I was unhappy with the delay but what surprised – even shocked me – was the case of another applicant from a nearby village who had come that day to apply for citizenship. I was sitting next to him when he gave the application to the same officer I was dealing with. After going through the application, the officer told him to come back the next day to collect his citizenship certificate. I asked the officer why it was taking so long in my case, and I needed so much evidence to prove my citizenship, while the other person faced no such hurdles. The officer smiled and told me politely but firmly: His face is Nepali. We do not need any other verification! Yes, that person was a pahade, with a distinctly pahade appearance.
STRUGGLE FOR RECOGNITION
Madhesi Nepal, comprising about one-third of the country’s surface area and nearly half of its population, is a hotchpotch of tribes and communities but its face is decidedly Indian, with such folks comprising maybe 80 percent of all people inhabiting the region. The 800-kilometer border separating Indian territories from Nepali Madhes has nothing to show to separate the two sides. This means that the border is as invisible as it can be, with people residing in the region nearly oblivious to the existence of a political boundary and existence of their separate identities as Nepalis and Indians.
I would say that the main hurdle to facing up to the oppressors as a unified force is not because of pahades’ design or conspiracy but it is almost entirely the failure of Madhesi leadership to come together, demanding the end of discrimination and equal treatment for all citizens.
A subtle – and largely unnoticed – struggle has been taking place to integrate this Madhes region with the mountain regions of the country, which have strikingly different characteristics in terms of geography, people, culture, and the totality of image it projects to the outside world where Nepal is recognized to be a mountain country resided by non-Indian looking people. And because of the Indian characteristics of Madhesi population, it has been difficult to establish credibility of their claims of being Nepali citizens with equal access to state amenities and right to participate in state affairs, most particularly its military force.
At the same time, Madhesi residents are held back from pushing for due recognition and equitable treatment because of the fear of being labeled as Indians and ostracized as disloyal Nepalis. Also, Madhesi leaders have been reluctant to be assertive on civil rights issues for Madhesi citizens, largely because of their fear of being singled out as Indian sympathizers or, worse, undermining Nepal’s sovereignty.
Undoubtedly, the reluctance of Madhesi community and its leaders to assert civil rights and claim equal status as citizens has hurt the region in many ways—take for example its decaying infrastructure; stalled development; acute poverty; poor governance system; lawlessness and human rights abuses. However, and more importantly, not a lesser measure of hurt has been inflicted on the larger national interests. This is so because in a country where a significant part of physical and human resources is subject to abuse and neglect, it is hard to imagine how such a country can promote stability and secure peace and, more importantly, achieve economic prosperity. Economic and political mess that we are observing today is the reflection of immense amount of time and resources that have been spent warding off Madhesi’s integration into larger Nepal, supposedly to maintain Nepal’s separate status – and its uniqueness – vis-à-vis India.
If, on the other hand, assuming that efforts had been made to accommodate and integrate the Madhesi population, the scenario today would have been completely different. A number of very positive scenarios can be sketched out. First, development planning would have focused on the exploitation of Madhes’ farmland and forestry, which would in turn have made the best use of unskilled and landless farm labor. Second, agricultural development could have supported agro-based industrialization, with Biratnagar-type industrial bases spreading all across Madhes region, making use of the locally-supplied agricultural raw materials and unskilled labor.
Third, development of regional transport system with priority given to the building of railroads could have supported production and trade, linking the country to the vast markets in India and Bangladesh that also could have helped attract large inflows of foreign investment. Finally, prosperity of Madhes region would have had spillover effects on the development of mountain and hill regions through, for example, the supply of grains and manufactured products from Madhesi farms and factories at a fraction of the cost they could be produced in those regions. At the same time, opening to the Madhes region and to India would have helped push development efforts in hills and mountains based on their comparative advantage – fruits, vegetables, dairy products, and tourism – which could have been easily traded at high value with Madhes and adjoining regions of India where topography and climate are much less favorable for such production.
Unfortunately, Nepal’s development did not take this route, which meant that the option of comparative advantage-based development was neglected and discarded for political and ethnic reasons. There is no other reason to explain why so little of government resources – no more than 10 percent of investment budget during most of recent years – gets allocated for Madhes development, despite the prospect for super-high rate of return, strong linkage effects, and favorable feedback aiding development of other regions, which also would have helped nation-building and regional integration efforts. If such wisdom would have underpinned national planning efforts from the beginning, there was no reason for Humla, Jumla, and Mustang residents, for example, to grow millet and barely in harsh conditions while Madhes residents faced limited access to products that could be grown in abundance in the hill regions. In my judgment, regional antipathy and ethnic intolerance lie at the roots of Nepal’s underdevelopment and its abysmal economic outlook, not a lack of resources or ingenuity of its population.
MADHESI UNITY REMAINS ILLUSIVE
Probably, the theme of national integration could have been pushed from the other side, meaning that Madhesis’ feeling of neglect and exclusion could have encouraged Madhesi leaders to band together to challenge the national leadership, seeking accommodation and integration, assert citizenship rights and equal sharing of opportunities. However, Madhesi psyche remains too fragile and indecisive for putting up such unified show of strength, as, for example, the Blacks did in America half a century ago who, perhaps, were not as deprived as the Madhesis.
However, in all fairness, I would say that the main hurdle to moving in this way – for Madhesis facing up to the oppressors as a unified force – is not because of pahades’ design or conspiracy but it is almost entirely the failure of Madhesi leadership to come together, demanding the end of discrimination and equal treatment for all citizens. Unfortunately, most of the Madhesi leaders seem as too enamored by political color of their beliefs (democrats, communists, liberals, conservatives) that prevent them from uniting for the Madhesi cause. This is clear from the recent ungluing of Madhesi Front which could not last long for the differences of political beliefs which, in no way, serve the larger interests of Madhes or contribute to national integration.
Madhesi disunity, however, can play like a double-edged sword. This can keep the Madhesis at bay from asserting any role in national decision-making and enable them to force the other side for respect and recognition. In other words, political segregation and economic discrimination of the Madhes region may continue for ever, as it has for years and decades. At the same time, the risk remains that political opportunists of today claiming to be Madhesi leaders may face a public backlash and get sidelined by an outraged public, which is slowly but surely awakening to the harsher realities of national politics that do not even recognize them as citizens, much less treat them fairly and equitably. When would such backlash occur and what shape it would take can be anybody’s guess but, at its worst, a civil war scenario and ensuing risk of national fragmentation cannot be unlikely possibilities, much less being the figment of imagination.
sshah1983@hotmail.com
Related story
Revised interest rate corridor system introduced
