It is improper to project Madhesis as one homogeneous group. People from various economic, social and religious backgrounds face very different realities and challenges. These differing realities reflect in the disparity of resources and opportunities available to men and women, urban and rural dwellers as well as to those at different ends of the economic spectrum. Identity has received recognition overshadowing the socioeconomic problems faced by the majority of the unemployed frustrated youths. That’s why, despite the large presence of Madhesi faces in the Constituent Assembly and the government, violence continues to escalate in the Tarai. Killings, abductions, death threats, extortions and road blockades have been affecting the livelihoods and security of ordinary people. The impact of Madhesi leaders’ presence in power is limited as they represent only the elite class. Frustration toward Madhesi politics is rising, particularly because the local population is still deprived of basic human needs such as food, employment and security.
For the Madhesi leaders, socioeconomic problems are not a priority. They simply believe in the theory of power-sharing oblivious of the problems experienced everyday by the local people. So far, the movement has only taken forward the economic, social and political interests of the leaders while overlooking the daily livelihood needs, security, and structural discriminations faced by the poorest local residents and individuals. Madhesi leaders have failed to notice the structural factors of ethnicity, caste, gender, class, and its impact on the daily lives of individuals. While taking the identity movement ahead, they have overlooked the class-caste nexus and client-patron relations.
It is widely perceived that the mandate of the Madhes movement has been abused and misused by the same political elites who remained dominant in all sectors of the state after the democratic change of 1990 while the socioeconomic conditions of the majority of Madhesis have worsened. Actually, there has been not been an effective change in the leadership. Is a new reform and restructuring possible with the same traditional leadership at the helm? The security situation in Madhes has been worsening while an increasing number of young people are being recruited by armed groups. Despite this, Kathmandu still believes that ‘the underlying causes’ of conflict in Tarai goes beyond socioeconomic marginalization. While analyzing the ground reality, it could be argued that a proximate cause of the armed conflict in Tarai may be an interest in acquiring political power in the name of identity crisis; however, the foundation that enabled violence to be legitimized is primarily the scarcity of basic needs and the frustration of the unemployed youth.
The sentimental agenda of ‘One Madhes, One Pradhes’ does not any more receive public acceptance. Rather, Madhesis are vigorously looking to have their own Mithila, Bhojpura, Kochila, Abadhi and Tharu states. That is the reason why the Maoists were not accepted when they were in Janakpur to announce their ‘Madhes autonomous state’.
Overcoming the conflict in Madhes is almost impossible without transforming the political culture. At the same time, changing the political culture is easier said than done. It takes a long time to uproot the culture of feudalism, which is a common characteristic of the politics in Madhes. Additionally, it would be unrealistic to completely overlook the role of ethnic elites. However, the revitalization of voiceless and the poorest are crucial to resolve conflict in Madhes.
dipjha@gmail.com
Related story
Civic leaders for addressing Madhes issues before elections
