The road ahead

Last week, in British Broadcasting Corporation's (BBC) program “Sajha Sawal”, the stalwarts of the Seven Part Alliance (SPA); Dr Ram Sharan Mahat, Jhala Nath Khanal, and Hishila Yami; were caught off guard. Sushil Sharma's simple question -- will you all retire from politics if you fail to conduct twice postponed Constituent Assembly (CA) election this time around, made them pause. It made them stop blowing their horns, even if it was for a few seconds, and forced them to reflect in their real ability to get things done.

Despite all assurances and promises to flock together this time around to fulfill people's desire to have a CA election, not a single politician that participated in the program had enough guts to say; yes, as a senior member of my party I will take the responsibility for repeated failure in not being able to meet people's desire, and thus, will retire.

Although repeated failure is an example of incompetence, none sounded like the ones who had flunked thrice in the same mission. Like his boss Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhala Nath Khanal was at his best in fence-sitting politics.

In a typical Madhav Nepal style, Khanal blamed Yami and Dr Mahat's party for the debacle and tried to project his party as the only viable alternative that can wipe-out all ills confronting Nepal. Yami appeared more aggressive than needed. Like a cornered animal, she spent most of her time hounding fellow participants, especially Dr Mahat, left and right. In a typical leftist style, with help of jargons such as progression, regression, inclusion, she tried her best to justify her party's run away from the CA election in November of 2007.

Yami repeatedly mentioned people as a wise lot, but did not refrain from trying to fool the very same people by justifying the CPN (Maoist)'s run away from the CA election scheduled for last November. Are we that stupid not to know why the Maoists ran away from CA election in November? Madam, give us a break.

Dr Mahat at times came down heavily on the Maoists' duplicity and dubious character but had nothing new to say. Later on during the program, he joined the chorus to assure the seriousness of the SPA in conducting the CA election this time around.

Last week's program clearly revealed two things: (1) the confidence of the ruling coalition in its ability to conduct CA election (2) honesty of the stalwarts of the ruling coalition. Like in the past, the ruling coalition wants to assure the people that they will pull it off. But there are very few buyers this time around. How can people be assured that the CA election will not be postponed this time around when the politicians that are supposed to conduct election are not themselves confident enough in their ability to it? What is even more troubling is their lack of honesty and sincerity towards the people, who deserve truthful assessment about the prospects of CA election, if nothing.

Is it practically feasible to conduct a free and fair election in less than three months in the current situation whereby the presence of the state is confined to the Kathmandu valley? Populist politics is at its best in Nepal. Strange but true, no politician wants to be the bearer of any unpleasant news. So, instead of banking on politicians' assurances, why don't we do our own analysis?

There are two major hurdles in the path of successful completion of CA election: (1) the ethnic dissent in the tarai (2) Insincerity of the Maoists. The security situation in the tarai is deteriorating at an unprecedented pace. Civil servants in various tarai districts are being extorted, abducted and killed. Many government officials in the tarai are devoid of civil servants. In a context whereby the polling officers to conduct the election in the tarai have publicly said that they would not abide by the government's instructions and have threatened to resign, how is the government going to conduct the election?

The spiraling security dilemma will become particularly intense and at some point, it is likely to move to outright conflict if the condition is not improved. Unless the tarai issue is addressed amicably and the participation of credible political forces such as the Madhesi People's Right Forum and Tarai-Madhes Lokantrik Party is ensured, there are very slim chances of conducting the election in the tarai.

Election is not an end in itself. Its results without the participation of the ethnic parties, at best, can be called as partial mandate. The issue of credibility will continue to haunt the SPA like it did King Gyanendra if the political participation of those outside the ruling alliance is not ensured. And, the reverence of the constitution will always remain in question if crafted without the participation of the certain segment of the society. It will not be able to survive as the supreme law of the land for long. Sooner or later, it will have to be scrapped or amended substantially.

Another major hurdle in the path of CA election is Maoists' insincerity. Despite signing forty plus agreements with the mainstream political parties, understandings in the paper have not turned into reality. Based on the Maoists' track record of adherence to the peace process, it cannot be ruled out that the Maoists will again abort the prospects of CA election.

The fear of defeat in the CA poll forced the Maoists to make U-turn from their earlier commitments and scuttle it. Since then, things have not changed much in the favor of the CPN (Maoist). The very minute the Maoists realize that they will not emerge as a major political force, they will scuttle the process. As a matter of fact, they may do that even before. There is a big probability that the Maoists will make integration of their combatants into the NA and walk out of the government once they pocket around 2.15 billion rupees as salary/arrears for their guerillas. They may put forward kicking King Gyanendra out of the palace as the new precondition for election, and leave the government. Based on the Maoists' track record, which is full of duplicity and dubiousness, these scenarios cannot be ignored altogether.

Furthermore, Prachanda's recent revelation about his admiration and reverence for Lenin raises more questions than it answers. Like his reverend leader Lenin, who grabbed the power after dispensing his opponents and dismissed the constituent assembly, Prachanda too might be toying with the idea of scuttling the CA poll and annihilating the political rivals within the SPA.

For radicals, things appear in black and white, grey areas do not exist. They can only visualize the birth of Lord Buddha or Junga Bahadur Rana. Non-violent Gandhi that freed millions of Indians crushed by the British Empire does not impress them. As Buddha is not the right person to tame the people that are posing a serious threat to the existence of his brainwashed cadres and militias, he might try to justify the need of Junga Bahadur Rana and prove his relevance.

The road to successful CA election is a thorny one. The ability of the mainstream political parties to force the Maoists adhere to the agreements and ensure the participation of the political parties outside the ruling alliance will determine whether or not the CA election will be held this time around. Failure to do so will plunge the nation into a political and constitutional crisis.

In order to save Nepal both from the dictatorship of the proletariat and the 'guardian coup', whereby the military steps in with the goal of restoring public order, reducing corruption, or fighting insurgents, civilian power must be wielded legitimately. For that to happen, the April CA election must take place, and they must produce credible results. Should this election be postponed/cancelled or the poll lacks credibility due to the lack of participation of parties outside the SPA coalition, then the transition risks derailing and no further possibility can be ruled out.

United we stand

Nepal suffers from selective analysis of the problems. From politicians to left-leaning civil society members, everyone in Nepal seems to analyze politics the way it suits them and their agenda. Political pundits are so bitterly divided that they don't see problems that can arise in future from the deal-based politics and constitutional adventurism. It is hard to find an academician that dares to say in public that elections are the bedrock of democracy and extension of the current government in the name of transition is jeopardizing the democratic consolidation.

Is it greed or intellectual demise, or the combination of both, that is propelling the best brains in the nation to engage in selective analysis? What will it take for our politicians, left-leaning civil society members, political pundits, and academicians crushed with political luggage to realize that mandates in politics are time-bound and are not valid for ever?

Again, it is not only the politicians, academicians, political pundits, or the civil society members that are engaged in selective analysis. The entire nation suffers from this dangerous political disease. If you are Paharis (from hills), there is a big probability that you see the demands put forward by the fellow Madhesis absolutely rubbish and Indian game plan to disintegrate Nepal. If you are a Madhesi, you see every single Pahari as a colonizer and keep silent even when Paharis living in the tarai are butchered by the secessionists, who are posing as liberators.

Before accusing anyone of being Indian pawn, the time has come to ask who is not an Indian pawn in Nepal? Paharis accuse Madhesi politicians of being pawns, but how come no Pahari dares to question Girija Prasad Koirala's nationalist credentials when he wants to open a liaison office of Nepali Congress (NC) in New Delhi? We too, like Biharis' Bihar Bhavan, Rajasthanis' Rajasthan Bhavan, and Telugus' Andhra Bhavan, will have our own little Bhavan -- NC Bhavan in Delhi if Koirala has his way. How patriotic is this gesture?

The nation is so fragmented that people fall into one category or the other by default. The probability of you getting called: Bahunist, Maoist, royalist, etc at some point or the other is really huge. Like me, if you are a Brahmin, you are already a Bahunist by default. It does not matter whether or not you have benefited from being a Brahmin from other members of your Varna that are in the corridors of power.

Is it my fault that I am born as a Brahmin? And, how have I, or for that mater, any other hard working Brahmin benefited from just being a Brahmin? Like any other Newar, or for that matter, Madhesi or Kirat, millions of Brahmins like me in Nepal worked hard in their life to get where they are now. Just because Girija Prasad Koirala, Madhav Nepal, Ram Chandra Poudel, and Puspa Kamal Dahal are dictating Nepali politics and their kith and kin are benefiting politically and financially, is it fair enough to blame and victimize all Brahmins for exclusion of minorities? It is the fault of these handfuls of Brahmins that are withholding the genuine rights of other ethnicities, not ours, who had no control over our Varna.

While Pahari brahmins in the corridors of power in Kathmandu are hesitant to hand over the genuine rights to the people of the tarai, Madhesi leaders of Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) and Tarai-Madhes Loktantrik Party (TMLP) are silent over displacement and killings of Paharis that have been living in the tarai for generations. Neither anyone from MJF, nor TMLP have come forward and condemned killings of innocent Paharis at the hands of secessionists.

A few things that Madhesi leaders of MJF and TMLP need to make clear is, whether or not tarai belongs to Paharis like me who were born there. They should also make clear about what they mean when they talk about rights and opportunity for the people of Madhes? Are they only seeking rights for Thakurs, Yadavs, Tripathi, Raya, Shukla, Lal, and Guptas or the entire population of Madhes? Is this fight only for rights of Madhesis or the people like me too, whose forefathers have been living in Madhes for almost ten generations and had no connection of any kind with hills?

In my view, Madhesi leaders should not narrow their reach and harden ethnic boundaries. Ethnic politics does not take one very far. Neither Bedananda Jha, nor Gajendra Narayan Singh could reach very far. Gore Bahadur Khapange proved to be a disaster. It might provide instant solace to some but there is very little one can get out of ethnic politics.

There are millions of Paharis born and brought up in Madhes and have no connection with hills. MJF and TMLP should try to earn their support too. They are by all measures not less Tarians than any Thakur, Yadav, Mishra, Jha, Mahoto or Gupta that reside in the tarai. And, they will not hesitate to throw their support behind Mahanth Thakur and Upendra Yadav if convinced.

The leaders of MJF and TMLP should try to learn a lesson from the recent success of Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh, India. She achieved what messiah of Dalits in India, Bhim Rao Ambedkar and her mentor Kanshi Ram, could not in their lifetime. However, it took her more than a decade to realize that in ethnically diverse societies, focusing only on certain castes or ethnicity does not take one very far. This realization made her make a complete U-turn from tilak, taraju aur talwar, maro unko jhoote char (beat up Brahmins, Vaishyas and Kshatriyas) to Haathi nahin Ganesh hain, Brahma Vishnu Mahesh hain (it is not elephant but Lord Ganesh, symbolizing all gods and communities).

The politics of inclusion clearly benefited Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh and will benefit Mahanth Thankur and Upendra Yadav in the tarai. Slogans and rhetoric alone cannot win elections. Especially in a region where approximately 40 percent of population is Pahari, you just have two options: either engage yourself in ethnic cleansing, which will erode your democratic credentials or ensure inclusion of those Paharis that, like you all have been ignored and undermined, by fellow Pahari Brahmins in the corridors of power. There are millions of Paharis residing in the tarai that have no problem having a Madhesi leader as a president or prime minister. All you got to do is, make them feel safer and secured.

Don't fall into the trap of secessionists. Secession by no means is an answer to oppression. Oppression and exclusion can be defeated from within. The partition of India has not made Muslims in Pakistan any better. Indian Muslims are experiencing far more political freedom than their counterpart in Pakistan. There is no end if we start running from the oppressors with our small share. We should learn to fight back and defeat them.

Neither all Paharis are oppressors, nor are all Madhesis oppressed. The tarai is eagerly waiting for someone like Mayawati who can ensure inclusion of not only Madhesis but also Paharis that have been bypassed by those in corridors of powers that have forgotten what they stand for.

Democracy and ethnic dissent

The predicted future of the so-called "New Nepal", in terms of peace, stability, democracy, and political liberalization, has been far from realized. The current political mess raises fundamental questions about the role and the ability of the current generation of politicians at the helm of affairs to provide the structures and institutions which are required for sustaining the drive for much needed social, economic, political reform and democratic consolidation.

In Nepal, where meaningful employment and professional development opportunities are scarce, politics has become a very useful means of conversion of political power and position into economic wealth for the benefit of the few at the expense of many. The politics has degraded to such a level that, it is all about regime survival rather than addressing the broader needs of the nation. Nepal's malaise, thus, is a reflection of endemic political problems.

What the current generation of politicians fails to understand is that democracy is simply the means, it is not an end in itself. The presence of democracy (debatable in the case of Nepal) neither guarantees peace, stability, nor prosperity. Political sincerity and selfless desire to serve the nation is needed to ensure peace, stability, and prosperity. Mere lip-service of democracy is not worth a penny.

With the passing of each day, the situation is getting even more complicated. Exit of Mahantha Thakur and other members of parliament representing constituencies in the tarai will harden the lines of ethnic division and further alter the already bitterly fragmented political landscape in the future. However, it is both a crisis and an opportunity.

One may question the timing of their quitting the party. Obviously, there is a political space available in the tarai, which they know, is up for a grab. There is nothing wrong with that. Politics is all about competition. As long as politicians follow the rules of engagement and remain loyal to the constituents and the nation, formation of new political parties will not hamper democratic consolidation. It will rather enhance the process.

Mahanta Thakur and others that reigned from the parliament to start a new party have done what most politicians shy away from doing. This is not the first time politicians have deserted their party with a perception of better political future. But the purpose of deserting the parental party is quite different this time around. Unlike Sher Bahadur Deuba and Bam Dev Gautam, who led the dissident factions of the NC and the UML solely for the purpose of remaining in the corridor of the power, Mahantha Thakur has taken a plunge to empower fellow Madhesis from the tarai. He says so and there is no evidence at this point in time to discredit his intentions as a flat lie. Politicians within the NC may choose to disagree, but there are not enough grounds to question his integrity, at least not for now. Although he did not do a good job at explaining the vision and long-term goals of his yet to be named party in his recent interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the recent interview alone does not provide sufficient grounds for political pundits to write his political obituary and brand him a traitor.

Thakur did not have tons of cash at his disposal like Deuba and Gautam, which they used for horse-trading in the parliament. If Thakur had money like them when they broke away from the NC and the UML respectively, there would be at least a dozen more parliamentarians from the tarai behind him. What is exemplary here is, unlike Deuba and Gautam, who masterminded virtual split of their parental party for the sole purpose of remaining in the corridor of power, Thakur has deserted his parental party, which is already in power to start a new party, for which, it may take years to come to the power. He could have remained in the NC and enjoyed power, but he has chosen not to do so. Actually, he is a rare species among the Nepali politicians.

The tendency among the politicians is to raise their voice when they are out of the power. But by dissenting when in power and quitting ministry and the parliament, he has to some extent proved that he has set a positive precedence. The days ahead will prove whether he did so to vent anger against his Pahadi masters within the NC or to empower fellow Madhesis.

When the major political parties are on decline, ethnic politicking moves from the margins of political arena to fight for center stage. This is what happened in India and this is what is happening in Nepal as well. Regional parties got stronger with decline of Congress Party in India. To some extent, it is a natural process. With time, ethnic groups get educated and become aware of their rights. Unlike in India, where it took nearly half a decade for ethnic forces to understand their rights and solidify their bases to challenge the monopoly of the Congress Party, in Nepal, it was rather quick. One of the main factors that propelled the rapid surge in demand for ethnic rights was the division of nation state along the ethnic lines by the Maoists. Needless to say, they had done it to buy unequivocal and everlasting support of ethnic groups. The recent dissolution of the sister organizations formed on ethnic and regional basis proves that the Maoists are getting increasingly nervous about the increasing dominance of ethnic politics in Nepal.

What does the exit of Mahantha Thakur and other MPs from their respective parties mean for the functioning of Nepali democracy? If viewed from the standpoint of ethnic interest, the exodus of MPs from major political parties should be seen as a healthy development. Of late, it has become clear that getting ahead in Nepal depends to a large extent on obtaining at least a partial stake in the state for your own ethnic group. It has given ethnic groups a form of psychic emancipation that NC, UML, RPP, and RJP, were not capable of conferring.

Although the line of difference between the major political parties and genuine ethnic political outfits such as MJF in the tarai is getting hardened, the political necessity of alliance building in future will prevent the hardening of identity from being translated into conflict. As the tarai also has big percentage of people that have migrated from hills, the moderating constrains exerted by ethnically heterogeneous constituencies will make it impossible for one narrow ethnic party to win elections without the help of another.

Although the new political party floated by Thakur will result in renegotiation of power relations, it can help resolve the problems in the tarai. The major political parties instead of snubbing and discrediting Thakur and his colleagues should try to reach out to them and forge an alliance to stabilize the tarai. They are the best bet available. As most of them are staunch believer (at least were so till a while ago) of liberal parliamentary democracy, they can negate the secessionist effects exerted by the groups led by Jay Krishna Goit and Nagendra Paswan. Thus, the new party floated by Thakur should be seen as an opportunity rather than a crisis. It can act as a buffer between the state and the secessionists and help pacify the dissent.

The future steps taken by the government with regard to addressing the legitimate demands of the people of the tarai will determine whether the government is for national consolidation or disintegration. The current Seven Party Alliance government should stop viewing the problem in the tarai from the Maoists' lenses and immediately start negotiating with this new front. The need of the hour is a unified state with unified economy. By denying the rights of people, forget about building a "New Nepal," the current political leadership will not be able to maintain even the status quo.

Democracy in disarray

By Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal & Stefano Foa

While India marks two and a half years since the orderly transfer of power from BJP to a Congress-led alliance, elsewhere in the subcontinent democracy is in disarray. In Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf is resorting to reckless political adventurism to save his quasi-dictatorial regime, and, according to newspaper reports, which began to surface in August, making tacit power-sharing deals with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. In Bangladesh, the military retains indefinite leave to supervise the political process, following years of insurmountable polarization between the centre-right Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the centre-left Awami League (AWL). Meanwhile in Nepal, constituent assembly elections, scheduled for late November, are now threatened by a 22-point list of demands from the Maoists and criminal activities of groups such as Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha -Jwala Singh and Goit factions and Madhesi Mukti Tigers (MMT). Pahadis in the Tarai are repeatedly intimidated, extorted, and are pushed to a position whereby they have no options but to leave the Tarai.

So how has India managed to maintain the steady plod toward democratic consolidation, while regional neighbors have stumbled into anarchy and arbitrary rule? While a number of factors differentiate India from nearby countries, a key indicator of the health of democracy in India today is the emergence of a new civic culture, with a new wave of participation in voluntary associations, public debate, and social activism. Indeed, commentators such as Yogendra Yadav, co-director of the Programme for Comparative Democracy in New Delhi, have gone as far as to describe this as a 'second democratic upsurge'. Electoral participation in India, for example, now hovers at around 60 per cent, from only 45.7 per cent during the first elections in 1952. Second, participation in other forms of civic activism has also remained robust, with studies such as the World Values Surveys, conducted in the region since 1990, showing a consistent majority of Indians affirming their willingness to sign a petition or attend a peaceful demonstration for an issue about which they hold an opinion. Third, citizens in India are increasingly attuned to public affairs, as evinced from the fact that the number of radios per capita in India is roughly double the level in Bangladesh, Pakistan, or Nepal. Per capita newspaper circulation, meanwhile, stands at three times the rate of Sri Lanka - a country with a substantially higher literacy rate. Fourth, attitudes to democracy are also more favorable in India. According to a 2004 poll conducted by Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, a majority of Indians express satisfaction with the 'way democracy works', compared to less than a third of Nepalis or Pakistanis. Indians also attach far greater loyalty to their democratic institutions, with less than a third expressing a preference for 'a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament or elections', in contrast to a majority of Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, and Nepalis.

How has this broader, more participatory form of political life emerged from the wreckage of the Congress system? Academics such as Ashutosh Varshney, of the University of Michigan, attribute the reworking of India's civic fabric to the rise of caste-based politics among the 76.6 per cent of India's population estimated by the Mandal Commission to be members of the scheduled castes, tribes, and other backward classes. The first upshot of this new political development, for example, is that it has prevented religion from becoming the primary basis of electoral mobilization, with the popular appeal of the BJP restricted to predominantly middle-class groups from the North, who share their distaste for caste empowerment. India has therefore avoided the worst forms of the 'resacralization' of the public sphere that have occurred in neighboring states, where state religions have been declared in Pakistan in 1973, Bangladesh in 1988, and is still being debated in Sri Lanka. Due to its inability to cut across the caste divide, the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) has reached a ceiling at 20-25 per cent of the popular vote, which prevents it from achieving a parliamentary majority, and thereby replicating the bygone hegemony of the Indian National Congress. Meanwhile, by forcing Congress into a social coalition with the caste parties, Indian politics has been realigned along cross-cutting socioeconomic issues, rather than a strictly secular-religious dichotomy.

Avoiding the breakdown of secularism that has swept across South Asia in recent decades, India has averted the sectarian disorder of Bangladesh, the renewed insurgency of Sri Lanka, or putatively secular military interference, as in Pakistan. Incidents such as the 1984 Golden Temple invasion, or the Gujarat Violence of 2002 may have been destabilizing, but are less likely to funnel up into the political process once religion has become only one dimension of political competition, alongside caste and class.

The emergence of caste politics also offers a rationale for understanding why India's civic life has managed to flourish despite widespread poverty, illiteracy, and malnutrition. For as caste movements began to splinter away from Congress juggernaut, they have appealed to a new strata of economically mobile individuals among the scheduled castes and Other Backward Castes (OBCs), who in turn have benefited from stricter quota policies. The upward movement by members of these hitherto marginalized groups has generated a greater general sense of social mobility, and in turn the citizen interest in politics, electoral participation, and strengthened legitimacy of the political system. As economist Deepak Nayar remarks, in India those "who are excluded by the economics of markets are included by the politics of democracy". As a result, contemporary India is characterized by the curiosity of being one of the few democracies in which the poor vote in larger proportions than the rich, the less educated more than graduates, and the villages more than the cities.

Can India's democratic consolidation have lessons for other South Asian countries? Perhaps. The first would be that once political mobilization takes place along vertical lines - that is, between the elites and masses of one religion or ethnicity and against those of another - the potential for organized violence and civic disruption are greatly amplified. Measures to inhibit sectarian competition, such as the decision last year by the Nepali Parliament to rescind Hinduism as the country's state religion, are necessary steps in this direction. The second lesson would be that caste politics need not be a disruptive force in South Asian politics: a distinction must be made between the mobilization of the lower castes into political life (whose unsettling manifestations may include participation of OBCs or Dalits in anti-Muslim violence), and the emergence of caste-based politics and ideology, which may instead moderate the tendency of these groups toward sectarian identities. Third, and perhaps most importantly, India's remarkably civic transformation shows that it is possible for a pro-democratic, civic culture to develop in South Asia before the arrival of a broad urban middle class - so long as groups are mobilized into politics for the sake of issues of distribution and empowerment, rather than identity or culture. This finding has consequences well beyond the South Asia region, and can likewise inform political developments in fledgling new democracies such as South Africa, Kenya or Peru, where democratic competition also revolves around the struggle by socially excluded groups for representation and recognition.

After sixty years of democratic practice, and twenty years of contentious affirmative action policies, Indian democracy has survived in the face of guerrilla insurgencies, religious riots, and simmering international tensions, and in the process developed a deeper civic culture. The strangely enduring quality of India's political institutions has been summarized by leading historian Ramachandra Guha, who remarks that India's founding fathers 'planted a sapling of democracy that has grown into a tree', such that while 'later people who came after them can disturb the tree, can lop of a branch here and there' nonetheless 'the tree stays intact.' In other South Asian countries, on the other hand, this same seedling of democracy has been repeatedly uprooted by the military, trampled down by rioters, or scorched by the flames of guerrilla insurgency. Yet the Indian example shows that the sap can grow tall, even if planted in the soils of poverty and illiteracy, so long as it is hedged in by policies that promote the alignment of political competition around the distribution of goods, rather than priority of gods.

New Nepal: Rhetoric versus reality

While the Terai is burning with the flames of sectarian violence, the government is busy hammering a power-sharing deal with the Maoists। The mistake of discrediting the Maoist insurgency as simply a law-and-order problem during the initial phase of insurgency is being repeated. The grievances of Madhesis are genuine and should be addressed before they are manipulated for political gains.

The dark side of the ongoing ethnic tension is that some politicians whose careers have been in the doldrums are attempting a fresh return by playing the ethnic card। The trend of armed rebellion set out by Prachanda and Baburam has been used as a blueprint by many whose political stature has been cut short, either due to the loss of public support or because of their clout within their own political parties. It has become a standard practice to follow an aggressive and violent means in the name of "social change" when the career of a politician reaches an absolute dead end.

Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai resorted to using guns when they perceived that their party was a "sinking ship।" After the Election Commission officially recognized Nirmal Lama's less radical faction as legitimate United People's Front in 1994, Prachanda and Baburam's hope of seizing the limelight in Nepali politics was prematurely aborted. They knew early on that they would be unable to establish themselves as prominent figures through parliamentary politics. They had to resort to violence because that was the best --- perhaps the last --- option in hand for them to realize there dreams. Upendra Yadav and Jay Prakash Gupta became staunch advocates of the plight of Madhesis after they lost clout to the United Marxist Leninist and the Nepali Congress.

In addition, the latest entrants to the bandwagon of opportunistic politics are former Maoists Jaykrishna Goit and Jwala Singh, head of The Terai Jantantrik Liberation Front (TJLF) and the self-proclaimed leader of the renegade faction of TJLF respectively, who lost their ethnic dominance within the CPN (Maoist) to another Madhesi leader, Matrika Yadav.
The idea of social change is a noble one। Society should change with changing geopolitical situations and modern innovations. That is how human beings are able to utilize their maximum potential. But in the case of Nepal, the idea of "social change" has been widely abused for political gains.

Prachanda and others in his party believe the CPN (Maoist) to be the most inclusive party। They claim to be the agents of social change. The latest example cited to prove this claim is the composition of Maoist parliamentarians in the interim parliament, comprising mostly Dalits, women, and Madhesis.

However, the question often left out in this debate is what powers these Maoist parliamentarians will have and will be allowed to exercise, if any। The Maoist parliamentarians will vote as a unified block based on the directives they receive from Prachanda and his upper caste followers in the central committee.

The Maoist parliamentarians are like birds whose wings have already been clipped before setting them free in the corridors of the parliament building. They cannot and will not be allowed to act according to their conscience. It is the central committee, which is heavily dominated by the upper castes, bahuns and chhetris, who devise future political strategies and set agendas. Thus, the bitter pill behind the Maoist propaganda of inclusive politics is that it is the upper castes in the CPN (Maoist) who are using the Dalits and women as their puppets and running the show themselves. True social change warrants for bringing Dalits, women, and other marginalized groups into the decision- making positions not using them as puppets.
The Maoists, who got 73 seats in the 330 member parliament because of smoking guns they possessed and brainwashed militiamen, seem to be in a mood to sit down and listen to the genuine grievances of the Madhesis, who have stepped into the Maoist shoes। Matrika Yadav, a Maoist ideologue and central committee member, while referring to Jaykrishna Goit, the leader of Terai Jantantrik Liberation Front (TJLF), noted "that everything cannot be achieved through violence". That is like the pot calling the kettle black.

One thing for sure is that the Maoists, whose hands are stained with the blood of innocent people, do not have the moral authority to preach nonviolence as a means for social change। It is they who set the precedence of violent politics and taught that the politics of intimidation and killing is the shortcut to power.

Brahmin and chhetris have held far too much clout and say in the governing of the nation since the existence of Nepal as a sovereign state। Madhesis, who account for approximately 40 percent of the population, have been largely marginalized and discriminated against for far too long. The current dissent, if not dealt with very carefully, may fuel recurrent communal conflicts and robust separatist movements.

Except for the rhetoric of need for an independent state, the demands put forward by the Madhesis for an inclusive political system are largely genuine and the need of the day। We do not need a separate state to guarantee the rights of Madhesis and other marginalized groups. Goit's TJLF and its renegade faction led by Jwala Singh are playing the separatist card to enhance their bargaining power.

However, the deepening fissure and polarization between Pahade and Madhise could precipitate a bigger crisis। The real challenge now is to wilt such polarization not by force or violence, but by legitimate sharing of the resources of the country, irrespective of the culture, race, or region of the people. The only way to prevent separatism is through the introduction of a federal structure for regional autonomy that would guarantee ethnic representation. The demand for equity and self-governance should not be viewed from an ethnic dimension. It is not about ethnicity, but equity and social justice.

In Nepal, where leaders prefer cruising with the popular opinion rather than sticking to the politically and socially correct agendas, safeguarding territorial and political integrity will be one of the biggest challenges। The political parties should not allow the Maoists to change the parameters of the relations between Nepal and India rooted in the concept of equidistance between India and China.

If the Maoists-influenced leaders try to show any tilt away from India, it is very much possible that India could instigate and support the Madhesis and thus could jeopardize the very integrity of Nepal।

Furthermore, we cannot ignore India's expertise in instigating separatist movements. If it were not for India's involvement, the Pakistani Army had enough teeth to foil the separatist movement that led to the establishment of Bangladesh. Thus, until we are able to inculcate the feeling of nationalism and a sense of belonging in the Madhesis via the introduction of federal structure, the looming danger of instigation of separatist movements fueled by India stays put. The only way to annul that danger is through the introduction of federal structure.
The biggest danger to peace and democracy is not from the Madhesis. The Maoist commitment to democracy is highly questionable. Prachanda's recent interview to British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) conveys a loud and clear message about the Maoist-long term plans. He has clearly said that the Maoists will not settle for anything less than a proletarian communist state. The writing is on the wall, if only the so-called intellectuals and punditry of Nepal could read it.