Nepal - Articles

While the elections to Nepal's Constituent Assembly (CA) are slated for 22 November, the deteriorating security situation threatens the possibility of holding them on the stipulated date. Now, the entire attention on Nepal is focused on the endangered security situation and rampant human rights violations in the eastern and mid-Terai districts. It is important, therefore, to analyze the ongoing developments with regard to the multiple issues in the Terai region.

After the Janaandolan II (People's Movement II), Terai issues started hitting the headlines in January 2007, predominantly for the unprecedented violence perpetrated by the groups operating in this region. In recent months over a dozen groups (many of them minor ones) became active with ambiguous demands. With the Maoist's People's War just successfully concluded, almost all the groups in Terai strongly believe in and advocate violence as the strongest tool to use against the state to meet their demands. Although many of these Madhesi demands are genuine and legitimate and need to be granted, the brutality prevailing in their movement dilutes its significance.

The demands of the Madhesi community were taken seriously by the Nepal government only after there were heavy casualties and destruction to property during their protest movements. In general, when ethnic and linguistic federalism were denied, it has led to violent conflicts, separatist movements, and even formation of new states across the world. At the same time, many violent conflicts were settled and separatist movements died down, when the demands for autonomy were properly addressed. It is also important to understand that any demand for ethnic/linguistic autonomy, if granted in the early phase of such movements, can help neutralize separatism. In any conflict situation, settlement will be much harder to achieve once the movements gain momentum and in that stage any coercive attempt to suppress the movement will definitely only add fuel to the fire.

In Nepal, the government's initiatives to suppress the movement at the initial stages resulted in worsening the situation and dramatically increased Madhesi participation in the movement. Rejecting the talks offer from the government, the agitating groups continued their bandhas (strikes) across the region. However, in recent days the government has managed to bring the largest Madhesi group that is the Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF) to the table for peace talks. In three rounds of talks, many of the key issues including the federal system, self-determination and proportional representation were discussed. However, in the last round of talks on 28 July, the government rejected the MPRF's additional demand to dissolve the interim parliament by giving legislative powers to the government. This demand was not found in the early days of their movement and the group has warned of another stir in the Terai if their demands are not met. By making this difficult demand, the Madhesi group has complicated the process of reaching a settlement.

Apart from the MPRF, two other prominent armed groups of the same name, the Terai Janatantrik Mukti Morcha (TJMM), one led by Jai Krishna Goit and the other led by Jwala Singh have been demanding a separate state for Madhesis in the Terai region. Although these groups are well-known only in eastern Terai of Nepal, their presence in the commercially important and densely populated districts is significant. The government is likely to have a difficult time in dealing with these armed groups, especially when it has rejected the Goit faction's demand for United Nations mediation in the talks, which is a blatant attempt at international attention.

In the larger participatory democratic political system, these groups cannot be considered as legitimate political forces because they make use of or threaten to use violence against civilians and unarmed persons. Despite all the problems within the government, its sincere offer of talks had provided an opportunity to translate the Terai problem into peaceful politics. The rejection of the offer will cost the Terai groups dearly as no option is now left for the government but to pursue brutal measures to hold the CA polls in accordance with the popular will. This will certainly cause more bloodshed in the already bleeding history of Nepal. While the CA election is a crucial part of the peace process, the continuation of violence in the Terai will have severe repercussions for the conduct of successful elections. While the Terai movements are gaining momentum in Nepal, their trajectories will depend on the response of the state. The government should immediately ensure safety and security in this region and mainstream political parties also need to further clarify their policy on the structure of the state and on a framework for social inclusion within a fixed period of time.