While the Madheshi agitation was at its peak, I had wanted to visit Madhesh to understand what Madheshi people think. My visit to Biratnagar last week provided this opportunity. I met people from both Madheshi and Pahade communities. As expected, hill people are opposed to Madhesh unrest but Madheshis themselves are not happy with the ways their leaders led the agitation. They have serious differences with a number of issues raised during the protests.I visited hotels, shops and industries which remained closed during the prolonged protests. People in Kathmandu are still battling fuel crisis but those in Madhesh have also been adversely affected for past six months. School children narrated stories of their course not being completed due to prolonged school closure. Hoteliers and small shop owners told stories of how their businesses came to a complete halt for almost half a year.
In Dhanusha and Bardibas, people spoke of how Madhesh agitation divided people along communal lines and how social harmony has been broken. Pahades have been warned not to sell their land and properties in Madhesh. The government, therefore, needs to sit for meaningful dialogue with agitating Madheshi parties and address their genuine demands. Otherwise, the Tarai would provide fertile ground for a secessionist movement.
Madheshi parties' demands relating to electoral constituency on population basis and proportional representation in state organs have been addressed. Madheshi parties now want revision of province demarcations in their favor. But this is not what people want.
In my interactions with residents of Jhapa, Morang and Sunsari I found that residents of these districts don't want to be part of Province 2, as demanded by Madheshi parties. This is supported by the fact that eastern Tarai districts witnessed no violence in the last six months of agitation. Rangeli incident, in which three people lost their lives, was an exception.
I met representatives of Santhal and Rajbansi communities. They are angry at Madheshi leaders trying to brand them Madheshis. Binod Kumar Murmu, the leader of Santhal community in Morang, told me that they do not like being called Madheshis. He says Santhals, 100,000-strong, are a separate indigenous tribal group with their own culture and language. Rajbansi community claims the same.
There is significant presence of indigenous tribal groups, including Pahades, in three eastern districts of Nepal. Demanding these districts be included in Province 2 is illogical. When Santhal, Rajbansi, Dhimal and other indigenous tribal groups are opposed to being called Madheshis, who are Madheshis?
Madheshi parties have defined the word Madheshi to suit their interests. They argue that all those living in Tarai plains including Pahades are Madheshis. Therefore, they argue, Pahades should also join protests to secure their rights in the new constitution. However, second-rung leaders of Madheshi parties do not buy this argument.
They view Pahadi community as colonizers and incite communal intolerance in their speeches. This has made Pahade community suspicious of Madheshi parties' intention. The hate speeches delivered by Madheshi people and the Tikapur carnage that followed last August have created the impression among Pahade community that Tarai unrest is meant to establish the hegemony of one particular group in the Tarai. Many people there, including Madheshis, are opposed to this radical idea.
In my interactions with locals, I found that it is not demarcation issue that is fuelling the agitation. But a common feeling among Madheshis is that the state has treated them as second-class citizens.
It is disheartening that even after abolition of 240-year-old feudal monarchy, a section of permanent establishment of Nepal defines Nepali nationality through the lens of King Mahendra's nationalism backed by Hindu religion.
We should not doubt people's loyalty to the country simply because they speak language and have adopted faiths other than the ones adopted by dominant Khays-Arya community. Madheshis comprise one-third of the country's population but Daura-Suruwal and rhododendron, both representing hill community, are still used as symbols to define Nepali nationalism.
We tend to regard people from Sikkim and Darjeeling as true Nepalis but look down on our brothers and sisters of Tarai simply because the latter do not speak Nepali language with as much comfort as the former do. It is this age-old dogmatic definition of nationalism that has alienated Madheshis and fuelled protests across the Tarai plains. We need to discard this old theory of nationalism and come up with one that views all people living in Nepal as Nepalis.
Article 3 of new constitution defines Nepal as a nation with "multiethnic, multilingual, multi-religious and multicultural characteristics." But in practice we are exercising Mahendra's notion of nationalism based on one language, one religion and one culture. Until this flawed notion is corrected, it will be hard to resolve Madhesh problem.
dk7030@gmail.com
Related story
History of Madhesh to be written
