maoists did not agree to accept anything less than the formation of a Constituent Assembly, a republican state and a new constitution for Nepal, while government was not prepared to accept any of these demands. The talks failed and the Maoist again resorted to violence.
In the middle of 2003, the king succeeded again in bringing the Maoist to the negotiation table but failed to reach any agreement. The monarch wanted to take credit of solving these problems in which he failed. But he did succeed in marginalising the political parties. The government and the insurgents had engaged in dialogue in 2001 and 2003. But on both occasions talks failed and after each interlude there was fierce fighting with the state losing further ground. Despite the Maoist dropping the issues of republic from their agenda of negotiation, no headway could be made to transform the armed rebellion into a legitimate constitutional political process. During the first round of negotiations the government insisted on a constitutional monarchy and reform within the limits of the 1990 constitution. The second time it was prepared to rewrite the constitution, which implied the framing of a new constitution, but insisted on retaining a constitutional monarchy. It also ruled out the election of a Constituent Assembly because that could threaten the monarchy. The Maoist inturn ruled out any possibility of seeking change through the existing constitution and demanded a new constitution to be framed by people through a freely elected sovereign Constituent Assembly.
The estimates of internally displaced persons due to the insurgency are above 1,00,000 while more than 12,583 people have lost their lives (insec). Among 1500 cases of disappearance, the state is directly accountable for more than 1000. Civilian life has only worsened - threat, extortion, torture, displacement, disappearance, rape and killings, have become a regular features of the people's lives in most parts of the country. There is no law in Nepal that can guarantee any Justice. The political parties on the other hand, failed to pressurize the king to either hold general elections or revive the Parliament. In a statement in Feb. 2004, king Gyanendra made it clear that the monarchy would not remain a silent spectator to people's sufferings. 'The days of the monarchy being seen but not heard are gone. We, cannot remain a silent spectator to people's tearful face'.
On October 4, 2002, he had invoked the constitution to sack Deuba as Prime Minister for "incompetence" and initiated a cycle of nominated governments headed by the panchayat era palace loyalists Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Surya Bahadur Thapa. When the king enacted the first step of his coup, the international community were near - unanimous in their support.
In the middle of 2004, Deuba was once again appointed Prime Minister. Deuba gave an ultimatum to the Maoists to agree to negotiations. This failed. An impatient king was no longer content to watch political events and decided to give a new direction to Nepali polity with the abrogationpulation of the c of the Deuba government. It is clear that the king moved in systematic and calculated manner. His intentions from the very beginning were clear. He wanted to create political space for the assertive Monarchy and at the same time blame political parties for the failure of democracy, peace and stability in Nepal.
On February 1, 2005, king Gyanendra sacked the council of ministers lead by Sher Bahadur Deuba and, as per Article 27(3) of the constitution, took overstate authority for three years. The king accused Deuba of failing to persuade the Maoist to agree for peace talks and to prepare the ground for general elections in the country. What is remarkable about the Feb. 2005 coup is that the king is claiming that he is taking absolute control in the interest of rescuing democracy from itself.
The outspokenly critical response of the international community is likely to embolden the resistance to the king's move. India, the United States, the United Kingdom and EU have categorically denounced the royal takeover. The most significant international development is the suspension of military aid by India, USA and UK alongside suspension of 'development aid' by a number of EU countries. International human rights organisation such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have publicly denounced the royal regime for its violation of human and democratic rights of the people. The Bush administration, which was backing the king and arming the RNA in the battle against "Maoist terrorist group' said, it was "deeply troubled" by the development in Nepal and described the king's action as "undermining the Nepali struggle with Maoist insurgency". Britain went a step further and suggested that it would review its assistance to Nepal. India which has made common cause with Nepal in the fight against the common threat of left wing extremism, said the king's move had 'violated' the basis of the peace and stability of Nepal founded on the twin pillars of the constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy. "The government of India should make it clear that this coup against the constitution and democracy in Nepal is unacceptable and respond in a manner which will help to restore the democratic system in Nepal" said a statement issued by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Japan, Nepal's largest aid donor, called for restoration of democracy and the release of the detained leaders.
Thus the autocratic royal regime has been totally isolated form the international community. Apparently, the international reactions was harsh because the king had gone against the assurance he had given to the representatives of the major countries.
Since Feb 1, 2005 when king dismissed the party based government and seized all powers. Three trends emerged simultaneously, political power was centralised, the Maoist conflict intensified, and Nepal was put almost at par with other pariah states by the international community. None of these trends has been reversed since the king lifted emergency rule on 29 April, 2005.
Though there is a political reassertion by the monarchy in Nepal, it may not be durable, not even for the time that king has stipulated. It is also well known that modern representative democracy operates through political parties. While the democratic forces in Nepal are fragmented and lack of concrete common democratic programme and are victims of their own incompetence, they have the capacity to fight back. History bears testimony to the fact that people have been able to restore democracy through popular movements. Although Maoist insurgency continues to be the major problems facing the country, other political issues including substantial constitutional change, engage all political forces seeking 'forward movement'. This has become necessary not only because of the Maoist insurgency but because the political structure based on the 1990 constitution have been deficient in meeting the rising expectations of various groups and communities. Besides, the takeover of the executive powers by the king, which the main stream political parties termed as 'royal regression' has also compelled them to broaden the areas of the constitutional change.
Nepal continues to be governed under a centralised administration and authority. As a result, demands for restructuring the state as a federal system are popular among various ethnic groups. The unitary structure of Nepali state and representation system and Kathmandu centric political structure can never be democratic and accountable in a true sense and provide space for groups who are at the periphery. As is evident, despite democratic experiments since 1990, the power structure that prevailed for centuries has not been transformed in any real sense.
Federalism and proportional representation must form the core agenda of the present discourse of restructuring the state for better representation of the people as cultural groups as well as efficient and accountable administration of the country. Administration of growing millions of people under a unitary and centralised polity can never be democratic and efficient.
Shah and Rana rulers introduced a simple aristocratic system based on the theme of absolute monarchy, Nepali language, Hindu ethos and centralised politico-administrative structure under the unitary political system. Without changing these basic foundations democratisation of the country or the establishment of a complete democracy is impossible. But the seven political parties alliance seems to be opposed to changes relating to the status of monarchy, army and Hindu kingdom. The common programme adopted by the agitating seven parties alliance against the royal regression includes commitments to such reforms as end of direct Monarchy rule, restoration of the dissolved parliament for the formation of responsible and representative government, affirmative policy actions for women, dalit and other deprived groups, ending discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, language, keeping the army under an elected government and authority, guarantee of free and fair election, restructuring of the Nepali state and governance.
A simple restoration of democracy merely means returning to this constitutionally questionable 'rule by Article 127'. It may reverse the Feb 1, coup, but it will not resolve the problems that proceeded it, or the conditions that facilitated it. The earlier political gridlock between the palace military complex, the democratic political parties and the Maoist insurgents must be cleared about the vital democratic issues, such as election for Constituent Assembly for framing of a new constitution for the country without any pre-conditions, change in electoral system, federalism and proportional representation system in the polity and administration, right to the self-determination, multi-lingual policy, secular identity of the nation state, complete sovereignty of the people, reservation policy, constitutional supremacy and provision of refrendum in major national issues. The major political parties are silent or vague about these democratic issues and avoid any specific commitment, without addressing the essential important issues, it is impossible to establish the complete democratic system in the country, continued support for the principle recognises that Nepal's future lies in a complete multi-party democracy that allows even the Maoist to play a peaceful and meaningful role in main-stream politics. To establish a complete democracy Maoist should end their annihilating programme cracy from itself.
The outspokenly critical respnow, and join with the democratic parties and forces along with civil society, human rights activists, media persons or journalist in their struggle for democracy, the king will have no choice but to negotiate for a ceremonial position, the force of popular will may simply overthrow him otherwise.
If the Maoists join other political parties, the fate of the monarchy would be sealed. If people's war continues, it would be a long war and the country would sink deeper and deeper into chaos and move towards becoming a failed state.
For this, certainly, is the call of the times, the monarchy must retreat to a strictly ceremonial position or go. Weather or not this happens will depend on the democratic political parties' ability to form a mutual understanding with Maoist. The Maoist have now invited the left and democratic alliance to join hands with them in overthrowing their common enemy. They have indicated that they are now willing to form a broad front with other main-stream parties to put up a joint struggle for multi-party republican democracy. The thought that these parties might accept their invitation is giving many jitters. No lasting solution may be possible without bringing the Maoist on board. Their bottom line demand of a Constituent Assembly sounds most reasonable and democratic. If the Maoist are not prepared to join a civil movement, their indirect support to a democratic movement cannot be ruled out. The democratic parties must have to show their reaction very carefully with patience. If they are to negotiate the Maoist into an equal partnership, they must also reform themselves urgently. With self-realization and learning lesson from the history, leaving their age-old willed; the democratic political parties must have to review and reform correctly their agendas, characters, approaches, methods and issues. These parties must have to stand strongly in favour of complete democracy rather than monarchism. The challenge before us is to make sure that the revolution that succeeds is a complete democratic one because democracy is better in all circumstances than any others.
( Mprforum's document)

2006-02-07T11:32:00.001-08:00

Respected All,
I am Rajesh from Nepal.I am media activist here.
Our Organization is started a views paper MADHEHvANI based on Madheshi issue. Who are above 60%in the total population of Nepal but mostly are backward. Because they are suffering to discrimination by the state policy and Non Madheshi people.Most of them have neither citizenship card not opportunity. They loose his all rights because of poorness. Actually most of the NGO/INGO don't know about Nepali Madheshi and his problems. Our Organization think about this community and start to do something. We need your co-operation.It is pleasure to inform you that our organization MARG is devoted to arouse awareness about the issues of Madhesh in Media.
Our main purposes are:
I. To establish MARG Library focusing on Madheshi and Media.
II. Research on participation of Madheshis in Media.
III. Intellectual debate on Madhesh and Media frequently.
IV. Madhesh Darpan (feature service).
It would be great if you could do any support for us.
Thank you in advance.
Rajesh ahiraj
chairman
MEDIA ACTION AND RESEARCH GROUP
www.marg.org.np
phone:- 014479390/ 9841219169
pobox no ;- 11858
www.madheshvani.com

2006-02-07T11:32:00.000-08:00

Respected Sir,
Actually, I am Rajesh from sarlahi, Nepal.I am media activist here.
Our Organization has started a view paper MADHEHVANI based on Madheshi issue. Who are above 60% in the total population of Nepal but mostly are backward. Because they are suffering to discrimination by the state policy and Non Madheshi people.Most of them have neither citizenship card not opportunity. They loose his all rights because of poorness. Actually most of the NGO/INGO don't know about Nepali Madheshi and his problems. Our Organization think about this community and start to do something. We need your co-operation.It is pleasure to inform you that our organization MARG is devoted to arouse awareness about the issues of Madhesh in Media.
Our main purposes are:
I. To establish MARG Library focusing on Madheshi and Media.
II. Research on participation of Madheshis in Media.
III. Intellectual debate on Madhesh and Media frequently.
IV. Madhesh Darpan (feature service).
It would be great if you could do any support for us.
Thank you in advance.
Rajesh ahiraj
chairman
MEDIA ACTION AND RESEARCH GROUP
www.marg.org.np
phone:- 014479390/ 9841219169
pobox no ;- 11858
www.madheshvani.com