Last week, eight people including a Senior Superintendent of Police and a toddler were killed in a major instance of violence in Tikapur, Kailali. Since then, a curfew has been imposed in the area. But this has done little to quell the fears of the Tharus and Pahades living there. Worringly, the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum-Loktantrik (MJF-L), the only Madhes-based party to sign the 16-point agreement which paved way for the constitution-writing process, has since warned to quit the Constituent Assembly (CA). Jitendra Narayan Dev, Vice-Chairperson of the MJF-L, spoke to Kamal Dev Bhattarai and Roshan Sedhai about the grievances of the Tharus, possible ways to address the demands of the Madhesis and the Tharus and federalisation of the Tarai.

Can you tell us what exactly happened in Tikapur on August 24?

Our friends from Tharuhat/Tharuwan Joint Struggle Committee had made a prior announcement to erase ‘Nepal Government’ from the signboards of public offices and write ‘Tharuhat Pradesh Sarkar’ and then end the day with a mass assembly in Tikapur Chowk. There were no programmes other than that. More than 20,000 people attended that programme. Kailali, as you may know, has been the focal point of Tharu Aandolan in terms of mass mobilisation. About the same number of people had participated in Dhangadi’s protest before that.

Yet, we cannot rule out the possibility of the presence of extremists in the rally. People who had gathered in the Chowk through four entry points

started removing the public signboards and writing Tharuhat Pradesh Sarkar on them. The police tried to stop the protesters. Our leaders who where there say the police first fired at the protestors. Though some Tharu farmers had attended the rally with homemade weapons like lathis and sickle, extremist powers tried to flare up the situation. What followed was very unfortunate and it cannot be justified on any grounds. But it should not be forgotten that it was a largely spontaneous incident.

Some people are trying to politically exaggerate the incident by highlighting the death of the small kid. Some are not even ready to accept that Tharus could do that. We should not forget the fact that the Tharus are among the most marginalised, backward, exploited and excluded communities among the Tarai-based Janajatis. Just about two decades ago, a newlywed Tharu woman was forced to spend the first night with her husband’s landlord. So, the politicians and the government should realise the aspirations of the Tharus to transform themselves into free citizens having lived as bonded labourers in the past, as Kamalaris, Kamaiyas and Haliyas. We should acknowledge the Tharus’ demand for a separate province based on inclusion and identity.  

As Kailali is considered to be the stronghold of your party, what could be a ‘safe-landing’ to clear the way for the promulgation of the constitution?

Despite being a Tarai-centric party, our party, under the leadership of Bijay Kumar Gachhadhar, is committed to fulfilling its responsibilities to both to the country and the Madhes. We are firm in our belief that the CA should promulgate a progressive constitution with maximum consensus among progressive political forces. A progressive constitution means that it should represent the values and beliefs established through the People’s War, Jana Aandolan II and the Madhes Aandolan. It should also uphold the spirit of the historical documents including the 12-point agreement, Comprehensive Peace Accord and the Interim Constitution, among others. It should also uphold written agreements signed with Madhesi and Tharu including eight-point agreement signed with the Madhesi parties. We agreed to sign the 16-point agreement to foil the conspiracies that were being hatched to make the CA fail again. Before signing the agreement, we were assured that the country would be federated into eight provinces based on identity and capability. There had been a concrete understanding on Kailali, Kanchanpur, Chitwan, Sunsari, Morang and Jhapa.

But the major parties deceived us by submitting the six-province model to the special committee in a very dramatic and mysterious way. Our chairman agreed to sign the agreement with reservation though I, alongside Ram Janam Chaudhary, stood against it. We wanted him to wait for a few more days.

Then, following the protests in Surkhet, Karnali and areas in the Tarai-Madhes, the major parties repeated history by addressing the demands of the hill communities while ignoring the demands of the Madhesi and Tarai-centric parties. It was a repetition of the feudal mono-ethnic, monolingual, one geography mentality that has been inherent in Nepali society since the time of Prithvi Narayan Shah.

So what would be the way out of the ongoing crisis in the Tarai?

This is not the time for dialogue and discussion. This is a time for decision. The Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and UCPN (Maoist) all know what the Madhesis and Tharus want. We are well aware of the concerns shown by some people that a separate province in the Tarai might lead to disintegration and block the hills’ access to the southern border. That is a grossly incorrect projection.

The major parties should ensure a separate province for the Madhesis and the Tharus based on identity and capability. Such an autonomous province in the Tarai should have an ‘ethno-territorial’ nature. It should recognise both the ethnic and geographical realities. We should be mindful of how the Indian state of Uttarakhand was carved from Uttar Pradesh and why Darjeeling wants a separate identity. Here, we could form two provinces along the Tarai plains—from Nawalparasi to Kailali in the west and from Parsa to Morang in the east. Kanchanpur, Chitwan and Jhapa could be kept in the hill provinces.

Is there any possibility of taking the constitution-drafting process ahead by just addressing the demands of the Tharus in Kailali?

It cannot be a lasting solution to the problem. If we fail to address the issues of identity politics in time, it will continue to haunt us. It could create rifts between people of different identities as has happened elsewhere in the world. If we do not address the issue of Siraha, Sunsari and Moranag, it will give space to people to cash in on identity politics forever. Politics needs to be driven by ideologies, not identity.

What if the Nepali Congress, UML and UCPN (Maoist) address the demands of Kailali leaving rest of issues to the commission? What would the MJF-L’s stance be?

It is true that some people are directly and indirectly making an effort to move ahead by just addressing the Kailali issue. But, we cannot accept it. During the 16-point agreement, we were assured that the demands of both the east and west Tarai would be addressed. If the major parties just decide to address the concerns of the west, our party will not participate in the rest of constitution-drafting process. But, we will not obstruct the constitution-writing process.

I have heard that Sher Bahadur Deuba is also willing to comprise on Kailali. But Bhim Rawal is reportedly reluctant to budge given the dense settlement of people from Accham in Kailali. The major parties should invite Tharu and Pahadi local leaders before reaching a comprise. There is a river named Khutiya that flows on the east of Attariya. The river separates Dhangadi and Attariya which can be kept in the hillside if local Tharu leaders agree to do so.

What should be done to take the agitating Madhes-based parties into confidence?

A province could be formed through Birjung to Biratnagar. Biratnagar should be made the administrative capital, Janakpur should be the cultural capital and Birjung should be the industrial capital. KP Oli and Krishna Situala in the east and Deuba and Rawal in the west are the both problem and the solution.

So far, the MJF-L has played a constructive role in the constitution-writing process. But of late the civil society, media and the people think that your party is prioritising street protests over dialogue.

Our party is more committed to promulgating the constitution through the CA. We also want entire Kailali district to be kept in the Tarai province. If that does not happen, the division of districts along Khutiya River should be an alternative. We are ready to play a role for that. We cannot sign on a suicide note in the name of consensus. The Nepali people also want social integration and progressive transformation. A handful of politicians are distorting the environment. We have missed several historical opportunities. We cannot afford to lose another chance.