High drama in the Himalayan nation

The Madhesi plainsmen of Nepal allege that they have been given a raw deal in the new Constitution. The author traces the genesis of the problem and spells out why India is worried

On September 20, Nepal became the world's newest country to get a constitution. For eight years, the world waited patiently for it, but the last few hours were nerve-racking. As the ceremony for its release by President Ram Baran Yadav seemed set for a short delay, in Delhi there was feverish speculation: why is there a delay? Has Yadav changed his mind? Will he behave as the first citizen of Nepal or bow to the pressures of his community, the Madhesis?

When Yadav finally arrived at the hall where the lawmakers were seated, there was a collective sigh of relief. The eyesore was a bloc of empty seats: in a show of unexpected unanimity, all 61 MPs from the Madhes region of the Terai did not show up, having announced earlier that they do not agree with a Constitution that does not take into account the concerns of all the people of the country. But the ceremony went ahead - and now, it is arguably even more complex and intractable than before because India has taken up the cause of the Madhesis.

Should India worry about the Madhesi claim that despite being citizens of Nepal they are treated as outsiders? And who is really behind the agitation against the Constitution?

A short history of Nepal, India and Madhes is in order. In most post-colonial societies, the "enemy" or the "other" is the colonial power (consider Rahul Gandhi's "suit boot ki sarkar" jibe - it evokes strong images of British rule). But in societies that have never been colonised, sometimes, the "other" has to be invented. Nepal is intensely proud of the fact that although it is landlocked and between two powerful, populous nations that have both been colonies, no colonial power has ever been able to subdue its spirit.

In the past, the ruling elite of Nepal - the Ranas and the Shahs - viewed each other as the "other''. When the monarchy established its hold on the country and rebellious young Nepalis who had come to India to study were influenced by ideas of republicanism, it was the monarch who became the "other". Now, arguably, it's the Madhesis.

The Nepali media on India after the adoption of the Constitution

• “Certainly, while drafting the constitution serious problems have erupted in our country,” says the prominent Nepali paper Kantipur, but “it is for us to solve these problems”. “A neighbouring country’s coming into the picture, or its being invited to solve our internal problems and challenges, is not acceptable at all,” the paper says.
• The English-language Kathmandu Post says that “Delhi would do well not to be seen as crossing the red line to meet its objective. It could box itself in a difficult position and see it lose its diplomatic leverage against certain parties and sections of the polarised society”.
• “If India involves itself in the micromanagement of its neighbouring countries, such a move may give a wrong message to the international community,” My Republica, another English daily, quotes Shankar Sharma, Nepal’s former envoy to the US, as saying.
• Another paper, The Rising Nepal, adds: “In all, India has not yet supported the new constitution, which many fear would invite trouble in the shape of rousing disturbances in the Terai region which borders India.”

The age-old conflict
These are the people who settled in the southern plains of Nepal, battled malaria and cleared forests to claim fertile land. Madhesis living close to the Indian border have properties in both countries. According to the 2001 Nepal census, they constitute 57 per cent of the population. More akin to Indians, they speak Maithili, Bhojpuri and Avadhi. They live with the Tharu tribes in the mid- and far-western districts of Nepal. A majority of them are Hindu, though the Muslim population is growing.

Historically, Madhesis have been considered with a degree of contempt by ethnic Nepalis who see themselves as the victors and Madhesis as the vanquished and collaborators. Madhesi king Hari Singh Dev established a small kingdom, but it was swallowed by Prithvi Narayan Shah. The recruitment of Madhesis in the army was barred 200 years ago and has resumed only recently.

In 1816, the East India Company forces defeated the Nepalese army. A few landlords in Madhes supported the British during the war and were branded as traitors, an image that has persisted. Though they contributed significantly to the democracy movement in 1951, they continued to be denied equal participation. Hindi teaching was banned by King Mahendra in the interest of national integration. Citizenship has become a contentious issue. Many Madhesis have lived in Nepal for generations but are considered (and consider themselves) Indian. Some have the right to own property but many don't. Many don't have the right to vote. Till 1950, despite being Nepalis, they needed a permit to visit Kathmandu. They are referred to as "dhotis"- because they don't wear the national dress of Nepal, the daura suruwal.

Yet, while nearly 60 per cent of Nepal's GDP is contributed by them, all they get is 12 per cent of the revenues for development. All industries in Nepal are located in the Terai. The East-West Highway that links the two ends of Nepal and is its lifeline passes through the region. If the Terai wants to paralyse the country, it can do so with ease.

And obviously, there are relations by marriage with India. Keenly conscious of the fact that too close a relationship with the Madhesis could be misunderstood by Kathmandu, India used to keep its distance from these groups, and even in cases of small things would counsel them gently to route their demand through Kathmandu.

Understandably, Madhesi frustration has grown and it is the one group that has been insistent on ensuring "real federalism" is translated accurately in the new Constitution of Nepal.

In the elections to the first constituent assembly in 2008, Madhesi parties emerged as the fourth largest after the United Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal United Marxist Leninist, and with 84 legislators, became kingmakers.

Recognising the strength of the Madhesis and the consequent threat to nationhood, the other parties in the assembly attempted to dilute their demands via the Constitution. If the demand was for "ek madhes ek Pradesh" (one state for Madhes), Nepal's new federal structure was configured in such a way that instead of one Madhes, a separate region, dominated by the Tharus, was carved out of the Madhes area.

This was a gang-up against Madhesis. Led by Binod Gachhadhar, all Madhesis walked out of the assembly. Then the Nepal earthquake happened. A 16-point agreement among the four major parties finalised the Constitution.

There was an element of urgency in this. The interim Constitution had mandated that the president, vice-president and speaker would be elected by the current assembly within seven days of the promulgation of the Constitution. The chatter in Kathmandu was that Prime Minister Sushil Koirala would - in that situation - become president of Nepal, while KP Oli of the Communist Party of Nepal United Marxist Leninist would become prime minister. Oli is ailing. So, the other political groups decided to adopt the Constitution, leaving Madhesis to fight their own battles.

Neighbour interference
This is one reason why India is absolutely furious. New Delhi can see that the spirit of the Constitution is being undermined because a handful of people in Kathmandu want to stay in power. The rest of Nepal is unable to understand why, when they have a Constitution at long last, India is being the killjoy. Worse, they suspect, it has something to do with promoting the interests of the Madhesis.

Their suspicions have been strengthened by careless (or maybe not) comments of leaders like Rajnath Singh that "although the Madhesi problem is an internal issue of Nepal, the Indian government will protect the interests of the ten million Indians living there." (The statement was contradicted by the Indian Embassy that said Singh had actually meant that "the Madhes issue was required to be addressed by the Nepalese themselves".)

So what happens now? One thing is clear. The gains of the hugely successful Narendra Modi visit to Kathmandu, when he caught the imagination of the Nepalese people by his statement that he respected and valued the sovereignty of Nepal, is on the verge of being lost. India is once again seen as interfering and "directing" the path of Nepali politics via the Madhesis.

The Madhesis on their part are angry and confused. They want justice from Kathmandu; but Kathmandu keeps pushing them on to New Delhi. The divide is bound to spill over into contiguous Indian areas: if Madhesis start running a movement for an autonomous Madhes Pradesh from Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, both the states will have a problem on their hands. Already, blockades have been mounted and roads leading from India to Nepal up to Kathmandu are being blocked.

The average Nepali believes this is India's hand - and it is working through the Madhesis.