Madhesi leaders are unanimous in their demand for a single Madhesh province. Their unity on this issue is admirable but they are yet to articulate why One Madhes, One Pradesh will benefit Nepal and Madhesis in particular. Don’t get me wrong; the trio of Upendra Yadav, Mahanta Thakur and Rajendra Mahato has the interest of Madhesis in their mind, better than any other politician in the country. But is their fight for One Madhesh, One Pradesh misguided?
It might very well be a misguided struggle, just like the 100 proportional representation tussle. Yadav fought hard to make the entire constituent assembly election proportional, only to realize later that his party would have done a lot better if there were no proportional representation at all.
Madhesi leaders should not be obsessed with their demand for One Madhes, One Pradesh because the benefits are not that clear. Instead, they should focus more on the constitutional rights of the provinces.
Mathematically, Yadav’s perception that a 100 proportional representation would benefit his party never made sense. A straightforward political-economic analysis would mean that proportional representation would benefit the party with a dispersed vote bank and hurt those with a concentrated vote bank. Madhesis are concentrated in the Tarai belt and, predictably, they didn’t do as well in proportional representation. Is the fight for one Madhesh, One Pradesh going to turn out the same way?
There are good reasons to believe that Madhesis’ rights, freedom, security and governance may be better protected in smaller states in the Tarai belt such as Mithila compared to a larger Madhes province, albeit a province with strong indisputable constitutional rights.
A large Madhes state means that the conflict of Nepali-speaking people and the Madhesis will continue unabated for quite some time. The percentage of the Nepali-speaking population is about 50 percent, if not more. Madhesis of the east may like to consider Tharus as one of them but many Tharus do not feel that way. It might very well be that Yadav and his team might not get a majority in a single Madhesh province. Even if they were to be elected, they will have a difficult time governing such a province, partly because of continued Nepali-speaking folks vs. Madhesi conflicts, partly because they will always be treated, unfairly, as representing only the Madhesi group and partly because of the province’s sheer size.
Contrast this situation with multiple states in the Tarai belt. Take for example, one in the far west, one in the center with largely Nepali-speaking population, and one in the eastern Tarai. Basically the idea would be to carve out one region where there is a significant Nepali-population and make it a separate province in the Tarai and let Tharus have one province. This gives a lot better prospects for Yadav, Thakur or Mahato to lead the Mithila province of eastern Terai; and a much better prospect of governing it effectively.
Let us not forget that although the Madhesi trio may make sure that the constitution puts an end to any kind of discrimination and Madhesi rights are protected, the implementation of those laws is going to be a totally different ballgame. With a smaller Mithila state where Madhesi leadership is virtually assured, they can make sure that anti-discrimination laws actually get implemented. With the whole Madhes becoming one single state, Madhesis of the east will have lower probability to access power, and because of that, may have difficulty in ensuring that anti-discriminatory laws are implemented.
Moreover, other kinds of social issues that are equally worthy of attention such as upper-caste/lower caste, Yadav/non-Yadavs and male/female will gather momentum in a smaller Mithila province compared to a larger Madhes province. We need these issues to arise because unless they come to the forefront they will never be solved.
Madhesi leaders should not be obsessed with their demand for One Madhes, One Pradesh because the benefits are not that clear. Instead, they should focus more on the constitutional rights of the provinces. Madhesi leaders need to make sure that provinces have strong powers granted to them in the constitution of Nepal, in no uncertain terms. They should make sure the provinces end up more like what Quebec is to Canada and less like what Tibet is to China.
With significant powers vested to provincial governments by the new constitution, leaders of these provincial governments can channel their enthusiasm to solve the problems of their province, stop blaming Kathmandu for their problems and be an integral part of federal Nepal.
(Writer is Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at Texas A&M International University in Texas, US.)
Related story
Trump floats election delay, lawmakers in both parties reject i...
