MAY 22 -
Madhesi and Janajati political groups were not very organised in the initial years of the peace process, especially in the period before the Constituent Assembly elections. As a result, the leaders of the larger political parties did not feel it was necessary to listen to their demands or engage with them. This refusal had serious consequences. It will be remembered how then-Prime Minister G.P. Koirala came around to accepting some demands far too late in 2007—only when massive movements broke out in the Tarai. The government did eventually fulfill some of the demands of the protestors, but its hesitation and apathy was quite evident and led to great disillusionment in the Tarai. The delayed response by the Nepali Congress-led government to the Madhes Andolan was perhaps one crucial reason why the party fared so poorly in Tarai in the 2008 elections.
There are similarities between events then and now. Like with the drafting of the interim constitution, the three major parties have come up with agreement on the new constitution that is not acceptable to Madhesi and Janajati groups. The difference between then and now is that the party that is leading the government is much more aware of the consequences of ignoring these demands and is thus expending much energy trying to get Madhesi and Janajati groups on board. Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal appears to have come around to an understanding that Madhesi and Janajati parties and other political groups will have substantial power in the future and he ignores these constituencies at his peril. As an aside, we, however, would like to put on record here that Dahal himself was at the forefront of the three-party agreement on 11 states last week, and Madhesi Morcha leader and Home Minister Bijaya Gachhedar first gave the impression that he would support the deal, only to back out in face of heavy criticism from his Madhes constituency. The large-picture politics is that traditional powerhouses of Nepali politics, NC and UML, seem to be losing their grip on Madhesi and Janajati populations; Ashok Rai, UML Vice Chairman and Janjati leader threatened to walk out of the party yesterday if it continued to ignore parliament’s Janajati Caucus’ demand for identity-based federalism. NC and UML leaders continue to insist that the 11-state model of state restructuring should be adhered to. In their insistence, they either appear to be quite unaware of the possible consequences of political shift on the ground or may have consciously decided to champion Khas aspirations.
Of course, this is not to argue that all of the demands put forward by Madhesi and Janajati groups should be accepted uncritically. What is striking about the current situation, however, is the refusal of the older parliamentary parties—the NC and the UML—to engage with these groups with new openness, even after 320 lawmakers stood against the 11-state model. This is hard to explain as a political rationale. For in the next general elections, how and whether these parties fare as ‘national parties’ will be determined to a great extent by the support they will be able to garner from these groups.
Madhesi and Janajati political groups were not very organised in the initial years of the peace process, especially in the period before the Constituent Assembly elections. As a result, the leaders of the larger political parties did not feel it was necessary to listen to their demands or engage with them. This refusal had serious consequences. It will be remembered how then-Prime Minister G.P. Koirala came around to accepting some demands far too late in 2007—only when massive movements broke out in the Tarai. The government did eventually fulfill some of the demands of the protestors, but its hesitation and apathy was quite evident and led to great disillusionment in the Tarai. The delayed response by the Nepali Congress-led government to the Madhes Andolan was perhaps one crucial reason why the party fared so poorly in Tarai in the 2008 elections.
There are similarities between events then and now. Like with the drafting of the interim constitution, the three major parties have come up with agreement on the new constitution that is not acceptable to Madhesi and Janajati groups. The difference between then and now is that the party that is leading the government is much more aware of the consequences of ignoring these demands and is thus expending much energy trying to get Madhesi and Janajati groups on board. Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal appears to have come around to an understanding that Madhesi and Janajati parties and other political groups will have substantial power in the future and he ignores these constituencies at his peril. As an aside, we, however, would like to put on record here that Dahal himself was at the forefront of the three-party agreement on 11 states last week, and Madhesi Morcha leader and Home Minister Bijaya Gachhedar first gave the impression that he would support the deal, only to back out in face of heavy criticism from his Madhes constituency. The large-picture politics is that traditional powerhouses of Nepali politics, NC and UML, seem to be losing their grip on Madhesi and Janajati populations; Ashok Rai, UML Vice Chairman and Janjati leader threatened to walk out of the party yesterday if it continued to ignore parliament’s Janajati Caucus’ demand for identity-based federalism. NC and UML leaders continue to insist that the 11-state model of state restructuring should be adhered to. In their insistence, they either appear to be quite unaware of the possible consequences of political shift on the ground or may have consciously decided to champion Khas aspirations.
Of course, this is not to argue that all of the demands put forward by Madhesi and Janajati groups should be accepted uncritically. What is striking about the current situation, however, is the refusal of the older parliamentary parties—the NC and the UML—to engage with these groups with new openness, even after 320 lawmakers stood against the 11-state model. This is hard to explain as a political rationale. For in the next general elections, how and whether these parties fare as ‘national parties’ will be determined to a great extent by the support they will be able to garner from these groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment