People sighed with relief when the 10-year long insurgency that caused a colossal loss of life and property ended with a peace deal in 2006. The impossible goal of ‘dictatorship of proletariat’—a failed communist ideology of the yesteryears—was destined to be aborted anyway. Though protracted and occasionally turbulent, the institutionalisation of the changes that followed the accord is also over now.

However, the Nepali people—who had hoped that peace and prosperity will dawn upon them in the post-insurgency, post-transition era—are now disappointed and worried about their future. Their fears and apprehensions are not unfounded. If the ongoing agitation of the Madhesis and the associated blockade by India are any indication, the ‘federalisation-era’ will be more nightmarish for the country than the insurgency-era.

Flawed federalism

‘Federalisation for identity’ of the hitherto unitary nation-state was never a well-thought-out notion in the first place. In the wave of identity madness that had plagued the nation, the concept quietly entered and occupied centrestage of national polity. The need and viability of federalism for identity was hardly examined or discussed before it was made the top national political agenda.

Although a plethora of materials on the topic was made available, most of them missed the historical context and ignored the social realities of the country.

While the silent majority that was opposed to such a notion remained a silent spectator in the whole process, the vocal pro-federalism for identity lobby actively promoted and pressed for its cause. Unlike the anti-identity politics lobby, the latter also enjoyed lot of international backing and funding, both overt and covert. Our leaders too made a series of historical mistakes. Major political parties, although aware of the dangers of identity-based federalism, did not oppose the idea due to the fear of retaliation by the Madhesis and ethnic extremist groups. Instead, they agreed to use federalism as principal tool to address various aspects of ‘identity’.

They consented to creating provinces for, and naming them after, few selected minorities out of many in a multiracial, multi-ethnic and diverse nation. Worst of all was the role of the Maoists. They sowed the seeds of perpetual inter-regional and inter-ethnic divisiveness by encouraging the Madhesis to demand Tarai provinces separate from the hills and by advocating that the Madhesi and hill ‘nationalities’ are different.

There were plenty of measures to address legitimate aspirations of various groups, many are already in place. For example, despite the overwhelming majority of Hindus, the erstwhile ‘Hindu state’ is now a secular country to address the sensitivities of religious minorities. Right to receive school education in one’s own mother language is, as far as possible, being implemented. Unlike in the past, all languages spoken in Nepal have been recognised as ‘rashtra bhasha’ (national language). State-owned media are publishing and broadcasting materials in several local languages. And depending on their abilities and preferences, private ones are following suit. In recent years, society has become increasingly multicultural.

Cultural events of different communities are observed as national holidays. Since the last few years, statutory reservations to the tune of 45 percent are in place for under-represented groups in all public-funded jobs; and the results are encouraging. Similarly, 40 percent seats in elections have been allocated under proportional representation system for under-represented communities in addition to another 33 percent for women. It was, therefore, absolutely unwarranted and foolish to think of federalising the nation along ethnocentric or Madhes-centric lines in the name of identity or inclusion.

Madhesi agitation

The new constitution haphazardly demarcated the country into seven provinces. Eight Tarai districts located between Parsa and Saptari where the Madhesi population is in majority have been separated from the hills to carve a Madhes province, a special favour not enjoyed by any other community. Yet, the Madhesi parties are busy staging violent protests against the new constitution, especially its demarcation provisions since September. They are demanding, among others, to carve a maximum of two provinces in theTarai regardless of the fact that hill people—who do not want to live in a Madhes state—form majority in at least six districts in the plains out of 20.

When Madhesi leaders felt that their agitation was not effective enough to press their demands, as they were not merited, they changed their rioting tactics. They started to stage sit-ins at border points with an aim to cut off supplies coming from India. Delhi has fully colluded with the Madhesis; though, to avoid international condemnation and arbitration, it has been falsely maintained that it is not Delhi but the rioters who are blockading. It is not worthwhile to cross-examine Delhi’s claim; it is all too obvious. All we need to find out is, therefore, why it is doing so.

Indian motive

From Sardar Patel to Indira Gandhi, powerful Indian leaders and strategists have desired to annex Nepal, or part of it that is the Tarai. Indira Gandhi, after successfully annexing tiny Sikkim, wanted to disintegrate the Tarai from Nepal and annex it into India. That India’s external intelligence agency ( RAW)—a key player in the commandeering of Sikkim—had formulated such a plan was disclosed by no other than a senior RAW operative speaks for itself. The revelation has never been refuted officially.

Provinces founded on the principles of ‘Madhesi nationalism’, or that of segregation of the Madhesis who have ancestral ties with Indians across the border, or that of demarcations that delinks the hills from the Tarai, will be prone to separation. Of course, majority of the Madhesi people or leaders may not have secessionist plans, but the forces of geopolitics are too powerful to remain assured. If Sikkim could easily be annexed even in the absence of the proverbial blood that is thicker-than-water, Nepal’s Tarai will not be a difficult prey in Delhi’s eyes. Rightly or wrongly, Delhi also envisages that Nepal can be brought to her knees with a stringent blockade like the current one. The landlocked nation, almost encircled by India on whom she is excessively dependent for supplies and passage to the international waters, is already choking amidst acute shortages of essentials that include fuel and medicines. Will the country that boasts the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, care to answer why on earth is she strangulating a small and friendly neighbour, if she does not have an expansionist design with regard to Nepal or its plains? After all, India as a nation will in no way be benefited, or even affected, by the formation of Madhes states in the Tarai, or the lack of it.