Madhesh as such doesn’t exist in Nepal

Raj Kumar Lekhi, General Secretary

Tharu Welfare Society, Nepal

Raj Kumar Lekhi is the leader of the Tharu community. He is concurrently the General Secretary of the Tharu Welfare Society.

Lekhi’s society and some other Tharu organizations in support of some indigenous political entities agitated for some good thirteen days and forced the government to bow down and sign an agreement which now, claims Lekhi, secured and ensured the rights of the Tharus community.

The Tharus appear to differ with the idea of declaring Nepal’s entire Tarai belt as One Madhesh.

Tharus claim that there is no such place or special territory in Nepal which could be taken as Madhesh.

Lekhi claims that with the signing of the 6 point agreement with the government of Nepal in favor of the Tharu rights, a historic achievement has been accomplished.

However, Lekhi’s detractors opine that he and Laxman Tharu betrayed the entire Tharus and signed the agreement with the government without taking into confidence the mood of the Tharu community.

Lekhi and Laxman rebuke such allegations.

The Sunrise Post dated March 21, 2009, printed interview with Lekhi. Thanks Sunrise.

Below the excerpts: Ed.

---

TGQ1: Your Tharu community waged a movement for long in the recent days against the recently promulgated government’s Ordinance which assimilates your community in the category of the Madhesis. What were the gains of the said movement? Some even say that your agreement with the government is likely not to be addressed by the government. Your comments please.

Lekhi: The genuine demands that we had been voicing since long has been well addressed by the fresh agreement between the Tharu community and the government. The present agreement with the government now fully recognizes the distinct Tharu identity, linguistic pattern, tradition, historical and cultural practices and above all the political rights of the Tharus.

To be candid, the clause 1 of the fresh agreement clearly sates that the government henceforth recognizes the separate identities of the people living in the hills and the indigenous population including those of the Tharus. In effect, these people have their own and distinct culture and traditions and thus their demands have now been fulfilled.

What has also been agreed upon that by affecting effecting certain amendments in the interim constitution which caused immense damage to annihilate our separate identities by such an amendment will be corrected through yet another amendment? This means that the interim constitution will now again be amended in order to ensure our unique identity that we possess in abundance.

Be it known to all that neither we are the followers of Madhesh nor we are Madhesis. We are at best entirely different from others and are Tharus.

Well! We don’t claim that all of our demands have been met with for all time to come. However, still, the historical movement that we have had in the recent weeks has some way or the other addressed some of our genuine concerns.

Neither a movement of the sort what we have had can address all of our issues and concerns.

What we have talked this time is that we were neither Madhesis nor the inhabitants of what is called Madhesh. We have just wanted to sound that we are Tharus who possess a distinct identity and that we be not assimilated into any other ethnic domain. We just wanted to establish our historical roots and cultural patterns that are definitely different than others.

The fresh agreement has provided a sort of slap to all those who wanted to incorporate the entire castes and ethnic tribes into one particular community. The Ordinance which had damaged our separate identity and Madhesised the entire belt remains now shattered.

Some demands are yet to be addressed.

TGQ2: So when the agreement you think will come into effect? Why not you the Tharus raised this issue when the Interim Constitution was amended? You could have raised your reservations then? Why was the delay? Your comments please.

Lekhi: Well! The Constituent Assembly will resume its proceedings by March 29, 2009. The government at time of signing of the agreement with us has assured that the demands of the Tharus will be brought to the attention of the CA upon completion of all the needed and the required procedures as is demanded. The onus now lay with the government for the fulfillment of the agreements that has already been agreed upon.

What remain yet to be seen is how the parties take this and how the government convinces the political parties. How the lobbying is carried out by the government in this regard will be equally important to watch in the days ahead.

Indeed we have had raised this issue the day the first amendment of the interim constitution included the word Madhesh as such, however, our protest in this regard went unheeded.

The tragedy has been that unless some dozen vehicles are not burnt and agitation not sponsored the government in Nepal does not listen to the issues and concerns of the people.

Thus we were forced to do the same what others have done in order to get their demands addressed. And we did it and thus got our demands met with by the government.

TGQ3: Why your community is aggressive towards the Madhesh? Recently we have learnt that you have agreed to allow the government to write Tarai and Madhesh together instead of what was Madhesh only in the past? Will you explain please1

Lekhi: Yes! Indeed there are Madhesis in Nepal. Even in Kathmandu you can notice the presence of Madhesis. Like wise they are also in Pokhara and in Tarai as well.

But there is no such territory in Nepal which could be taken as Madhesh. Neither Madhesh was yesterday nor it exists today and at best nor would it come into existence in the future as well.

If Delhi houses some one million Nepali citizens, will then that allow the Nepalese to constitute a mini Nepal right there? It can’t be made so. This applies here as well.

To tell you frankly, there is no word as such which is Tarai-Madhesh in our agreement that we have signed recently. Albeit that was the proposition of the government at time of the agreement. We haven’t accepted the word Tarai-Madhesh in the agreement.

TGQ4: The Madhesi community after a prolonged agitation had managed to incorporate the word Madhesh in the interim constitution after the first amendment. Will now the Madhesh parties will so easily accept the use of the word Tarai ?

Lekhi: We just wanted to establish the unique and the distinct identities of the Tharus, Muslim and other indigenous people. The Madhesis while raising the issues concerning ensuring of their own rights tried to intrude upon to the rights of the others sects, ethnicity and tribes. We objected to their efforts at minimizing our exclusive and genuine rights. We have rebuffed their design by waging the prolonged agitation recently.

Who say what and does what should be not of our concern.

TGQ5: The Tharu agitation has come to an end. During the agitation some other political groupings also extended their support to your agitation. Will such a support continue in the future as well? Tell us why your society is being dubbed as anti-Madhesh? Your remarks please.

Lekhi: Those who supported us have their own demands. How they do it, it is their way to decide.

Yes! The Tharus have various organizations and all have their own identity and functioning style. But when it comes to the crunch, we all become one and fight in a united manner.

The Tharu Welfare Society, let me tell you frankly, does not believe in the armed movement. We don’t extend our support to those who raise weapons. We adopt peaceful means.

Definitely not. We are not against any particular caste or for that mater a community. Our fight is just to guarantee the rights of the Tharu community which has been denied by the State so far.

This is a wrong calculation and thus I refute such allegations.

2009-03-25 09:08:22
Source: Telegraphnepal.com.np

Strife ends in Nepal’s Terai region

Paul Soren

With signing of an eight-point agreement reached between the government and leaders of United Madhesi Democratic Front (UDMF), an alliance of three Terai parties, Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF), Terai-Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP) and Nepal Sadbhawana Party (NSP), the year long strife in Teria has partially come to an end. The UDMF also announced to withdraw its 16 day long agitation. The prevailing confusion and apprehension over holding of timely elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA) has also disappeared.

On February 28, 2008, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and UDMF leaders Mahanta Thakur, Rajendra Mahato and Upendra Yadav signed a pact in the presence of members from civil society, human rights and media. In addition, the government also signed a four-point agreement on March 1 with the Federal Republican National Front (FRNF), an alliance of nine ethnic groups. However, some affiliates of the FRNF, including Madhesi Jaanaadhikar Forum–Madhes (MJF-M) and Republican Madhesi Front (RMF) are dissatisfied with the agreement. The two Madhesi groups have further warned to intensify their agitation.

Apparently, the government has been able to address key demands of Madhesis which they have been deprived for over more than five decades. According to the pact, the government agreed to recognise Madhes and other federal states as autonomous region, provide equal representation to Madhesis in all sectors, proportional representation of Madheis in army, implement previous pact with MJF, compensate and provide medical treatment to people injured during Terai agitation and give martyr’s status to those killed and has agreed to talk to armed outfits from Terai. The cabinet meeting endorsed the agreement and asked the Election Commission (EC) to extend the deadline for election procedures.

In fact, the Terai problem seems to be resolved but this is only partially. In central Terai, security situation is fast improving and gradually returning to normalcy but agitations in eastern Terai remains a challenge. Similarly, the armed factions from Terai have not shown much inclination to participate in elections. Though, the government is trying hard to reach out to these groups but their response has been lukewarm. Eventually, if talks do not materialize with these groups it is certain that they will try to impede the election process. There are also few elements hatching conspiring against the elections and trying to derail the peace process. Likewise, security scenario in some parts of Teria still remains a matter of grave concern. The EC has also requested the government to tighten up security in some eastern hilly districts. However, despite all these hurdles and stumbling blocks, the government and parties look determined to hold the elections. The political parties have intensified campaign and mobilizing support for their respective parties. It is expected that this time the elections would not be deferred rather it would be held to provide a future roadmap for new Nepal.

Source: South Asia Weekly, March 2, 2008

Terai crisis may delay elections

The continuing crisis in Nepal’s Terai region poses a serious challenge for holding of timely elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA). The week-long general strike called by the United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF), an alliance of three Terai parties, Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF), Terai-Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP) and Sadbhawana Party (SP) has only aggravated the situation. The UDMF has been pressurising the government to address six of its major demands, including, a separate Madesh province with right to self-determination. They threatened to boycott elections if their demands are not met. Subsequently, the Federal Republican Front (FRF), an alliance of ethnic groups in eastern hills has launched agitations pressuring for their demands. Apparently, the two separate agitations is Terai, has raised serious doubts of holding the elections on stipulated time.

The strike has adversely affected normal life in the region and Kathmandu valley. Many of the industries located in Terai have closed down due to shortage of raw materials. Most of the educational institutions have shut down and transport remained off road. The supply of basic necessities has been largely affected due to blockade of vehicular movement. There is an acute shortage of fuel and this impacted vehicular movement in Kathmandu. There are also stray incidents of violence and clashes reported between security forces and demonstrators in different parts of Terai.

The FRF’s acceptance to sit for talks has given some respite to the government. The government tried hard to strike a deal with UDMF leaders to hold elections on time. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and Seven Party Alliance (SPA) leaders invited UDMF leaders for talks. This week, a series of meetings took place between UDMF and SPA leaders to find a political outlet. The government assured UDMF leaders that elections will address most of their grievances. Initially, the Madhesi leaders responded positively to government’s offer. However, the talks did not yield any results and the UDMF decided to continue with their agitations. Though, the government and other parties are gearing up for elections but the security and election scenario in Terai does not look favourable. Even, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP-Nepal) has decided to boycott the April 10 election. It is obvious that elections will not take place if, the Terai parties continue with their agitations and security situation does not improve.

Source: South Asia Weekly, February 24, 2008

Pragmatism Must Prevail

The much-awaited parley between the government and the United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF), an alliance of the Terai Madesh Democratic Party, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and Nepal Sadhbhawana Party (Mahato), failed to yield the expected results the other day. The people who were eagerly waiting for the fruitful outcome of the meeting throughout Friday were once again disappointed when the media reported that the meeting ended inconclusively. The people, badly hit by the indefinite closure called by the UDMF from 13 February and curfews across the Terai, had expected that the meeting would end their woes and pave the path for the constituent assembly elections as they knew well that both sides had done adequate homework before sitting at the table. But it could not happen as there was no agreement on the UDMF�s demand for �one Madhesh, terai, one province�, which is impractical and against the national integrity. With the inconclusive outcome of the meeting, the Nepali people as well as the economy of the country are sure to suffer more. The movement of people and essential goods like fuel and food has already been affected throughout the country by the indefinite bandh. The serpentine queues of vehicles in front of the petrol pumps are a common sight in the valley. Moreover, the failure of the meeting has put the entire peace process at risk as it would be incomplete without holding the CA polls in the absence of peace in the Terai or in any part of the country. This has created some amount of uncertainty. If the seven political parties and the UDMF do not sort out the outstanding issue immediately, there is a danger that the CA polls, the process of which is already underway, might have to be postponed possibly for the third time. Therefore, UDMF should be more serious about the safe and bright future of the country and give up the demand which the present interim government cannot fulfill. It wold be the most logical step in order to free the nation from the present chaotic situation. No one should forget that dialogue is the best weapon to arrive at a solution to any problem. At the same time no one can compromise on national integrity and the wellbeing of the people at large. It is time that flexibility be resorted to in taking the country on the forward looking path in the interest of the people and the country.

Source: The Rising Nepal, February 25, 2008

SPA, UDMF finally reach deal

KATHMANDU, Feb 25 - The government and the protesting United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) struck a crucial deal Monday morning ending the 12-day Madhes movement and clearing the deck for Constituent Assembly elections slated for April 10.
The two sides reached compromise on the key UDMF demand - One Madhes One Pradesh - which they said would be decided through the Constituent Assembly. They have agreed to form autonomous Madhes state and other autonomous states.
However, both sides were struggling till 3 am Monday on proper words to be mentioned in the draft.
"We have agreed on autonomous Madhes state. But we are still discussing proper words to reflect the desire of Madhesi people regarding the autonomous Madhes state," said Hridayesh Tripathi, a Madhesi leader, who was present during the meeting, held at prime minister's residence, Baluwatar.
The government and UDMF have also agreed to recognize all those killed in the course of the Madhes movement last February as martyrs and provide their families with proper compensation.
They have agreed to amend the Election Commission Act, which provisions that any political party which secures at least 20 percent result or more under the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system must prepare an inclusive list of candidates for the proportional electoral system.
"We have agreed to increase the provision from 20 to 30 percent," said Tripathi. The UDMF had demanded that the provision should be increased to 50 percent.
He said the final draft of the agreement will be ready by Monday morning.
Jayaprakash Gupta, coordinator of Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF), a constituent of the UDMF, said, "It is a big setback to tarai movement because the agreement is not constitutionally binding."
He said the government didn't agree to incorporate the issue in the constitution. "The Constituent Assembly will not have legal powers to recognize the tarai as autonomous Madhes state," he said.
He said the government also refused to make group recruitment of Madhesi people in the Nepali Army.
The UDMF had called an indefinite strike in the tarai from February 13 demanding that the government fulfill their six-point demand.
Earlier today, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, UML General Secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal and Maoist Chairman Prachanda had held a separate meeting at Baluwatar and reiterated their commitment to conduct the CA poll on April 10.
The three leaders had also agreed to persuade UDMF to participate in the CA poll to decide the issue of one Madhes one Pradesh. Following the Baluwatar meeting, UML General Secretary and Maoist Chairman Prachanda held a separate meeting at the UML central office in Balkhu and discussed the issue.
After developments in Kathmandu, the government arranged a helicopter to bring Upendra Yadav, MPRF chairman, from Simara Sunday evening.
Yadav and other Madhesi leaders including UDMF chairman Mahantha Thakur and Sadbhawana Party Chairman Rajendra Mahato held a special meeting at about 11 pm before sitting for a formal meeting with the government at Baluwatar.
Prime Minister Koirala and Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula held negotiation with Madhesi leaders.
Meanwhile, NC leaders Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar and Saratsingh Bhandari have urged the government to settle the Madhes issues soon. In a press statement, jointly issued Sunday, the leaders said the CA poll is not possible without addressing the issues of Madhesi political parties. The leaders, however, are not so clear on the issue of one Madhes, one Pradesh.
Similarly, Rastriya Prajantra Party (RPP), in a separate statement, demanded that the government immediately hold a roundtable to address the issues raised by Madhesi, Tharu and other indigenous leaders.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, February 25, 2008

Ethnic unrest threatens Nepal elections

KATHMANDU (Reuters) - Nepal must address the demands for autonomy of its ethnic Madheshi people or risk more violence and another postponement of twice-delayed elections, the leader of a Madheshi group said on Monday.
Violent protests in the Terai, or Madhesh, region in Nepal's southern plains have clouded a peace deal between the government and former Maoist rebels, which ended the Maoists' decade-long rebellion against the monarchy in 2006.
At least 45 people have been killed in violent street protests in the past year. But Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala has vowed to press ahead with the elections in April, Nepal's first national vote since 1999, despite the crisis.
"If it goes ahead with elections by force, the Terai problem will take a different course," Upendra Yadav, chief of the Madheshi People's Rights Forum, which organised most of last year's protests, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"Armed groups will get a space to play and a secessionist movement could develop."
Many Madheshis want the region, which is home to nearly half of the country's 26 million people, to become a largely autonomous state within Nepal, and want a greater say in the running of the central government.
"If this is not done elections in the Terai are not possible," Yadav told Reuters. "The government does not want to resolve the problem and it wants to continue to suppress the Madheshi people."
Nepal is due to vote for a constituent assembly on April 10. The assembly is expected to prepare a new constitution, make laws and formally declare an end to nearly 240-year-old monarchy.
Since the Maoist rebellion ended in 2006, more than two dozen rebel groups have begun a low-intensity insurgency in the Terai.
Analysts say the government must act quickly and engage the Madheshis before the situation slips out of control. But Yadav ruled out an early meeting.
"Protesters are being shot and killed," he said. "How can we hold talks in this atmosphere?"
On Sunday, police shot at Madheshi protesters in the southwestern town of Nepalgunj as the crowd pelted them with stones.
Police said one demonstrator was killed and dozens of others were injured, the first fatal incident since an indefinite Madheshi strike began last week.
Schools, shops and factories have been forced to close, while oil supplies have been disrupted.

Source: Reuters India, February 18, 2008

Nepal 2007: A Review of Political Developments

Paul Soren

Overview

Nepal’s progress towards democracy and stability was marked by two historic developments: First, the decision by the Maoists to join the mainstream politics and become part of the interim government. Second was the abolition of the monarchy. The peace process advanced rapidly in 2007 following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) by the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) government and the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) in November 2006. The government’s promise to hold Constituent Assembly (CA) elections by mid-June 2007 was the first step.

This process was, however, seriously interrupted due to political disruptions, misunderstanding between political parties and Maoists, and the continuing Terai problems on Madhesh issue, which threatened to derail the peace process. The violent agitations in the Terai emerged as a new challenge for the new government which was struggling to cope up with the Maoists openly violating the peace accord by indulging in violent activities. On several occasions, the SPA and Maoists leadership were at loggerheads over political issues, delaying the elections at least twice raising questions about their credibility and intentions.


Political Transition

The year began on a positive note. On January 15, 2007, the interim government promulgated the interim constitution and suspended the institution of monarchy. The SPA and Maoists formed an interim government under Nepali Congress (NC) leader Girija Prasad Koirala. The Maoists participation in the government, marked a new era in Nepal’s history. The government announced a Common Minimum Programme (CMP) and announced to hold elections in June 2007.

In an equally important decision, the Parliament passed a second amendment to the interim Constitution authorising the Parliament to abolish the institution of monarchy by a two-thirds majority if the King conspired to disrupt the polls. Though, the King had been stripped off most of his powers, the Maoists ensured that the institution of monarchy was abolished. They feared monarchy may jeopardize the elections.

The government was also assigned the task to hold the assembly elections in June but it was delayed due to political confusion and lack of preparation on the part of the parties. Even the Election Commission (EC) said it was technically impossible to conduct free and fair elections on June 20 due to fragile security environment. Finally, after months of discussion it was decided to hold the elections on November 22. The Maoist Parliamentarians, however, chose to resign and put two important pre-conditions, declaration of republic and proportional representative system. They also called for a special Parliamentary session to decide on these issues. A special session was held and the Parliament passed both these resolutions with some amendments. A legislation was passed that enabled the elections to include a mixed-allotment system, combining first-past-the-post and proportional representation system, an important demand of the Maoists and several ethnic groups across the country.

On December 23, the SPA and Maoists signed a 23-point new agreement which cleared the way for holding of polls. The Parliament passed an amendment to the interim constitution declaring Nepal federal democratic republic. Another amendment increased the number of members from 497 to 601. Now, 335 members will be elected on proportional representation system, 240 members on first- past- the- post system and 26 members will be nominated by the Prime Minister. This provision is expected to accommodate aspirations of marginalised and deprived sections and provide them an opportunity to represent their political viewpoint. These steps clearly denote a forward movement in the political scene in Nepal.


Elections

The Constituent Assembly election is an issue of intense debate across the country. To some extent, the government’s inability to hold the polls on time and the postponement undermined the credibility of the interim government, the SPA and that of the Maoists. The parties were unprepared and were hesitant to seek public mandate. Even the Maoists, due to their declining public image and shrinking support base, mainly in the Terai, were apprehensive of participating in the polls. In fact, the major political stakeholders in Nepal were trying to avoid the elections. The situation worsened after the Maoist ministers resigned from the cabinet in September and put forward two conditions. The suspension of the elections only eroded the parties’ image and raised questions on the legitimacy of the government.

The postponement was received with varied degrees of reactions. The civil society came out strongly and demanded the resignation of the government. The government’s move gave an opportunity to the pro-monarchy parties to demand Koirala’s resignation. Even the international community was baffled by the government’s decision to defer the polls and expressed concern.

The parties in the coalition government and some from outside the alliance accused the leadership of delaying the process deliberately. The political environment turned ripe with charges and counter-allegations. A major share of the blame should be borne by the Maoists. It was their insistence on first settling their 22 demands---mainly two dealing with declaring Nepal as a republic and adopting fully proportional representative based election system—which only added to the atmosphere of uncertainty.

Since joining the interim government, the Maoists have always been actively involved in political decisions but suddenly they decided to backtrack from their earlier agreement. This move at a critical juncture was seen as part of their strategy and tactic to pressurise the government to accept their demands. A more flexible approach on the part of both the parties would have helped defuse the situation.


Seven Party Alliance

The Jana Aandholan of 2006 mandated parties to work jointly and find a plausible solution to the pressing problems of the country. It was therefore the responsibility of the SPA and Maoists to ensure a smooth political transition.. However, both the parties chose to ignore their primary responsibility and instead harboured dissimilarities on various issues and refused to resolve them in the larger interest.

The SPA’s behaviour had always been characterised by suspicion and partisan interest. They preferred closed-door decision-making to a more transparent process, making consensus-building difficult. This was aggravated by poor discipline within the parties, with individual politicians making provocative statements and pursuing personal vendettas. Opinions within the party were also divided over the issue of declaring the country a republic. Like Maoists, the SPA too were bent on cornering the spoils of being in power rather than consolidating the peace process.

Amidst fears of losing the polls, the SPA constituents-- the Nepali Congress (NC) and NC-Democratic-- reviewed their policies and initiated talks for unity. On September 25, leaders of both factions of Nepali Congress-Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba agreed to merge and become the single largest political party.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist)--UML, the second largest political party was put in a Catch- 22 situation after several of its cadres expressed their willingness to join the Maoists rather than aligning with NC. At some point of time the UML was thinking of forming alliance of all the Left parties to counter the NC.

The SPA leadership was not able to deal with the important issues in a decisive manner. But to be fair, they did make attempts to bridge the gap between expectations and performance of the government. The alliance set up a task force, representing members from all seven parties, to finalise points of consensus and prepare the draft agreement. The taskforce recommended for a 20-point pact to end the current political stalemate and evolve an understanding on crucial issues like declaring the country as a republic and the shape of the electoral system. The SPA leaders succeeded in evolving an understanding and endorsed the new pact, and helped end the year0long political stalemate.




Maoists

The Maoists joined the mainstream politics with a political objective in their mind and their subsequent decisions and actions were part of this strategy. In February 2007, during the People’s War (PW) anniversary, Maoists Chairman Prachanda announced his party’s position on several major issues. He emphasized Maoists commitment to establish a republican state. He also reiterated their group’s decision to participate in the elections and cooperate with the democratic forces. However, in April 2007, the Maoists turned back on their promise and demanded that Nepal be declared a republic before holding the elections. This was mainly done to recover from the damage they suffered in Terai and to justify their decade-long armed struggle.

This stance dramatically changed the political situation in Nepal. The Maoist held their fifth plenum in August in Kathmandu which was attended by more than 2000 party members. The plenum unanimously passed political and organisational report of Prachanda with some amendments. The report also put forth two preconditions for the elections – an immediate announcement of the formation of a republic by Parliament and implementation of a Proportional Representation (PR) based electoral system. Subsequently, the Maoist Central Committee meeting also implemented the decision of the fifth plenum.

The Maoists were also concerned over their growing unpopularity and rising dissent within the party. The Maoists affiliated Young Communist League (YCL) was involved in various violent activities and their acts were roundly condemned across the country. The Maoists made initiatives to restructure the party to demonstrate their intension to transform it from a revolutionary group to a political organization. However, the violence unleashed by their cadres undermined their political alteration and the peace process. The Maoists pre-poll demand put a spanner in the electoral works as none of the parties were sure about the next course of political direction in the country. They made continuous effort to make the interim Parliament declare a republic. Gauging the political environment, Prachanda announced formation of a possible Left Front to contest the elections which was received with wider acceptance from all other Left parties. The aim was to counter the NC and other royalist forces. The UML came out openly supporting the Maoists demand for republic.

In September, the Maoists quit the coalition government after their demands for announcement of republic before the elections and proportional representation-based election system were not accepted. However, they decided not to burn the bridge completely and continued persuading the SPA leadership to accept their demands in the larger interest. Though Prachanda and senior Maoist leaders strongly advocated for the need to hold the polls under the proportional representation system, the Maoist cadre indulged in violence despite their commitment for peace. At one time, the Maoists strongly supported delaying the elections and proposed a new agreement with the SPA. These moves and rhetoric were mainly tactical move to put pressure on the government to meet their demands.

The Maoist withdrawal from the government was prompted by unhappiness with the implementation of the peace deal, pressure from their own cadres and a growing realisation that their electoral prospects may be poor.


Terai Trouble

The continuing crisis in the Terai region poses a serious challenge for the present government. The Madhesi groups have been demanding the restructuring of the state on federal lines; adopt proportional electoral system and delimitation of election constituencies on basis of population ratio and geographical conditions. Although many of the Madhesi grievances were genuine and needed to be amicably resolved, but the wave of violence indulged in by different groups undermined their objective. Over a dozen underground groups became active with their own set of agendas. Almost all of them strongly advocated violence as a weapon against the State to achieve their objectives.

The government's initiatives to contain the movement at initial phase resulted in worsening the situation and dramatically increased the Madhesi involvement. The agitating groups rejected the offer of negotiations from the government and continued with their violent agitation across the region.

The government was, however, successful in bringing the Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF) to the negotiating table. During the three rounds of peace talks, many key issues including the demand for federal structure, autonomy and proportional representation were discussed. In the last round, the government rejected MJF’s demand to dissolve the interim Parliament which provoked the group to warn that it would start another agitation. The government and MJF, however, decided to settle their differences and agreed to a 22-point deal on August 30. According to the agreement, the assembly will decide the character boundaries, and rights of autonomous states under a federal structure, on the basis of suggestions from State Restructuring Commission. In a positive note, the MJF renounced its demand for a fully proportional electoral system to cooperate in conducting the polls.

Apart from MJF, two other prominent armed factions-- the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM), one led by Jai Krishna Goit and another by Jwala Singh demanded a separate state for the Madhesis. These groups operate in the entire Terai region but are stronger mainly in the eastern part of Nepal. Their presence is visible in almost all the major industrial areas. There are also forces, with their hidden agendas, backing the monarchy and pro-royalist in fuelling the Madhesi uprising. The Indian Rightist groups are instigating the Madhesi uprising by fuelling religious sentiments. The World Hindu Federation (WHF), a Hindu fundamentalist group, Shiv Sena-Nepal, National Defence Force and Nepal Independent Youth Society (NIYS) are fuelling religious sentiments. The WHF, NDF and Shiv Sena-Nepal have expressed displeasure at Nepal's transformation into a secular nation. These fundamentalist groups in Nepal are being strongly backed by Indian Rightist groups. They have been demonstrating and demanding for return to pre-Jana Andolan period. All these forces intend to disrupt the elections and derail the peace process. The government continues to face difficult time in dealing with these armed groups, especially after it rejected the Goit faction's demand for a United Nations (UN) mediation.

As the year closed, the crisis in Terai only worsened. A group of Parliamentarians from Terai resigned from Parliament on December 10. This once again raised doubts about the elections. Senior Nepali Congress leader and Minister for Science and Technology, Mahant Thakur, along with three other influential Terai leaders, Hridayesh Tripathi formerly with (Nepal Sadbhawana Party-Anandi Devi), Mahendra Yadav of (Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist) (CPN-UML) and Ram Chandra Raya of Rastriya Prajatantra Party resigned from the Parliament alleging the government and parties insensitivity and indifference towards resolving the Terai problems.

The Madhesi groups also showed signs of unity. The newly-formed Terai Madhes Democratic Party (TMDP) led by senior Madhesi leader Mahanta Thakur and the Joint Madhesi Front (JMF), an alliance of the Madhesi People’s Right Forum (MPRF) led by Upendra Yadav and Sadbhavana Party (SP) led by Rajendra Mahato, jointly warned to start a decisive movement if the government failed to fulfill their demand before the polls.


Role of External Powers

India’s contribution in facilitating the process of democracy in Nepal was apparent. India played a crucial role in bringing the democratic forces and Maoists together under a common platform which led to the signing of peace accord. India facilitated the evolution of a broader political consensus among different forces. During the time of political crisis and confusion, India brokered peace between various factions. The eruption of violence in Terai and the deepening political crisis concerned India most and it expressed serious concern over the developments.

However, India’s pro-active engagement has not been well received by some political stakeholders in Nepal. After the spurt in the Terai violence, some political leaders and the Maoists started accusing India of supporting a secessionist movement in the area. Though much of India’s policy has been reactive, it still continues to strengthen the bilateral relationship by providing economic assistance for development programmes, and for the preparation of polls. By and large, India will continue to be a major player in Nepal.

Some of the major external powers, namely the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and European Union (EU) have been towing India’s line. All these countries have promised to support the peace process and democracy for stability in Nepal. They have been unanimously voicing their support for the peace process and have been urging the government to hold the elections. Much of the support by UK and EU countries was focused on development projects linked with the peace process rather than military. The EU countries argued that the Nepali people’s aspirations for change will not be fulfilled unless there is development taking place.

The Americans, however, had a different agenda. The US government reiterated its stance to support the peace process and an early election. It, however, expressed serious concern on the Maoists role and their activities. They continued to perceive the Maoists as a threat to the evolution of democracy in Nepal. In the present circumstances, the US, UK and EU countries will continue to wait and watch the developments taking place.

China kept a close watch on the developments in Nepal. China established contacts with the interim government, parties and most importantly with the Maoists. In 2007, China sent several high ranking government officials and important leaders of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to Nepal to explore feasibility to strengthen ties with the present establishment. Through these high-level visits China tried to convince Nepal that it continued with its non-interventional approach. Besides, China promised to provide economic assistance, expand rail and road network and support the peace process and polls in Nepal. By and large, China initiated an assertive foreign policy and tried to engage actively in the political transition.

Source: ORF, February 1, 2008

The Madhesis of Nepal

K Yhome



Dramatic events in the past one year since the 2006 “April Revolution” in Nepal have been redefining the political landscape of the Himalayan nation in more ways than one. One important change is the visible rise of “marginalized” groups in national politics. The “excluded” groups - cutting across ethnic, religious and language lines - are demanding their due rights. In the midst of these changes is the rise of the Madhesis.2 This paper attempts to assess the response of the Nepalese government towards the Madhesi uprising, the shaping of the contours of the ethnic problem in the future, and its impact on peace in Nepal up in coming days and weeks and the prospects for peace in the country. The article ends with an assessment on India’s role in Nepal.

The Madhesis3

Madhesis are an important segment of the population in Nepal.4 They occupy economically the most significant region of the country with 70-80 per cent of the country’s industries being located in the Terai region. It accounts for 65 per cent of Nepal‘s agricultural production. Needless to say, the country’s economy depends heavily on the region. Strategically, the Terai belt constitutes the lifeline of Nepal. All the key transportation routes from India pass through this region, making it the gateway to the landlocked country. Almost all the country’s import and export takes place through this region. Given these factors, any disturbance in the region involving the Madhesis becomes extremely critical as it has the potential to seriously jeopardise the country.

With strikes, bans, and road blockades that continue to mark the unrest in Terai, economic activities have been brought to a virtual halt. Trade has been severely affected with goods worth millions of rupees stranded at border points and many manufacturing industries in Birgunj and Biratnagar shut down owing to crisis of raw materials. A recent report released by Nepal Rastra Bank, indicates that the country’s foreign trade recorded dismal performance during the first nine months of 2006/07, with 2.9 per cent fall in total exports. The report identifies the Terai unrest as one of the major factors for the poor performance of the export sector.

The size of the Madhesis has been a contested issue. According to the Population Census 2001 based on mother tongue for Village Development Committees (VBCs), the Madhesis population was 6781111.5 If one were to go by this figure, the Madhesis formed 29.2 per cent of the total population of Nepal in 2001. However, Madhesi political leaders, scholars, and activists have long questioned these figures. They claim that the Madhesis form 40-50 per cent of the total population of Nepal today. For instance, Jwala Singh, leader of the Janatantrik Mukti Morcha (JTMM-Singh) has claimed that Madhesis population is 14 million.6 While the truth is difficult to establish, one can safely say that the Madhesis constitute a major chunk of Nepal’s demography.

The Unrest in Terai7

Two issues need to be highlighted. First, the Madhesi issue is not a communal issue. Secondly, the Madhesi issue has not emerged in January 2007. The Madhesi question is not one of Madhesis (‘people of the plains’) vs Pahadis (‘people of the hills’). This misinterpretation of the Madhesi nomenclature by making it a community-based issue could have grave implications for the country.8 The Madhesi issue in Nepal 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. 9

The current Madhesi protests began to surface in late 2006. The interim constitution became the rallying point, which the Madhesis claim, has failed to address the issues related to their rights. The trouble soon took a different turn when the country’s draft interim constitution came into effect on 15 January. Rapidly, the largely peaceful protests snowballed into widespread violent demonstrations, strikes and bans. Since then, the situation has only deteriorated. Three Madhesi outfits have been leading the agitations. The outfits are:

Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) or Madhesi Peoples’ Right Forum (MPRF) headed by Upendra Yadav. The outfit has been spearheading the ongoing Madhesi agitation in Terai. MJF’s main demands are: amendments to the interim constitution to include provisions for ethnic and regional autonomy with the right to self-determination and proportional representation based on ethnic population for the elections to Constituent Assembly (CA). Yadav has also been criticised from several quarters for his alleged ties with “palace forces”. The outfit’s student wing, Nepal Madhesi Student Front severed its allegiance in March accusing their leader of working with the “royalist” to subvert the CA elections.10 Interestingly, on April 26, the MJF submitted an application for party registration at the Election Commission and said that it will participate in the CA elections as a political party.

Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM-Singh faction) led by Nagendra Paswan alias Jwala Singh. JTMM-Singh group is a breakaway faction of the Maoists that has been active mainly in Siraha and Saptari districts of Terai. The group spilt from JTMM led by Jaya Krishna Goit in mid-2006. The JTMM-Singh faction has been demanding for an autonomous and separate independent Terai state; equal participation of Madhesis in government security forces. In fact, on March 30, the outfit declared the Terai region a “Republican Free Terai State.”11 The group has been accused of fueling communal feelings between “people of hill origin” and “people of Terai region”, however, Singh reportedly claimed that his group is against the “system of unitary communal hill state power” and not people of hill origin.12

Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM-Goit faction) led by Jaya Krishna Goit. Some of the conditions that the group has put forth for talks include declaring Terai an independent state, fresh delimitation of electoral constituencies based on populations, eviction of non-Terai officials and administrators from Terai region, among others. Both the JTMM groups want UN mediation in the talks. The group has been alleged of “divisive” campaign for its demand from industries to remove “people of hill origin” and replace them with Madhesi people or “people of plain origin” in eastern Terai region.13

Another outfit, Madhesi Tigers, a splinter group of the Maoists re-emerged in March after a long period of inaction. Madhesi Tigers is a splinter group of the CPN-Maoist formed a few years ago. Reportedly, its leader was killed in April 2005. According to the news reports, the Madhesi Tigers abducted eleven persons from Haripur area on March 1 but were released few days later.14 The past months have also seen emergence of new outfits. A group calling itself Terai Cobra has emerged in central Terai. Not much is known about this outfit. The first time it came out in public was on May 9, when it called a bandh in Bara, Parsa, and Rautahat districts in central Terai. Normal life was affected as markets and schools remain closed and traffic was disrupted.15 On 14 May, yet another outfit called Terai Army Dal, unheard of before, claimed responsibility of the bomb blast in Rautahat district that injured 14 people.16

Government Response

Has the government mishandled the Madhesi uprising? Arguably yes, if the worsening situation in the Terai is any indication. During the initial phase of violence in the Terai, the government perhaps failed to respond to the problem effectively. It was busy with other issues at hand, particularly, the peace process and the formation of government.17 The government’s indifference was compounded by differences between the government and the CPN-Maoist leadership (the Maoists joined the government in 1 April) over how to approach the problem. On 22 January a meeting of the eight-party alliance was called by Prime Minister GP Koirala to discuss the Terai situation. While the Prime Minister (PM) felt that the issues raised by the Madhesis and other groups can be resolved through dialogue, the CPN-Maoist chairman Prachanda and senior leader Babu Ram Bhattarai ruled out the possibility of dialogue with the Maoist splinter groups claiming that these groups were supported by “royalists elements and fundamental Hindu activists”.18

The Prime Minister’s address to the nation on January 31 and February 7, calling upon the agitating groups for dialogue evoked mixed reactions. While the PM’s address received positive response from some groups, it failed to improve the deteriorating situation. Under intense pressure from various quarters, the government formed a committee for talks with the agitators on February 2 under Mahanth Thakur, the Minister of Agriculture. Despite this initiative, the government was increasingly coming under criticism from both within the SPA and other political parties.19 Amid growing pressure from Madhesi and other communities, the government on February 2 decided to amend the two-week old interim constitution and assured the inclusion of all communities in the organs of the state.20 However, differences among the parties delayed the PM’s second address to the February 7. The eight-party alliance voiced its collective support to the PM’s address and signed a commitment paper that they were serious about the movement in Terai and would want to resolve it by addressing the Madhesi people’s demands and aspiration.

Meanwhile, the MJF responded positively to the PM’s second address by suspending their protest programme for ten days. On the other hand, the JTMM-Goit faction criticised the PM’s address. While the JTMM-Singh faction and the MJF initially showed willingness for dialogue, the JTMM-Goit rejected talks offer saying that the government has not created conducive atmosphere for talks. Soon the MJF followed suit and on 19 February, it said it would resume agitation alleging that the government did not show seriousness. The Thakur committee’s invitation for dialogue with the agitating groups never took off. Rather more conditionalities were put before the government to start the government for the dialogue. The interminable unrest in the Terai also pushed the NSP-A to take a tougher position, even threatening to pull out of the SPA if the government did not adopt the proposal to amend the constitution before March 6.

As though the rapidly growing tension and violence was not enough, the Gaur incident, in which a clash between the MJF and the CPN-Maoist aligned Madhesi Mukti Morcha (MMM) took place on March 21, 27 people were killed and many injured, further excerbated the tension.21 Reacting to the incident the eight-party alliance in a press statement said that the government must take stern measures against such acts and safeguard life and property of the people. In the wake of the Gaur incident and in the midst of CPN-Maoists demand to ban the MJF, the government prohibited any MJF programmes.

Efforts to curb the increasing violence remained ineffective as also the invitation for dialogue remained a non-starter. In the face of the deteriorating law and order situation, the government formed the Peace and Reconstruction Ministry and appointed a new three-member committee on April 11 headed by Ram Chandra Poudel entrusted with the task to hold talks with all the protesting groups. By appointing a new ministry and a new team for talk, the government wanted to send a message that it was serious about the issues raised by the agitators. In a significant development, the MJF and the government held their first formal talks on June 1 in Janakpur. It was reported that the two sides agreed on some of the demands raised by the MJF.22 However, a final agreement is yet to be reached.

While the government expressed its concern over the continued incidents of violence and called all agitating groups for talks, the situation in many parts of Terai remained chaotic with killings, extortions and strikes marking the protests. The violence has been taken a new direction with the rise in clashes between Madhesi outfits and Maoist sister organisations. This has further complicated matters.

Prospects and Recommendations

The situation in Terai remains grim with no signs of improvement. There is nothing to suggest that protests and violence will subside in the near future. Killings, strikes, demonstrations and clashes may continue. Even as the government insists on talks with the agitating groups, there has been a reluctance to address the core Madhesi problems and demands.

In the event of any outfit entering into an agreement with the government, the level of violence may be brought down. However, so long as other groups indulge in violent activities, the situation may only worsen in the coming weeks with serious implications, given the explosive nature of the issue. And now with new outfits emerging, the complexities are only growing for the government because even if any outfit enters into dialogue with the government, the possibility of dissidents joining the new groups to carry on their violent activities cannot be ruled out.
It is feared that the situation if allowed to deteriorate further, may result into ethnic riots. However, the recent incidents indicate that the danger seems to have been averted owing to the new dimension that the violence has acquired i.e. - the Madhesi vs the Maoists, which is as dangerous.
The urgent imperative is that all the agitating groups including the Maoists must desist from violence. The first priority of the government should be to seriously address the demands of the protesters. The Madhesi groups should not forget that their real cause is political. The present political situation in Nepal provides all ethnic groups the opportunity to resolve their problems amicably. Therefore, it would be folly on the part of the Madhesis to play the spoiler. The SPA and the CPN-Maoist also need to display more maturity.

India’s Role

India has been playing a constructive role in Nepal’s political transition. On several occasions New Delhi has expressed its desire to see Nepal resolve its internal problems and move towards establishing a stable democracy. On the development front, India has been engaged in education, infrastructure, and health projects in Nepal. Since India’s shares a long porous border with Nepal’s Terai, the trouble in the region is of great concern to it. Trade between the two countries depends on this region, as all the trading points are located there. Since violence has erupted in the Terai, India has shown serious concern over the volatile situation. Also of major concerns to India is the possiblity of the spill over of violence in Terai into India. The Indian government has been closely watching the developments in the Terai and has constantly been in touch with Nepal’s government.23

Notes:

1. The assessments in this essay are based on developments till June 2007.
2. Several other “marginalized” groups such as the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN), am umbrella organisation of 54 indigenous and ethnic groups, the Kirats; the Tharus; the Muslims among other groups have been protesting and demand the government to address the issues of ethnic groups.
3. The term Madhesi is derived from the word Madhesh meaning “mid-land” in Nepali and is defined as the lowland plains in the southern slopes of Nepal bordering Indian states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Uttaranchal. It refers to the Terai region (See Figure I). The foothill of the Chure hill is considered the dividing line between the Pahar (the hills) and the Madhesh (the plains). Hence, the people occupying the Terai belt are called Madhesis. The name is a generic term and also a topographic reference. The Madhesis include different cultural and linguistic groups - Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Tharu, Hindi, Urdu, and other local dialects.
4. There is currently a debate in the academic discourse on whether all groups in the Terai can be considered Madhesis. I have argued elsewhere that a Madhesi “identity” has came about as a result of long state “discriminatory” politics. See “Constructing Identity: The case of the Madhesis of Nepal Terai” Paper presented at Social Science Baha conference on Nepal Terai: Context and Possibilities in Kathmandu on 10-12 March 2005.
5. This figure included all the mother tongues spoken in the Terai - Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi, Tharu, as also Hindi, Urdu, Bangla, Rajbansi, Santhali including Punjabi and Marwari (though their share is marginal).
6. See “The Himalayan Times”, January 15, 2007.
7. The origin of the movement can be traced back to early 1950s. Several political parties and organisations - the Terai Congress in the 1950s; the Nepal Sadbhavna Council in the 1980s and later the Nepal Sadbhavna Party (NSP) in the 1990s - emerged at different point of time to fight for the Madhesi cause. All these organisations have fought against state’s “discriminatory” laws of citizenship and language as well as recruitment policies to the armed forces and bureaucracy. However, the problems persisted undressed under different regimes for decades. It was in this context that when the “People’s War” of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) emerged in the mid-1990s some sections of the Madhesis joined the Maoists, which had promised political, economic and social rights. With this background, an attempt is made to understand the current Madhesi agitations in Nepal.

8. K. Yhome, “Madhesis: A Political Force in the Making?,” Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi, Article no. 2058, 5 July 2006
9. K. Yhome, “The Madhesi Issue in Nepal”, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi, Article no. 2228, 2 March 2007
10. See “Nepal News”, March 25, 2007, http://www.nepalnews.com
11. See “The Himalayan Times”, March 31, 2007.
12. See “The Himalayan Times”, January 15, 2007
13. See “Nepal News”, January 19, 2007, http://www.nepalnews.com
14.See “Kantipur Online”, March 1, 2007, http://www.kantipuronline.com; also see “Nepal News”, March 4, 2007, http://www.nepalnews.com
15.See “Nepal News”, May 10, 2007, http://nepalnews.com
16.See “Kantipur Online”, May 15, 2007, www.http://www.kantipuronline.com
17. A source close to the government told this author in March that the government had initially “underestimated the potential of the Madhesi uprising.” For political reasons the name of the source is keep undisclosed.
18.See “Kantipur Online”, January 24, 2007, http://kantipuronline.com; also see “Nepal News”, January 23, 2007, http://www.nepalnews.com
19.NSP-A on February 2 announced that it would participate only in those meetings that discuss Madhesi issues. The traditionally “royalist” party, Rashtriya Prajatankri Party (RPP) accused the government of not been serious toward the real issue of the Madhesis and that the attitude has been fueling more crises in the country. See “Nepal News”, February 3, 2007, http://www.nepalnews.com
20. On February 5, top leaders of five political parties, namely the Nepali Congress (NC), CPN-Maoist, Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), Nepali Congress-Democratic (NC-D) and NSP-A agreed on three major political issues: the interim constitution would be amended with firm commitment to a federal structure of governance in future; the election constituencies will be delineated in proportion to the population with special provision for sparely populated districts in the hill region; and to express commitment for representation of people from all castes and creed in state organ. See “Kantipur Online”, February 3 & 5, 2007, http://www.kantipuronline.com/
21. See “Kantipur Online”, March 21, 2007, http://www.kantipuronline.com
22. See. “Nepal News”, June 2 2007. http://www.nepalnews.com
23. A Nepali delegation met India’s Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister in New Delhi on January 30 where both the Indian leaders expressed their concern over the violence in Terai. Again, India’s External Affairs Minister reiterated India’s concern to a delegation of Nepali politicians when the latter called on him in New Delhi on January 31, 2007. See “The Himalayan Times”, January 31 and February 1, 2007. A Nepali delegation comprising senior leaders of the eight-political parties came to New Delhi on May 31 to held talks with Indian leaders, see http://www.nepalnews.com May 31, 2007.

Source: Indian Defence Review, Vol. 22.3, Decemeber 4, 2007

New hope for Nepal

Paul Soren

The prolonged confusion and apprehension over holding of Constituent Assembly (CA) elections and the issue of monarchy was partially resolved when the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and Maoists signed a 23-point new agreement on December 23, 2007. This is fourth major agreement reached between the SPA and Maoists after the Jana Aandholan of April 2006. The interim government also approved the new pact which it is hoped will pave the way for the CA polls.

The interim parliament also passed an amendment bill to the interim constitution, declaring that Nepal would be a federal democratic republic after the CA polls. This will finally lead to the abolition of monarchy during the first sitting of the constituent assembly. It has also cleared the decks for the Maoists to rejoin the cabinet. The ball is now in the Maoists court and they have to make a move. They have to keep their commitments and join the democratic process and also ensure that polls are held on time.

For the present the new pact seems to be a good deal as it has cleared some of the existing political uncertainties and hiccups. This appears to be a tangible roadmap for a New Nepal. However, there are a few key questions which need to be further probed before making any conclusive statement. Will the 23-point pact pave way for timely CA polls and end the ongoing political crisis? The major demands of the Maoists have been addressed but what is the guarantee that they will sincerely participate in the polls? Will the Maoists come up with new set of demands to obstruct the CA polls? More importantly, will it address the Madhesi concerns and accommodate their political ambitions?

Analyzing it positively, it indicates that the new pact should be able to end the political stalemate in the country. The new agreement has primarily addressed two of the major issues obstructing the peace process and delaying the polls. The Maoists ’ demand for a republic and proportional representation has been met. Though the second Maoist demand for a full PR system has been partially met but it could still be acceptable to them. Similarly, in an effort to bring inclusiveness in the polity, the interim parliament also amended the constitution and increased number of members from 497 to 601. Thereby, 335 members will be elected under the proportional representation system, 240 members on first past the post system and 26 members will be nominated by the Prime Minister. It is expected that the amended constitution will be able to accommodate aspirations of the marginalised and deprived sections of the country. It should provide them an opportunity to represent their political viewpoint.

Despite all these positive trends, the government has several daunting tasks to perform. Firstly, it has to address the Tarai problem because elections cannot be held if the Tarai is left burning. Secondly, the security situation in the country is worrisome and need to be improved. The government has to take into account all these critical issues and address them on priority basis. Further and this is very important, the SPA members and Maoists have to stay united and stop playing the blame game. They need to co-operate with each other and find viable political solutions to the various problems the country. They also need to evolve a consensus over these issues and take them to their logical end.

Essentially the new deal enables the Maoists to rejoin the interim government by addressing two of their major demands. The rising aspirations of the Nepali people for peace and stability, require that political players play a leading role in establishing peace. They should also cooperate with other parties in sustaining the peace process. The Maoists credibility, will determined by their seriousness and adherence to their commitments. Manipulative politics and rigidity have to be replaced by transparency and flexibility in finding solutions to problems. The Maoists need to prevent their cadres (especially the Young Communist League) from indulging in terror and unlawful criminal activities. Any further attempts to stay away from the polls or creating obstacles in the holding of polls will rebound on them.

Since the institution of monarchy – controversial and meddlesome in politics -- has always been a focal point of debate in Nepali politics there has always been a struggle for power between the monarchy and democratic forces. The Maoists were the latest entrants in to this struggle to abolish what they described as a feudal institution. The new pact would eventually lead to the removal of monarchy in the country. The resultant amended constitution has empowered the parliament to abolish monarchy if the government suspects that the monarchy is playing a spoiler hand or intends to thwart the peace process. However, the Maoists would ensure that the monarchy is wiped out completely from the Nepali polity. The bill eases the government’s burden as it can now attempt to hold the polls by mid-April 2008.

There are a few negative aspects of the new pact and amended constitution. The new agreement does not directly address the ongoing Tarai problem inviting criticism from opposition party members and agitating Madhesi groups and the SPA and Maoists have been accused of taking arbitrary decisions. They alleged that common citizens have been deprived of their rights in the decision making process. It is true that the SPA and Maoists have neglected Madhesi aspirations by not addressing issues raised by them. It appears that the new pact is meant only to appease the Maoists rather than finding a political solution endangering the country. The SPA and Maoists have completely ignored that stability in Tarai is a very critical element for holding of a successful election. The Tarai problem if left unresolved has the potential to further complicate the peace process and aggravate the situation. Therefore resolving the Madheshi problem should be of the utmost importance for the government and parties.

The new agreement is an opportunity for the parties and Maoists to end the ongoing political crisis and will be a feasible roadmap for creating a new Nepal provided the SPA and Maoists can give up their petty political interests and exhibit the political will to address some of these pertinent issues like the Tarai problem and avoid delaying the polls. Most importantly, the SPA and Maoists have to create a conducive environment for the success of the polls.

Source: Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi, January 7, 2008

Madhesis have a right to declare independence

Former Minister of Science and Technology Mahanta Thakur left the interim government to form a new party. He began his career in politics as a student leader in the early 1970s. He contested the general elections from Siraha. After having been a member of the Nepali Congress for more than 37 years, Thakur left the NC at a time when the party needed him most. Thakur does not believe the government can hold the CA polls in mid-April because of the deteriorating law and order situation in the tarai. Thakur spoke with Puran P Bista and Kamal Raj Sigdel of The Kathmandu Post on the future political course of his party and his demand for greater autonomy with a provision for self-determination.

Excerpts:

Q: You have formed a new party right after the SPA agreed to hold the CA elections by mid-April. Is your new party prepared and in a mood to participate in the polls?
Mahanta Thakur: We are not against the government's plan to hold the CA elections by mid-April. But the people in the tarai want to see their issues settled first. Elections are a constitutional process to express your views in a peaceful manner; but having said that, the current situation in the tarai is not conducive to holding elections. Peace and security are prerequisites for holding the polls.

Q: You have also expressed dissatisfaction with the 23-point agreement struck recently by the SPA. Is this a prelude to your boycotting the CA elections possibly to be held in mid-April?
Thakur: We have not protested against the agreement. There is a burning problem in the tarai right now, but the SPA is ignoring it and going ahead with its own agenda with a one-track mind. This has created enough room for suspicion. All the major political parties are well cognizant of the problems in the tarai and what's going on there. There is state-sponsored terrorism. Incidences of extortion and abduction are daily affairs. Violence has increased. In such a situation, I think the general people of the tarai don't want the election to be held. First, there should be peace, the violence must stop, and the issues settled.

Q: You mean you do not believe the CA polls will be held in mid-April as the SPA is preparing to announce.
Thakur: That's what the people of Madhes have been saying. We are planning to visit the tarai and tour all the districts. And we will decide accordingly. We will collect information about the problem in the tarai by sitting down face-to-face with the local people. If the government and others cooperate with us and peace is restored, we can hold the elections.

Q: You have named your party Tarai-Madhes Loktantrik Party. How do you define tarai and Madhes? Who are the Madhesis according your definition?
Thakur: This is just an illusion. Both terms are being used interchangeably. There is no difference in their meanings. And there is no politics hidden behind that.

Q: When you define Madhes and Madhesis, do you include all the people of different origins and castes presently living in the tarai?
Thakur: We have always talked about the tarai and the hills in a holistic manner. We are talking about the 49 percent of the national population living in the tarai. We have raised overall issues. We have not talked about a certain caste, origin or religion.

Q: You mean you are raising a regional issue as opposed to a racial one.
Thakur: Yes. We have raised the issues of a geographical area, not of a certain caste or a certain party.

Q: Is this reflected in the way your party has been formed, for instance, in its membership?
Thakur: They will be incorporated in the organization in due course.

Q: You have been a devoted Nepali Congress leader since you joined politics. But you resigned abruptly and formed a new party. There are a number of parties with different ideologies already operating in the tarai. Can you, as an ex-NC leader, take them into confidence?
Thakur: All the parties are trying their best and want to solve the problems of Madhes and Madhesis. Since we all have a common goal, we have come together. Now we all agree that this problem should be solved peacefully. This is in the interests of the nation and the people.

Q: There are different parties in Madhes; some armed, some unarmed. How would you characterize them?
Thakur: Our party has stated clearly that all the political groups fighting for the Madhesi cause should come together. We are making efforts towards that end. If we advance together, there will be less problems for the people, they will get relief, also less effort will be required. We have publicly appealed to everybody to unite for the cause. As part of our campaign, we held consultations with the tarai parties before we established our party. We will have formal talks with them now that we have formed a party. Then we will go ahead with some coordinated programs. They have agreed informally that we need to act together.

And as for those who are operating underground, we have not yet talked to them face-to-face. But they have expressed their appreciation and welcomed our initiative through different media in the tarai. They have congratulated us. We have taken it positively. We will meet them and request them to join our peaceful movement.

Q: Judging by the fact that Upendra Yadav of the MPRF and several others did not attend your party's inauguration, it appears that your party will also become just another in the procession of parties that have emerged in the tarai. In such a situation, how will you be able to add new dynamism to the Madhesi movement?

Thakur: We will have formal talks with them to finalize matters.

Q: Do you think that the armed groups operating in the tarai will join open politics if the demands that you and other unarmed political groups have been raising are fulfilled?

Thakur: They are in politics even now. They are different only in their approach. Since they are raising political issues, we must say it is politics. It's only the way they are doing it that is different.

Q: Different parties in the tarai have been raising different demands. You have come up with your own. So what are your party's demands?
Thakur: We want complete autonomy. The local people should be involved in running the local administration. This is not happening at present. Everything is run by the center. The Madhesis do not see their reflection in the faces that are sent there to handle the local administration. For this reason, the people in the tarai do not feel ownership of the administration. They are not in a position which allows them to say, “This is our government, and it serves us.” What is lacking is participation and autonomy.

Q: Do you think all these demands should be fulfilled before the CA polls? How practical would it be in that case?
Thakur: The people of the tarai think that it would be better if these issues are settled before the CA polls. But I think the CA is also a valid process to get our demands fulfilled. A part of our problem will be solved if the election reflects our sizeable representation. I take the CA polls as an opportunity too.

Q: The recent 23-point agreement states that the CA will contain 601 members and that the tarai will be well represented. Don't you think that this new development ensures what you are demanding in advance?
Thakur: There have been discrepancies in what is said and written. But I said that the CA was also an opportunity. It is not that we can solve all the problems at once. We can also solve some of the problems by using that legitimate process. We think this is a legitimate process and we must accept it. Why should we avoid it? But there is no such situation in the tarai for holding the elections.

Q: What are the conditions that can bring you to the CA?
Thakur: People have been clamoring that we do not believe the government can hold the elections peacefully and that their demands will be fulfilled. So our demands, such as autonomous government and Madhesi participation in the local administration, should be fulfilled. And there is truth in our demands. Every time tarai issues are raised, they get sidelined. Though the government has made some commitments, nothing has been implemented in practice to this date. The posts of CDO, police chief and various administrative officials are still occupied by a single elite community. So the people are not convinced that the government will ensure equality and bring immediate changes in our administrative and judiciary systems.

Q: Would it be possible to reform overnight the entire system that was established by the Rana oligarchy and cultivated by the Panchayat system? How should the government revamp the whole system before the CA polls?
Thakur: The government should demonstrate its commitment by acts that will convince the people that their demands will ultimately be fulfilled. The people should be assured that there will be no more extortion. For example, the police come to innocent people's houses at night and intimidate them for no reason. They are subjecting the people to extortion. They take away people's guns even if they have a license.

Q: Don't you think that the CA is the right mechanism to solve all the problems?
Thakur: The CA is an issue that is raised time and again strategically. We were not the ones who postponed the CA polls. Neither can we do that. Now all the arrows are directed at Madhes. The seven political parties quarrel among themselves and the blame is placed on us.

Q: It is said that the NC has sent you to the tarai with this new party to undermine other parties such as the Maoists that have taken hold there.
Thakur: There is not a grain of truth in that.

Q: But how could you have left the NC? You have been a NC leader your whole life.
Thakur: I have left the NC. We have formed a new party.

Q: Like all the other armed and unarmed groups in the tarai, your party has also demanded the right to self-determination. What is this “right to self-determination” in plain language?
Thakur: Regardless of whether you write it down or not, it is there. But once stated, it becomes a legitimate right of the people. If the government continues to suppress the tarai, then it is the people's right to warn it that they have a right to self-determination. Till now we have been talking about living together. But if you suppress us any longer, we have a right to declare independence and live separately.

Q: Since everybody has agreed on establishing a federal republic, Madhes too will have its own provincial government. So who will be there to continue “suppressing” you in a federal system? Won't it make your demand for “right to self-determination” redundant?

Thakur: Yes, that is possible. There are examples we can draw from other countries. Suppression can continue even after a state has been granted autonomy. There are examples of states that have separated and declared independence, and also of some that have rejoined the federation.

Q: You mean self-determination similar to the Kashmiri demand?
Thakur: That is a different case.

Q: When you are talking about self-determination, does it indicate that we are heading towards disintegration?
Thakur: I don't think that guaranteeing a state all its rights can lead to disintegration. A community with such rights becomes stronger, thus there is no chance of it breaking up. When inequality exists, the chances of disintegration are greater. For instance, several independent countries came together to form the European Union. They are working together; they have a common currency and common market and share many things. Though there are instances of disagreement among them, they are working hard to stay together. The suspicion that the country could break up is only a fear.

Q: There are several castes and groups—for instance, Tharus, Limbus, Kirats, Brahmins, Chhetris and others - among whom some have been demanding their own states while others have been demanding their representation in state affairs. How do you address their concerns?
Thakur: We are raising overall issues. We have not raised a particular community's issue. Just like when the British Empire was pulling out of India, they were more worried about the problems of the suppressed community than the Indians themselves. They could not solve the problem of the suppressed community during their reign, and when it was time to leave, they worried how the Indians could solve them.

The colonial forces who were leaving India were more worried about it than the Indians themselves. That is what is happening in our country too. The government did not show any interest in solving the tarai's problems before, but now they are worrying about how Madhes can solve the problems and issues of other communities. They are focusing more on this. We are talking about the entire tarai. We are not taking about any caste or community. We are talking about 49 percent of the national population.

Q: Have you held talks with other disgruntled groups, such as Janajatis and others who are also legitimate political forces in the tarai?

Thakur: We are in the process of holding discussions with such discontented groups.

Q: Can you include them in your program?
Thakur: No, we are not raising caste specific issues [as the Janajatis have been doing]. We are talking about a geographical region. In this sense, I think all the issues have been brought together.

Source: The Kathmand Post, December 30, 2007

Madhes unity

Last week saw an unprecedented consolidation of forces in Madhes. First, it was the declaration of unification by three armed rebel groups—the two factions of Jwala Singh and Bisphot Singh of the Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha and the Tarai Tigers. Then came the announcement of the establishment of the Madhes Liberation Front formed by the merger of the Rajendra Mahato faction of the Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandi Devi) and Upendra Mahato's Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF). A ground-breaking development took place on Monday with the announcement of a new political front in the tarai. Mahanta Thakur, a senior Madhesi leader of the Nepali Congress, resigned his ministerial position and parliamentary membership to lead the front. One lawmaker each from the Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandi Devi), CPN-UML and RPP quit their parties to join hands with Thakur. Many more senior Madhesi leaders from other political fronts are expected to jump on the bandwagon.

The obvious questions are this: How did such a sudden consolidation of forces happen in the tarai? What will its ramifications be? The consolidation of power will definitely augment their influence in the tarai. However, the formation of a front of armed groups is definitely not going to help the taraibasis. It will only make things worse for them. In fact, the political leaders, who were until now associated with different parties, were compelled to do something in order to offset the ever-increasing threat and influence of gun-slinging bands in the tarai. They who have been demanding autonomy and vowing to attain their goals through a peaceful movement will hopefully help the government improve the pathetic law and order situation in the tarai. We hope that both the Tarai Liberation Front and the new front announced by Thakur and others will at least make the tarai livable for people from all regions and castes. However, if these groups get tempted to establish working relations with any armed group, then the tarai situation will turn from bad to worse.

The emergence of new groups is also revenge of the Madhesi leaders against the parties they were associated with. Had the seven-party government acted promptly and addressed the law and order situation and other valid demands, the leaders would not have been forced to form new political fronts. The formation of these new fronts will probably also convince the Maoists that the Madhesi movement was not waged by the NC and the UML just to minimize their influence in the tarai. However, it is yet to be seen if the Maoists can stop their Madhesi leaders from joining one or the other front. The Post believes that the armed groups should be dealt with sternly by the government, but the unarmed and peaceful groups should be allowed to grow as political parties. We hope the peaceful political groups will dissociate themselves from anti-social elements and de-escalate the ethnic acrimony in the tarai.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, December 12, 2007

Nepal is heading for regional polarisation

Paul Soren

The continuing crisis in the Tarai region in Nepal remains a serious challenge for the present interim government and has only been aggravated by recent events when a group of legislators from the Tarai, resigned from the parliament on December 10. This led to further political impasse and uncertainty towards holding of the Constituent Assembly (CA) polls. The senior Nepali Congress leader and Minister for Science and Technology in the present government, Mahant Thakur, considered to be a very close aide of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, along with three other influential Tarai leaders, Hridayesh Tripathi formerly with (Nepal Sadbhawana Party-Anandi Devi), Mahendra Yadav of (Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist) (CPN-UML) and Ram Chandra Raya of Rastriya Prajatantra Party resigned from the parliament alleging that the government and parties are insensitive and indifferent towards resolving the problems of the Tarai region.

They accused the government of not fulfilling past commitments given to the Madhesi parliamentarians. After resigning, these leaders also announced the formation of a new political outfit in the Tarai. The party would start a fresh round of peaceful agitations to pressure the government to fulfill their demands. Subsequently, five political leaders from Tarai; Sarbendra Nath Sukla of Rastriya Janashakti Party, Anish Ansari, Ram Chandra Kushwaha and Brishesh Chandra Lal of NC and Srikrishna Yadav of UML, followed by resigning from their respective party positions, and accused their parent parties of indifference towards Tarai issues. Moreover, reports suggest that many more leaders and party members from Tarai, holding positions in different parties, are planning to quit their parent parties and join hands to form a new political outfit.

The Tarai problem has its genesis in history where the Madhesis have felt alienated and discriminated in political, social, cultural and economic affairs and have continually been searching for an identity. The Madhesis have become more conscious of their rights post Jana Aandolan II and over time several new political outfits and some underground armed groups have emerged. Though initially the agitations, demanding for federal system with regional autonomy, amendment in interim legislature, rights to self-determination and proportional representation in the CA polls, were peaceful but later became violent. They also seek a legislature that would legislate on behalf of the Madhesis. After initial hesitation, the Madhesi movement gathered strength in unity while the government’s apathy and the political vacuum created in the Tarai, helped. The call to form a new political outfit representing the sentiments of the Tarai could polarise the polity.

A few months ago, a prominent leader from NSP-A (a Tarai political outfit), Rajendra Mahato and Upendra Yadav, Chairman of the Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum , have already announced the launch of a joint front called Samyukta Madhesi Morcha which announced a joint agitation from end of December. A new and stronger political force in the region can be expected to give a new life to the agitation for a federal set up in the country. A sustained movement will put pressure on Kathmandu to try to solve the problem. Any delay in this would encourage underground armed groups in Tarai and the newly formed Madhes Rakshya Bahini the youth wing of the SMM to resort to violence with its usual consequences in an already unstable situation. Since most of the industries in Tarai have already shut down any further turmoil will force the remaining industries to also close down. More importantly, this will also affect the already shaky peace process and delay the holding of CA polls.

Source: Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi, December 12, 2007