Trouble
has been erupting so frequently-often unexpectedly-in Nepal
in recent months that the expression of joy and satisfaction
after the signing of an eight-point agreement between the
government and the agitating United Democratic Madhesi Front
on February 28 could well turn out to be a bit premature.
The only thing that may perhaps prevent another relapse into
a bout of unrest is the speed with which the Madhesi parties
have rushed to meet the revised deadline for nominating candidates
for the April 10 constituent assembly polls, which they had
earlier decided to boycott. Under the terms of the agreement,
Madhes and other regions will become autonomous in the federal
democratic republic of Nepal.
There will be constitutional provision for equal representation
of all marginalized groups. The banned underground leaders
of the Madhesis will be invited for negotiations. For the
first time the Madhesis can look forward to proportional recruitment
in the national army. They will also be eligible for government
jobs hitherto denied to them unjustifiably. Those who had
died during the Madhesi agitation would be accorded the status
of 'martyrs'. Victims and the families of those killed during
the agitation will be entitled to compensation. Prisoners
taken during the various agitations will be released. It will
remain a debating point in Nepal why the government allowed
the Madhesi agitation to snowball when almost everything that
has been conceded now could have been done at a much earlier
stage.
Much of the bloodshed and the bad blood that it generated
as also the uncertainty over the future of Nepal could have
been avoided if the ruling parties had sat down for some serious
talks with the Madhesis. The Maoists could have taken a leading
role in dowsing the Madhesi fire instead of turning their
back on the Madhesis. It will be wrong, however, to believe
that the government in Kathmandu will yield to a show of force.
Both the government and the Madhesis have said that they looked
forward to peaceful polls. There is no room for further unrest
in the country. Most observers are unanimous that another
postponement of the constitution assembly elections, due on
April 10, will be disastrous for Nepal. Prior to the agreement
the Madhesis had given a call for an 'indefinite' strike in
the Terai region in southern Nepal which is home to most Madhesis.
It had resulted in paralysing life in almost all of land-locked
Nepal for two weeks, with trucks carrying many essential items
like food and fuel from India frozen along the border.
But it may be incorrect to assume that the agreement with
the Madhesi parties became possible only because they had
shown that they could cripple life in the land-locked Himalayan
country whenever they wished. The agitation by the Madhesis,
who are sometimes reviled as being 'Indians' because most
of them trace their origin to India and have close cultural
ties and roots in neighbouring regions of India, has been
principally about honour, dignity and justice. For too long
they have been living as virtual non-citizens, deprived of
their rights as Nepalese by the ruling elite that has been
traditionally drawn from the upper castes in the hilly parts
of Nepal.
The Madhesis have had no representation in the armed forces
and many government institutions and departments. Their languages
and culture got no recognition. The poorer among them-the
Dalits-were even more neglected than the comparatively better
off ones. The nation's parliament did not reflect the proportion
of their population. It was natural for the long suppressed
anger of the Madhesis to burst into open after a Maoist-led
mass movement in which they were willing participants heralded
the end of two and half century of monarchical rule and the
dawn of a democratic era. The Madhesis did not expect to be
rebuffed by the new leaders who swore by a system based on
justice for all. The April 2006 movement that humbled the
king helped the Madhesis to be mobilised politically.
They anticipated an end to years of discrimination and neglect.
But when an interim constitution was drafted it failed to
take note of the concerns of the Madhesis. It offered no hope
to the Madhesis that they would get a representation in the
nation's parliament that was in proportion to their population-about
a third of the country. The government in the new republic
of Nepal also looked like remaining hill-centric at the expense
of the people of Terai. The camaraderie between the Madhesis,
looking for proper recognition and dignity, and the Maoists
who had emerged as powerful centre of power, evaporated fast.
The Madhesis took to the streets to ventilate their grievances.
Inevitably, there was violence. The government did not hesitate
to use force to break the spirit of the Madhesis even as more
violence flared up. The prolonged agitation by the Madhesis
also saw a division among the leadership of the community.
But that only meant more violence as the splinter groups began
to raise radical demands, hoping that would bring them a larger
following.
The seven - party alliance (SAP) government got angrier instead
of trying to sit down with the Madhesis to sort things out.
The prime minister said the Madhesis demand was a major deterrent
to constitution assembly polls that had been postponed twice.
The Madhesis had upped the ante by demanding a state of their
own. Their slogan was 'One Madhes, one nation'. That 'nation'
was to exclude all other communities in the Terai region of
Nepal. The unity of Nepal never looked more brittle. Not surprisingly,
the continued unrest among the Madhesis saw fingers being
pointed at India. But it made little sense for India to meddle
in the already messy Madhesis problem in Nepal. The utmost
that India could hope to achieve was nothing more than use
the Madhesi movement as a tool to pressurise Kathmandu into
listening to the Madhesis grievances. The kind of violence
and insurgency that the Madhesis, at least some sections of
them, seemed to favour could only worry India. The Indian
region adjacent to the Madhesis population of Nepal-Bihar
and UP-- is already struggling to cope with a Maoists insurgency.
And Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said the Maoists pose
the greatest threat to the nation. If the Maoists in Nepal
have any friends in India they are in the deep jungles of
UP and Bihar and, maybe a few other states and certain campuses
too, but not in New Delhi.
Tushar Charan, -Syndicate Features
|
Print This Page
Terms
and Conditions