Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

The Magnitude of Madheshi Enterprise

Prakash Bom - 1/29/2008

"How many Madheshi political organizations are recently formed, which are so belligerent for their ethnic right to self-determination? How many Madheshi armed groups are actively engaged for the same reason, which are threatening peace and stability in the region? How many underground criminal gangs are rampant in Terai that are taking unnecessary advantage of the movement? How much public life is destroyed and how much it is unsafe and threatened?" are the questions that must be considered by the contemporary Madheshi leaderships seriously who instigate public movements for their moral and legal right to self-governance. The climax of the situation is about to hit the roof of the nation if the movement loses its balance. The balance lies in the national integrity, but not in the interest of the foreign neighbors', who would love to give a gigantic hug to Madheshi if Terai becomes their independent nation.

The political interest of the neighbor states of India along Terai region cannot be ruled out. The foul play is underway. The separatist and regressive elements are already infiltrating in the movement. Those Madheshi leaderships who have recently left their original political party to form their own party and movement will be responsible if in the pretext of federal state the national integrity is anguished. If the Madheshi leaderships are truly our national champions for the establishment of federal government system then they should be equally considering it for the whole nation, but not just for their Madheshi self-centered cause that can only make Terai an autonomous region.

The responsibility of leading federalist Madheshi leaderships like Upendra Yadav, Rajendra Mahato and Mahanta Thakur cannot just be limited to Madhesi ethnic cause. They should inspire the whole nation, if they are serious and committed to build a new democratic Nepal. If so then their immediate responsibility is to bring armed Madheshi to a peaceful means of political resolution to set the example for peace and democracy rather than anguishing national integrity with the threats of separate nation. It is for sure that if Madheshi federalists failed to work toward restructuring whole nation their self-centered ethnic endeavor will not reach that far. The motive to fight for the separate nation is nothing but their ambition for way-off political power. The separatist threat is an outright deviation from the honest federalist struggle that can give people their moral and legal right or 'right to self-determination' to form their local governments with their elected representatives in the entire nation.

The Madheshi movements' demand for an autonomous federal state should not only be just for Madheshi cause for a Terai state. It should be for the whole nation if it is to be incorporated in the interim constitution prior to CA elections. If that's the concern of federalist Madheshi leaderships then the demand is legitimate because it respects the spirit of people's aspiration for the inclusive democracy. This means the modeling of federal states for the entire nation, which cannot just be settled with single ethnocentric divide of Terai state. But, the federal state modeling has to be all inclusive regardless of Madheshi or Pahadi or Limbhuwan that give people of Nepal their moral and legal right to form their local government with their elected representatives. The constitutional provision for the right to self-determination thus becomes the moral and legal rights of all Nepali people of a federal democratic republic of Nepal.

Such modeling will set an example in South Asia because the Republic India's federal states have excluded the people's moral and legal right to form local governments with their representations. The formations of the Indian federal states have violated the fundamental principle of federalism with the state supremacy over the people's right to self-determination. If, for example, the demand of Mahanta Thakur, the president of Terai Madheshi Democratic Party for an autonomous Terai state genuinely replicates the statute of states of the United States of America then the right to self-determination of people of Terai must give them moral and legal right to form their local governments with their elected representatives. Then only incorporating such provision in the interim constitution prior to CA elections can be justified with the spirit of the inclusive democracy. Otherwise, it tents to be mere gimmick that politicians are trying to spell over the innocent people for their own political power in ploy of an autonomous state.

The fundamental of American federalism is to minimize the central and state governments' supremacies over the local governments. It is how from the establishment to the present time the United States' federalism has been sustained in the local government level with the direct representations of the local people. Therefore, in order to incorporate autonomous Terai state the right to 'self-determination' of people of Terai must be guaranteed in the interim constitution to form their local government with their local representations. The federalism that gives supreme power to the central and state governments excludes people's moral and legal right to form their local governments. Supremacy of central and state governments will not fulfill people's aspiration for the inclusive democracy.

If that's our stand then we must be clear not to replicate "feudalistic federal democratic elements of northern states of India" in our federal system of governance that tends to give supreme power to the central and state governments, which would arbitrarily appoint the government officials to rule the people in the local governments. We must be able to defend people's moral and legal rights to form their local governments with their elected representatives. If, therefore, the Madheshi federalist leaderships are committed to incorporate the right to self-determination of people of every autonomous states of Nepal then their demand is legitimate. In that case the demand is all-inclusive even though their struggle is ethnocentric. Otherwise, Madheshi ethnocentric driven demand for a single autonomous federal state is deliberately inattentive to the aspiration of people of Nepal.

Any ethnocentric based demand for autonomous state that does not incorporate the moral and legal rights of people to form local governments of the autonomous federal state with their representations will be against the spirit of the inclusive democracy. Such a formation will give the state and central governments power to dictate and rule the people by the appointees of the political parties in the majority. This means people will be devoid of their moral and legal right or 'right to self-determination' for the local electoral representations to form their local governments. Therefore, without the modeling of the local governments in the entire nation the demand of the ethnocentric state is not relevant.

The incorporation of the autonomous federal states on the basis of ethnicity or otherwise in the interim constitution prior to CA elections is only relevant if the modeling of the local governments within the states guarantees the 'right to self-determination' of people to form their local governments with their local electoral representations. In order to make such a revolutionary decision at this juncture national unity is mandatory. If SPA leaderships can take such bold decision to incorporate people's 'right to self-determination' in the interim constitution prior to CA elections that can definitely pave the way for the peace and democracy. The magnitude of Madheshi enterprise therefore must address this issue for the whole nation.