MADHESI DEMANDS IN NEPALI CONSTITUTION

      

The Madhesi people  are non-tribal, caste Hindus of Indian origin who live in the Terai region of Nepal. They are also referred to as Teraibasi Nepali  and are an indigenous ethnic group of Nepalese people. The word "Madhesh" derives from the Sanskrit term Madhyadesh which means "middle country" which was used to refer to the land between the Himalayas and the plains i.e. to the ancient kingdoms such as Videha and Shakya whose capital and minor parts are now a part of Nepal while major parts are in India. Middle country including Awadh is now in India and partially in Nepalgunj and Tulsipur Dang region of Nepal. The word Madhesh in modern days is used by Pahari Nepalis to refer to the entire flat Terai region within  Nepalese territory. The total land area of the Terai is less than 34,109 square km and comprises 20 districts that account for 23% of Nepal's total area. According to a population census of in 2001, 48% of Nepal's total population of  lived in Terai districts.

       A new Constitution was promulgated in Nepal on 20 September 2015. It has failed to satisfy the Madheshis and Tharus who constitute 70 per cent of the Terai population, who regard the formation of seven federal provinces as per the Constitution as grossly unfair to them. Only eight districts in the Terai region, from Saptari in the East to Parsa in the West, have been given the status of a province (see Map from ekantipur newspaper below); the remaining 14 districts are to be joined with the hill districts, with the sole purpose of converting the local people into a minority. The Madheshis and Tharus were sidelined in the entire constitution making process due to prevailing distrust towards them among the mainstream political parties. Of course, the Bijay Kumar Gachhadar-led Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum–Democratic was initially involved in the constitution drafting process; but later on it also had no option but to quit the alliance as its point of view was not entertained.

       Consequently, none of the major Madhesh-based parties signed the Constitution, which has serious flaws. The new Constitution has a provision for a 165-member Parliament, but the constituencies have been demarcated in such a way that the people of the hill and mountain region would get 100 seats, despite the fact that their share in Nepal's total population is less than 50 per cent. On the other hand, the Terai region constituting over half of the country's population has been allocated only 65 seats. Nepal is now widely polarised between those who support and those who oppose the Constitution. China, Pakistan and a few other countries have welcomed the new Constitution, but India has indirectly shown its displeasure over the development, which is worrisome.

       In context of new constitution, major demands of Madhesis  are  that, current constitution allocates parliamentary seats on basis of geographical area and as a result, Madhesis who represent 50% of population, will get just 39% of parliamentary seats (65 out of 165). So, Madhesis demand representation on basis of population.  Similarly, geographical spread and not population is also a precondition for other benefits and rights like - representation in National Assembly. Such provisions need amendment. There is also a clause that only persons who are by 'descent' Nepalis shall be able to occupy high constitutional posts like President, PM, Security heads, Speaker of assembly and so on. This will exclude lakhs of Madhesis who have acquired citizenship on the basis of birth or naturalization. Seven new provinces  have  manipulated  boundaries (of electoral constituency) so as to favour one party or class & they work against Madhes population. Provinces have to be redrawn to club Madhes populations together. Finally, the constitution provides delimitation exercise (re-adjustment of the electoral boundaries) after 20 years, but Madhesis wanted it to be done in 10 years ( the earlier draft outline of constitution also had the same provision, but was changed in final constitution).

       Madhesis fear that Indians will dump their political agenda once it has achieved what it wants in Kathmandu, which could be a stake in the control of water resources or priority rights in business and security contracts. The Indian establishment knows from experience — it was instrumental in breaking up Madhes-based parties in 2010 to build and bolster an anti-Maoist coalition through inducement and coercion — that not all leaders of the Madhesi movement are trustworthy. There is a reason protests are most effective in Birgunj, a city not too well known for progressive politics: It’s the only place outside of Kathmandu where there is a permanent Indian diplomatic mission.

      

There have been unconfirmed rumours of late that the Indian establishment is contemplating a change in its Nepal policy. Reportedly, Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj has been impressed upon by the Hindutva and business lobby to make peace with the PEON instead of staying the course and seeking constitutional corrections to address Madhesi, Tharu and Janjati grievances. The fear of Beijing  in New Delhi has led the southblock  to wonder whether they have ended up ceding considerable space to the Chinese in Kathmandu. A section in New Delhi also probably feels that the Madhes agitation isn’t going anywhere. Two constitutional amendment bills tabled in the parliament and a couple of promises are being bandied about as a face-saving formula.

       Should India manage to keep the trust of Madhesis, neighbourly relations between India and Nepal will grow towards familial ties in future. However, if New Delhi fails to follow through its declared policies of insisting that Nepal make its constitution more inclusive, there is a risk that the relationship will slide back to the level that existed in 1980s when Kathmandu tried to counter every overture from New Delhi with patronage from  Washington and Beijing.

       Diplomacy in line with cultural affinities is a necessity rather than choice. Despite temporary setbacks, this is a reality that Kathmandu and New Delhi will have to keep in mind. History and society can change with time, but geography is destiny. India will need to be patient and keep trying to drill some sense into the short-sighted, self-serving and prejudiced permanent establishment of Nepal. There is no shirking of responsibility that comes with being one of the most powerful players in the domestic politics of a neighboring country.