Inclusive Democracy for Madheshis - Institute of South Asian Studies

ISA S Internship
Programme 2008
Introduction
Inclusive Democracy for Madheshis:
The Quest for Identity, Rights and Representation
Farah Cheah
This research paper was embarked upon with the mission of exploring the intricacies
surrounding issues of identity, rights and representation for the Madheshis in the new republic of
Nepal. The centuries of political, economic and social discrimination and marginalisation of the
inhabitants of Tarai are well studied. However, with the radical shift of governance from a
Constitutional Monarchy to a Democratic republic, I recognised the need for research focused on
Madheshi movements and agenda in this new setting. This paper serves to place some
perspective over the rising issues of Madheshi Nationalism in Nepal. Thus, the questions I put
forth and the issues I look at reflects contention that surrounds the themes of 1) identity, 2) rights
in lieu of democratic transition and 3) what these issues translate into in terms of representation.
As the political landscape of Madhesh and greater Nepal are unfolding at present, this study does
not aim to be a exhaustive one. Rather, it aims to provide a better understanding to issues
surrounding the ongoing Madheshi movement and perhaps, provide an insight to the difficulties
of government formation and constitution building from the Madheshi perspective. This paper is
neither intentioned as a detailed study of the 2007 Madhesh Protests nor for the case of exclusion
of Madheshis because of the comprehensive and impressive studies that have already been
undertaken by scholars 1
. Instead, this research paper aims to study areas of tension and conflict
surrounding the ongoing Madheshi movement for recognition, rights and representation from the
state, hopefully highlighting areas and new scopes for further research.
The earlier sections of this paper looks at the debates surrounding the contested definitions of
Tarai as opposed to Madhesh and explore the quest for a Madheshi identity. The second section
aims to highlight areas of discrimination and marginalisation of Madheshis in various aspects of
Nepalese society. Detailed and comprehensive studies have been done on the Exclusion of
Madheshis, thus, this section serves to highlight certain changes have taken place with the
formation of the Constituent Assembly in later sections. Following that, I present findings of my
field trip interviews on the issue of the 2007 Madheshi social movement which surfaced only
after 239 years of state suppression and marginalisation. What was the underlying basis of unity
1 For an excellent analysis of Social Exclusion of the Madheshi Community, see Shree Govind Shah’s work
on Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation Building (2006). For a detailed analysis of the 2007
Madheshi protests, read Bhaskar Gautam’s comprehensive compilation of firsthand accounts in
Madhesh Bidrohako Nalibeli
 : Details of Madhesh Revolt.(2008)
1

amongst Janajatis, ethnic-Madheshis, Indigenous Nationalities, women groups, Muslims and
dalits in carrying the slogan of ‘Ek Madhesh, Ek Pradesh’ (One Madhesh, One Pradesh). Next, I
look at partisan representation of Madheshis, in an attempt to show to what extent Madhesh is
non-monolithic. Focusing on the three largest Madheshi parties – the MJF, TMLP and SP – I
explore their conceptions of what and who constitutes Madhesh and the Madheshis respectively.
Framing the identities of Madhesh and Madheshi have underlying implications of these parties’
political agenda which may or may not have been reflected in their Manifestos. Last but not
least, this paper examines the feasibility of Madheshi demands made upon the state and provides
a host of perspectives on granting or denying the demands. These include the geopolitical
realities of Tarai and its economic implications on the rest of Nepal.
1. Methodology
For the purpose of this research, I consulted both primary and secondary sources of
information. I humbly embarked on a brief fieldtrip for about three weeks to Kathmandu and the
Terai in July 2008 to conduct interviews and seek primary sources of data. I interviewed 22
individuals in Nepal, drawing from a pool of expertise and diversed background. My intention
was to speak with representatives from all aspects of Nepalese society relevant to the research
study. These included security perspectives both from an RNA retired general and the Indian
Defence Attache, academics studying both democratisation in Nepal and the Madheshi
Movement, Officers from International NGOs and the United Nations Mission in Nepal,
Journalists from both Kathmandu and Terai amongst many others. Bearing in mind that some of
the professionals I spoke with simultaneously carried overlapping identities of either Madheshi
or non-Madheshi 2
, I was careful to include as balanced as possible a selection of Terai based and
non-Terai based professionals. I have also consulted the Central Bureau of Statistics in
Kathmandu and Singha Durbar for primary sources of data as well as the results of the 2008
April election from the Nepal Elections Portal available online in order to illustrate certain
findings and observations about Madheshi representation. Last but not least, I consulted largely
with references and academic studies on the exclusion of Madheshis already undertaken which
allowed me to further my argument based on evidence of exclusion.
2. “Democracy” and “Inclusive Democracy”
The understanding of “democracy” varies from country to country, amongst politicians,
scholars and individuals. Krishna Bhattachan defines ‘democracy’ as
2
Other categorizations such as Pahadis, Brahmins informed me better of their background affiliations
and biases in some instances.
2

“a political process in which people are fully sovereign and diverse groups of
people cooperate among themselves in a participatory way for their common
good.” 3
Though there is no one absolute definition of what democracy means to different
societies, Bhattachan echoes an understanding of democratic principles. Democracy, even in its
most elusive forms, is echoed by many actors in society today. Meanwhile, Inclusive democracy
in my understanding refers to political processes which shape the extent of representation in
political, economic and socio-cultural realms of society. In his project on Inclusive Democracy
in 1997, Greek political philosopher Takis Fotopoulos defines it as “
“a new conception of democracy, which, using as a starting point the classical
definition of it, expresses democracy in terms of direct political democracy,
economic democracy (beyond the confines of the market economy and state
planning), as well as democracy in the social realm and ecological democracy. In
short, inclusive democracy is a form of social organisation which re-integrates
society with economy, polity and nature.” 4
Since the second unprecedented people’s movement, Jana Andolan II, civil society in Nepal
has more than ever, risen to the challenge of democratising the Nepalese State. Jana Andolan II
provided mandate to transcend traditional Monarchical rule into a more representative and
democratic future. This transition has yet to fulfill all aspects of inclusive democratic governance
as defined by Fotopoulos. Various minority groups have been at the frontline of this push for
democratisation, and their effects have been felt all over Nepal. One of the main minority groups
who have in many ways substantially affected Nepalese politics in Kathmandu, and still
continues to, is the Madheshis. Who are the Madheshis and what are the issues surrounding the
Madheshi movement?
3. Who are the Madheshis?
What constitutes Madhesh and who are the Madheshis? The answers to these questions
continue to be an area of contention- hotly debated through and through by politicians,
academics, journalists and civil society with little resolve. Two debates surround the matter- the
first one lingers over the terminologies Tarai as opposed to Madhesh. The second point of
3
Bhattachan, Krishna B. (2003) in “Expected Model & Process of Inclusive Democracy in Nepal”
Paper presented in an international seminar on The Agenda of Transformation: Inclusion in Nepali
democracy organized by the Social Science Baha. p.4
4
“Inclusive Democracy” entry in Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy, ed. by R.J.
Barry Jones, 2001, pp. 732-733.
3

contention, by extension, harps on the regional versus cultural definitions of who is termed a
Madheshi.
Tarai Versus ‘Madhesh’
Many takes of what the Tarai encompasses have been put forth by different groups in
Nepal, including radical opinions which deny the existence of a Madhesh altogether. According
to the Britannica encyclopedia, Tarai stands for
‘a strip of undulating former marshland, that stretched from the Yamuna River in
West to the Brahmaputra River in the East 5
’.
Frederick Gaige (1975), a pioneer author on the study of hill-plains conflict in Madhesh,
also noted that various Hindi and Urdu dictionaries define Tarai as ‘the foothills of mountains,
often damp and swampy.’ 6 To the same extent, several ethnic groups from the Tarai have
claimed links of origins to the region and its definition. Some Tharus argue the word Tarai was
derived form ‘tar’ meaning ‘low’, implying the low-lying lands characteristic of the region 7
.
Definitions of the Tarai may vary but what seems characteristic are the geographical and
terranean features identified with the region.
The word Madhesh on the other hand implies much more than a physical composition of
the space that stretches across the southern belt of Nepal. In C K Lal’s assessment, Madhesh
includes the cultural and lingual space that exists as a basis of identity amongst the people
residing in the region. Whether these identities find congruence in existence is another matter but
the argument is that a definite and distinct regional, cultural and lingual space of Madhesh exists
in the minds of those who inhabit it. Gaige (1975) noted the close association of ‘Tarai’
symbolising colonial mentalities, which he referred to as the process of ‘Nepalisation’ of
Madhesh. Others argue that while Tarai exists in the context of Nepal, the word is more generic
than claimed – Tarai regions are also found in India, Bangladesh and Bhutan. Thus Madhesh
seems to carry more significant historical, regional and cultural connotations than the term
‘Tarai.’
While the terms Tarai and Madhesh may carry specific regional and cultural
connotations, both are generally used in the context of contemporary Nepal for reference to the
largely agrarian southern belt of the land-locked country. For the purpose of this paper, Tarai is
used loosely to refer to the geographical southern belt of Nepal. ‘Madhesh’ is used here to imply
cultural and geopolitical Much emphasis and intellectual energy has been hovering over
5 Britannica Encyclopedia Entry (1994)
6 Gaige, Frederick (1975) in Regionalism and Nationalism in Nepal, p. 22
7 Kumar, Vivaswan, (2008) “Madhesh/Terai and Tharus /Madheshis: Nepal’s New Frontier of
Etynopolitics” article in Telegraph Nepal. 27 March 2008
4

terminology because they are intrinsically linked to political and cultural implications of the
Madheshi movement and agenda. Is the Madhesh region inherently monolithic? Was the success
and magnitude of the 2007 Madheshi uprisings, a consequence of regional identity. Does this
identity extend beyond the geopolitics of Madhesh? Or do the inhabitants of Tarai fail to find
commonalities existing beyond the characteristic marginalisation and blatant discrimination by
the state?
Pitambar Sharma understands Madhesh, even geographically, as a non-continuous strip
of territory. On the contrary, he believes Tarai comprises three distinct units – Eastern, Central
and Western Tarai. Thus, identifying Chitwan and Dang, the districts of Inner Tarai or Bhitri
Madhesh, as
“(punctuations) of the geographical continuation of the Tarai in Nepal.” 8 Somewhat
distinct from what he terms ‘proper Madhesh’. 9
The Regional and Cultural Connotations of Being Madheshi
There are generally two schools of thought in pondering over what it means to be
Madheshi. The lines of identification have distinct and specific political connotations and hence
have served as the basis of much rhetoric surrounding the ongoing Madheshi movement for
rights and representation in the Nepal.
The first school understands Madhesh as a regional entity in its geographical depiction. Thus, the
people living in this region have been broadly called Madheshi or Madheshiyas. 10 This view
includes that the term Madhesh refers to all non-Pahadis 11 which includes the traditional caste
hierarchy such as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Baisya and Dalits, and indigeneous Janjati ethnic groups,
other native tribes and Muslims. 12
Tarai-based parties such as the Terai Madhesh Loktantrik
Party (TMLP) headed by Mr Mahanta Thakur, share sentiments with this school of thought in
defining who Madheshis are and ultimately, who they claim to represent with their party
manifestos.
The second interpretation of Madheshi identity is seen through the sociological lens of
identity. Krishna Hachhethu describes the region as “a traditional homeland of tribal people and
the people of Indian origin. 13
” Thus the second definition of Madheshis proposes that the basis of
identity lies in what is termed as “people of Indian-origin”. For generations many Madheshis
share close associations i.e. through marital ties with communities living across the open border.
In this sense, Madheshis shared predominant lifestyles, food habits, language and culture,
8
Pitambar Sharma, Unraveling the Mosaic: Spatial aspects of ethnicity in Nepal p. 6
9
Pitambar Sharma, Unraveling the Mosaic: Spatial aspects of ethnicity in Nepal p.6
10
Conspiracy of Nepali Raj against Madhesh. p. 24
11
The word Pahadi refers to Nepalis who lived or whose ancestors had lived in the hills.
12
Shree Govind Shah, Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation Building. p. 3
13
See Democracy and Nationalism: Interface between State and Ethnicity in Nepal Krishna Hachhetu p. 6
5

common with the people who live across the Indian border in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. This has
sometimes raised suspicions of loyalty and identity amongst Pahadis with decision-making
positions in the centre of Nepalese politics. This definition is important in understanding the
social reality/relevance to identity politics going on at the moment because it implicitly refers to
specific pockets of communities amongst the Madhesh population. This selective aspect of
definition implies a distinction between Madheshis of Indian-Origin and everyone else who lives
in Madhesh.
The clear definitions between regionally identified Madheshis and culturally identified
“Indian-origin” Madheshis do not seem to exist for the outsider. The fact that there appears no
hard and fast rule about it has to a certain extent created a political space of confusion when a
particular group – political or criminal- claims to represent ‘Madheshis’. During my brief
research trip to Nepal, I was told that an individual with a particular name for example, ‘Gautam’
or ‘Neupane’, would definitely not belong to a Madheshi. Yet in an interview with one of
journalist who had the former name enlightened me otherwise.
“The confusion you have is very understandable… I was born at Lahan 80 km east from
Janakpur so was my father. I speak Maithili more than many assume. My whole social
brought up is from the Madhes origin. If you look to the criteria of “Indian-origin” then I
guess you can say I cease to be Madheshi… But mind it, this would have defiantly torn
away the Madhes.“
This was a lesson I took in my stride, as if someone had awoken a consciousness to the
power of Anderson’s Imagined Communities. 14
Thus there leaves a bigger space of contestation
between those who identify Madheshis regionally as opposed to those who look into the cultural
space as a basis of identity.
Even though Tarai and Inner Tarai occupies about only 17 per cent of Nepal’s total land
area, they are home to some 49per cent of Nepal’s population 15
. Though these figures continue
to be disputed based on one’s understanding of who Madheshis are, one thing for certain is the
historical and continued exclusion of the Nepalese state through the lack of representation and
development given to these regions.
14
Anderson, Benedict (2006) in Imagined Communities: reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism (London; Verso) Ch 1
15
Calculations based in Central of Bureau Statistics Report by Pitambar Sharma, Urbanization and
Development (2005)
6

Table 1: Population in designated urban areas in 2001
Regions/Municipalities Population in 2001
Hill/Mountains 576 024
Kathmandu Valley 995 966
Inner Tarai 392 108
Tarai 1,263 781
Total 3 227 879
Source: Cheah (2008), derived from CBS[1995]. CBS [2003] For more details of which districts
were included in each specified area see Annex 1.
Should the Madheshis be defined regionally, they would constitute almost half of the
population. That would give them a very strong case of exclusion from Nepalese society. i.e
Electoral under-representation, discrimination in employment in civil service and governmental
bodies etc. as the next section will show. The question of identity amongst the Madheshis and
other inhabitants of Tarai who claim counter identities are crucial in analysing the rise of Taraibased
parties who claim to champion a congruent Madheshi cause. This paper will explore the
existing tensions between state and Madheshi movement by focusing on the legitimacy and true
representation of the Madheshis in electoral politics.
4. How have they been Excluded from the Nepali State
Many Madheshis feel that the entire Madhesh and its inhabitants had not existed in the wider
frame of Nepalese national consciousness 16 . To a very large extent, this can be seen in light of
the state’s failure, deliberately or otherwise, to include Madheshis in mainstream society. Several
detailed and comprehensive studies have been done to examine in detail areas of exclusion by
the state 17
. This section aims to highlight the main issues surrounding Madheshi grievances and
issues pertinent to them. I have also included notes on whether any significant reforms or
changes have been made to alter the status quo.
Political Exclusion
Through Government and bureaucratic Institution
16 Shree Govind Shah, Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation Building p.
17 For examples of detailed and comprehensive studies see Gaige, Frederich in Regionalism and
Nationalism in Nepal (1975), Shree Govind Shah, Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation
Building (2005) and Singh, Amresh Kumar in Restructuring the Nepali State: A Madheshi Perspective
(200-) Mahendra Lawoti (2001) gives a careful study on Madheshis in the political space o society. She
examines their exclusion in political participation, administration and governance, policy-planning and
decision making and ultimately contributes by proposing a consensus-based model of governance.
7

According to a UNMIN political affairs officer I interviewed in Kathmandu, the
representation of Madheshis have continued to be dismal in many areas of bureaucratic
appointments in the civil sector. He noted UNMIN’s frequent meetings with Chief District
Officers (CDO), District Security Cheifs and civil society representatives and explained that out
of 75 CDOs, currently only 5 were Madheshis. The number of Madheshis holding high level
positions in the civil sectors, government bureaucracies and in government reflects the attitudinal
discrimination and barriers of entry to their community. Table 2 shows the number of
appointments in the specified bodies paling in comparison to Pahadi communities, bearing in
mind that Madheshis make up 49% of Nepal’s population while Pahadis number about 14.1%. 18
Table 2: Madheshi Representation in Cabinet, Constitutional Bodies and High Official Posts
Post and Organisation Post
s
Pahadi Madheshi %
Madheshi
Ministers 24 21 4 16.7
Royal Standing Committee 8 7 1 12.5
Judges in Supreme court 21 12 2 9.5
Chiefs of the Constitutional bodies 7 7 0 0
Members of the Constitutional Bodies 5 4 1 20.0
National Human Rights Commission 6 5 1 16.7
Ambassador/ Consulate Generals 23 22 1 4.3
Secretary/ regional Administrators 37 36 1 2.7
Vice-Chancellors 5 5 0 0
Vice-chancellor RONAST, Royal Nepal
Academy
2 2 0 0
Chief of Security Forces 3 3 0 0
Dept. Heads of HMG 47 43 4 5.8
Chief of Govt. Corporation and
Committees
56 52 4 7.1
Chief of Govt. Information and
Communication Agencies
4 4 0 0
Heads of Parliamentary Bodies &
Committees
15 12 3 20.0
Source: Singh, A(2003) Restructuring of Nepali State: A Madheshi Perspective
Note: Number of Ministers is of Girija Prasad Koirala cabinet in 2001, all the other data are
before October 2002
18 CBS (2001). Population Census
8

In his study, Singh (2003) highlights the dismal representation of Madheshis within the realm of
government, high-level appointments and in Judiciary. It is equally important to not only note the
lack of representation but also link them to the reality of perceived security uncertainties and
questions of authority, as this paper will show. Underrepresentation in the Cabinet reflects the
basis of ill-informed policies undertaken by the state i.e. in matters of land reforms or the issue
of citizenship a year back 19
. The following table is that of Madheshi representation in previous
government cabinets.
Table 3: Representation of Various Caste and Ethnic Groups in Cabinet from 1951 to 2005
Caste/Ethnic
groups
Cabinet Percent of total
population in
2001
No of ministers Percent
Brahmins 360 26.8 12.7 2.11
Chhetri/ Thakuri 378 28.2 17.3 1.63
Newar 136 10.1 5.5 1.84
Brahmins/ Chhetri/
Newar
874 65.2 35.5 1.84
Tarai (Madheshi) 205 15.3 33.0 0.46
Hill Social Groups 234 17.4 29.0 0.60
Proportional
Share Index
(PSI)
Others 28 2.1 2.5 0.84
Tarai/HSG/Others 467 34.8 64.5 0.54
1341 100.0 100.0
Source: From Exclusion to Inclusion Social Inclusion Research Fund (December 2007)
Through Electoral Under-Representation
Inclusive proportional representation in partisan politics had previously been an anomaly
prior to the formation of the Constituent Assembly in 2008. The number of Madheshis in Nepali
Congress and UML’s Central Committee in 1999 was also recorded as 3 (7.9%) and 4 (5.8%)
19 Citizenship had been an issue of contention because of the failure of the Nepali state to grant
citizenship to more than 40 percent of Tarai’s Madheshis. See “NEPAL: Background of the Tarai's
Madhesi people,” in UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Report also available online
at http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=70027 (retrieved on 15 th August 2008) Last year, in
2007, the interim government sent teams of functionaries to distribute citizenship certificates to more
than 2.6 million Madheshis.
9

espectively in Shah (2006). The table below is of the breakdown of the number of MPs in 1999.
Mahendra Lawoti described the upper house (National Committee) at that time as “powerless
and unproductive” while the lower house (House of Representatives) as “faced with work
overload.” 20
Thus, even though it made sense for more Madheshis to be present in the lower
house as compared to the upper, the proportion of Madheshis as compared to Pahadis pales in
comparison. Note that Nepal Sadbhavana Party(NSP) had traditionally been recognising
Madheshi rights even though there was technically no space for political contestation under
Monarchy. NSP had representation which stood out as opposite to the tendencies of Pahadi
dominance at that time.
Table 4: Number of Madheshi Member of Parliament in 1999
Political Parties Total MPs Lower House Upper House
Lower Upper Pahadi Madheshi Pahadi Madheshi
House House
Nepali Congress 113 24 90 23 21 3
Communist Party of
Nepal (UML)
69 20 59 10 19 1
Rashtriya Prajatantra
Party
11 5 7 4 5 0
Nepal Sadbhavana Party 5 1 1 4 0 1
Rashtriya Jana Morcha 5 0 5 0 0 0
King’s Nominees 0 10 0 0 9 1
Total 205 60 164 41 54 6
% Madheshi 20.0 1.1
Source: Parliamentary Secretary Records, Singha Durbar, Nepal, 1999
Following the elections on 10th of April 2008, the Constituent Assembly has by far been
the most inclusive amongst parliaments in the past due to combined quotas of First Past the Post
(FTTP) and Proportional Representation (PR) seats -with the exception of Madheshi Dalits who
have 10 out of 335 seats by PR. However, other indigenous nationalities and previously
underrepresented groups have been incorporated into the Assembly as the fifth section will show.
Through Military exclusion
20 Lawoti, Mahendra Towards a Democratic Nepal
10

The Army has always been a target of scholar and activist alike on issues of recruitment.
Recently, spotlight is on the mass incorporation of both Maoist soldiers (PLA) and Madheshis
into the institution. The two are entirely separate issues with respective connotations and
implications to the issue of assimilation. While this paper does not study the issue of the PLA’s
assimilation into the Nepalese Army, it recognises the claims of both PLA soldiers and
Madheshis to rights of recruitment. The stark difference in recruitment of Madheshis into the
military pushes one to question the sincerity of the Military’s recruitment slogan which opens
applications for recruitment to all Nepalese. The number of Madheshis in the Army has been
abysmal for most of Nepal’s military history. Reasons speculated behind the numbers include
speculations of a distrust between most of the Government and Army’s Pahadi population
regarding the loyalty of ‘Indian-origin’ Madheshis. Table 4 below shows the complete absence
of Madheshis in various designations in the security forces up to 2001.
I was fortunate to be able to speak with a retired high-ranking general from the Royal
Nepalese Army. When I got an opportunity to direct my queries about Madheshi recruitment in
the army, he reflected the recent efforts of the institution in casting a recruitment net wide
enough to capture the attention of Madheshis who may have been keen or potentially interested
in serving as a Nepalese soldier. Not long after the eight-point agreement was reached between
the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and the Maoist in June 2006, a recruitment drive to fill some 994
vacancies in the RNA was launched. The RNA received 1700 applications out of which 117
Madheshis applied. The final number who made through the selection processes was 27
Madheshis. From the General’s point of view, the Army, just like any other established and
formidable institution has to upkeep its standards by enforcing a high expectation and criterion to
be met by all its officers regardless of their ethnic backgrounds. This necessarily implies the rigid
selection criteria in determining successful applicants based on a series of physical fitness tests.
A Madheshi journalist whom I spoke to probed me to think of the reasons behind low numbers
of applicants rather than focus all questions on the selection process. If discrimination was
blatantly practiced in the army for whatever reasons, it would not been very appealing an
environment for a Madheshi. Perceptions of the army to Madheshis range from being racial and
discriminatory in the enforcement of law. The clashes which occurred between the army and
protestors in 2007 greatly portrayed (perhaps inaccurately) clashes on communal grounds. This
will be further elaborated upon in the next section on the Madheshi movement of 2007.
Table 4: Position of Madheshi Community in Security Forces, 2001.
Department and position No of
Officers
1. Most senior officers in RNA 18 0
2. Chief of police, armed police and national
investigation department
3 0
Police AIGP 4
No of
Madheshis
11

Human Dev
Indicators
Police DIG 16 0
Police SSP 41 0
3. Armed Police AIGP 3 0
Armed Police DIG 8 0
Armed Police SSP 13 0
Armed Police SP 37 0
Source: Madhesh: Social demography and discrimination, 2004
Social Exclusion and Economic Exclusion
Mr. Ameet Dhakal, news editor of The Kathmandu Post, the leading English Daily in Nepal,
wrote:
"Owing to their proximity to India and cross-border exchanges including marriage,
Madheshis are considered less Nepali than the Pahades [people from the hills] who
have dominated the country socially, culturally, economically, and politically for a
long, long time."
Incidences of poverty and illiteracy are one of the key indicators in assessing the levels of
economic and social development in general. When these criterions are applied to the study of
social exclusion of Madheshis in Nepal, Shah (2006) identifies Tarai districts as one of the most
impoverished and underdeveloped on the whole. He correlates ethnicity with poverty and argues
that Rauthat, Sirah, Mahotari, Dhanusha and Sarlahi districts are amongst the poorest while also
constituting 78-94% of Madheshi people. This is juxtaposed against Pahadi dominated districts
of Morang, Chitwan and Jhapa where poverty remains very low. 21
Table 5: Human Development by Caste and Ethnicity
Nepal Bahun Chhetri Newar Hill
Janjatis
Madhise Hill
Dalit
Muslim Other
Life expectancy (yrs) 55.0 60.8 56.3 62.2 53.0 58.4 50.3 48.7 54.4
Adult Literacy (5) 36.7 58.0 42.0 54.8 35.2 27.5 23.8 22.1 27.6
Mean yrs Schooling 2.3 4.7 2.8 4.45 2.0 1.7 1.2 1.4 1
Per Capita income
(NR)
7,673 9,921 7,744 11,953 6,607 6,911 4,94
0
6,336 7,312
Per Capita PPP (US$) 1,186 1,533 1,197 1,848 1,021 1,068 764 979 1,1
1.Life Expectancy 0.500 0.597 0.522 0.620 0.467 0.557 0.42 0.395 0.490
Index
2
2. Educational 0.295 0.490 0.342 0.462 0.280 0.221 0.18 0.178 0.226
attainment index
6
21 Shah, Shree Govind (2006) p. 10
12

3. Income Index 0.179 0.237 0.181 0.289 0.152 0.160 0.11
0
0.145 0.170
Human Dev Index 0.325 0.441 0.348 0.457 0.299 0.313 0.23
9
0.239 0.295
Ration of National
HDI
100 135.96 107.3 140.7 92.2 96.3 73.6 73.7 90.9
Source: Enabling State Programme (ESP) 2002, ‘A Strategy to Empower Nepal’s Disadvantaged
Groups’, Document 1, page 7 quoted in Bennett (2003), Towards an Inclusive Society: Agency,
Structure and Diversity in Nepal, a paper presented at the Conference on The agenda of
Transformation: Inclusion in Nepal Democracy, Kathmandu 24-26, 2003
As mentioned, detailed studies on the extent of exclusion and its implications have been written.
Thus, while other areas of exclusion such as in areas of education and healthcare remain very
valid areas to be looked at, this paper has highlighted, instance of exclusion especially in
political and military representation. These areas are highly relevant to the following sections of
the paper on the 2007 protests and the ongoing Madheshi movement.
5. 2007 Madheshi movement
Following the Jana Andolan II movement which carried promises of democratic reforms
from the Nepali state, the marginalised communities of Tarai began losing confidence that the
State would once again lose the urgency of addressing their grievances. This failure would have
been nothing new given that they had already been pushed aside for the last 2 centuries in the
history of modern Nepal despite civil led movements over the course of Nepal’s history 22
. For
most Nepalese what Jana Andolan II signified end of King Gyanendra’s dictatorship on one
level, and the gradual stripping of Monarchical power over various realms of society on a more
macro viewpoint. More importantly it flagged the beginning of a radical transition from
Monarchy to a more democratic form of governance and in a way. Monarchical rule had in many
ways, put a lid to the grievances and needs of many marginalised groups in Nepal. The
abolishment of Monarchy had, thus, removed the lid on Nepal’s long-ignored and brewing
grievances while democracy provided a new-found channel to push for change from the ground.
The Madheshi movement was
“…Essentially a nationalist movement which embodied a deep cry for political
23
acknowledgement of Madheshi’s identity and culture and political equality ”
How we understand the movement lies deeply dependant on who we understand it to
represent. When talking about the 2007 Madheshi protest in particular, the identity of Madheshis
as I have understood largely refers to the regional definition of the word. Thus, participants of
22 List of Social movements
23 Madheshi Movement in Defense of Democracy and Madheshi Nationalism. Sarita Giri.
13

the protests drew from many groups living in the Tarai, including the ethnic Madheshis,
indigenous nationalities, Muslims, dalit and groups, who all had one thing in common. They had
all been marginalised communities of the former rulers in Nepal.
Early 2007, Nepal witnessed huge scale protest in the Tarai intertwined with spurs of
violent incidents in various Tarai. These included major clashes in Malangwa, Birgunj, Lahan
and Biratnagar. 24
Though figures are often disputed to be under-reported, some 19 Madheshis
were killed and another 500 wounded in incidents leading up to the 3 rd of February. More
violence followed in the following month (March 2008) in Gaur resounding clashes between the
CPN-Maoist led groups and the MJF. Overall, the Madheshi movement was regarded by many as
a long-dued awakening of the Nepali state towards the ethnic and intrinsically nationalist
aspirations of the Madheshis that were never surfaced on such a scale before. At the height of the
protests, the movement had gained such momentum never seen before from the Tarai. In order to
grasp a better understanding, I interviewed a number of Madheshis and a Pahadi who all were
present in Janakpur and Birgunj during the protests. To further my understanding of the
movement at large at an international level, I also spoke to officers with the UNMIN and
OHCHR in the Tarai. The following section reflects the different takes on the cause and factors
leading to the magnitude and perceived success of the movement.
The Socio-Historical perspective
Looking at the Madheshi Protest that occurred in 2007 through the socio-historical lens
had generally been popular with academics, policy makers and non-Tarai observers of the
movement. This view frames the movement with hindsight of centuries of marginalisation and
foresight of political and social change that has hit Nepal with the outstripping of royal power in
the state.
Madheshis have been treated unfairly and denied rights as citizens of Nepal throughout
the history of Nepal. These had manifested in the form of discriminatory policies issued by the
King and state at respective periods in history. The centralised system of taxation, privatising of
land tenure, imposition of corvee labour and birta land grant practices were some of the common
instruments of exploitation that began during the Rana Dynasty (1846-1953). Despite the Jana
Andolan in 1990, aristocracy continued to control national politics and state affairs. High castes
of hill communities continued to dominate the highest appointments in civil service (police,
military etc) and government offices. More directly, it failed to ensure power-sharing and an
equal distribution of resources among Madheshis, Janajatis, women, dalits and other indigenous
nationalities living in the Tarai. Patrimonialism and Nepotism had for centuries under Monarchy
became a way of Nepalese power structure, thriving in the centralised polity of Kathmandu.
24 Nepal’s Troubled Tarai Region, International Crisis Group Asia Report No 136, 9 July 2007
14

Many Madheshis were for centuries, denied Nepali citizenship until 2007 25
. Before 2007,
it seemed that state design had erected hurdle to delay or indirectly deny the process. In an
interview with a former member of Interim government, Mr Lila Prasad Lochani, also a Pahadi
now living in the Tarai, explained how state mechanisms had discriminated against Madheshis
quite blatantly. A Madheshi had to produce his Land ownership certificate where he sought to
obtain his citizenship certificate and passport. On the same count, he would not be able to attain
a Land Registration Deed (lalpurja) if he could not produce his citizenship certificate. This has
led to pressing issues of landlessness amongst the Madheshis, Janajatis, Dalits and Muslims from
the Tarai. Without citizenship certificate, Madheshis were not able to vote, buy or sell land,
attend college education and apply for government jobs amongst other things. State and social
engineering had in a way guaranteed the proliferation of discrimination against the Madheshis
whether that was the intention or otherwise.
The socio-historical perspective traces many examples of marginalisation and unfair
treatment practiced on the Madheshi community. It argues that a cumulative process of shared
grievances about many matters and aspects of their lives had united the many different groups
under the flag of One Madhesh, One Pradesh and subsequently fuelled the movement for change
in Nepal’s democratic transition. It recognises the Madheshi movement as a response to years of
marginalisation by the state throughout history. The weakness of the Socio-historical perspective
is its inability to timely account for the occurrence of the movement. If the movement was
caused only by conditions of unfair treatment and marginalisation, why did it take 239 years to
Madheshis to feel united or brave enough to rise up against the status quo? While the sociohistorical
perspective justly addresses the grievances among the community, it fails to provide a
timely understanding in explaining how the 2007 protests spiraled into the biggest Madheshi
movement ever. In a nutshell, the socio-historical perspective is echoed well in Krishna
Hacchethu’s article in explaining the magnitude of Madheshi movements,
“…the recent Madhesh explosion was a natural outcome of the Madheshis’
resentment against the Nepali state for its long ignorance and negligence to their
grievances.” 26
The Chronological Logic of Incidents leading up to Protests in January and February 2007
My meeting with political analyst, Bhaskar Gautam, was very insightful 27
because he
probed me to look carefully at the series of incidents in Nepalgunj, followed by in Lahan,
Khajura and especially in Gaur – all in a span of four months. Bhaskar Gautam is also the editor
25 In
26 Hacchethu, Krishna Madheshi Nationalism and the Restructuring the Nepali State p. 2
27 Though most the people I had spoken with gave me detailed and convincing arguments for their
views, Bhaskar provided a kind of insider’s perspective to the events that led up to the 2007 Madheshi
protest.
15

of a volume, Madhesh Bidrohako Nalibeli (Description of Madhesh Rebellion) which compiled
first hand narratives of incidents happening on the ground during the 2006-2007 Tarai agitation.
“The Madheshi protest of early 2007 cannot be seen in isolation to larger events
that surrounded the movement and to the crucial incidences that preceded the
protests. 28
”
The two day riots in December 2006 left Nepalgunj with one dead, twenty people
wounded and about 150 shops looted. Video footages speculated online included one which
showed about two hundred police officers standing by while a handful of people looted a
television store, carrying them right past the police on the 26 th of December, supposedly a day
29
when curfew was imposed .
More importantly, as Bhaskar had pointed out, the agitation and frustration of the
Madheshis continued to pile up because of the lack of political space deliberately denied to them
by Central authorities in Kathmandu. This was especially blatant on the part of the media.
Coverage of the Nepalgunj incident in the daily news was minimal or close to none signifying
Kathmandu’s perceived need to downplay the incident. To others, this decision was more about
trivialising Madheshi grievances by portraying the incident as no more than a case of communal
strife at best.
Like most social movements, this one started with a small number of actors championing
a cause. This time, the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum pulled the reigns at the beginning by
declaring a Bandh (strike) on 16 th January 2007 30
, closing down marketplaces, industries and
transport services. This in response to the arrest of 14 MJF cadres back in Kathmandu when they
lit to dust copies of the Interim Constitution. When placing the Madheshi movement in the
bigger frame of the ongoing democratic transition at that time, it is important not to ignore the
specific sequence of incidents leading up to the protests.
The killing of Ramesh Mahato in Lahan in January 2007 and the initial denial of Maoist
involvement served as a permanent reminder of the scarred relations between the MJF and the
Maoist. Lahan was just the beginning of a spade of curfews, strikes, and cases of damage to
public property that followed in many other Tarai towns. The MJF clashed again with police in
Khajura on March 9. However the most gruesome killings took place in Gaur, in Rautahat on 21 st
of March 2007. Some 28 people (unofficial figures quoted over 50 casualties) were killed with
many others injured when violence erupted between the Maoist and the MJF over the same
choice of meeting venue for both parties. The MJF supporters largely outnumbered Maoist
28
Interview with Bhaskar Gautam. Kathmandu July 2008
29
Video footage available at http://revver.com/video/132663/nepalgunj-looting-pahadi-on-madhesimob-violence/
(retrieved on 13 th July 2008)
30
http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/jan/jan16/news11.php “Over two dozen MPRF activists
arrested in the capital” NepalNews.com 16 th January 2007
16

cadres in the clash. According to OHCHR’s report on the Gaur incident, 27 Maoist were battered
to death with sharpened bamboo sticks locally known as bathaas and lathis. 31
There has been much literature produced by scholars and international observers on the
Madheshi movement and the events surrounding the agitations. While this paper is not focused
on providing a descriptive analysis of the movement in detail, I highlight that seemingly isolated
incidents of agitation are major causal factors in explaining the magnitude and impact of the
MadheshiI movement. (Incidents before and during the January- February 2007 protests in
Siraha, Birgunj, Janakpur and Biratnagar) To the same end, the incidents in Nepalgunj, Lahan,
Khajura and Gaur had in many ways directly and indirectly introduced a Madheshi identity in the
political domain of Nepal (no matter how fuzzy an idea of who constituted a Madheshi at that
time). What is interesting in my opinion was the agglutination of a culturally linked collage
which literally pieced together a collective movement large and strong enough to place the
political agenda of marginalised Tarai minorities on the table. While the chronological logic of
events cannot be viewed as the only explanation to why the Madheshi protest happened, it can
give some retrospect on the magnitude and momentum of the movement. As S.D Muni had
highlighted to me, the ongoing Madheshi movement would have still surfaced because the
abolishment of monarchy had inevitably opened up political space for the contestation of rights
and identity. This stands whether or not the specific incidents in Nepalgunj, Lahan etc. had
occurred. Hence value of Bhaskar’s volume, in my opinion, provides a sociological hint to the
symbols of unity and identity that spurred the Madheshis on under a common grievance of
marginalisation. It also provides an insight on the build up of frustrations, anger and agitation
that culminated in the magnitude and momentum of the 2007 Madheshi movement.
The time-space-opportunity perspective on Macro level of Nepal politics
This take places emphasis on the larger democratic movements going on in Nepal post-
Jana Andolan II. It focuses on the timely aspect of democratic reforms and constitution building.
With the abolishment of the Monarchy, Nepal had embarked upon the path of political
reformation. Political space, which was previously kept harshly unavailable by the Monarchy,
had now emerged into the Nepalese political landscape. One should not ask why the movement
had not occurred for 239 years prior but instead recognise the feasibility such democratic
movements prior to Jana Andolan in 1990. Seen in this light, the occurrence of the 2007
Madheshi movement is a non-issue.
In addition, the fact that Jana Andolan II was a social movement for the people by the
people placed Nepal on the world map of democratisation. This perspective proposes a right or
‘ripe’ time for radical democratic transition because of the presence of international observers.
Many NGOs and I/NGOs who bought into the political rhetoric of democratisation in the Third
31 OHCHR report on Gaur is available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/press/docs/gaur.pdf
27 people had consistent wounds post-mortem from such attacks while one other dies from a gunshot
wound. For a more comprehensive analysis, please see OHCHR report.
17

World countries would in turn recognise the cries of minority groups traditionally suppressed by
Monarchy. Thus, the Madheshi protest was framed in a ripe time, for several reasons. Firstly, the
transition to full fledged multi-party democracy meant that various segments of society which
had been kept under the tight lid of the Monarchy were given political space to pursue especially
social and economic grievances. Secondly, the democratic transition was taking pace with the
formation of the government and the building of the Constitution, slowly but surely. Thus, this
served and still serves as a good opportunity for minorities to bandwagon the movement and
place their cards on the table in Kathmandu. Thirdly, the momentum of both democratic
transition and the Madheshi Movement has gained attention of the International Community who
in turn provided much needed assistance and acted as a watchdog to a certain extent.
International Observers like the Federich Ebert Stiftung and the International Crisis Group
amongst many other have in many ways provided minority and marginalised groups with a voice
or a means of voicing out. Speaking to Dev Raj Dahal, he shared his opinion on the movement in
what I thought was very well said:
“The rationality of social movement is judged by the collective goods it serves,
emancipates people from their historically subordinated position, constitutes itsef
as a public sphere for discourse and democratic will-formation and offers lifechoices
for all the inhabitants. The Madhesi movement is more political than
social in nature as it excluded hill people, sought to fulfill particular forms of
localised demands and exhibited utilitarian tendencies. Due to fragmented
political sphere at the center, it is acting as a free-rider in politics now and shifting
its position from NC-dominated coalition to Maoist-dominated coalition. Like
other parties who are acting in the image of class, family, market and personalised
authoritarianism, the Madhesi parties are also divided along historically evolved
caste lines and have yet to grasp the spirit of modernity, rationality and
cosmopolitan character.”
As a side-note, Dahal expressed his optimism at Madheshis eventually enlarging their
domain of political action in order to live in “a civilised co-existence with other groups in the
same nation,” a view I find worth holding onto for a peaceful Nepal and Madhesh.
Other interesting observations about the Protests of 2007
Non-violent Beginnings, Violence In Retaliation
Mr Kanak Mani Dixit, respected editor of Himal South Asia reminded me in my interview with
him,
“...What many people fail to highlight, especially on the part of Media coverage at that
point in time, was that the protest was non-violent in the beginning. It gained such
momentum and grew to such a magnitude largely because it began as a non-violent
movement.”
18

Much media coverage on the protests in Tarai was depicted as violent in nature. Though
violence had erupted in certain pockets, they were very much in retaliation to rival attacks by
other groups such as the Maoist or due to the excessive use of force by the Armed Police Force
and security personnel as documented by the OHCHR. The following quoted from a press
release by the OHCHR on 20 th February 2008:
“In the midst of reports of growing violence in many parts of the Terai, OHCHR-
Nepal is urging the Nepal Police and APF to exercise restraint in response to
protests…(in some instances) however, OHCHR found that police used excessive
force, sometimes against peaceful protesters, resulting in at least one death and
numerous injuries to protesters.” 32
This leads to the next issue of the presence of security personnel’s on site during the
movements. To what extent had the movement reflected communal violence characterised by a
dichotomisation of Pahadi versus Madheshi identities? In my opinion, the Madheshi movement
reflected much more than communal clashes. Thus, the inability to look deeper into the conflict
reflects a poor understanding not only of their grievances but also of the movement in itself.
Nevertheless, the fact that most, if not all, security personnel were Pahadis did not alleviate the
situation.
“One Madhesh, One Pradesh” Slogan
Interestingly, the Madheshi movement gained such momentum because it was not only
ethnic Madheshis who called out to the state demanding rights. Many other groups including the
Janajatis, Muslims, women groups and dalits joined at the forefront of the push for rights and
representation. The ‘One Madhesh, One Pradesh’ slogan that seemed to resonate with a
collective identity of Tarai inhabitants seemed to work at that time in uniting Madhesh. Yet
following the current events at the time of writing this paper, one cannot help but question if the
Movement reflected more accurately the fight against marginalisation or perhaps, for rights and
representation in larger Nepalese society. In other words, the movement took off because its
members were united by a collective identity of marginalisation by Kathmandu more than
anything else.
However, there are many in Tarai, both ethnic and non-ethnic Madheshis who sincerely believed
and continues to believe the only way to have a significant voice loud enough for the elites in
Kathmandu to pay attention to is by presenting a united Madhesh to the rest on Nepal. I shall
further elaborate on this in the following section.
32 OHCHR-Nepal calls for an end to violence by all sides in Terai protests Press release from Office of High
Commission for Human Rights (20 February 2008) also available online at
http://nepal.ohchr.org/en/resources/Documents/English/pressreleases/FEB2008/2008_02_20_Terai_E.
pdf
19

6. Elite Representation of a Marginalised community
The Rise of Tarai-Based Parties and the Constituent Assembly
In the last two years, Nepal has seen the rise of numerous political parties and to the same
end, militant groups, all claiming to reflect and champion the ‘Madhesh Agenda’. According to
Bhaskar Gautam, the number of Tarai-based parties to date -including armed groups- has risen to
32 post-Jana Andolan 2006. One of the most difficult distinctions to make lay in distinguishing
the political groups from the criminal ones. Different parties and groups vary in their definitions
of Madhesh and Madheshi, champion different agendas, reflect different end-points in their
manifestos, yet all claim a Madhesh based interest.
In the April elections of 2008, the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) emerged as the
fourth biggest winners with 30 First Past the Post seats, 22 seats through Proportional
Representation and 2 Nominated seats 33
. Meanwhile the Tarai Madhesh Loktantrik Party came
behind MJF with 21 seats.
The top four parties in the April 2008 elections include the Communist Party of Nepal-
Maoist, the Nepali Congress, the United Marxist-Leninist party and the Madheshi Janadhikar
Forum in that order. What is notable with respect to Madhesh and Madheshis is the sizable votes
attained from the Tarai in the election by mainstream parties like the CPN(M), Nepali Congress
and CPN(UML).
Table 6: Proportion of direct Seats won in Tarai by Political Parties in Constituent Assembly
Elections
Political Parties No of Seats won in % of Seats won in Tarai
Tarai
Madheshi Janadhikar Forum 52 44.8%
Terai Madheshi Loktantrik Party 20 17.24%
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) 42 36.2%
Others 2 1.72%
Total 116 100%
Source: Cheah (2008)
Another important observation was that all mainstream parties contesting in the elections
made sure to include Madheshis in their closed list as tabulated below 34
. This meant that
Madheshis in the Constituent Assembly are not only from Tarai-based parties but also from
Mainstream parties, thus constituting a considerable proportion of the 601 seats in the
33 See Appendix 1. Constituent Assembly Election Results Overview - Nepal Constituent Assembly Election
Results 2008 Also Available online at http://result.nepalelectionportal.org/report1.html
34
Table available at Nepal Election Portal, the official CA elections 2008 website:
http://result.nepalelectionportal.org/report6.html
20

Constituent Assembly. Madhesh based parties alone hold 83 seats in the CA but the number of
Madheshis extends beyond that.
Table 7: Party-wise Fulfillment of Proportional Representation Quota Mandates
Source: Nepal Election Portal 2008
The Leaders of Madheshi Parties and Party Agendas
The three strongest Madheshi parties who won seats in the CA election of 2008 are the
Madheshi Janadhikar Forum, the Tarai Madheshi Loktantrik Party and the Nepal Sadbhavana
Party, more recently known as Sadbhavana Party. During the course of my research, I felt that a
these parties’ manifestos and their leaders’ profiles would shed light on 1) the sincerity of their
proposed representation, 2) their conception of Madhesh and its place in future political space
and 3) the feasibility and direction behind demands made upon the state.
On the first issue of representation, I looked at the profiles of the leading men behind these three
parties and the composition of membership. Hachhethu argues in his article, the elitist nature of
Nepalese politics and by extension, this is reflected in ethnic movements as well. This crucial
factor in many ways affects the way we look at the ongoing political bickering over the extent of
federal control over Madhesh. All three Madheshi parties – the MJF, TMLP and SP – are led by
21

upper caste representatives from the Madheshi community. What does this mean for Madheshis
of all other castes? An elitist agenda does not necessarily resonate with whom it claims to
represent. To elaborate further, a Madheshi may not share the same agenda as an (Madheshi)
ethnic activist. Thus the fact that Yadavs, Mahato, Thilis etc form most of the leadership block
amongst these three parties that claim to represent all Madheshis is slightly perturbing. There
remains little representation of Madheshi Dalits for example within these parties. Another point
of contention was pointed out by Bhurtel in my meeting with him; Madheshi factions or alliances
had failed to include the issue of land reform and development, a key issue, in Tarai in their
election manifestos during the CA elections.
The key agendas on Madheshi parties on the whole have been instead to push for
autonomy for Madhesh and group entry into the Nepalese Army. It is also worth noting that
some 32 Tarai based groups have arisen from the region, each claiming to represent different
groups of people, no doubt all inhabitants of Tarai. Thus it is no wonder that the demand for
“One Madhesh, One Pradesh” as still echoed in Kathmandu by Madheshi based parties (who
disrupted CA proceedings as many as seven times) is highly contested not only by the Pahadis
but also by other non-ethnic Madheshi groups in Tarai.
While speaking to Mahantha Thakur, leader of TMLP, I sought his opinion on the
importance of the “One Madhesh, One Pradesh” demand to be met and reflected in the interim
constitution. To him, Madheshis are the people living in Madhesh, which implies that Madhesh
should be granted autonomy together. The counter argument that has been used by other groups,
e.g Tharus, against Madheshi parties is that if granted ‘one Madhesh, one Pradesh’, it would be
used as a political leverage of ethnic Madheshis over other groups and indigenous nationalities in
the Tarai. Thus Thakur’s response was initially worrying. However, when I questioned the
feasibility of administratively implementing a single federal unit of Madhesh due to my own lack
of foresight on such an arrangement, Thakur conveyed that he shared my sentiments. What this
meant was that leaders of Madheshi parties like TMLP, were well aware of the infeasibility of a
“one Madhesh, one Pradesh.” So why then still demand and disrupt CA proceedings for it?
Amresh Kumar Singh explained to me that there lies a anticipation amongst Madheshi leaders
that preliminary agreements made regarding demands may not be followed through in the CA
sessions. Thus, the disruption of CA session was used critically as a form of political leverage to
push for constitutional change – which many Madheshis see as the basis of change for a better
future in new Nepal.
7. Two Fundamental problems with constitutional demands
In the weeks after the 28 th of May 2008 when the first Constituent Assembly session was
chaired, Madheshi parties such as the MJF had disrupted CA proceedings up to seven times
22

ecause they felt that their demands for Madheshis were not met 35 . The MJF led by Upendra
Yadav had reached a historic 22 point agreement with the Interim Government Talks Team on
the 30 th of August, 2007. However, when the Constituent Assembly had yet to grant them
autonomy for the region of Madhesh or address issues of institutional reform in military and civil
service, members of the three Madhesh-based parties began to frequently disrupt CA sessions in
a bid to pressure the government to include the points of agreement in the fifth constitution
amendment proposal 36 . There were two primary demands that the Madhesh-based parties were
unwilling to compromise on. The first demand was for an ‘Autonomous Madhesh Province.’ The
second demand was for ‘group entry’ into the Nepalese Army 37
.
Autonomy for “One Madhesh, One Pradesh”
The slogan for ‘One Madhesh, One Pradesh’ was rolled over by the MJF, TMLP and SP
from the Madheshi Movement of 2007. It had worked extremely well before in uniting the
inhabitants of Madheshi to stand up and demand for their constitutional rights. The use of this
same slogan in instilling demands upon the CA however, has been a fundamental point of
contention for non-ethnic Madheshi and indigenous nationalities who also share the Tarai. The
Tharus for example have actively rejected the label Madheshi as a source of identity and base
very much of their argument on the fact that Tharu communities have been present in Tarai even
before the arrival of ‘Indian-origin’ Madheshis. 38
This has caused considerable reaction and
apprehension from communities like the Tharus who have in turn, taken to the streets and even
clashed with security personnel’s in a bid to establish a different identity from MJF, TMLP and
SP’s definition of a Madheshi. Thus the political demand of one Madhesh must be looked upon
as a bargaining chip as Singh and Thakur had explained to me.
The second demand that was to be incorporated into the new constitution was for the
provision of Madheshis entrance into the Army. I asked Mr Mahanta Thakur what good was it if
Madheshis were recruited into the army but only in the lowest ranks where the practice of
discrimination, if any had existed, would have technically been institutionalised discrimination.
The answer to this problem for me lay in institutional reform, no matter how large scale. For
Mahanta Thakur, he say the solution in the form of ‘group entry into the army.” By this, the
TMLP leader meant entry at various levels of the bureaucratic institution.
35 Nepali CA meeting disrupted for 7th time
36 Newsreport from Ekantipur, “Madhesi lawmakers obstruct CA proceedings, next meet Sunday”
37 The two pressing demands dominated Madheshi parties agenda for most of the time I was in Nepal.
“Terai districts shut down in protest against 'one Madhesh' demand”
38 “Protesting Tharu activists clash with police” from Nepal News available at
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2008/jul/jul05/news07.php (retrieved on 15th August 2008)
23

“Proportional representation in political science is just a technical term. What it translates
into in reality is proportional appointment and recruitment into the army for Madheshis.” 39
One of the biggest hurdles of such an arrangement is the feasibility of recruiting and
promoting officers to considerably high positions on the basis of affirmative action for a selected
ethnicity. Institutional reforms must be done at a credible and sensible level which, in this case,
should be aimed at incorporating more members of a marginalised community into the
establishment. These reforms take time to produce credible results. Short-term solutions such as
the appointment of a Madheshi general overnight will not have lasting effects if the institution
operates as how it has been operating for decades.
8. Geopolitical Realities of Nepal and Madhesh
Source: Pitambar Sharma (2008) Unraveling the Mosaic: Spatial aspects of ethnicity
The map found above as drafted by Sharma (2008) gives an overview of the
physiographical landscape of Nepal. Deeper reading of the geographical implications of Tarai
paints another picture of geopolitical realities that exists for both inhabitants of Tarai and the rest
of Nepal. Though the combined land area of what Sharma terms ‘Tarai’ (in grey) and ‘Bhitri
Madhes’ (orange) form about 27% of the total land area in Nepal 40
, it constitutes a very large
39
Interview with Mr Mahanta Thakur (17 July 2008), Kathmandu
40
For this set of information I sought a non-political figures since governmental statistics on such
definitions are known to be less than accurate. See Study done by Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh,
“Physiography and Climate of Nepal” available at http://rbgweb2.rbge.org.uk/nepal/frames.html?climate.html
(retrieved on 15 th August 2008)
24

portion of arable land in Nepal. The ‘Tarai’ (area in grey) according to Sharma’s definition
makes 14% of Nepal’s land area but contains about 42% of the total cultivated land in the
country 41
.
Political rhetoric amongst Tarai or Madhesh- based parties has often been manipulated to
emphasise their cause. The land area of Tarai is often quoted as 27% when referring to the
proportion of people in Tarai as compared to the rest of Nepal. Yet, talk of cultural and
physiographical markers of identity often distinctly excludes the Siwalik region as part of Tarai
when politicians clarify the region they claim to represent.
The movement for autonomy in Madhesh is echoed amongst many ethnic communities,
however, along separate lines. The Tharus, Limbus, Rais, Tamangs and many more had
bandwagon along with the 2007 Madheshi movement but now mobilise on their own terms and
lines of identity. With over sixty different ethnicities in Tarai alone, it is difficult to identify any
explicit signs of unity amongst different Tarai communities at present. Thus, the formula for
federalism is a very difficult one to concoct.
Madhesh is also largely important to if not the backbone of Nepal’s economy. According
to estimates based on the Rastra Bank's figures, by the 1970s, 63 percent of the Nepal's gross
domestic product (GDP) came from the tarai. 42
Today Tarai contributes over 2/3 of Nepal’s
GDP. Geopolitically, districts enroute to Kathmandu from India, have the power of economic
blockade. Madheshis who inhabit these regions understand Bandhs as one of the most effective
way to disrupt life in Kathmandu for a chance to pursue political, economic or social demands
with the central administration in centralised Kathmandu. In my interview with Bhim Prasad
Bhurtel, he had brought my attention to the Madheshi-party leadership blocks between Parsa to
Saptari. This would imply the political leverage Madhesi-based parties - MJF, TMLP, SP- would
effectively have over Kathmandu politics from the power of economic blockade and
strangulation. Food, fuel and energy security remains high on the list of issues persecuting not
only Kathmandu but also the rest of Nepal. Madheshi-led economic blockade has and will
continue to be detrimental to the rest of Nepal.
Another geopolitical reality stems from the fact that Nepal shares a 1868 km open border
with five Indian states; Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Sikkim, West Bengal and Uttaranchal. While this
explains a lot of the cultural similarities of ethnic Madheshis with communities across the
border, it also presents border and regional security issues. According to Indian Defence
Attachee I met in Kathmandu, smuggling remains one of the biggest security issues along the
41 ibid, p. 2
42 Nepal Rastriya Bank Economic Report 2000/2001.
25

order. 43
There are many security threat perceptions regarding India’s perceived interest in
Tarai’s industrial sector especially in the last four years. Because of word limitations of this
paper, I will not go into the issue of Indian activity – whether by state of by individuals - in the
Tarai. However it is useful to keep in mind the continued doubts about Indian interest in Tarai
and the perceived (sometimes speculative) level of involvement of non-state actors in provoking
reactions from the communities inhabiting Tarai.
9. Conclusions
This paper has explored the underlying points of contention behind issues of identity,
rights and representation in Madhesh or Tarai. While it does not aim to propose absolute answers
to these questions of identity. It explains the different schools of definitions and show how
politics surrounding the Madheshi movement has been played out according to these different
definitions. Moving beyond the issue of terminologies, one thing is for sure, Madhesh is nonmonolithic.
This means that slogans for ‘one Madhesh’ cannot remain effective in this leg of
democratisation. The Madheshi movement of 2007 mobilised participants based on the common
identity of marginalisation by the Nepali state. While the groups that partook in the movement
continue in their struggle for rights and self-determination, Madheshi parties like the MJF,
TMLP and SP cannot continue to claim they champion a monolithic agenda. A glance back at
the number of Tarai seats won would show Maoist not far behind at 42 out of 116 seats.
Many scholars and politicians alike are looking toward federalism as a solution for the
new democratic republic of Nepal. How these federal units will be determined is still to be
determined. However, one thing for certain is that the position of Madheshis (and other
inhabitants of Tarai who do not want to be known as Madheshi) must remain mapped on the
political agenda of the State. The issue of rights and representation of Madheshis will continue to
be placed on the table as an agenda and marker of credibility for parties bidding to prove their
effectiveness and sincerity. Political parties recognise the political leverage they hold in national
politics. This is especially pertinent to select Madheshi Parties (MJF,TMLP, SP) geopolitically
because of the power of economic blockade of from India and Terai to Kathmandu and other
parts of Nepal. Parties have learnt from this by 1) including considerable percentage of
Madheshis in representation for the Constituent Elections in April 2008, 2) the filing of 3 ethnic–
Madheshis as presidential candidates for the nomination of President in July this year 44
and 3)
the vice-president nominated is also an ethnic Madheshi. Thus all parties have recognised the
importance of playing the ethnic card for the moment. What is more significant is whether this
trend and recognition of Madheshis is one off or here to stay. In my opinion, the Madheshi
43
This includes narcotics and people. Many Pahadis are known to have been abducted and kidnapped
by criminal groups that smuggle them in and out if Nepal across the open border.
44
The candidates were all ethnic Madheshis - Ramraja Prasad Singh, Dr Ram Baran Yadav (Nepali
Congress) and Ram Preet Paswan (UML)
26

agenda can no longer be brushed aside because of the potential repercussions that may be
inflicted upon the rest of Nepal is there is no peace in Madhesh. In future, mainstream parties
must continue to include the plight of Madheshis into their manifestos if they want to maintain a
strong and credible support base. Henceforth, the politics of minority rights and identity will be
part and parcel of Nepalese Politics.
Last but not least, though the three main Madheshi parties cannot claim to champion the
rights of everyone living in Tarai, the MJF undoubtedly holds the most number of seats in the
CA representing Tarai. Thus while the MJF has one of the most say amongst Madheshi groups
from the Tarai, mainstream parties will continue to include Madheshi into their parties and
pursue the Tarai voter. The Moaist have to some extent achieved this with 36.2% of the seats.
This trend will continue to surface in the future of Nepali politics, hopefully contributing to a
more inclusive democratic Nepal not too far into the future.
27

Selected Bibliography
Primary Sources
Nepal Living Standards, Survey 2003/04 , Statistical report, Volume 2, Central Bureau of
Statistics , National Planning Commission Secretariat, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal,
December 2004, Thapathali Kathmandu
“Population Monograph of Nepal”, Volume I & II, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal,
National Planning Commission Secretariat, Central Bureau of Statistics Ramshah Paths,
Kathmandu, Nepal 2003
“Eight Point Agreement”, Mr Dev Prasad Gurung, Member of Maoist Talks team and Central
Committee Member, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), 10 th July 2006.
Reports on “Constituent Assembly Election Results Overview,” “Partywise Fulfillment of
Proportional Representation Quota Mandates,” “CA Members Selected by Proportional
Representation” from Nepal Elections Portal available online at www.nepalelectionportal.org.
(retrieved on 15 th July 2008)
Interviews
Lt Gen (retd) Sadip Bahadur Shah, Colonel Commandant; Bhairab Nath Parachute Regiment,
Royal Nepalese Army, 7 th July 2008, Leknath Marg, Kathmandu
Col. Manmohan Singh Dhanoa, Indian Defence Attachee, Defence Wing of Indian Embassy in
Kathmandu, 8 th July 2008, Leknath Marg, Kathmandu
Mr Deepak Thapa, Journalist and Author, Social Science Baha, Himal Association, 11 th July
2008, Battisputali, Kathmandu
Professor Lok Raj Baral, Professor and Executive Chairman (NCCS), Nepal Centre for
Contemporary Studies , 10 th July 2008, Sanepa, Lalitpur
Mr Dev Raj Dahal, Head of FES Nepal, Frederich Ebert Stiftung (I/NGO), 10 th July 2008,
Sanepa, Lalitpur
Dr. Om Gurung, Chief Advisor & Director, Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities
(NEFIN), 17 th July 2008, Dhobighat, Lalitpur
Mr. Bhim Prasad Bhurtel, Executive Director , Nepal South Asian Centre (NESAC) 15 th July
2008, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu
Mr Nischal Pandey, Former Executive Director of Institute of Foreign Affairs, Lecturer at
Department of Conflict, Peace and Development Studies, Tribhuvan University, 6 th July 2008,
Kathmandu, Nepal
28

Mr. Bhaskar Gautham, Research Associate, Editor of Madhesh Bidrohako Nalibeli
 (Details of
Madhesh Revolt), Martin Chautari Research Institute, 18 th July 2008, Kathmandu, Nepal
Dr Francis Lim, Associate Professor of Sociology, School of Arts and Social Sciences, Nanyang
Technological University, 4 th July 2008, Singapore
Mr. Mahanta Thakur, Former Minister of Science and Technology, Leader of Terai Madhesh
Loktantrik Party, 17t July 2008, Kathmandu, Nepal
Mr. Amresh Kumar Singh, Member of Parliament & Madhesi Janadikar Forum Activist, MP of
Nepali Congress, 9 th July 2008, Durbar Marg, Kathmandu
Mr Lila Prasad Lochani, Former Managing Director of Biratnagar Jute Mills, Biratnagar Jute
Mills, 12 th July 2008, Pani Tanki Tampini, Biratnagar
Dr. Rhoderick Chalmers, Senior Analyst; 
 South Asia Deputy Project Director; Country
Director, International Crisis Group, 18 th July 2008, Sanepa, Lalitpur
Mr. John Bevan, Former Director of UN Civil Affairs Team, UNMIN advisor, United Nations
Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), 16 th July 2008, Patan, Kathmandu Valley
Mr. Frederick Rawski, Head of Eastern Regional Office, Office of High Commission for Human
Rights (Biratnagar), 13 th July 2008, Biratnagar.
Mr. Sebastian von Einsiedel, Political Affairs Officer, United Nations Mission in Nepal
(UNMIN), 9 th July 2008, New Baneshwor, Kathmandu.
Mr Kanak Mani Dixit, Editor, Himal South Asia Magazine, 16 th July 2008, Patan Dhoka,
Kathmandu
Mr. Dipendra Jha, Journalist and Coordinator of Dialogue Group for Constituent Assembly, 16 th
July 2008, Patan Dhoka, Kathmandu
Mr. Briji Kumar Yadav, Editor, Today Group, Janakpur Today / Radio Today 91 Mhz, 17 th July
2008, Media Village, Kathmandu
Mr. Dharmendra Jha, President, Federation of Nepali Journalists, 17 th July 2008, Media Village,
Kathmandu
Mr. Sharad Raj Gautam, Executive Member, Federation of Nepali Journalists, 17 th July 2008,
Media Village, Kathmandu
Ms. Ganga Baral, Journalist, South Asian Free Media Association, 15 th July 2008, Singha
Durbar, Kathmandu
29

Books/ Journals
Anderson, Benedict (2006) in Imagined Communities: reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism (London; Verso) Ch 1
Baral. Lok Raj (2006) Nepal: Quest for participatory democracy “Participatory
Democracy:Concept and Context” pp. 11-33 (Adroit; New Delhi)
Baral, Lok Raj (2006) Opposition Politics in Nepal “ Some observations and recent
developments” pp. 239-249 (Himal books; Patan Dhoka)
Bhattachan, Krishna B. (2003) in “Expected Model & Process of Inclusive Democracy in
Nepal”, Paper presented in an international seminar on The Agenda of Transformation: Inclusion
in Nepali democracy organised by the Social Science Baha
Bhattachan, Krishna B. (2003) “Expected model and process of Inclusive Democracy in Nepal”
Paper presented in an international seminar on The Agenda of Transformation: Inclusion in
Nepali organised by the Social Science Baha at Birendra International Convention Centre in
Kathmandu, (24-26 April, 2003)
Hachhethu, Krishna (2007) Madheshi Nationalism and Restructuring the Nepali State Paper
presented at international seminar on “Constitutionalism and diversity in Nepal” organised by
Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies TU 22-24 August 2007, Kathmandu Nepal
Hacchethu, Krishna (2003) “Democracy and nationalism; interface between state and ethnicity in
Nepal”, Contributions to Nepalese Studies by Research Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies (1
July 2003)
Karna, Vijay Kanta (2007) “Madheshi and Madheshi: A geographical and Historic Perspective”
(google)
Kumar, Vivaswan, (2008) “Madhesh/Terai and Tharus /Madheshis: Nepal’s New Frontier of
Etynopolitics” article in Telegraph Nepal. 27 March 2008
Lawoti, Mahendra (2002) Non-governmental report for the Third World Conference Agianst
Racism (WCAR)- 2001 “Racial Discrimination toward the indigenous peoples in Nepal”
Lawoti, Mahendra (2003) Nepal Tomorrow: Voice and Visions, D.B.Gurung (ed) “Managing
conflicts between society and state” pp. 63-85 (Koselee Books: Kathmandu)
Rakesh, Ram Dayal (2007) Murder in Madhesh “Opinions of different leaders” “Writers on
Madheshi Movement” “Madheshi’s Weakness” pp. 33-36, 67-79, 129-136 (Safari Nepal; New
Baneshwor)
30

Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy, (2001) R.J. Barry Jones (ed.), ,
(Routeledge; UK) pp. 732-733.
The New Encyclopedia Britannica, (1994), (Chicago; Encyclopedia Britannica)
Shah, Shree Govind (2007) Peaceful Resolution of Ethnopolitical Movement in Nepal Madhesh
Shah, Shree Govind (2006) Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation Building , Civil
Society Forum Workshop for Research Programme on Social Inclusion and Nation building in
Nepal organised by Social Inclusion research Fund (June 2006)
Shah, Shree Govind (2007) Dialogue for Peaceful Resolution of Madheshi Movement (3
Feb2007)
Sharma, Pitamber (2008) Unravelling the Mosaic: Spatial aspects of ethnicity in Nepal “The
ethnic Context of Contemporary Nepal” pp. 1-10 ( Himal Books; Patan Dhoka)
Sharma, Jagadish (2007) The Inclusive State: Reflections on Reinventing Nepal, Anand Aditya
(ed) “The inclusive state: Reinventing Nepal” pp. 199 – 202 (SAP-Publishing House:
Kathmandu)
Singh, Amresh Kumar (2004) Restructuring of Nepal State: A Madheshi Perspectiveby Nepal
Centre for Contemporary Studies (NCCS; Sanepa)
Yadav, Ram Prakash (2007) From Exclusion to Inclusion: Socio-Political Agenda for Nepal “
Caste/Ethnicity representative in his majesty’s government at policy level in Nepal” pp. 95-124
(Social Inclusion Research Fund; NCCS; Lalitpur)
31