Bipin Shah: Belated But Popular "Madhesi Revolt"

Belated But Popular ‘Madhesi Revolt’

By Dr Bipin Shah

Ajhab Lal Yadav, a Maoist cadre, was shot dead by Nepal Police when the fight between the then government and Maoist rebels was at its peak. What came to me as a shocking news is that the police also abducted some other members of his family and killed them. This is one among hundreds of stories of sacrifice. I know personally Ajhab. He was my classmate at Ramsagar Ramswaroop Multiple Campus, Janakpur. He later dropped out of the class and vanished in the jungle for what he believed to be a fight for the betterment of Nepal, only to be shot dead later.

The involvement of Madhesis in each and every fight for a 'free and democratic Nepal' -- be it the revolution of 1950, 1979, 1990 or the recent April movement --- cannot simply be undermined. If Ajhab sacrificed his life for the Maoist movement and Kameshwor-Kusheshwor killed in Dhanusha during the 1979 fight for democracy, can fight for democracy, the likes of Ajhab Lal Yadav and Kameshwor-Kusheshwor can certainly do more for their dignity and recognition in their own country.

The recent Madhesi revolt has just shown that. It has already claimed the lives of 19 people. But is the unrest of terai a true revolt? It appears that the government is reluctant to call it a 'movement,' and has been trying to see it through the tainted glass of 'unrest,' 'turmoil,' 'agitation,' and what not.

It is difficult to understand why this government -- which itself came to power through a similar revolt -- is forcefully trying to portray or label the current agitation of Madhesis anything but a genuine 'andolan.' There may be some infiltration by reactionary forces in the movement, but has not this been the nature of almost all the recent revolts in Nepal?

It increasingly appears that the current political leaders are continuously being plagued by the feudal mindset and finding it hard to come to terms with the need to rule the country on the basis of fair representation of the people.

I was also taken aback when the Maoist leaders came roaring describing the agitation in terai as a sole act of reactionary forces. They also took upon the Jawala Singh and Goit factions, calling them thugs and smugglers. No wonder why Shaym KC appropriately described their authoritarian behaviors as "black pot calling kettle black" in his recent article in The Kathmandu Post. The Maoist attempts to thwart Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF) from taking the credit of the current terai revolt has been obvious right from the beginning of the movement. But then the movement prolonged and it received wide popular support. The CPN(Maoist) suddenly seems to be in a rush to play vote bank politics in the lines of other political parties.

A recent rhetoric of the Maoist leaders that the prime minister's statement has not sufficiently addressed the Madhesi demands and participation of the Janatrantrik Terai Mukti Morcha, a Maoist affiliate, in demonstrations in terai substantiates this fact.

How many people need to be killed for an agitation to be called a revolt? How many politically genuine demands need to be there for a movement to be called a revolt? How many days does the country need to be paralyzed for this unrest to be called a revolt? How much more public support should this turmoil garner in order to be called a revolt? Why is it difficult for us to accept the current Madhesi revolt on its face value? When an agitation turns a relatively unknown high school teacher named Upendra Yadav into a national name, we are certainly dealing with a revolt.

Let us not talk about how Madhesis have been historically victims of systematic suppression and discrimination. This has been well documented and discussed. The question is, what are we doing to bring all the people into the national mainstream of building a New Nepal? And it seems we are failing even on our first task, the task of winning the trust of almost half the population of the country. The drama of verbose and incoherent address that came from the prominent political leaders of the ruling parties in the wake of the Madhesi revolt indicates their persistent insensitiveness and aristocratic attitude towards this genuine and burning terai problem. After the prime minister's address to the nation, it became clear that serious, comprehensive and visionary efforts to address this problem were also not there.

During his address, Prime Minister Koirala appeared emotional and described in detail his old age and failing health. We respect him and would like him to continue his political journey. I think he is still the only political figure towards whom every Nepali looks in dire political situations. But his address failed on many notes. First, it failed to gain the trust of Madhesis, Janjatis and those supporting the terai revolt.

A palpable positive outcome of the Madhesi revolt is that it has brought genuine political and social discussions on the national platform. While some time ago there were mainly two types of people in Nepal -- Nepali and Madhesi. Now it seems those two types of people are Pahadi and Madhesi, both being Nepali. The definition of the word 'Nepali' is changing and it is getting recognition that Nepali is a nationality, not a word that merely describes a certain class of people based on their looks. The word 'Nepali' should be above all the caste, ethnicity, class, and looks of the people. The Madhesi revolt has once again demonstrated that we are diverse, yet we have been living in a harmonious society. The support of Pahadis to the current Madhesi uprising is a testimony of that.

There are several other positive outcomes of this revolt. The fact that there is a political and deep socio-economic problem in terai and that Madhesis have been deprived of basic rights in their own country received an international recognition. MPRF has become a national party and Upendra Yadav a national figure overnight. It seems Madhesis have found a voice and a force which they can connect to. The revolt has also emboldened the Madhesi leaders of other parties, including the leaders of Nepal Sadbhavana Party, who have so far been meek, submissive and ineffective.

This revolt has generated a sense of freedom and an urge to express in all of those who have felt suppressed and underrepresented. It seems the time has come we institutionalized this sense of freedom. Today's need is a comprehensive reform directed towards ensuring political and socio-economic justice. The Madhesi revolt has specifically pointed fingers in that direction.

(The writer is research assistant professor of Bowling Green State University, Ohio, USA)