By Taha Amin Mazumder,
While Nepal has been leading the queue of news for the past few weeks amid raging clamor over its newly promulgated constitution, the Indian government has reportedly urged its immediate northern neighbor to carry out a few “amendments” in the new law book to make way for the Madhesi people who have been at the core of protests against some of its clause. The direct Indian approach is apparently a natural strategic move to check the reach of the neighbor’s rift to its own land, given the free cross-border movement of the folks from both countries. But while Nepal is not obligated to respond to India, the question arises why India is so keen on these changes indulging into an almost diplomatic warfare with a natural ally like Nepal for a few dissent communities, like the Madhesis? Who are Madhesis or why they are important for India makes a curious case in fact.
Madhesi movement
Madhesis live in the flat and fertile Terai region popularly called Madhesh in the southern Nepal bordering India. The Terai region, which runs parallel to the lower ranges of the Himalayas, occupies 17 percent of the total areas of Nepal and 51 percent of the country’s population (22% Madhesi and 29% Non-Madhesi), per the 2011 population census of Nepal.
The interesting facts: Madhesis speak various central and eastern dialects of Hindi, the mainstream Indian language, as their mother tongue – for instance Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Rajbanshi, and even Bengali and Santhal. And here lies the bone of contention between the mainstream Nepalese and the Madhesis. Because of the Medhesi population’s linguistic difference from the mainstream Nepali language of the country, people from the entire Terai region are generally considered Indian, which is somewhat true given the Indian origins of Madhesis.
Interestingly Maithili, a language widely spoken in Indian states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh bordering Nepal, is the most commonly used language by Madhesis.
Following the declaration of Nepal as a republic in 2008, the country’s first democratic President Ram Baran Yadav and Vice-President Parmanand Jha, both took their oaths in Hindi even though the constitution required them to take the oath in Nepali language. This led to a widespread agitation throughout the country. Various political parties, organizations and intellectuals criticized the act of Jha, who took the oath in Hindi even though his mother tongue is the dialectical Maithili. Jha later tried to justify his act, claiming Hindi was the most commonly understandable language to his people in the Terai region. The entire episode connotes an identity crisis among the Madhesis and why they eventually resorted to dissent.
According to Rajendra Mahto, a leader of the Nepal Sadbhavana Party, a Terai-based party that had been instrumental in resolving the longstanding issue of citizenship and identity of the Terai people, Madhesis “could not exercise their basic rights” until the 2006 Nepali Citizenship Act came into being.
In a 2007 Nepal Monitor article, Mahto wrote, “Millions of Terai people who did not have their citizenship or identity cards have now got their IDs. Previously, because of the lack of identity card or citizenship the people of Terai could not exercise their basic rights – such as selling or buying their own land or property. They were suffering from a lot of troubles in the past.”
Indian Interests
Madhesis want the Nepal constitution to make provisions for the electoral constituencies to be based on population, geography and special characteristics, “and in the case of Madhes, on the basis of percentage of population.” The latter phrase was available in the interim constitution but removed from the new constitution.
Now an Indian Express report on Wednesday, 23 September, revealed that an “upset” Indian government wanted Nepal to constitutionalize the population-based representation of Madheis.
Another important facet the leading Indian media disclosed highlights the citizenship issue. It said, “Article 283 of the Constitution states that only citizens by descent will be entitled to hold the posts of President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker of Parliament, Chairperson of National Assembly, Head of Province, Chief Minister, Speaker of Provincial Assembly and Chief of Security Bodies. This clause is seen as discriminatory for the large number of Madhesis who have acquired citizenship by birth or naturalisation. Delhi says this should be amended to include citizenship by birth or naturalisation.”
Bihar connections
While Madhesis have long been demanding their share, the Indian response comes spontaneously with their protest intensifying in the face of the fact that they not only have Indian origin but also are considered Indians by the mainland Nepal. The Indian response might also be closely connected to the upcoming polls in Bihar, which has several districts bordering the Terai region and a significant population who have direct connections with the Madhesis. Also there has been a long-running argument calling the people of Terai region Biharis. Another important aspect of the Bihar poll connection lies in the Dalit Madhesis, who face equal wrath in Nepal too. And who doesn’t know the caste-based politics of Bihar? So the wave of protests in Nepal might influence Bihar polls is not a lame argument in view of the demography of Madhesh, and the Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government would never want to upset the people Bihar when there is a big poll battle there only a few days from now.
Udit Narayan: Bollywood connection of Madhesis
A fascinating fact regarding the Madhesis is that Udit Narayan, one of the most famous playback singers of 90s Bollywood, is a Madhesi. Ironically Narayan who dominated Bollywood for almost two decades, was initially rejected as being unfit for singing in Radio Nepal (the state-controlled and then only radio station of Nepal).
Looking beyond Udit Narayan, while the stereotypical Nepali security guard makes an everyday meal of the Indian flicks with its proverbial salutation to Indians as “Shaabji,”connoting “master,” the Indian society has so far fallen short in its appraisal of the plights of the thousands of Nepali folks living in India, particularly the hundreds of Nepali women trafficked to India for prostitution hardly made it to the diplomatic dialogues between the two countries. It seems they are not politically important or are an endangered species of a microscopic dimension that they are often viewed through a social prism of sympathy but not the governments are interested in them as they are in the case of Madhesi rights.
