After the ten-year Maoist “People’s War,” the terminology “inclusion” has been strongly established in Nepali governance, politics and I/NGOs environs. Specially, the political parties and their leaders never forget to mention Dalits, women, Adibasis, Janajatis and Madhesis in their speeches, manifestos, party constitutions, policies and programs.
But if we see these very parties’ internal structures, the reality is quite the opposite. Most parties are not interested to include marginalized community members in their central committee. This practice is also common within regional fringe parties and the three big parties.[break]
Who holds the leadership positions?
If we look at the leadership structure of major political parties, all of them have similarities on ‘inclusion.’ The United Communist Party Nepal, Maoist (UCPN, Maoist), the United Marxist Leninist (UML), and Nepali Congress (NC) have the majority of Brahmins and Chhetris in their central committees. They represent 50 to 60 percent of the central committee members and hold powerful posts within the their respective parties.
In the UCPN Maoist, the strongest body to lead the party is the Party Headquarters. It has four male members, including Chairman Prachanda, but there is not a single woman, Dalit or Madhesi representative. Its Standing Committee and Politburo have not yet been formed.
The UML has three layers in its party structure. The strongest body is the Standing Committee which sets the agendas of the party. The next powerful body is the Politburo, and then it is the Central Committee.
Agendas set by the Standing Committee go through the Politburo to the Central Committee before they are sanctioned. Except for an ex-officio member, there are ten standing committee members. All are Brahmins and Chhetris. Among other parties, the UML has the highest representation of the two communities. That is why it is often accused of being a party of ‘castes’ and not of ‘class’ – “Emale barga ko hoina, barnako party ho.”
The NC has the longest history of party politics in Nepal. The culture of inclusion can be seen in its structure since its establishment. When Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala was elected as its President in BS 2009 (1952), Dhanman Singh Pariyar, a Dalit, was elected as General Secretary of the party. While fighting against the Rana regime, JB Yakthumba, a Limbu Janajati, was commander of the liberation army.
Dipesh Shrestha/The Week File Photo
Mahendra Narayan Nidhi and Parshu Ram Chaudhari were influential leaders from the Madhesi communities. Ganesh Man Singh, a Newar Janajati, was the strongest pillar of NC. But now, most of the powerful posts have been snatched by the so-called upper castes. More than 50 percent in the top echelon are Brahmins and Chhetris. Nepotism and favoritism rule the party.
Tarai-based parties are not so ‘upper-caste-centric.’ They are ‘leader-centric.’ The common trend is that the elected leader brings in his community members to represent the majority in the party. For instance, the Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum, Nepal (Forum, Nepal) is led by Upendra Yadav and its central committee consists of 43.9% Yadavs. Yadav belongs to the other backward community (OBC) classification which represents 58.54% in the party.
The MJF, Loktantrik is led by Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar, a Madhesi Janajati. His party has a majority of Janjatis and OBCs.
The Sadbhawana Party, whose leader is Rajendra Mahato, an OBC) is controlled by his community members.
Similarly, the Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party (TMLP) is controlled by Tripathi, Kayastha and Thakur communities, the so-called ‘upper castes,’ with their leader being Mahanta Thakur.
Women
The UCPN, Maoist had stimulating slogan of inclusion, which created a new wave in Nepali politics. Then, all party members were compelled to practice the ‘inclusion’ criteria within their internal structures. That is why we can see at least a Dalit, Madhesi, Janajati and a woman in the central committees of all the political parties. But UCPN Maoist, the pioneer of inclusive initiative, has poor representation of marginalized communities in its central committee.
UCPN Maoist leaders have never acknowledged women for their contributions during the insurgency. Women were at par with men in every clash against the state’s armed forces. The Central Committee, formed after its Seventh General Convention, has only 13.56% of women’s representation which is less than UML’s and NC’s. Women’s representation in the central committees of NC and UML is 21.25% and 18.26% respectively.
Shashi Shrestha, Central Committee Member of UCPN Maoist, says, “We aren’t happy. It’s an injustice to women. Our revolutionary leaders are biased towards men. Poor representation of women is the byproduct of a male-dominated society.”
But General Secretary of UCPN Maoist, Post Bahadur Bogati, begs to differ. He says, “I don’t think only a woman can tackle women’s issues. We have ideologies that benefit women too.”
According to its Party Constitution, the UML has a policy to include 33% of women in its Central Committee but there is only 18.26% at present. Its 13-member Standing Committee has only one woman (7.69%) and the 41-member Politburo has five (12.19%) women.
Politburo Member Urmila Aryal claims that there is no problem in including 33% women in the Standing Committee and Politburo because a lot of women leaders who have at least 15 years of experience in politics are in the UML. “But our senior leaders don’t want to assign leading roles to women members,” she says.
But one of the Vice Chairmen of UML, Bamdev Gautam, feels differently. “There’s not a single woman capable of handling the leadership. That’s why we’re unable to incorporate 33% of women in the Central Committee,” he says.
Comparatively, the Nepali Congress is in a good position to integrate women in the leadership roles, but its woman leader Kamala Panta wants the 33% to scale up to 50%.
Tarai-based parties also have poor representation of women. They have included women between 10 to 15% in their central committees. However, women have no major roles in these parties.
Vice Chairman of the Forum Loktantrik, Rameshwar Yadav in his effort to justify the low representation, says, “Women in the Tarai aren’t as aware as Pahadi women. So it’s not good to incorprate them into the party just for formality’s sake.”
Bikash Karki/The Week File Photo
The Dalit community of Terai region protesting to end caste discrimination.
Dalits
Every party wants to be sympathetic towards Dalits but they don’t want to hand leadership over to them. The UCPN Maoist has come up with a slogan of special rights with compensation for Dalits but the bitter truth is this party has the lowest representation of Dalits in its Central Committee. It has only 5.93% whereas the NC and UML have 6.17 and 6.96% Dalit representation respectively.
To clarify the low representation of Dalits, General Secretary Bogati says, “The level of capacity and awareness are the major aspects. We can’t bring everybody to leadership only to follow the doctrine of inclusion.” He believes in policy and program and not representation. “Opportunity has to be given in lifestyle and not necessarily in party structure,” he adds.
UML Vice Chairman Gautam also echoes the same. He claims, “Our party is based on class and not castes. Those who are smart can lead the Communist Party because it runs on the basis of a strict doctrine. Brahmins and Chhetris are capable of doing so, so obviously they are higher up in the leadership status.”
The NC is blamed as a feudalist party by the Left. But it has allocated certain quotas for Dalits, Janajati, Madhesi and women. Dalits have five seats in the Central Committee but Dalit leaders are not happy with it. One Central Committee Member, Jeevan Pariyar, says, “The Congress should be the role model of inclusion because it has a long history. It’s shameful that it’s no better at inclusion. There should be 13% Dalit representation in any party.”
Tarai-based parties have accepted four to eight percent Dalit representation. These parties were formed to establish inclusion but on the contrary they are accused to be the symbol of exclusion. Madhesi leaders chant slogans of proportionate inclusion but they have failed to address the ethnic, regional and linguistic issues in their parties.
Likewise, every Tarai party has included Dalits in their central committees, but they have no role.
Forum Loktantrik has three secretaries. One is Chandreshwar Khatwe and a Dalit. According to him, Madhesi leaders don’t want emancipation of Dalits because if Dalits are emancipated who will they rule over?
“The so-called upper-caste people still treat us as untouchables and hesitate to even sit with us. But because the Election Commission and donor community want inclusion, they are compelled to embrace us.”
Janajatis
The three big parties have included 18 to 25% Janajatis in their central committees. The UCPN Maoist has 24.15%, the highest representation. Janajatis are said to be brave warriors, and for this reason, the Maoists used them during the insurgency.
As of now, the NC has the lowest representation of Janajatis. There was a time when Janajati leaders like Narad Muni Thulung and many others had played vital roles in collaborating with BP Koirala in the Congress. After BP, though NC was ruled by the same Koirala clan, Janajatis were neglected.
Chaitanya Subba, who was an NC member, says, “The Congress forgot the Janajatis’ contributions. After 1990, the NC got the opportunity to lead the government but party opportunists neglected Janajatis and cast them aside. It became very hard to get opportunities if you weren’t a Brahmin.”
Vice President of NC, Ram Chandra Paudel, does not agree with Subba. He claims that NC still appreciates Janajatis and all the other marginalized communities.
“Who made Kul Bahadur Gurung the General Secretary? Who made Ram Baran Yadav the President? Is it Maoists or NC?” he questions in retaliation.
Paudel is then asked a difficult question by Subba in retaliation: “At the time of choosing Party President and Prime Minister, KB Gurung didn’t cross your mind. Or did he?”
Paudel hesitates a bit and then says, “We have to respect the contributions of other communities as well, and choose Party President and Prime Minister, keeping a lot of factors in mind.”
The UML has 20.87% representation of Janajatis. But due to a conflict within the leadership, about a dozen Janajatis, including Vice Chairman Ashok Rai, left the party recently and the Standing Committee decided to take care of the vacated duties themselves.
In the Tarai, the Rajbansis, Dhimals, Gangais, Tharus and others are Janajatis. The Forum Loktantrik has the highest representation of Janajatis because Chairman Gachhadar himself belongs to Tharu community. Other parties, however, have not been able to attract Janajatis.
Madhesis
As the result of neglecting Madhesis in mainstream politics, Tarai-based parties became strong. Because of the mushrooming of such parties, the Maoist, UML and NC were defeated in the last Constituent Assembly elections in the Tarai.
The UCPN Maoist has the lowest representation of Madhesis, but its leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal dreams of winning the forthcoming elections in the Tarai region. Leaders of UML and NC have similar dreams and hence all three parties now have 13 to 16% Madhesis in their central committees.
Political analyst CK Lal recently criticized those parties who fear to integrate Madhesis. “The leaders of the big parties think that they are destined to rule. They believe in the “Barna system.” So they never even think about handing over the leadership to the people from marginalized communities. They are only kept as workers.”
Some interesting fast facts
Some people think that just because Madhesis seek representation in national politics, so should the Pahadi community demand for quotas in Tarai-based parties.
Almost all of Tarai-based parties have representation of Pahadi community. The Sadbhawana Party is one step ahead than the others. It has allocated six quotas in its Central Committee for non-Madhesis but currently only four are taken. Sadbhawana Chairman Rajendra Mahato explains, “There might be federal states in the Madhesh in the near future. If we talk only about Madhesis, then a big number of non-Madhesis will be out of politics. We want inclusion of the Pahadi communities as well.”
But there is still a big wall of mistrust between the Madhesi and the Pahadi communities because the Madhesh Movement displaced many Pahadis from the Tarai. Now Tarai-based parties have a huge challenge to face in inviting the Pahadi community to their political folds.
Conclusion
Political leaders raise the issue of inclusion on every occasion. But their words sound hollow as the representation of marginalized communities in their parties doesn’t mirror their motto. This is the era of inclusion, and unless and until inclusion is in proportion with the population, the political parties’ agenda will always be questioned.
The author is a BBC journalist. The story “Inclusion in political parties” was broadcast on the BBC Nepali Service in five episodes.
Related story
Yami apologizes for ‘anti-national slogan’
