This is from Prashant Jha's post, a top journalist from Hindustan Times. I quite firmly believe that this guy has access and knows the very core of Indian mind. Anyways, the situation is dangerous for Nepal's existence.

Prashant Jha
4 hrs ·

Reflections on Ten Years of Madhes Andolan:

On Magh 2 (Bikram Sambat calendar), exactly ten years ago, a group of activists from Nepal's southern plains burnt the interim constitution of Nepal in Kathmandu. And thus began the Madhes andolan, which remains the central question of Nepali politics.

They had two demands - the constitution commit itself to making Nepal federal; and that the political representation in the Constituent Assembly must happen on the basis of population, which meant constituencies must be carved out prioritising demographics.

The few men at Maitighar Mandala - led by Upendra Yadav - were arrested. The next day, protests broke out across the Tarai. For close to 3 weeks, a movement reflected the popular aspirations of the people of Madhes for self rule (that's why the demand for federal units carved out on an east west axis in Madhes), and shared rule (political representation and proportional representation in all state bodies).

The centre relented; the interim constitution was amended.

Twists and turns

There was another movement soon after, after which Nepal's political parties promised that there would be an 'autonomous Madhes province'; 'group entry' of Madhesis in the Nepal Army; proportional representation. (Instructive to note that none of this has been implemented in full)

A lot has happened since then, and this is not the place to go into each twist and turn of the andolan. The first CA elections threw up Madhesi parties as the swing force in Nepali politics. A Madhesi was elected as President; Vice President; and the community representatives enjoyed enormous access to state power. Unfortunately, that power was not used well.

The second CA threw up an adverse verdict. Forces which wanted an inclusive, multicultural, federal Nepal which took into account identity based discrimination lost out to forces which primarily represented the one community that has been wielding political power.

The constitution

And this got reflected in the constitution promulgated in September 2015.

The gains of the interim constitution had to be built upon - instead they were reversed. Political representation was reduced; the principle of affirmative action was diluted; the federal scheme was drawn up in a manner that would ensure that except in one mutilated province of the Tarai, political power would continue to be exercised by - and this has to be said bluntly - hill Brahmans, with some sops thrown to Chhetris.

The historic Madhes andolan and the unfortunate but necessary blockade of 2015-16 was an expression of dissent against this constitution. It brought home to Kathmandu the point that unless Madhes was accommodated in the national mainstream, and given substantive power, it would destabilise Nepal. Some political forces in Kathmandu - and a section of civil society - have recognised this, and are pressing for an amendment to the constitution to broaden its ownership; but many others still want to institutionalise a polity without Madhesis having a fair share of power.

We have a window of a year in Nepal. If the major parties continue to press for the implementation of the constitution without its reform and amendment, the door to accommodating Madhesis would close- and they would respond with a strong secessionist movement. (Which I believe is the wrong path to pursue, but political alienation has its own logic)

Redefining nationalism

But beyond the text of the amendment, the minutiae of the negotiations, the dispute over the boundaries of provinces lies a core question that is to do with Nepali nationalism - and its inter-related domestic and external definition.

And that question is if Nepal's hill establishment recognises Madhesis as equal Nepali citizens? Or does it see them as 'Indians' - who have no agency, who are little but pliable tools of Delhi to increase its influence in Nepal, and this influence in turn is meant to destabilise Nepal since India - the big evil villain to the south - can never wish Nepal anything else?

You don't have go too far back. Just ten days ago, at Nepal's Presidential Palace, a UML leader told all other political leaders that he had information that there was a plot to break Nepal; that a meeting of Madhesi leaders was held in Patna with former Indian diplomats and politicians: that this plot had the backing of Indian establishment. The other leaders - all ex PMs- nodded - one said let's add more police and army; the other said we will all fight India collectively!

This is all hilarious - the theory is rubbish; there is no such plot; there was no such meeting; India has no interest in stoking secessionist movement across an open border; Madhesis are - largely - still keen on an accommodation within Nepal.

But the problem is that this narrative has been manufactured and encouraged by people who know it is not true because it suits their politics. It has many takers in Nepal, because of that precise problem of Nepali nationalism. Madhesis=Indians=expansionist power out to annex Nepal or weaken it. And so all Bir Gorkhalis need to get together to protect motherland, and in this process, China is the new best friend.

Unless Nepali nationalism can get redefined, unless it can go beyond seeing itself in opposition to India externally and unless it can see Madhesis as Nepali citizens internally, we are stuck. The hills will keep getting fed on rashtrabad of this kind, Madhes will keep getting more alienated and angry.

I am pessimistic- because I see Nepal's hill establishment's primary aim to protect, in the words of a close friend, the true character of the Nepali state as a rentier outfit of the Khas-Arya community. To sustain that, they will feed the Nepali people lies; they will stick to this toxic nationalism; and they will divide Nepal even more.