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

Nepal's polls shrouded in doubt

Dhruba Adhikary

KATHMANDU - Nepal's bid to end the current political transition through an election on April 10 is fraught with pitfalls and doubts persist among Nepalis as to the viability as well as usefulness of the exercise in the present climate of insecurity and deep-seated mistrust between important players. The Election Commission has been told by the interim government to make preparations to conduct the poll aimed at electing a 601-strong Constituent Assembly which is to write a new constitution. Leaders of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) are enthusiastic about the election because they think their objective of transforming Nepal from a feudal monarchy to a republic will be achieved within months.

They have even projected their supreme leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (aka Prachanda or "the fierce one") , as the first president of the republic. The assembly, they expect, will endorse Prachanda's name once the constitution is promulgated. Maoists' impatience is visible in public forums organized to encourage the 17 million-plus voters scattered across the country of 25 million people. Another reason behind this newfound Maoist zeal could be their concerted effort to removed doubts that they will not be blamed if the election is postponed for the third time. The previous postponement, in November, was caused by them after they placed two demands as a precondition to the poll: that the interim constitution be amended to declare the country a republic and to change the traditional election system to a proportional representation method. The amendment was accepted, saying that its execution would be done by the assembly once it is elected; a compromise deal was made on the second demand by adopting a mixed method.

April 10 was chosen because the interim government, which has representatives from seven parties including the Maoists, decided to complete the task before the Nepali year 2064 is out - on April 12. And after a six-month extension of the United Nations mission in Nepal was approved, the UN Security Council on January 23 expressed continued interest in a smooth democratic transition for the country. However deep-seated mistrust among the seven parties about possible sabotage is the a major indicator of possible disruptions and violence. Then there are 50 other registered parties, some of whom are obviously pro-monarchist groups, that have been deliberately left out by the alliance of seven parties who claim that they alone worked to make the April uprising of 2006 successful. The uprising came to a climax on April 24, 2006, when King Gyanendra announced he was ending his 15-month autocratic reign, following 19 days of protests in the streets of Kathmandu and around the Himalayan nation. At least 18 demonstrators died in clashes with police during the "People's Movement".

The minister responsible for internal security, Krishna Sitaula, has issued a three-phased security scheme. However, the government is not mobilizing the 95,000-strong Nepal Army (NA) because the peace accord signed between the Maoists and the rest of the coalition partners requires NA soldiers to be confined to their barracks and Maoist combatants to UN-supervised cantonments. The combatants, whom the Maoists prefer to call members of the People's Liberation Army, number about 20,000. Despite preparations, people at large are not confident about the poll, primarily because of past betrayals and secondly due to lack of a general atmosphere of security appropriate for such a major democratic exercise. The law and order situation is precarious. Media reports of killings, abductions, beatings, looting and disruptions of traffic on highways are coming to the capital from all directions and imply that state authority in outlying districts is non-existent. Some of the district-based law enforcement officials even complained that Kathmandu often sends them orders to release criminals detained on homicide charges, because they happen to be workers for one of the coalition parties.

An election conducted in a security and authority vacuum can have neither legitimacy nor ability to institutionalize democratic polity," analyst Devraj Dahal told Asia Times Online. Conspiracies to abort the CA polls are another issue of concern. There is a strong suspicion that the "suspended" king is sure to use his courtiers and resources to thwart the poll - the outcome of which is not likely to please him and his 240-year-old monarchy. While fears of a palace-induced conspiracy grip all in the coalition, six of the partners are apprehensive about the seventh, the Maoists, as well. The Maoist commitment to competitive politics, they think, is little more than window-dressing, especially if Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong are Prachanda's role models. Other relevant questions include: Can small Nepal afford to have an assembly of 601 deputies to write a new constitution? Similarly, how can Nepal with its limited resource base create and sustain provinces and provincial legislatures - and all on ethnic lines?

Isn't the proposition of autonomy with the right to self-determination to the provinces an outright prescription for the disintegration of Nepal? These are some of the points being discussed by the country's intelligentsia; but neither Maoists, who sowed the seeds of division and inter-communal conflicts, nor leaders of other political parties, offer any convincing answers. One of the other hot subjects of debate was raised from the southern flatland, called Terai, which shares a porous border mainly with the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Some of the Terai-based analysts see these separatist tendencies as the negative outcome of the interim Parliament's ill-conceived decision to declare Nepal a secular country, in May 2006. "Why wasn't Nepal allowed to retain its Hindu identity when over 80% of its inhabitants are Hindus?" wondered Chandrakishore, editor of Terai Khabarpatrika, a Nepali language magazine published from the southern border town of Birgunj. In his opinion, the bond of the Hindu religion had played a significant role in keeping hill-plain harmony intact and the elimination of that bond threatens its unity. The trouble in Terai is believed to have been fanned by elements deriving political support from New Delhi. This might seem to be a response made on the basis of an Indian perception the Napali Maoists, if not checked at Nepal's plains, could cross the porous border and enter Indian territory to assist Maoists (also known as Naxals) in India.

As voiced by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, communist extremism has already become the biggest threat to India's internal security. If that is the case, it was sheer foolishness on New Delhi's part to assist Nepali Maoists to be a part of this country's establishment. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala is said to be irritated by such signals, which are essentially based on inconsistent policies. In any case, the bulk of Nepal's external challenges come from India. In its report released on December 18, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group summed up New Delhi's approach in these words: "India ... appears to be using its influence in the Terai to pressure the parties and underscore its capacity to shape events." That Nepal must deliver the CA polls on time to complete the ongoing peace process is not disputed by anyone. Parties outside of the seven-party alliance also subscribe to the understanding that there is no alternative to the democratic exercise. UN representative Ian Martin told the media in New York last week that he was still optimistic, even though the security situation in districts of central and eastern Terai are not conducive for elections.

But Nepali leaders do not appear to possess the ability and vision needed for the task and most of them, including Koirala, have not been able to sacrifice their personal agendas for the sake of greater national interest. By appointing his daughter, Sujata, as the minister to look after the prime minister's office, Koirala has sent a message to the masses that he, like several other South Asian leaders, is keen to build a political dynasty. But if a dynasty was something that the Nepali people were looking for, they already had an established dynasty of the Shah kings. Or do they need a new dynasty, one for the "New Nepal"? New Nepal is a slogan handed down by the Maoists. Socially conscious citizens and Kathmandu-based diplomats also feel that Nepali leaders have one last opportunity to prove their worth. But each of them knows an election in the existing security atmosphere is not possible, but they all want that fact to be stated by someone else. The alternative to an election, informally floated, is to pass a resolution transforming the present unelected Parliament itself into the Constituent Assembly. But will such ingenuity be acceptable to the people at large? Are Nepal's friends and donors likely to approve this method as a medium to gain legitimacy? Doubts persist. Amid these speculations comes the idea of a coup. Maoist leaders have alerted the people about an impeding "democratic coup" , involving a group of civilians (not the king ) with the support from the army. Apparently, Maoists have a better alternative model in the shape of a "nationalist coup". Ultimately, it comes down to a choice between two types of military takeovers, in other words, Hobson's choice.

Source: Asiatimes, 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

Barriers Of Dalits Inclusion

Bharat Nepali

Nepali people are eagerly waiting to see the materialisation of the republic free from violence and unrest. The historic Jana Aandolan II (Peoples Movement II) 2062/063 gave the seven political parties and their leaders the mandate to work in the direction for materializing this dream of the Nepali people. However, the postponement of Constituent Assembly elections twice was disappointing. The parties within the seven party alliance were responsible for the postponement of the polls. Everyone expects that the polls won?t be postponed for the third time.

Efforts

Currently, political obstacles are gradually diminishing with the government?s genuine efforts to address the issues raised by various excluded groups. The issue of Dalit inclusion should not be kept apart in respect to the sacrifices and participation of the Dalits in the peaceful joint people?s movement. No doubt, the Dalits have suffered from discrimination and deprived of many facilities in the country and they want the CA elections to be held as soon as possible because they expect the CA will do the needful as regards their problems. Nepal is a country inhabited by various caste/ethnic groups with distinct cultures and languages and different religion persuasions. Dalits, as shown by the latest census, constitute around 14 per cent of the total population. They are discriminated by the so-called upper caste because of the deep-rooted belief fostered by the religion itself. Dalits are not only deprived from development opportunities but also from exercising their basic human rights. For bringing Dalits on an equal footing, special provisions are needed in every process of the making of the new Nepal. The issue of social exclusion is coming up as one of the major problems in the country. It is slowly getting magnified affecting the lives of Dalit, which is a matter of grave concern for all.

A study on ?Essence and Challenges of Special Provisions for Dalit Inclusion: An Institutional Analysis of Various Organizations? published by NNDSWO shows a sad situation of Dalits? participation and inclusion in the development field. A total of 36 organizations from government, NGOs, INGOs, bilateral and multilateral organizations jointly carried out the study to find out the essence and challenges of Dalit inclusion within the efforts and processes. The study obviously showed that the mandate of the organization were to contribute towards the promotion of human rights, establishment of equitable society and reduction of poverty.

Out of the 36 organizations, 37 per cent practice the programming approach of poverty reduction. It reveals that the executive board/management committee was dominated by the so-called upper caste people accounting for 36 per cent while only 1.7 % Dalits worked as members. The composition of staff according to caste and ethnicity shows a great disparity of Brahmin (24.58 %) to that of Dalits (4.5 %). Senior positions have been occupied by Brahmins (40.9 %), Chhetri (27.3 %) and Newar (22.7 %) among the INGOs. In government offices also the senior positions have been occupied by the upper caste Brahmin (77.8 %) whereas there were no Dalits. The fact is that the Brahmins have a larger pool of highly qualified and competitive people which the Dalits lack.

Organizations working for development need to provide strong commitment to improve the status of Dalits through the provision of positive discrimination. Lack of competent people for leadership among the Dalits, intra-Dalit discrimination, lack of awareness and narrow mentality, religious belief, superstition, rigid hierarchical social structure, poverty, inadequate policy implementation, lack of commitment and willingness from concerned authorities are the major barriers to develop and implement special provisions for the participation and inclusion of Dalits. While many government, INGOs, bilateral and multilateral agencies in Nepal have made effective efforts towards improving the situation of marginalized communities they serve, the truth is that Dalits still remain oppressed and excluded. The government and non-government sectors look less serious in trying to remove these foremost barriers.

The problem of caste discrimination is a fundamental barrier to poverty reduction, and social injustice and requires every political and social organization so as to increase the access of Dalits to resources and opportunities. Dalits will remain excluded if the problem of caste discrimination is not properly addressed. All the government and non government organizations working for the development of the society should increase the level of commitment and efforts for Dalit development programmes and should invest more in this area. They should implement measures to ensure the participation and inclusion of Dalits in its structure and contribute for the positive discrimination to benefit the Dalits. Therefore, there is a need to do more to sensitize the state and non-government sectors (NGOs, INGOs, bilateral and multilateral agencies) in promoting Dalit rights and bringing them in the national mainstream by removing barriers and creating conducive environment for Dalit inclusion.

Wide Gap

The gap between commitment from the decision-makers and implementation of inclusive policies remains wide within the organization, especially in the institutional and policy levels. Political parties and civil society organizations should play a vital role to increase the proportional representation of Dalits in the political process. Therefore, the need of the hour is to ensure the representation of the Dalits in the new Nepal which may definitely help to formulate the required plans and policies for their upliftment.

Source: The Rising Nepal, January 14, 2008

Two Armies: A War Of Words

Shyam Bhandari

The Nepali media is awash with opinions, allegations and counter allegations on the question of the integration of the two armies - People's Liberation Army (PLA) and Nepal Army (NA). The whole thing seems to have been triggered off by Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rukmangud Katwal's reaction to the 23-point agreement chalked out between the Maoists and the government regarding the integration of the verified PLA personnel with the NA. Speaking to reporters at the airport before embarking on his China visit on January 8, the CoAS is quoted as saying, "In the name of institutionalising the peace process, any political 'ism' or ideology should not be introduced in the Nepali Army. The Nepali Army operates under the people's chain of command, and it should be kept untainted. There should be no political influence on the Nepali Army. Political influence on the Nepali Army will only invite bigger problems in the country."

This was immediately followed by Maoist leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara's reaction: "The army chief's statement is against the spirit of the comprehensive peace treaty (CPA) between the government and the CPN-Maoist. The statement is ill-timed and unfortunate." The PM is reported to have supported the CoAS's stand "all-out" on January 9, and denouncing it the very next day. The prime minister retorted to his usual lame excuse of "the media distorted my views", which could well have been the fallout of Prachanda's allegation the previous day that the prime minister's statement was against the letter and spirit of all the agreements signed so far.Add to that Sher Bahadur Deuba's ignorant revelation that nowhere has it been mentioned that the Maoist army will be adjusted in the NA in any accords, including the comprehensive peace accord, interim constitution and the latest 23-point agreement, and there could be nothing more confounding.

Justified

The CoAS may or may not be justified in his stand. What he has said may or may not be in the best interest of the country's future, if not the present. Not to overstate, the NA is the institution that has been free from politics. Those who distort the views of the army vis-୶is its desire of remaining free from 'isms' are doing injustice to an institution which has demonstrated time and again that it is on the side of the country and the people far more than any of the people's parties can claim in their wildest misjudgement of themselves. What better proof do we need than the fact that this institution has always stood quietly in the sidelines allowing the people's desires to take precedence even when opportunity provided for it to overstep its jurisdiction? How else can one explain the NA's readiness to side with democracy rather than the monarchy that it has served ever since its existence? The Maoists have every right to demand that the provisions in the interim constitution be implemented so that their former combatants can be integrated back into the society. Their demand is also justified as they have sought to stick to the demand that the government implement the provision in the interim constitution regarding the armies 'word for word'.

The Way Out

The Nepalese people have had enough of politicking in every imaginable place and entity, in the schools and colleges, offices and organisations, in the streets and what not. We have already witnessed what politicised students can do to the country, and we have experienced what blending the bureaucracy with ideology begets. As if that has not been enough, they are now talking of infesting the army with hardened, indoctrinated ideologues. Imagine the outcome in the long run - uniformed, gun-totting politicos dictating democracy to us in a New Nepal. All said and done, there is still the question of reintegration of the PLA members for which there are several options other than integrating them with the NA. How about creating an unarmed reconstruction and development force out of the former Maoists combatants? They could be entrusted with building roads, bridges, schools, community hospitals and other much-needed infrastructure. The government could pay them at par with the NA, while still saving huge sums on arms and ammunition that it would need to buy for them otherwise. This would also serve as a purgatory for the Maoists that so pitilessly destroyed the infrastructure of this country during their people's war.

Source: The Rising Nepal, January 14, 2008