ChapterV

Discriminatory Policies and Relative Deprivation of

Madheshis

V.l Background

As stated earlier, Madheshis are people of non-hill origin in the Madhesh region.

They comprise the traditional Hindu caste hierarchy-Brahmin, Kshatriya (Chhetri),

Baisya and Dalits-Janjati ethnic groups, other native tribes and Muslims.

Distinguishing between hill people and plains people living in the Tarai districts,

Gaige defined plains people as "those who speak plains languages as their mother

tongue or first language, whether they were born or live in the plains or hills"; the

plains languages being Maithili, Bhojpuri, A wadhi, Urdu, Hindi and Bengali, and

dialects of these languages used by Janjatis. The hill people were defined as "those

whose mother tongue or first language is one that predominates in the hill region of

Nepal such as Nepali, Newari, Magar, Gurung, Rai, etc. Sociologically, hill people

belong to Hindu caste groups, hill Janjatis and Newars. The hill people are also called

Pahadi or Pahadiya" (Gaige 1975: 43). Dahal divided Madheshis into four groups: (a)

Janjatis living in Madhesh for generations, (b) people belonging to traditional Hindu

. caste hierarchy, (c) businessmen of Indian origin, e.g. Marwadi, Sikh and others, and

(d) Muslims (Dahal1996: 6).

Madheshis, in spite of having a long history of origin and habitat within

present-day Nepal, are virtually considered outsiders and have been mostly

marginalized and face exclusion in active political participation, administration and

governance, decision-making and policy planning. Moreover, they face a serious

humanitarian problem of their true identity in their own native land. Madheshis feel

highly discriminated against and have almost lost ''the sense of belongingness to this

nation". Since the early 1990s, Madheshis have been organizing for their cause. The

issues of Madhesh and Madheshis have been time and again raised, see for example,

Jha (1993), Jha and Singh (2001), Lawoti (2001), Shah (2001), Yadav (2003, 2005),

Chaudhary (2004), and Gupta (2004). Lawoti reported a very low number of

Madheshis (11.2 per cent)in the integrated index of governance with none in: culture,

academic and professional leadership (Lawoti 2001: 17). The exclusion ofMadheshis,

115

who constitute 32 per cent of the country's population, from the. national mainstream

has been a negative factor for Nepal's sound economic development. It has also

caused disharmony between Pahadis and Madheshis.

This chapter analyses the current status of Madhesh and Madheshis and the

emerging socio-political and economic issues and recommends relevant research

agenda on the issues of social inclusion and nation-building. The socio-economic and

political exclusion discussed in this chapter is data based. There are many minor

issues which are much talked about but for which statistical data are not available.

v. 2 The Tarai

The term Tarai is of recent origin, describing the plains areas on the southern side of

the Siwalik range in South Asia. The Tarai, situated in the Outer Himalayan Zone, has

been created by organic activity as well as by alluvial action in the Siwaliks and the

Himalayan ranges. It has unique ecological features, having tropical to subtropical .

climatic conditions. The Tarai is geographically divided into Outer Tarai and Inner

Tarai or Vitri Madhesh, the latter encompassing the low-lying river valleys north of

the Siwaliks.

In 1963, the government divided the country into seventy-five districts and the

previous seventeen districts in the Tarai were restructured into twenty districts, which

also included a part of the Siwalik range and hills~ District demarcation was not based

on ecological or social basis, which could have then included only the Outer Tarai and

Vitri Madhesh area. All Tarai districts have varying proportions of Siwalik and mid­

mountain areas-77.5 per cent in Nawalparasi, 51.5 per cent in Chitwan, 50.8 per cent

in Banke, 41 per cent in Kailali, 8.9 per cent in Sunsari and about 7 per cent in Jhapa;

the average being 32.4 per cent for the twenty districts.

It appears that the decision to include hills in the Tarai districts was aimed at

gradually increasing the dominance of the hill people and the distinctive culture,

practices, language and architectural style of the hill region in the plains. Gaige

reported that the hill culture and more flexible social traditions and practices

penetrated into the plains region where the people practised vegetarianism, observed

dietary restrictions and considered intercaste marriage as a social taboo (Gaige 1975:

53). Rhe restructuring also made holistic planning very difficult for the ecologically

heterogeneous Tarai districts.

116

V. 2.a AREA AND POPULATION

The land area of the Tarai is 34,109 sq km or 23.1 per cent of the country's land area

of 147,484 sq km (Table 5.1). The Tarai plains and Vitri Madhesh together cover 15.6

per cent of the country's area. In 2001, Nepal had a population of23.151 million; 48.4

per cent of them (11.212 million) lived in theTarai, with a density of 329 persons per

sqkm.

Table 5.1: Land Area in the Tarai Districts

Ecological area Sqkm Percentage % ofNepal

Mid mountain and Siwalik 11,041 34.2

Tarai plains including Vitri Madhesh 23,068 67.6

Total 34,109 100 23.1

Source: ISRSC (2004).

V. 3 Migration and Population Distribution

Most of the hill people, excluding the indigenous ethnic groups, had migrated to

Nepal over the centuries from various parts of India (Bista: 1967: 16). During the

Muslim invasions of the twelfth to fourteenth centuries in India, the Kshatriyas and

Brahmins migrated to the mountain regions ofpresent·day western Nepal and they

established prinCipalities in the hills. They absorbed some aspects of hill tribe culture

and developed the hill culture of today. Around the twelfth century, there was

eastward migration of people speaking a Sanskrit-based language - which later on

developed as Nepali language (Clark 1963: 27). The comparatively inhospitable and

resource-poor western hills, and gradual overpopulation and agricultural deterioration

pushed the hill people, both the migrants and the indigenous people, to eastern hills up

to Datjeeling areas and Sikkim in India, which wereless densely populated and were

wetter (Gaige 1975: 38). This could be the reason for accepting speakers of Nepali

and hill tribal languages from Datjeeling, Sikkim and nearby areas as ethnic Nepalese,

who largely enjoy both Indian and Nepali citizenship.

V. 4 MIGRATION TO MADHESH

Between the 1860s and 1951, the government made efforts for vertical migration of

the hill people to Madhesh, with not very encouraging results, on account of the

climatic conditions in Madhesh which the hill people were not used to. There were

settlements in Madhesh south of the dense forest area, and Vitri Madhesh was

117

inhabited by Janjatis. Asland, water and forest resources were abundant in Madhesh,

many from the densely'populated Indian districts bordering Madhesh having similar

cultures, traditions, practices and languages migrated to Madhesh between the mid­

nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries.

Overpopulation, agricultural and economtc deterioration, and natural

calamities resulting in famine and many other reasons later on pushed the hill people

of both Hindu origin and Janjatis to migrate to Madhesh. Better economic

opportunities, abundant land and forest resources and the malaria eradication

programme launched by the state encouraged this migration, The hill people migrated

mostly to northern Madhesh and Vitri Madhesh, which were forested and had smaller

settlements. Large areas of forest were cleared for farming and settlements, which

gradually reduced the Madheshis' access to forest resources. The hill people

established settlements and farming areas along the East-West Highway still under

construction; very few migrated to already established towns and virtually none to the

large Madhesh settlements.

Table 5.2: Linguistic Characteristics of Madhesh Population

Speakers as % of pop~lation . in 1961 1 in 19812

Eastern Mid- Far Eastern Mid- Far western western western western

Hill 2.1-24.5 1.2--6.3 3.2-5.8 12.1-86.2 28.9--66.3 46.1-80,7 langtiages Plains 75.5-97.9 93.7-97.8 94.2-96.8 1,3.8-87.9 33.7-71.1 19.3-53.9 languages Note: In 1963, Madhesh districts were restructured and their number increased from 17 to 20;

some parts of Siwaliks and mid-mountains were included in Madhesh districts. Sources: 1 Census ofNepal, 1961 (as cited by Gaige, 1975); 2Census ofNepal, 1981.

The linguistic characteristics of Madhesh changed significantly between 1961

and 1981 due to the influx of the hill population as well as the geographic inclusion of

Siwaliks and mid-mountains. This resulted in the dominance of hill culture, tradition,

practices and languages in Madhesh, particularly in Jhapa, Chitwan, Dang and

Kanchanpur districts, where 67 per cent to 85 per cent of the population consisted of

hill linguistic groups. If the current trend of changing cultural equation persists, in two

to three decades in most of Chitwan, Jhapa, Kanchanpur, Dang, Nawalparasi, Kailali,

and Morang, in half of Sunsari, Rupendehi, Banke and Bardia, and in northern

Sarlahi, Bara, Parsa and Rauthat,. the culture, traditions and practices of the plains of

118

the Tarai would gradually decline. The population distribution of Madheshis in 2001

(per cent of population) is given in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3. Population Distribution ofMadheshis in 2001 (per cent of population)

Population Percentage Districts Concentration

Low 15 .3--4 7.5 per cent Chitwan, Jhapa, Kanchanpur, Dang, Nawalparasi, Kailali and Morang (7)

Medium 58.7-61.3 per cent Sunsari, Rupandehi, Banke and Bardia ( 4)

High 77.5-93.5 per cent 8 districts betweenKoshi and Narayani rivers, and Kapilvastu

According to the 1952/54 census, only about 6 per cent of the population in

Madhesh was ofhill origin; the remaining 94 per cent was composed ofMadheshis of

Hindu caste hierarchy, Janjatis, Muslims and other tribes. The population dynamics

significantly changed in 1981, increasing the proportion of hill people to 43 per cent.

The Pahadi population increased manifold, from merely 142,000 in 1952 to 4.1

million in 2001 while the Madheshi population merely doubled from 2.5 million to

5.3 million (Table 5.4).

Table 5.4: Changes in Madheshi and Pahadi Population (in '000)

Year Highland group Lowland group Total % of lowland group

1952/54 142 2246 2388 94.1

1981 2,795 3762 6557 57.4

1991 3,444 5262 8706 60.4

2001 4,120 7092 11,212 63.3·

Note: Htghland people= people ofhill ori~in; Lowland people= people of plains, Madheshi.

Source: H. Gurung, Social Demography and Expressions, Kathmandu, 1998; CBS (2001 ),

Population Census.

V. 5 MADBESID COMMUNITIES

The 59 castes and ethnic nationalities identified in the census of 2001 are broadly

grouped into Hindu caste hierarchy, Janjatis and Muslims, and their population both

in the twenty Tarai districts and the remaining fifty-five districts is given in Table 5:5.

119

Baisya, Y adav and other Hindu caste groups comprise 44.3 per cent of the Madheshi

population rollowed by Janjatis (27.5 per cent), Muslims (13.2 per cent) and Dalits

(11.9 per cent). Janjatis, Dalits and Muslims are socio-economically more

disadvantaged than population belonging to Hindu castes. Brahmins, Kshatriyas and

Kayasthas are in a minority but are relatively well educated, rich in resources and

more aggressive in politics, governance and in leadership role.

Table 5.5: Population Figures of Various Madheshi Communities.

Community Population in '000 Nepal %of Tarai Remaining Nepal districts districts

Hindu caste hierarchy Brahmin!Kshtriya/Kayastha 215.7 13.3 229.0 3.1 Baisya, Yadav and others 3126.6 168.9 3295.5 44.3 Dalits 874.1 12.7 886.8 11.9

Janjatis 1940.1 106.4 2046.5 27.5 Muslims 935.5 41.7 972.3 13.2 Total 7092 343 7435 100

Source: CBS (2001).

Madheshis are less migratory than the hill people, with an attachment to their

traditional settlements. This reduces their chances of integrating with new socio­

economic environments and with other communities. In general, 95.4. per cent of

Madheshis live in Madhesh; the remaining 4.6 per cent live in hills and mountains. In

contrast, about 18 per cent of the hill people live in Madhesh and they migrate to

other places more easily from their settlements.

V. 6 Use and Management of Resources

Most of the data and information available on natural resources such.as land,

forests, productivity and production, economic activities and general economics are

given at district level. The data available for Madhesh are given in Table 5.6. It is

seen from the table that the Tarai districts have 1.414 million hectares of arable land;

87.3 per cent of the arable land is in Madhesh, and the remaining 12.7 per cent in

hills. Arable land covers 53.5 per cent of Madhesh while only about 16 per cent of

hills in the Tarai districts are cultivated. This unbalanced arable land distribution

could exert more pressure on Madhesh for farmland resources.

120

Table 5.6: Agricultural Land and Forests in Tarai Districts (in '000 hectares)

Area Tarai Madhesh Hill region

Total area 3411 2307 1104

Arable land 1414 1234 180

Forest land 1364 486 878

% of arable land 41.5 53.5 16.3

% of forest land 40.0 21.1 79.5

Source: ISRSC (2004);

Although the irrigation facilities developed during the last one hundred years

or so cover about 62 per cent of the farmland, due to various technical and

management problems only about 46 per cent of the farmland is actually irrigated at

least during the wet season (Shah and Singh 2001: 47). It has been estimated that only

about 22 per cent of the farmland is irrigated during the winter months and just below

5 per cent in the spring. Multiple cropping and commercial crops would require water

throughout the growing season. This· would place a barrier on the economic

development ofMadheshis, whose economic activities are mainly agriculture based.

There is also ·unbalanced forest distribution. Only about 21 per cent of

Madhesh is forested compared to about 80 per cent in the hill areas of the Tarai

districts. Madheshis have very little access to forest resources and, again, a large

chunk of the forests are located in national parks and wildlife reserves.

V. 7 Exclusion of Madhesh

Nepal has become a highly unequal society. There is a strong conceptual debate

around the notion that exclusion, social, economic, political or geographic, has. been

the main cause of inequality in Nepali society. Exclusion results in poverty, unequal .

distribution of resources ~d development initiatives and inability of certain

communities or geographic areas to participate in socio-economic and political

development processes.

Social exclusion is defined as ''the inability of society to keep all groups and

individuals within reach of what we expect as a society and the tendency to push

vulnerable and difficult individuals in the least popular places". Education, skills,

social behaviour, social network and groups, social contact, welfare, health, child

poverty and isolation and vulnerability are the key social exclusion indicators.

121

Children living in poverty may enter a cycle of poor educational achievement,

unmanageable behaviour, unemployment and homelessness.

Economic exclusion would primarily include unemployment, discrimination in

income generation, economic opportunity, social interaction and support services such

as health and drinking water and basic infrastructure. There is a positive relation

between social exclusion and economic exclusion;· illiterate and poor individuals are

even more excluded because their low ability to read and write prevents their

adaptation, professional conversion and social mobility (Lavachi 2001: 3).

Political exclusion inhibits basic citizenship rights and, when done on a large

scale, prevents communities and even geographic areas from participating in the

political arena, which inhibits the democratic process. The key variables are basic

citizenship rights, participation in political life, making public policies, decision­

making process and representation.

V. 7.a GEOGRAPHIC EXCLUSION

In Nepal, there exist strong geographic inequalities in developing basic socio­

economic infrastructure and facilities and providing development opportunities. In

recent yeaci, a few researchers have linked the results of geographic exclusion such as

widespread poverty, inequality in resource distribution, increasing vulnerability and

marginalizing the local inhabitants particularly in the mid-western and far-western

Nepal with the Maoist insurgency (Nayak 1998; Panday 2001; Upreti 2002) ..

Geographic disparity also exists elsewhere in the world, e.g. Sri Lanka,

Ireland, Bhutan. In most of these countries the disparity is between the northern and

the southern parts of the country. The Tarai districts are located in southern Nepal,

where 95.5 per cent of Madheshis (7.435 million) live. Endowment Ranking Index.

values are used to measure geographic disparity in the country.

V. 7.b SOCIAL EXCLUSION

Poverty. The worst poverty prevails in the Tarai districts. About 45 per cent of the

Tarai districts have worst poverty rankings and only 25 per cent are ranked as "best"

compared to 35 per cent districts in the hills and mountains ranked as "best" and 29

per cent ranked as ''worst". The Tarai districts having good access to transportation

and marketing systems are also reported to have rich natural resources endowment

rankings, particularly the cultivated land (Table 5.7).

122

Table 5. 7: Poverty and Natural Resources Ranking Index

(Number of Districts)

~dex Ranking !Group Poverty Ranking !Natural Resources Ranking

rr arai districts iHJM districts ~arai districts iHJM districts

~anking 1-25 !Worst 9 16 p ~5

!Ranking 25-50 !Intermediate 6 ~0 ~ 19

tRanking 51-75 !Best 5 19 17 11

Total 20 ~5 ~0 ~5

Note: HIM districts stands for hill or mountain districts.

Source: Sharma and Shah (2002), ICIMOD (1997).

Ethnicity and poverty appear to have automatic interaction. Rautahat, Siraha,

Mahottari, Dhanusha and Sarlahi districts, where about 78~94 per cent of the

population is Madheshi, are ranked as having the worst poverty cases; the poverty

ranking index ranges from the lowest 4 in Rautahat to 13 in Sarlahi. The poverty level

is reported to be very low in Jhapa, Chitwan and Morang districts where the majority

ofthe people are ofhill origin.

Education. About 90 per cent of the Tarai districts have a large number of

educationally deprived population compared to only about 13 per cent in the hill and

mountain districts (Table 5.8). Siraha, Bardia, Dhanusha, Mahottari, Rautahat and

Sarlahi have the largest number of educationally deprived people. Fifty per cent of the

Tarai districts have worst ranking for child literacy rates compared to 29 per cent in

hill and mountain districts. Rauthat, Sarlahi and Mahotari are the worst in child

literacy index values. Again, 40 per cent of Tarai districts have lower overall literacy

rates compared to 31 per cent in hill districts.

123

Table 5.8: Educationally Deprived Population and Child Literacy Rates

(Number of Districts)

!Educationally deprived

~dex Ranking pro up !Population jehild literacy rates

rrarai districts !HfM districts rrarai districts !HfM districts

!Ranking 1-25 !Worst 18 ~ 10 16

!Ranking 25-50 ~termediate 1 125 r 17

Ranking 51-75 !Best 1 ~3 ~ ~2

tfotal 120 ~5 120 ~5

Note: HIM districts stands for hill or mountain districts.

Source: Sharma and Shah (2002), New ERA, ICIMOD (1997).

V. 7.c ECONOMIC EXCLUSION

There is disparity in per capita budget allocations between the Tarai and hill districts;

ten out of the twenty Tarai districts have worst inde~ values compared to about 17 per

cent of the hill districts. Similarly, more Tarai districts. have lower primary. sector

development compared to hill districts (Table 5.9).

Table 5.9: Per Capita Budget Allocation and Primary Sector Development Index

(Number of Districts)

~Index Ranking. Pro up IPer Capita budget allocation !Primary sector development

rr arai districts HIM districts rrarai districts

!Ranking 1-25 !Worst 10 9 ~ Ranking 25-50 ~termediate ~ 18 8

Ranking51-75 Best ~ 28 ~ Total - ~0 55 120

Note: HIM districts stands for hill or mountain districts.

Source: Sharma and Shah (2002); New ERA, ICIMOD (1997).

HIM districts

16

14

25

~5

The data and information so far available indicate that the Tarai districts

having higher proportion of Madheshi population have much lower socio-economic

index values compared to the districts where hill people predominate. However, there

is no information or data available for comparing hill people and plains people living

in the same district. The hill people generally live in the northern part of the district,

along the highways and in growth centres whereas plains people mostly live in the

124

rural areas with less accessibility to education, health and other development

parameters.

Government and political organizations have been advocating and focusing on

poverty reduction programmes mostly in the hills and mountains, and they have also

been giving an impression to the donors that only the hills and mountains have large

numbers of poor people.

V. 7.d POLITICAL EXCLUSION: ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCIES

The average population per constituency is considerably higher in the Tarai districts

(127,414) than in the mountain districts (73,026) and hill districts (109,081; see

(Table 5.1 0). This reduces the number of parliamentarians representing the Tarai

population where about 96 per cent ofMadheshis reside while it increases the number

of parliamentarians from hills and mountains where 82 per cent of the Pahadis live.

Table 5.10: Political Constituency Delineation

Mountain Hills Tarai ·Total

Districts 16 39 20 75

Population ('000) 4,141 10,398 8,644 23,183

Constituencies 23 94 88 205

Population/Constituency 73,026 109,081 127,414 103,174

Population/Constituency 9,587 to · 67,434to 114,056 to

Range 121,996 154,549 157,349

Source: District Demographic Profile of Nepal, Informal Sector Research & Study Centre, 2002, Kathmandu ..

Exclusion of Madheshis

Fifteen Tarai districts have intermediate to worst poverty situation. Although no

authentic data are available, the general impression is that Madheshis living in

traditional settlements in rural areas have nominal access to social infrastructure and

facilities and the induced economic opportunities are virtually non-existent in their

habitats. Nearly 40 per cent of the Madheshi population consists ofDalits and Janjatis

who are inherently disadvantaged in many social and economic aspects. Again,

poverty is very high among the Muslim population living in rural areas; they have

average low rate of literacy and their socio-economic development voices have

reached nowhere; they account for 13 per cent of the Madheshi population. Until

125

recently, Madheshis were not allowed to work in military service, and even at present

very few people work in the police service.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EXCLUSION

Poverty. The percentage of people living below the poverty line in Nepal is currently

estimated to be 31 per cent. However, about 46 per cent of Dalits, 41 per cent of

Muslims and 33 per cent of Janjati population are below the poverty line (World Bank

· 2005). Together, these three major ethnic groups account for 52.6 per cent of the

Madheshi population. The remaining 47.4 per cent ofMadheshis have a lower poverty

level.

Land Assets. Landlessness is a major problem among Madheshis. About 37 per cent

of Dalit households, 32 per cent of Janjati households, and 41 per cent of Muslim

households are landless. About 79 per cent of Musahars, a Dalit community, do not

own land; they have the lowest literacy rate of 7.3 per cent.

Education. About 79 per cent Dalits, 68 per cent Muslims, 54 per cent Janjatis and 42

per cent mid-caste population are illiterate. Female literacy among Dalits and

Muslims is below 11 per cent. A large chunk of the Madheshi population has been

excluded from basic education.

Employment. Three ethnic groups, namely, Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars have

dominated the civil service. In 1991 these three castes constituted only 36 per cent of

the population but occupied 89.2 per cent of positions in civil service (in 1971 the

figure was 89 per cent), while Madheshis accounted for 32 per cent of the population

but occupied only 8.4 per cent of positions (Table 5.11 ). It is very unlikely that this

trend will change in the near future.

126

Table 5.11: Representation of Different Caste/Ethnic groups in Civil Service

Share in Civil Service Caste/Ethnic Group % ofPopulation (in Per cent)_

in 1991 1971* 1991**

Brahmins 12.9 32.0 41.3 Chhetri and Thakuri 17.6 21.0 14.7 Newar 5.6 36.0 33.2 Tarai (Madheshi) 32.0 7.0 SA HSGs 22.4 4.0 2.4 Others 8.3

Note: HSG stands for hill social groups.

Source: * Pashupati Rana, Nepal's Fourth Plan: A Critique (Yeti Pocket Book, 1971), pp. 18-19. ** D.N. Dhungel, "The Nepalese Administrative System", Contemporary Nepal,

__ ____,, .pp. 122-3.

A similar situation prevails for manpower involved in international

organizations in Nepal (see Table 5.12). About 81 per cent' of the manpower involved

in the thirty multilateral agencies working in Nepal and sixty-one projects funded by

these agencies are Pahadis, 14.1 per cent are foreigners and 5.2 per cent are

· Madheshis,

Table 5.12: Manpower Involved in International Organizations in Nepal,2001

Foreigners Pahadis Madheshis Total International 30 121 (15.8%) 608 (79.2%) 38 (5.0%) 767 (Multilateral) Projects implemented by 61 21 (8.6%) 209 (85.3%} 15(6.1%} 245 Multilateral Agencies Total 91 142 [14.1 %)_ 817{80.7%)_ 53 (5.2o/Cl}_ 1,012

Source: Directory of the United Nations and Its related Specialized Agencies in Nepal, September 2001, UNDP, Kathmandu.

POLITICAL EXCLUSION

In the two houses of Parliament composed after the 1991 elections, Brahmins held

38.1 per cent of the seats and Newars 8.3 per cent, the highest proportion in all four

legislatures which were the products of adult franchise {Table 5.13); in the-election of

1999 Brahmins and Newars held 39.6 per cent and 8.3 per cent seats respectively.

Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars dominated the seats in the combined upper and lower

houses of Parliament, accounting for 65.2 per cent of the st:rats while they represent

only 36 per cent of the population. Madheshis accounted for only 17.4 per cent of the

seats while representing 32.0 per cent of the population.

127

Table 5.13: Representation ofVarious Castes and Ethnic Groups in the National Legislature·

(In per cent)

Caste/Ethnic Groups National Legislature Population

1959 1981* 1991 1999 1991

Brahmins 27.5 13.3 38.1 39.6 12.9

Chhetri/Thakuri 31.2 36.3 18.2 17.3 17.6

Newar 3.7 8.1 8.3 8.3 5.6

Subtotal 62.4 57.7 64.6 65.2 36.1

Madheshi 22.0 18.5 19.6 17.4 32.0

HSGs 15.6 23.0 14.7 14.7 22.4

Others - 0.7 1.2 1.5 8.3

Source: Pashupati Rana, "The Evolution of Nepalese Nationalism", Contemporary Nepal, . 'p. 83.

liDS, The Fourth Parliamentary Election. *Harkha Gurung, "The Sociology of Election in Nepal: 1959-81", Asian Survey, Vol XXII, No. __ , March 1982, p. 313.

The structure of the political parties is mostly centralized and is largely non­

inclusive. Again, the major leaders in any political party are the hill Brahmins and

Chhetris. Although the Nepali Congress and the UML are the major democratic

parties in the country, they have included only a few Madheshis as members in their

Central Committees (Table 5.14); They advocate for proportional representation but

in action they do not it implement it. The representation of Madheshi politicians in

both houses ofParliament is also considerably low (Table 5.15).

Table 5.14: Central Committee Members in Major National Political Parties

Political Party Total Pahadi Madheshi %Madheshi Nepali Congress 38 35 3 7.9 Communist Party of Nepal 69 65 4 5.8 (UML)-Nepali Congress Democratic 30 25 5 16.7 Jan Morcha Nepal 44 43 1 - 2.3

Source: Ahiraj (2006): Madhesh Vani, January 2006.

128

Table 5.15: Number ofMadheshi Members ofParliament in 1999

Lower House Upper House

Total Pahadi Madheshi Total Pahadi Madheshi

Nepali Congress 113 90 23 24 21 3

Communist Party of 69 59 10 20 19 1 Nepal(UML) Rashtriya Prajatantra 11 7 4 5 5 0 Party Nepal Sadbhavana 5 1 4 1 0 1 Part_y Rashtriya Jana 5 5 0 0 0 0 Morcha Nepal Majdoor 1 1 0 0 0 0 Kishan Party United People's Front 1 1 0 0 0 0

King's Nominees 0 0 0 10 9 1

Total 205 164 41 60 54 6

%Madheshi 20.0 11.1 Source: Parliament Secretariat Records, Singha Durbar, Nepal, 1999.

V. 8 INVOLVEMENT IN THE MEDIA

Both the government and private sector media have excluded Madheshis from their

management committees (Table 5.16). The Media seldom raise positively the socio­

economic, development and political issues ofMadhesh and Madheshis.

Table 5.16: Involvement ofMadheshis in Media

Total Pahadi Madheshi %Madheshi A. Government Media: Management Committee Press council 13 10 1 Radio Nepal 5 4 1 GorakhaQ_atra 5 5 0 Nepal Television 5 5 0 Rastriya Samachar Samiti 5 5 0 Subtotal 33 29 2 6.01 B. Non-government Media Nepal Patrakar Federation 24 23 1 Press Chautari 21 21 0 N~al Press Union 12 12 0 Press Group 23 22 1 SAAFNepal 25 25 .· 0

129

Nepal Environment Media 13 15 Group Federation ofNational News 13 12 Media Subtotal 131 128

Source: Ahiraj (2006): Madhesh Vani, January 2006.

V. 9 Representation in State Powers

REPRESENTATION IN CABINET

0

1

3 2.3

Governance after the fall of the Rana regime in 1951 has been mainly in the hands of

Chhetris!fhakuris, Brahmins and Newars. From 1951 until 31 January 2005, the

cabinet was formed sixty-four times. On 1 February 2005, King Gyanendra formed a

cabinet under his chairmanship instead of that of a Prime Minister; two Deputy

Chairmen were appointed in the Cabinet. Seventeen persons have become prime

m~mstersc.du~g ... tbis p~od, until April 2006 (Annex 1 ). This period can be divided ;.:; .. ,...... ..

into the following five sub-periods:

(1) February 1951 to 1959 - Post Rana, King Tribhuvan's and King

Mahendra's Rule.

(2) May1959 to December 1960 - Democratic government of Nepali

Congress.

3) December 1960 to 1990- Panchayat period.

4) 1990 to 2002- Democratic government under constitutional monarchy.

5) 2002 to April 2006 - Government under Article 127 of the 1990

Constitution under the King.

The representation of various caste/ethnic groups in the cabinet during this

period is shown in Table 5.17. It is seen from the table that the hill Brahmins, who

constitute only 12.7 per cent of the population, have dominated in representation in

the Council of Ministers. The next highest group is ofNewars who constitute only 5.5 .

per cent of the population, but occupy 10.1 per cent of ministerial seats; their

participation in governance in relation to the population is represented by a factor of

1.84. This is followed by Chhetri!fhakuri whose proportional share index (PSI} is

1.63, though they constitute the highest per cent in the number of the ministers until

now. When combined, these three castes (Brahmin, Chhetriffhakuri and Newari,

abbreviated as BCN) together were represented by a factor of 1.84 whereas the

130

remaining groups were represented by the factor of 0.54 only. PSI is calculated by

dividing the per cent share of a caste in the cabinet with its per cent share of the

population.

Table 5.17 Representation ofVarious Caste and Ethnic Groups in the Cabinet, 1951 to 2005

Cabinet Percent of Proportional Caste/Ethnic group No. of population in Share Index

Ministers Percent 2001 Brahmin 360 26.8 12.7 2.11 Chhetriffhakuri 378 28.2 17.3 1.63 Newar 136 10.1 5.5 1.84 Brahmin/Chheti!Newar 874 65.2 35.5 1.84 Tarai (Madheshi} 205 15.3 33.0 0.46 HSGs 234 17.4 29.0 0.60 Others 28 2.1 2.5 0.84

467 34.8 64.5 0.54 ,._ T.atai!HSG/Others

·:. "t.:O.. ~ _ .... ~ ............ o~··-k .,.-··

· ·'totfr<-~ · · ·~~ ... 1341 100.0 100.0

Note: For the purpose of analysis the ethnic/caste groups are generally identified mto s1x broad groups, such as Hill Brahmins, Chhetri!fhakuris, Newars, Madheshis, Hill Social Groups (HSGs ethnic and dalits) and the remaining as otherS.

Source: Risal Bharav !Ram ManiRisal. Nepalka Mantriharu (2007 to 206JB.S.). Jestha 2061 B.S.

The BCN combine, which constitutes only 35 per cent of the population, has

had 65 per cent of the ministerial posts. The hill social groups (HSGs), which

constitute 29 per cent of the population, occupy only 17.4 per cent of the ministerial

posts, and their participation in governance in relation to their proportion in the

population is represented by a factor of 0.6 only. Similarly, Madheshis of Tarai who

constitute 3 3 per cent of the population occupy only 15.3 per cent of the ministerial

posts, and their participation in relation to the proportion of their population is the

lowest over the period of fifty-five years, represented by a factor of 0.46 only.

9.a Representation in the King's Government vs. Democratic government. The

King's rule covers the periods 1951 to 1959, 1960 to 1990, and 2002 to April 2006.

Democratic rule covers the periods 1959 to 1960 and 1990 to 2002. Table· 5.18

presents the data of cabinet posts during these periods by population group. It is seen

from the table that the King's rule indicates the dominance of Chhetris/Thakuris and

Newars while the democratic rule indicates the dominance of Brahmins. The

representation of Brahmins in the cabinet during the democratic rule. is 35.6 per cent

while it was only 21.9 per cent during the king's rule, constituting a PSI of 2.80 and

131

1. 72 respectively. On the other hand, the representation of Chhetris!Thakuris in the

cabinet during the king's rule was 30.9 per cent while it is only 23.5 per cent during

the democratic rule, constituting a PSI of 1. 79 and 1.36 respectively.

Table 5.18: Representation ofVarious Castes and Ethnic groups in the Cabinet during the King's Government and Democratic Government Caste/ % of population Ethnic group King's Government Democratic Government in 2001

No. % PSI No. % PSI

Brahmin 187 21.9 1.72 173 35.6 2.80 12.7 Chhetri 264 30.9 1.79 114 23.5 1.36 17.3 Newar 101 11.8 2.15 35 7.2 1.31 5.5 Total 552 64.6 1.82 322 66.3 1.87 35.5 Madheshi 113 13.2 0.40 92 18.9 0.57 33.0 HSG 170 19.9 0.69 64 13.2 0.46 29.0 Others 20 2.3 0.92 8 1.5 0.60 2.5 Total 303 35.4 00 164 33.6 0.52 64.5 Grand Total 855 100 486 100.0 100.0

Source: Risal Bharav !Ram Mani Risal. Nepalka Mantriharu (2007 to 2061B.S.). Jestha 2061 B.S.

The Newars, who constituted only 5.5 per cent of the population, occupied

11.8 per cent of ministerial posts during the king's rule, thus constituting the highest

PSI of2.15 compared to only 7.2 per cent during the democratic rule, constituting the

lowest PSI of 1.31 among the BCN combine. The dominance of the BCN trinity

increased during the democratic rule (their PSI being 1.87) than during the king's rule

(PSI of 1.82). The representation ofMadheshis during the king's rule was less than in

the democratic rule, while the representation of HSGs was reverse, i.e. more during

the king's rule than during the democratic rule. Overall; the democratic rule has

favoured the representation of Brahmins and Madheshis in contrast to the king's rule

which had favoured Chhetris!Thakuris, Newars and HSGs.

9.b Ministerial posts. There are three kinds of ministerial posts: Minister, State

Minister, and Assistant Minister. Generally, ministers and state ministers are assigned

a full portfolio or more than one ministry; the assistant ministers are there to assist

them. Table 5.19 presents details of this breakdown by population groups. It is seen

from the table that Madheshis and HSGs combined accounted for only 47 per cent as

ministers and state ministers during the Panchayat period as compared to 77.6 per cent

during the democratic regime. Conversely, assistant ministers accounted for 53 per

cent during the Panchayat rule as compared to only 22.4 per cent during the

democratic regime. Thus, Madheshis and HSGs combined were discriminated against·

132

not only in terms of their representation in quantitative terms but also in terms of

portfolio assignment. Naturally, they played a limited role at the policymaking level

in the cabinet.

Table 5.19. Representation in terms ofMinisterial Levels

Type of Panchayat Regime Democratic Regime Minister

Madheshi HSGs M&HSGs Madheshi HSGs M&HSGs No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Ministers 33 38.8 31 19.4 64 26.1 42 50.0 30 55.6 72 52.2 State 20 23.5 31 19.4 51 20.8 20 23.8 15 27.8 35 25.4 Ministers Assist. 32 37.6 98 61.2 130 53.1 22 26.2 9 16.6 31 22.4 Ministers Total 85 100.0 160 100.0 245 100.0 84 100.0 54 100.0 138 100.0

Source: Rzsal Bharav /Ram Mani Rzsal. Nepalka Mantriharu (2007 to 2061B.S.). Jestha 2061 B.S.

As between Madheshis and HSGs, the percentage of ministers and state

ministers from Madheshis constituted 62.3 per cent while HSGs accounted for only·

38.8 per cent during the Panchayat .rule. Conversely, the proportion of assistant

ministers from among Madheshis constituted 37.6 per cent while the HSGs accounted

for 61.2 per cent during the Panchayat rule. Thus, while HSGs seem to have received

favour in greater n~ber during the Panchayat time, their access to authority or power

was low. On the other hand, during the democratic regime, greater number of people

from HSGs were assigned the full portfolio of ministries while their participation in

terrils of number is lesser than that in the Panchayat period.

Generally, Finance and Home ministries are considered powerful ministries.

During the whole period from 1951 to 2005, no one so far has been appointed Finance

Minister either from among Madheshis or from HSGs; only one Madheshi

(Vedananda Jha) and two from among HSGs (Padma Sunder Lawati and Budhiman

Tamang) were appointed Home Ministers.

9;c Finance Minister. The Finance Minister plays a very important role in major

resource allocation; his is a powerful post. Twenty-five individuals became Finance

Ministers thirty-eight times. Sixteen of the thirty-eight posts were held by Brahmins;

15 were Chhetris and 7 were Newars; no Madheshi or HSG has ever held this post.

(Table 5.20). In terms of PSI, Newars have been dominant, though during the

democratic period there was no representation ofNewars as Minister of Finance.

133

Table 5.20: Representation from Various Population Groups as Finance Minister, 1951 to 2005

%of

King's Government Democratic Government Total (1951- pop.

cc 2006) In 2001

No. % PSI No. % PSI No. %

Brahmin 7 29.2 2.30 9 64.3 5.06 16 42.1 12.7 Chhetri 11 45.8 2.65 5 35.7 2.06 16 42.1 17.3 Newar 6 25.0 4.55 0 0.0 0.0 6 15.8 5.5 Total 24 100.0 2.82 14 100.0 2.82 38 100.0 35.5 Madheshi 0 0,0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 33.0 HSG 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 29.0 Others 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 2.5 Total 0 0.0 00 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 64.5 G. Total 24 100.0 14 100.0 38 100.0 100.0

Proport ional Share Index

3.31 2.43 2.87 2.82 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: Risal Bharav /RamMani Risal. Nepalka Mantriharu (2007 to 2061RS.). Jestha, 2061

B.S.

9.d Home Minister. Over the period between 1951 and 2006 there were 52 Home

Ministers. Of these, 19 were Brahmins, 23 were Chhetris, 7 were Newars, 1 Madheshi

and 2 from among HSGs (see Table 5.21). During the democratic government there

was no representation from Newar and Madheshi communities. In terms of PSI,

Brahmins have ·been dominant. There was the highest representation from Chhetris

during the King's government but Brahmins have dominated in representation during

the democratic government.

134

Table 5.2LRepresentation of Various Castes and Ethnic Groups as Home Minister during the

Periods from 1951 to 2006

Total Caste/ King's Democratic (1951- %of

Proportional Ethnic Government Government 2006) pop. In

Share Index group

No. % PSI No. % PSI No. % 2001

Brahmin 11 29.0 2.28 8 57.2 4.50 19 36.5 12.7 2.87 Chhetri 18 47.4 2.74 5 35.7 2.06 23 44.2 17.3 2.55 Newar 7 18.4 3.35 0 0.0 0.0 7 13.5 5.5 2.45 Total 36 94.8 2.67 13 92.9 2.62 49 94.2 35.5 2.65 Madheshi 1 2.6 0.79 0 0.0 0.0 1 1.9 33.0 0.06 HSG 1 2.6 0.90 1 7.1 0.25 2 3.8 29.0 0.13 Others 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Total 2 5.2 0.08 0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 64.5 0.0 Grand

38 100.0 14 100.0 52 100.0 100.0 Total .

Source: Risal Bharav /Ram Mani Risal. Nepalka Mantriharu (2007 to 2061B.S.). Jestha, 2061 B.S. .

Representation in the .Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was

established in 1957 (B.S. 2013) with 24 members under the chairmanship of Prime

Minister Tanka Prasad Acharya. This acted mostly as an advisory body to the

government. In 1958 the Planning Council was established under the chairmanship of

Prince Himalaya Bir Bikram Shah Deva. In 1969, during the parliamentary

government of B.P. Koirala, a high-level Planning Board was formed under the

chairmanship of the Prime Minister. After the dissolution of the parliamentary

government by King Mahendra in 1961, the king reformulated the Planning Board

into the National Planning Commission under his own chairmanship. In 1963, the

king handed over the chairmanship of the commission to the chairman of the Council

of Ministers, De Tulsi Giri, and, subsequently in 1969, the Prime Minister assumed

the chairmanship. Since then NPC has always been chaired by the Prime Minister.

Table 5.22 presents the representation of the various castes and ethnic groups in the

NPC as members during the king's government, including the Panchayat period, arid

the democratic period.after 1990.

Table 5.22: Representation of Various Population Groups as Members in NPC, 1958-2005

Caste/ King's Democratic Total (1958- %of Proportion

Ethnic Government Government 2005) pop. In al Share

group No. % PSI No. % PSI No. % 2001 Index

Brahmin 30 28.6 2.25 43 53.7 4.23 73 39.5 12.7 3.11 Chhetri 24 22.8 1.32 11 13;8 0.80 35 18.9 17.3 1.09 Newar 36 34.3 6.24 20 25.0 4.55 56 30.3 5.5 5.51

135

Total 90 85.7 2.41 74 92.5 2.61 164 88.7 35.5 2.50 Tarai 8 7.6 0.23 6 7.5 0.23 14 7.6 33.0 0.23 HSG 5 4.8 OJ7 0 0.0 0.0 5 2.7 29.0 0.09 Others 2 1.9 0.76 0 0.0 0.0 2 1.0 2.5 0.04 Total 15 14.3 0.22 6 7.5 0.12 21 11.3 64.5 0.18 Grand

105 100.0 80 100.0 185 100.0 100.0 Total

Source: NPC, HMG; Short description of the organization of National Planning Commission, Singha Darbar 2040 B.S.

It is seen from Table 5.22 that over the period 1958 to 2005 there were 185

members, including Chairmen and Member Secretaries, in the NPC. Overall, the BCN

combine dominated, constituting altogether 88.7 per cent while Madheshis from

Tarai, HSGs from the hills and mountains and others together represented only 11.3

per cent of the members. The PSI ofBCNs is 2.5; that of the remaining groups is only

0.18. In the BCN group, the PSI ofNewars is the highest (5.5),followed by Brahmins

with 3.1 and Chhetris with 1.1. The PSI of Madheshis is 0.23 followed by HSGs with

.09 only. There was even higher representation of the BCN group during the

democratic period.

9.f Prime Minister and Chairman of the NPC. From 1951 until the present, there have

been 35 prime ministers, some of them having multiple terms. Among them, 14 were

Brahmin, 19 were Chhetris and 2 were Newars. No Madheshi or from the HSGs has

become prime minister so far. During the king's government Chhetris dominated

while the democratic governments were dominated by Brahmins.

9.g Vice-Chairman of NPC. Of the 22 Vice-Chairmen, Brahmins, Chhetris and

Newars accounted for 21 Vice-Chairmen; only one Vice-Chairman (Dr. Harka

Gurung) represented HSGs during the King's rule. The PSI of Newars is the highest

(6.62) while Brahmins and Chhetris had PSI of 2.15 and 1.84 respectively. The

majority of the population other than BCN had PSI of only 0.07 (Table 5.23).

Table 5.23: Representation of Various Population Groups in the NPC as Vice­Chairman, 1958-2006

Caste/ Total · %of

Ethnic King's Democratic (1958- popula Proportional Government Government 2006 tion in Share Index group No; % PSI No. % PSI No. % 2001

Brahmin 3 27.3 2.15 3 27.3 2.15 6 27.3 12.7 2.15 Chhetri 4 36.4 2.10 3 27.3 1.58 7 31.8 17.3 1.84 Newar 3 27.3 4.96 5 45.4 8.25 8 36.4 5.5 6~62

136

Total 10 91.0 2.56 11 100.0 2.82 21 95.5 35.5 2.69 Madheshi 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 33.0 0.0 HSG 1 9.0 0.31 0 0.0 0.0 1 4.5 29.0 0.16 Others 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Total 1 9.0 0.14 0 0.0 0.0 1 4.5 64.5 0.07 Grand

11 100.0 11 100.0 22 100.0 100.0 Total

Source: NPC, HMG; Short description of the organization of National Planning Commission, Singha Darbar 2040 B.S.

9.h Female Representation in the Cabinet. Of a total of 1302 ministers there have

been only 25 women ministers (See Annex 8 for names); in terms of reappointed

ministers, there were 44 ministers over this period. Among them 20 were Brahmins,

15 were Chhetris, 3 were Newars, 1 Madheshi and 5 from among HSGs. There was

higher representation from Chhetris in the Icing's government and greater number of

Brahmins during the democratic period. Madheshis and HSGs were not represented in

the democratic governments. While women's representation in the cabinet overall is

extremely low, i.e. only 3.3 per cent, ofthem 80.6 per cent is represented by Brahmin

and Chhetri women who constitute only 30 per cent of the population and the rest

19.4 per cent is represented by Newars, Madheshis, HSGs and others, who constitute

70 per cent of the population. No woman has so far been Prime Minister, Finance

Minister, Home Minister, Vice-Chairman of the National Planning Commission

(NPC), Chief Secretary, Governor of Central Bank, and Finance Secretary as yet.

However, in the recent years, two women professionals have been appointed as

members of the NPC.

137

Table 5.24: Representation ofWomen in Cabinet by Population Groups during 1951-2005

Caste/ King's Democratic Total (1951- %of Pro portio-

Ethnic Government Government 2006)) popula nal Share tion in Index

group No. % PSI No. % PSI No. % 2001 (PSI)

Brahmin 4 16.0 1.26 16 84.2 6.63 20 45.5 12.7 3.66 Chhetri 13 52.0 3.00 2 10.5 0.61 15 34.1 17.3 1.97 Newar 2 8.0 1.45 1 5.3 0.96 3 6.8 5.5 1.24 Total 19 76.0 . 2.14 19 100.0 2.82 38 86.4 35.5 2.43 Madhesh

1 4.0 0.12 0 0.0 0.0 1 2.3 33;0 0.07 1

HSG 5 20.0 0.69 0 0.0 0.0 5 11.3 29.0 0.39 Others 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Total 6 24.0 0.37 0 0.0 0.0 6 13.6 64.5 0.21 G. Total 25 100.0 19 100.0 44 100.0 100.0 . .

Source: Risal Bharav/Ram Mam Risal. Nepalka Mantriharu (2007 to 2061B.S.). Jestha 2061 RS .

REPRESENTATION IN CML SERVICES AND JUDICIARY

9.i Chief Secretary. The highest position for a civil servant is as Chief Secretary. The

practice of appointing a Chief Secretary started in 1967. Kul Shekhar Sharma, then

Cabinet Secretary, was appointed as the first Chief Secretary. There were three

Cabinet Secretaries before him-the first being Sardar Sri Gunjaman Singh in 1951.

Including these three Cabinet Secretaries there have so far been 19 Chief Secretaries

from 1951 to 2006 (see Annex 6). Table 5.25 presents the representation of various

castes and ethnic groups as Chief Secretary during this period. It is seen from the table

that only Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars have been Chief Secretary. Newars have a

PSI of7.65 while the Brahmins and Chhetris have PSI around 2.

Table 5.25. Representation ofVarious Population Groups as Chief Secretary, 1961-2006 Caste/Ethnic King's Democratic Total (1961- % of Proportional group Government Government 2006 pop. In Share Index

No. % No. % No. % 1991

Brahmin 2 16.7 3 42.9 5 26.3 12.7 2.07 Chhetri 6 50.0 0 0.0 6 31.6 17.3 1.83 Newar 4 33.3 4 57.1 8 42.1 5.5 7.65 Total 12 100.0 7 100.0 19 100.0 35.5 2.82 Tarai 0 0;0 0 0 0 0.0 33.0 0.0 HSG 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 29.0 0.0 Others 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Total 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 64.5 0.0 Grand Total 12 100.0 7 100.0 19. 100.0 100.0

Source: Nepal Human Development Index 2004, Annex Table No. 13.

138

9j Finance Secretary. The Finance Secretary controls the national purse and deals

with fiscal as well as monetary policies. He represents the government in negotiating

financial matters with donors and also represents the government in policymaking

meetings of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund ·and Asian Development

Bank. It is seen from Table 5.26, which presents the incumbency of Finance

Secretaries by population groups, that only Brahmin, Chhetri and Newar have been

Finance Secretaries. Newar has dominated, with a PSI of 6.42 while the Brahmin and

Chhetri have PSI of3.24 and 1.36 respectively.

Table 5.26: Representation ofVarious Population Groups as Finance Secretary, 1851-2005 Caste/Ethnic group King's Democratic Total (1951- % of Proportion

Government Government 2005) pop. al Share No. % No. % No. % In Index

1991 Brahmin 3' 25.0 4 80.0 7 41.2. 12.7 3.24 Chhetri 4 33.3 0 0.0 4 23.5 17.3 1.36 Newar 5 41.7 1 20.0 6 35.3 5.5 6.42 Total 12 100.0 5 100.0 17 100.0 35.5 2~82 Tarai 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 33.0 0.0 HSG 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 29.0 0.0 Others 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Total 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 64.5 0.0 G. Total 12 100.0 5 100.0 17 100.0 100.0

Source: Nepal Human Development Index 2004, Annex Table No. 13.

9.k Governor of Central Bank. The Central Bank was established in 1956 (on Falgun

26, 2012 B.S). There have been 13 Governors from 1956 to 2005 (Annex 5). Table

5.27 presents the representation of various population groups as Governor of Nepal

Rastra Bank. It is seen from the table that Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars have

dominated this post, with Brahmins having a PSI of 3.03 while Newars and Chhetris

have PSI of 2.80 and 2.22 respectively. Only one Madheshi (Hari Shankar Tripathi)

became Governor.

139

Table 5.27: Representation ofVarious Population Groups as Governor at Central Bank, 1956 to 2005

1956 to 2005 Caste/Ethnic group

No. % % of population in 2001 Proportional Share Index

Brahmin 5 38.45 12.7 3.03 Chhetri 5 38.45 17.3 2.22 Newar 2 15.40 5.5 2.80 Total 12 92.30 35.5 2.60 Tarai 1 7.70 33.0 0.23 HSG 0 0.0 29.0 0.0 Others 0 0.0 2.5 0,0 Total 1 0.0 64.5 0.0 Grand Total 13 100.0 100.0

Source: Nepal Human Development Index 2004, Annex Table No. 13.

Employment in Higher Posts. The Pahadis, particularly the Brahmins and Chhetris,

control most of the positions of power and influence the government and other

governing institutions (see Table 5.28).

Table 5.28: Madheshi Representation in Cabinet, Constitutional Bodies and High Official Posts Post and Organization Posts 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 Constitutional bodies 19 17 2 10.5 National Human Rights Commission 5 4 1 20.0 National Planning Commission 6 5 1 16.7

Ambassadors/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 2 2 0 0 Nepal Academy Chief of Security forces 3 3 0 0 Dept. heads ofHMG' 47 43 4 8.5 Chief of Govt. Cotporations and 56 52 4 7.1 Committees Chief of Govt. Information and 4 4 0 0 Communication agencies Heads of Parliamentary bodies & 15 12 3 20.0 committees

.. .. Note: Number ofMlillsters IS for the GinJa Prasad Kmrala cabmet in 2001; all other data are for the period prior to October 2002.

140

Judiciary. Just over 8 per cent of the judges are Madheshis; the remaining 92 per cent

are Pahadis (Table 5.29). Participation of Madheshi judges at the Appeal Court is

about 13.0 per cent and 6.1 per cent in the district courts. The lower number of judges

could probably be due to discrimination of Madheshis to enter into the judiciary and

low number oflaw graduates from among Madheshis.

Table 5.29: Manpower Distribution in the Judiciary, 2001

Type of Judiciary Pahadi Madheshi Total %Madheshi Chief Justice and Supreme Court 17 3 20 10.0 Justices Chief Justices of Appeal Court 14 2 16 16.7 Judges of Appeal Court 55 2 55 12.3 Judges ofDistrict Court 123 8 131 6.1 First class officers in judicial services 18 0 18 0 Total 233 21 (8.3%) 254

(91.7%)

It is seen from the foregoing data that HSGs, who constitute 29 per cent of the

population, have occupied only . 17.4 per cent of ministerial posts, and their

participation in governance in relation to their proportion of the population is

represented by a factor of 0.6 only. Similarly, Madheshis, who constitute 33 per cent

of the population, have occupied only 15.3 per cent of ministerial posts, and their

participation in relation to their proportion of the population has been the lowest over

the period of 55 years, represented by a factor of 0.46 only. Women's representation

in the cabinet has also been extremely low-only 3.3 per cent. Even among them

Brahmin and Chhetri women have dominated, with 80 per cent of representation.

Similar has been the scene as regards the post of Vice-Chairman of NPC or highest

ranking administrators such as Chief Secretary, Governor of the central bank and

Finance Secretary.

The conclusion of this analysis is that during the post-Rana period there has

been centralization of power largely within three caste/ethnic groups, namely, hill

Brahmins, Chhetris, and Newars who constitute only 35 per cent of the population.

Madheshis, HSGs and others, who constitute 65 per cent of the population, have

largely been left out. The adverse effects of unequal opportunities and political power

on development are all the more damaging because the economic, social and political

inequalities are reproduced time and again across generations, creating the so-called

inequity traps. Highly skewed power structures tend to protect the interests of

141

politically influential and specific privileged castes or ethnic groups, often to the

detriment of the majority. This makes society as a whole more inefficient since the

excluded groups are not able to optimize their energy, talent and potential.

V. 10 Emerging Issues ofMadheshis

Undoubtedly, there are affluent castes among Madheshis such as Brahmins,

Kshatriyas and Kayasths, but they are just 3.1 per cent of the Madheshi population.

The majority of the population belonging to Dalits, Janjati, Muslims and other caste

groups living in rural areas are facing acute hardships. Poor investment, unplanned

management of already deteriorating land resources, poor socio-economic

infrastructure and facilities and lack of socio-economic planning have adversely

affected the majority of Madheshis. The major emerging social, economic and

political issues which need immediate to short-term actions as regards Madheshis are

briefly described below.

SOCIAL ISSUES

1 O.a Identity and Recognition. Most Madheshis are losing their identity since they are

treated as "lesser Nepali" or "non-Nepali" by Pahadi people. A leading reason for this

is their socio-cultural, linguistic and physical affinity with the communities living

immediately on the other side of the border in India, which historically was once a

part of Madhesh. Culture, tradition, practices and language have always had greater

influence on one's identity. A Nepali- or hill language-speaking person from

Datjeeling or Sikkim, who has been living there for generations, is readily accepted in

Nepal as a Nepali, and enjoys all the socio-political benefits; whereas a Madheshi

who does not speak Nepali or any other hill language and who does not follow hill

tradition and practices is not easily accepted.

10.b Solidarity. The Madheshis' socio-economic issues are not receiving national

attention due to internal divisions among Madheshis themselves, Independent

commissions on the issues of Janjatis, Dalits and women have been formed by the

government, completely ignoring the issue of Madheshis. This has created further -

divisions among Madheshis by segregating Janjatis and Dalits of Tarai and lumping

them with Janjatis and Dalits of the hills and mountains, thus weakening the common

voice of Madheshis for advocating their cause. Janjatis and Dalits together constitute

142

/

26 per cent of the Tarai population. The Tarai and Inner Tarai J anjatis constitute about

25 per cent of the Janjatis. Similarly, the Tarai and Inner Tarai Dalits constitute 35.5

per cent of the Dalits. It is very likely that they will be overshadowed by the dominant

hill Janjatis and Dalits and their problems may not get fully addressed. For instance,

Tharus belong to the Adibasi/Janjati group and are fighting for liberation from bonded

labour system and land for the landless, while the hill Janjatis are taking up a

movement on the question of language and culture as their priority areas. Moreover,

recently Tharus have started asserting their demand for recognition of their separate

identity basically as Tharus, who claim to be completely different from Madheshis. In

fact, they had recently launched a violent movement which was called off only when

the government finally agreed to amend the Constitution to recognize their demand

for their separate ethnic identity. Similarly, within Dalits there is a hierarchy of upper

and lower castes: even the hill Dalits consider themselves superior to Tarai Dalits.

Madheshis are also divided along the lines of different political parties. The

Madheshi population is also composed of more than sixty ethnic and caste groups

with tremendous variations in language and culture. The only common factor among

them is their non-hill origin. They indigenously belong to Tarai with great similarity

in. culture and language to the people of the Indo-Gangetic plains adjoining the

Nepalese border. It is suggested that all Madheshis, whether Adibasis/Janjatis, Dalits,

Muslims or other castes, should unite to find a common ground to solve their common

problems together rather than seek separate identities and be inward-looking within

their narrow caste boundary or group.

lO.c Illiteracy and Poor Skills. There is mass illiteracy among the Dalits, Janjatis,

Muslims, and the other caste people living in the villages ofTarai. Female education

is vi~ally non-existent among many communities living outside the urban canters.

The traditional society haS: changed very little in the last fifty years or so and due to

the non-migratory nature they h~ve little interaction with other communities. Again,

the level and quality of secondary or higher secondary education in Madhesh is quite

inferior compared to education in hill areas. Consequently, Madheshis generally fail

to compete with Pahadi people.

lO.d Poverty and Vulnerability. There is widespread poverty (in 45 per cent of

Madhesh districts) among Madheshi communities, particularly Dalits, Muslims,

143

Janjatis and other caste people living in traditional settlements who are nearly

landless. They lack resources for economic production. The lack of food security has

many widespread effects influencing their health and nutritional standards as well as

child education. It also forces them to have less concern for the environment. Poverty

and illiteracy increase vulnerability and in a vulnerable society democratic values and

democratization have very little meaning.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

lO.e Unemployment and Under-employment. In the absence of off-farm economic

opportunities in villages, most Nepalis are underemployed. In recent years,

uneducated youngsters have temporarily migrated to India for economic

opportunities. This has caused imbalance with regard to labour supply for farming in

many parts of Madhesh. Again, educated Madheshis face discrimination in getting

employment in government, non-governmental organizations, international non­

governmental organizations or international organizations working in Nepal primarily

due to the exclusion behaviour of these· institutions towards Madheshis. This is a

serious issue to tackle.

lO.f Weak Social Organizations and Support Services. In the past two decades, social

institutions advocating and working on social, economic and political development of

Madhesh have been formed by Madheshi communities. Such entities are of varied

nature and are based on castes and ethnicity, language, research and studies, human

rights and advocacy, political rights, and socio-economic works. They find it hard to

get financial and working support from the state · as well as from the donor

communities. In general, most of these organizations are committed to the cause of

Madheshis, but lack of coordination among them, absence of a unified vision, divided

opinions, and unfocused objectives have stunted their competence.

Again, the government support services are dwindling and have not yet

reached many villages where most of the households are of Madheshis. Most project

implementers at the district level are of hill origin and tend to implement their

programmes in areas dominated by hill people for various reasons such as good

communication, high level of programme adaptation, and so on.

lO.g Low Level of Investment and Lack of Economic Opportunity. Although the

government collects most of its revenue from Madhesh, there is very little investment

144

in rural areas where the majority of Madheshis live. Most industries are located in

urban centres and they cannot help the local rural people much. Again, the agro-based

industries established in Madhesh are not tied up with agricultural farming; they

import raw materials from other countries which could be technically produced in

Madhesh.

The issue of renovation and reconstruction of the Hulaki Road has been raised

on many occasions. This road was constructed in the early twentieth century, which

connects the inner part of Madhesh from Jhapa in the east to Kanchanpur in the west.

POLIDCAL ISSUES

lO.h Basic Citizenship Rights. Citizenship provides a person with his identity with a

nation and grants him access to services and power. "It is a symbol of legitimacy for

people living within their national boundaries. Citizenship is a bond between the

individuals and the government of a nation and, therefore, important.in the. process of

national integration" (Gaige 1975: 87).

A very large section of Madheshi population is without citizenship certificate.

This is an issue of the greatest concern to Madheshis. People of the nationally

dominant hill culture and people of the regionally important plains culture have

continuously lived in suspicion of each other. Citizenship legislation framed by

representatives of the nationally dominant hill culture during the 1960s reflects this

suspicion, for it makes the acquisition of citizenship more difficult for people of

plains origin living in the Tarai. Citizenship legislation framed after the restoration of

democracy in 1990 is not much different.

The citizenship legislation of the early 1950s was non-discriminatory.

However, the citizenship legislation of the 1960s was formulated in a very different

atmosphere. This was after the royal coup and political leaders of the Nepali Congress

party were in exile who had initiated underground activities from the Tarai and border

areas of India; which posed a threat to the royal government. This resulted in

formulating a discriminatory legislation for acquiring citizenship, particularly for the

plains people of Tarai. The requirement of speaking and writing Nepali was inserted

in the Act. Madheshis ofTarai, who had settled in Nepal for several generations, were

denied citizenship on this account.

145

Citizenship is required for acquiring land, including agricultural land. Most

farmers in Tarai are tenants and landless, and they must produce their citizenship

certificate for buying land or for getting registered in their names the title of the land

which they were already tilling. Even when there is a government policy for

addressing the issue of exclusion, the majority of the poor people without citizenship

are likely to be excluded from acquiring property and from the services provided by

the government. The landless people of the Tarai have failed to qualify for

landownership since they lack citizenship certificate. The number of people in Tarai

without citizenship certificate is 3.4 million.

Denial of citizenship also means no right to get a job in government offices,

corporations or even private companies, and legal hindrance in getting government

support ·or loan from banks. Many Madheshis have lost their right to vote on this

account; they cannot participate in political activities even at the village level. The

persons at district level authorized to give citizenship certificates are mostly high­

caste or affluent hill people and usually show negative tendencies while granting

citizenship.

lO.i Demarcation of Madhesh Districts. The current demarcation of Tarai districts

does not follow any scientific, ecological or social basis. A new logical demarcation

needs to be done, which would include only Outer and Vitri Madhesh for efficient

socio-economic planning for its holistic development. This would increase the

participation ofMadheshis in the decision-making process.

lO.j Participation in.the Political Arena. Low level of participation in policy- and

decision-making bodies of political parties such as central committees and lack of

proportional representation in Parliament are some other emerging issues. The

political parties have so far ignored the emerging issues of Madhesh and Madheshis

and their under-representation stymies advocacy for betterment.

lO.k Census Mechanism. Many believe that the results of the past censuses are

inaccurate, especially where the Madhesh population is concerned. Some sample

surveys done in Madhesh indicate much higher Madheshi population than shown in

the last census.

146

V .11 Migration of People in Madhesh and"Pahadiazation" of the Tarai. First,

Madhesh is already overcrowded and the resources are dwindling. The issue of

discouraging people from migrating permanently from the hills and from the

adjoining areas in India to Madhesh has very often been raised. Secondly, the

government's "Pahadiazation of the Tarai" policy {Frederick Gaige in Regionalism

,and National Unity in Nepal has used the term "Nepalization of the Tarai") is

promoting migration from the hills to Tarai and diluting the proportion of Madheshis

in the region. Since hill Brahmins and Chhetris are relatively well educated and tend

to be more aggressive in economic, social and political matters, they are able to get

hold of local leadership quickly. Also, the high-caste hill migrants tend to have better

access and support of the local administration due to their common cultural

background with government officials.

Gaige in his study, conducted in the early 1970s in three districts {Jhapa,

Kapilvastu and Kailali), found that

the hill Brahmins and Chhetris represented by far the largest percentage of migrants who alone acquired 50 per cent of the land acquired in all by all the migrants in Jhapa, 75 per cent in Kapilvastu and 48 per cent in Kailali. The large-scale migration into Jhapa and Kailai districts will eventually put much of the land of these two · heavily forested districts into the hands of hill Brahmins and Chhetris. The government is reinforcing this trend by putting most, if not all, of the land confiscated through the land reform programme into. the hands of settlers from the hills. (Gaige 1975: 81)

Gaige also pointed out the government's contradictory policies in respect of the

protection of forest in Tarai and "Pahadization" of the Tarai through settlers from hills

in the forest. He pointed out that

despite the occasional effort to force hill settlers out of the forest, the government is not likely to object as strenuously to this settlement pattern as it would if the forest areas were being settled by plains people, whom government officials suspect of being migrants from fudia. (ibid.: 82) ·

While a large number of settlers from the hills have permanently settled in the Tarai

forest area by deforesting and converting forest land into agricultural land, plains

people have lost their traditional right to use these forests. With the introduction of

community forestry in the area, those hill settlers have totally taken over forest areas

through their comillunity forest users groups and denied the plains people their

traditional rights of access and use. There has been a continuous process of

disempowerment of Madheshis from the resources that they had used for many

147

generations. Thus, with the introduction of community forestry (which is suitable and ' .

applicable mainly for the hills) in Tarai, Madheshis have systematically been

disempowered of their traditional right to use forest resources.

Gaige predicted that "most of the four far-western Tarai districts, half or more

of Sunsari and Morang districts, and most of Jhapa in the far-eastern Tarai, the

northern third of Parsa, Bara, Rautahat, Sarlahi and the three mid-western Tarai

districts will be settled predominantly by hill people." He also pointed out that

the eradication of malaria has been a far more important stimulus to settlement of hill people in the Tarai than the resettlement projects. To what extent is the Tarai being "Nepalised" ["Pahadised'1 through the migration process? In another generation or two, when most of the remaining forests shall be cut down, one will be able to draw a line east and west across a map of Tarai, separating fairly clearly the settlement area of the hill people and the plains people. The line will follow closely the southern fringe of the forest as it stood at the time of the 1951 revolution. (ibid.: 85)

V.12 Internal Colonization ofTarai. Following the annexation ofTarai to the Gorkha

kingdom, the polity, economy and the land were under the control of the Shah kings,

who deprived Madheshis of every kind of right and pushed them into virtual slavery.

Tarai lands were granted as Jagir to loyal military commanders, governors, the upper

echelons and ex-officers of the government, with the agricultural produce thereof ·

being considered as salaries to the royal grantees (Stiller 1975: 8).

Unification and amalgamation of the lesser states and principalities in the hills

and mountain regions of Nepal and the continued expansion of Nepal necessitated

growth in the military structure of the Shah king. Simultaneously, there was an

increased demand for lands which was required by the system to satisfy its

burgeoning needs. Therefore, the solution lay in requisitioning the large stretches of

very fertile land in the Tarai, both cultivated and fallow, and awarding them to the

military commanders and principal government officials as Jagirs. This was a crucial

reason for the Nepalis to opt for war with the East India Company when there was a

border dispute because the Tarai lands not only provided excess wealth to Nepali

aristocrats but also sustained the total costs of the central government (ibid.).

In this system, the commanders and the .officials were the vital link between

the ·Centralized authority of the government in Kathmandu and the respective

administrative headquarters of the provinces. These loyal elites who were holding the

nation together were being paid from the Tarai lands for their services and allegiance.

148

Therefore, losing the Tarai to the British in India meant shredding the fabric of the

newly unified Nepal (ibid.).

The J agirdars leased their Mouza lands to the local people for cultivation.

These Madheshi tenant farmers and land labourers had to offer half of the crop yield

to the Jagirdar. The traditional tax on government lands and the rent for tenure on

Birta and Jagir lands constituted virtually half the crop yields. The Jagirdars could

sack the tenants any time if they felt that the income from the land was low. Much of

the lands were given to Bhardars or royal retainers as Birtas (spoils of valour; Birta

was a tax-free holding (ibid.: 18).

Zarnindari land grants and government posts in the Tarai were given to three

preferentially ordered categories of favoured groups, in the following order: hill folks;

"those who are settled in our territory with their family members"; those ''who are

rich, faithful to the system and of respectable ancestry ... " Only where such

candidates were not available would "Indians" be appointed. An Indian was defined

as a person of the plains living in Tarai without his family, i.e., temporarily. It is

likely that this distinction was made soon after Prithvi Narayan Shah conquered the

Tarai because it was necessary to establish certain criteria for recruiting people into

the local administrative services. Since the recently arrived hill people were given

preference over plainspeople settled in the lowland Tarai, the latter were relegated to

second-class status (Gaige 1975: 88).

Between the 1890s and 1930~, the Ranas encouraged the settlement of the hill

people in mid.:.western Tarai as well. The people originating from the Indo-Gangetic

plains were encouraged to settle down in the Tarai for agricultural works and logging

to increase government revenue. Settlers moved in large numbers to forested areas,

encouraged by the promises of landownership and low tax rates. But after the settlers

cleared the forests and turned them into cultivable lands, the Ranas confiscated the

lands to lease out to tenants for income and revenue, who named these lands as

Raikar. Thus, the Madheshis were rendered slaves in their own homeland.

V.12.a Treatment of Madheshis as Second-class Citizens. It has been established that

there has always been a hill-culture-oriented definition of Nepali nationality and

nationalism. Before 1951 - the year 1950 being the watershed year of the first

democratic movement in modem Nepal, one's nationality appeared to have been

149

determined on linguistic basis. By this yardstick, the original people of the plains

were considered quasi-foreigners.

Therefore, both the Tarai and Indian people were required to obtain travel

documents at the border town of Birgunj in Nepal before proceeding to Kathmandu.

The travel documents were verified at Chisapani Garhi prior to anybody's entry to

Kathmandu Valley. This requirement did not, however, apply to hill people who

spoke either Nepali or their own respective hill languages such as Newari, Magar,

Gurung, etc.

In Articles 7 and 8 of the Constitution of Nepal, 1962, there were clauses

regarding naturalization procedures required by foreigners for obtaining Nepali

citizenship. These required oral and written skills in Nepali language and two years of

residence for hill people and twelve years of residence for people of Tarai (Gaige

1975: 91).

Land is the source of livelihood for 85 per cent of the population in the

agriculturally predominant Nepali society. Most agricultural activities take place in

the Tarai, and the majority ofTarai population depends on subsistence farming. Many

of the largest landowners and absentee landlords in the· Tarai are hill people with

considerable influence in Kathmandu (ibid.: 96).

In 1964, the Land Reform Act was promulgated by King Mahendra as a

national policy. However, it was influenced and shaped by the hill elites, and designed

to confiscate the excess land-the ceiling being 25 bighas-from Madheshi

landholders in order to have it distributed among landless hill people possessing

Nepali citizenship certificates. Most of the Tarai tenants did not at the time have

citizenship certificates due to the discriminatory Citizenship Act promulgated by the

king. As the hill people had influence in Kathmandu and good relations with local

administrators, they were able to register the excess land in the names of their

relatives. The Act had convenient loopholes, too. One such loophole allowed that

besides 25 bighas in the name of the landowner, the same amount of land could be

transferred to sons who were over sixteen years old and unmarried daughters who

were over thirty-five years of age. Neither did the Act abolish the widespread

institution of absentee landlords. The Tharu tenants of Nawalparasi, Rupandehi and

Kapilvastu districts, for instance, could not obtain ownership of the land they were

tilling for generations because of citizenship problems, and they were usurped by the

hill people. In Kaihili district, the excess land of Tharu landholders was appropriated

150

by the government and distributed among the fresh arrivals from the hills. Many

Madheshis thus became the victims of the Land Reform programme itsel£

V.12.b Imposition of Hill Culture. The malaria eradication campaign launched in the

1950s with the aid of the World Health Organization (WHO) and USAID (United

States Agency for International Development) helped control malaria in the Tarai.

Subsequently, the hill people started migrating to the Tarai. The early trends of

migration were from the hill regions of Nepal as well as from north-east India,

Sikkim, Bhutan, Burma and elsewhere. The reasons for migration were due first to the

familiarity with the surroundings and having cultural similarities; and second, the

removal of the inherent fear of malaria. The Tarai now became the most favoured

destination for hill people to migrate (see Table 5.30). By design, government­

sponsored programmes were launched for resettling people from the hills in the Tarai.

As a result, by 1981, the population growth in the combined Himal (alpine) and Pahad

(hilly) regions of Nepal was a mere 3.5 per cent whereas in Madhesh, it registered at

7.8 per cent, due to the heavy migration underway from the hills.

Table 5.30. Population Figures in Tarai and the Hills

Region Population

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Tarai 32.6 37.6 43.6 46.7 48.4

Hills 67.4 62.4 56.4 53.3 51.6

The hill . Brahmins and Chhetris represented by far the largest percentage of

migrants who acquired land-50 per cent of all migrants acquiring land in Jhapa, 75

per cent in Kapilvastu and 48 per cent in Kailali. Since the BCN combine

wererelatively well educated and more aggressive in economic, social and political

matters, they were also able to get hold of the local leadership.

Language is a social and cultural identification of an individual. Maithili,

Bhojpuri and Awadhi, to name but a few, and many other languages are the mother­

tongues of Madheshis at large, according to the region where they live. Although

there are various languages spoken in the diverse regions of the Tarai, Hindi is the

lingua franca ofMadhesh. Since 1951, Hindi had in fad been advocated as the second

national language ofNepal. But in 1956, Nepalese nationalism was articulated clearly

enough to challenge the role of Hindi and other languages of Madhesh plains in the

151

Tarai. King Mahendra's one-language-one-costume--Nepali language and the daura­

suruwal-topi dress code-policy was introduced to further marginalize Madheshi

languages and cultures. The "hill culture orientation" was interpreted as the true

Nepali nationality.

In 1954, the National Education Planning Commission was instituted as the

state's first effort to organize a national educational system. The commission

published its report, "Education in Nepali" in 1956, which recommended that from

the primary level up, Nepali should be the. medium of instruction in schools. It was a

deliberate imposition ofNepali language and culture on Madheshis. Many pro-Hindi

meetings were held in a number of Tarai towns to protest the official decision during

the spring of 1956. The language controversy took a serious turn in the summer of

1957. In early September, there were reports of "incidents" resulting from clashes

between Madheshi and Pahadi groups in the eastern Tarai towns of Biratnagar,

Rangeli and Dharan. The controversy was fuelled even by Prime Minister K.l. Singh

who issued a directive, clearly inspired by the commission, to use Nepali as the

medium of instruction; The Nepal Tarai Congress Party even organized Save Hindi

campaigns, and Save Hindi committees were formed in a number of Tarai towns.

Meetings, protests, marches and strikes in Biratnagar, Gaur, Rajbiraj and Janakpur

continued for a while (Gaige 1975: 111). The most serious incident occurred on 19

November when the Save Hindi Committee organized a procession of several

thousand people, and the Nepali Pracharani Sabha staged a counter demonstration.

The two hostile crowds confronted each other, resulting in street fighting and looting

that was ended only by police action (ibid.). The Save Hindi movement, however, lost

momentum as its organizers aligned themselves with political parties preparing for the

1958 national elections.

Madheshis have their own typical identity problems, similar to those of people

who have emerged from colonial experiences. Neither the history of Nepal nor its

Nepali hill culture satisfies their individual community identityneeds, simply because

they have not been associated with either. National symbols with which they could

easily identify are missing from their ethos. Although the Nepali language is

introduced in the secondary schools and colleges of the Tarai, it is spoken only by a

few Madheshis.

152

V .13 Madheshis' Aspirations

To fulfil their goal of asserting their identity and sense ofbelonging in the nation-state

ofNepal, Madheshis have four main aspirations, as follows:

(1) A liberal policy on citizenship so that most people without citizenship can

get their identity and fully participate in building the nation as its bona

fide citizens.

(2) Official status for Hindi language since Hindi as the lingua franca binds

all Madheshis together.

(3) Employment quota for Madheshis m civil service and army, thereby

bringing them in the mainstream of national development.

( 4) A federal system of government to recognize their separate identity.

To bring about national integration, balance and harmony there are two basic

ingredients. No group of citizens should feel to have been deliberately discriminated

against by the state and deprived of equal opportunities in national affairs. There

should be proper balance in the representation of various castes and ethnicity in the

administration and other agencies of government to impart a sense of equitable

participation. This requires a change in attitude to treat everyone on equal, fair and

equitable basis. A more harmonious attitude in the rulers to accommodate every

citizen of the country in nation-building is the prerequisite. Not only geographic but

also representational integration is essential. Equitable participation and equitable

sharing ofbenefits are central to this process.

V.14 The Maoists' Impact on Madheshis

The Maoists established a Madheshi Rashtriya Mukti Morcha (MRMM) or Madheshi

National Liberation Front in 2000 in Siliguri of India under the leadership of Jai

Krishna Goit. This was a part of their strategy to tap into identity politics and win

support of the excluded communities. While MRMM leaders asserted that their goal

was the creation of an autonomous and discrimination-free Madhesh, its true role was

largely subordinate: supporting the CPN(M) by providing a regional front, developing

locally popular policies and recruiting and organizing. The Maoists emphasize Madhesh's

difference with the hills .in terms of their social structure and production relations; they also

stress that Madhesh's problems stem from both Pahadi ruling-class policies and

153

Madheshis' own exploitative feudal and caste structures (ICG Report, 23 May 2007).

MRMM leader Prabhu Sah says, ''MRMM is the true representative of Madhesh. The NSP

did raise the issue before us but we put it on the political agenda. We fought for it and lost our

comrades in the armed struggle. Our contribution must be recognized" (ibid.).

The Maoists face tough policy decisions as regards the Madheshis'

demands. Since the formation of the autonomous people's governments they have

divided Madhesh into two units: Tharuwan (west) and Madhesh (east). This has

angered Madheshi leaders. The official line has not changed but Maoists say they are

open to its revision, although a unified province could still incorporate a separate

Tharu administrativeunit (ICGReport, 15 June 2007). The Maoists support the right to

self-determination but caution that this does not include secession. The MRMM

demands proportional Madheshi inclusion in state institutions, full distribution of citizenship

certificates, use of Maithili, Bhojpuri and A wadhi as local official languages and

protection of other cultural rights, reinvestment of Madhesh tax revenues in the region,

revolutionary land reform, and an end to dowry, women's exploitation, untouchability and

social discrimination (Shah 2006: 19). Unlike the NSP, it opposes Hindi as an

official link language in the Tarai, calling it an upper'-caste and Indian ploy (ibid.:

20).

The CPN(M) and MRMM have a common ideological and policy stand. A few top

MRMM leaders are also influential within the Maoist hierarchy but MRMM leaders say

they have autonomy to decide on policies and running of the organization, and MRMM

members are not necessarily Maoist members. The MRMM has a central committee of 22,

three regional coordination committees and district committees. Matrika Prasad Y adav,

who was appointed head of the MRMM in 2004, also led the Madhesh autonomous

government. However, at the district level, the head of the MRMM and the people's

government were usually different persons; though there was close cooperation between the

organizations (ICG Report, June 2007).

The MRMM has internal tensions, with Sah objecting to Yadav's dual

appointments as head of MRMM and a minister; the rift was also· attributed to caste

tensions between Yadavs and non-Yadavs. In late June 2007, the differences became

public, and the party took direct control. of the MRMM and appointed a new ad-hoc

central committee. This diVision has trickled down to district units. Y adav had the

upper hand in the party hierarchy and commanded more support but. Sah had pockets of

influence and the support of only a few senior Maoist leaders.

154

The MRMM has links with all other Maoist fraternal ethnic organizations. It

holds talks with leaders of these fronts but mostly within the framework of the party. Any

decision on a common. approach is made by the party leadership in consultation with the

MRMM leaders. The unity of the excluded nationalities is a key part of Maoist strategy.

"Even if we get proportional representation, at best Madheshis are 40 per cent of the

population", Sah says. "If we ally with other communities, our voice can become

decisive" (ICG Report, May 2007).

The Maoists' public image took a severe battering during the movement, largely due

to their own mistakes, and they have continued to be damaged by disputes over control of

Madhesh policy. They resisted Madheshi demands even though most of them were in

line with their own longstanding policies and refused to engage with the protesting

groups. They were on the defensive since their action in Lahan, a town in Siraha

district, where a local Madheshi activist was killed, besides their misjudgement about the

popularity of Madheshi groups. Their insistence that they ·were the first to raise key

Madheshi demands and their frustration with newer groups hijacking their agenda left them

looking like bad losers, even among their supporters. "There is no point in

complaining", observed a Maoist-nominated member of Parliament, "This happens

in democratic politics, and the Maoists need to get used to it" (ICG Report, April 2007).

Nevertheless, the Maoists have shown restraint in not retaliating violently despite the

killing of more than four dozen of their cadres in Gaur and in other incidents. The recent

pattern of targeted assassinations of mid~level Maoist leaders in Tarai runs a direct risk

of inciting a heavy response.

The problem was not so much that people had forgotten the Maoists~

championing of these issues but that they had failed to deliver. In the words of an MJF

sympathizer, "The Maoists contributed to the militant mood in Madhesh. They sowed

the crop but lost out when the time carne to reap the harvest. They armed us with new

consciousness but then the bullet turned on them" (ICG Report, June 2007). Maoist

leaders claim they had merely left these issues for the Constituent Assembly because of

the need for compromise on the Interim Constitution. Madheshi activists do not buy

this argument. As the IGC Report of June 2007 says, "Why is it that the Maoists are so

easily willing to compromise and give in on Madheshi issues, whereas they remain

steadfast on other things that concern them? This shows the real motive of the pahadi

leadership" (ibid.).

155

The Maoists also suffered from the fact that disparate groups - from the SPA to

the MJF and ITMM and India - were keen to use the genuine disillusionment felt towards

them to weaken them. Many in Tarai and India consider the Madhesh movement and

subsequent protests to be directed as much against the Maoists as the state. There are

frequent references to the struggle between Madheshis and Maoists. The Maoists clearly

failed to counter the widespread perception that they were responsible for Madheshis

not getting their due rights. The leaders admit that this has eroded the party's support

and credibility in Tarai. As a result; their organizational strength has dropped, with some

members even defecting to JTMM factions and MJF.

Some Madheshi activists in the Maoist party are also upset with its leader Prachanda

for advocating strong-arm measures against other groups (Prachanda interview in

Janadesh, 20 March 2007). ''This puts us in a difficult spot. It is impossible to defend that

kind of stand at the ground level. We will vote for our own party but will also support pro­

Madheshi activities of all other outfits as well", an activist said. Internal leadership

tensions within Madhesh came to a head in June 2007, when the CPN(M) central

secretariat took direct control of activities in Tarai, sidelining the MRMM (Janadesh,

19 June 2007).

The weakening of the Maoists, however, needs to be seen in perspective. They

were never strong in Tarai. Their strategy to mobilize the lower castes antagonized several

powerful sections; talk of revolutionary land reform scared the mid-sized landowners; the

use of intimidation alienated many; the presence ofPahadis as party leaders in Tarai led to

suspicions about their commitment; and the leadership was never united - several key

members quit the party. Fear has diminishoo with their entry into a more open, competitive

political system, making people more confident to express these grievances.

~li~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aniz~~

trained arid articulate party leaders who can communicate persuasively; retain support

among marginalized communities (C.K. Lal in Nepali Times, 8 June 2007) and have cleai

policies which place Madheshi issues within a broader framework They are trying to

rebuild, support and explain their stand by organizing mass rallies in Tarai towns. They

adopted a multi-pronged strategy, which includes emphasizing MJF links with royalists and

Hindu fimdamentalists, claiming credit for raising Madheshi isSues early, encouraging other

communities like Tharus in the west, Kochilas in the east and Dalits to assert their identity,

publicly apologizing for the Lahan incident, targeting deprived Madheshis by

increasing focus on land reform and seeking sympathy by pointing to the Gaur massacre

156

(ICG Report, June 2007). They announced a month-long people's war-styled protest in

Tarai in June 2007, but dropped it amid an acrimonious clash that saw the MRMM cut out

of decision-making (Janadesh; 19 June 2007). In the wake of this embarrassment, itis

not clear if there is yet a revised concept.

157