Is Madhes Issue Deep Rooted?

 Sajiv-Nalina: Madhes Pahad Marriage

Author: Bal Krishna Jha

A Comparative Study of Nepal’s Madhesi-Pahadi Conflict with Other World Conflicts

After the end of World Wars, there has been exponential increase in
intra state wars and conflicts. Such conflicts are results of
accumulation of various inter-wined factors of social psychology, and
hence, the exact cause of such conflict cannot be pin-pointed.
However, it can be argued that there always exists a real or perceived
discrimination component in any genuine conflict.

The magnitude of conflict is directly proportional to the magnitude of
emotional attachment to the issue, multiplied by the perceived degree
of discrimination by the warring groups regarding distribution of
economic, political, social and other resources. When measured on the
continuum of magnitude and graveness, it is ‘Deep-Rooted’ conflict
that takes the first position.

Deep rooted conflicts originate largely within states (unlike inter
state wars), and combine two powerful elements: identity-based factors
that are emotionally charged and the sense of injustice and
discrimination. Identity factors are based on differences in race,
religion, culture, language etc.  Among these two, the identity crisis
has much more to contribute in magnitude and persistence of the
conflict. Out of twenty seven major armed conflicts (greater than one
thousand deaths per year) in 1996, twenty two had a clear identity
component in them. Complexity, persistency and intractability are the
basic characteristics of deep-rooted conflicts

The intra state conflicts in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, pre 70s muslims
conflict in India, Bosnia, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, etc
are the examples of deep rooted conflicts. Thee conflicts are complex
in nature which doesn’t have a simple quick-fix formula to solution.
Moreover, the foreign and regional powers’ interests on stability of
the country give quite fierce and unpredictable shape to it. Most of
the intra state conflict have spilled to become inter state cold wars
or even full fledged.

Let us ponder over some home issues related to conflict: Is Madhesi
issue of Nepal going to bring in deep rooted conflict? Are our leaders
faking to be ignorant about the graveness and further provoking such
conflict? Is the media responsible?

The Madhesi issue is a deep-rooted issue. The practice of state’s
favourism for the ethnic groups of pahad/hill/mountain and its
discrimination towards those who are non-pahadis has brought about
this crisis. The state’s age old practice of discrimination has been
given continuity by the current democratic governments, political
parties and media, all of them headed by those belonging to the
favoured lot. Due to this, Madhesis cannot compete fairly with the
rest. They feel no sense of equality. Only those Madhesis who have
hidden or maneuvered their identity have been able to get into state
organs though with frowned dignity. Otherwise, all the remaining is at
loss of their identical dignity and hence there is a clear identity
crisis.

Recently, the leaders of big political parties who claim to be of
national stature, feel that the reason the Madhesis have demanded a
federal autonomous state is to disintegrate the country. By such
statements, it is clear that they are unable to see the Madhesi
crisis. It is because they are still using their old lenses and never
cared to borrow a Madhesi lens. Therefore, they are puzzled as to why
this issue has caught up velocity in very short time (two or three
years). I would like to remind such people of the ethnic conflict in
former Yugoslavia in 1990 where the conflict was suppressed for fifty
years and was presumed that everything was fine, normal and under
control. However, the Eastern Bloc failed to notice that the emotional
conflict was always there and unresolved. This led to manifestation of
huge conflict after fifty years!

The so called ‘national’ parties have a myopic vision and are living
in a hallucinatory and imaginative world. They think that they are the
ones who have been given responsibility of guarding the sovereignty of
the country, and all ‘others’ are squatters who have settled there
with intention to disintegrate their personal property. This attitude
will never let them understand the madhesi crisis and their reflex
will always find ways to alienate them. For example, the Communist
Party of Nepal (UML) including other non-madhes based parties are
actively trying to prove that this issue is artificial and is
provoking some quarters of madhesis to get disassociated with the
madhesis’ demands. May be they fear to share the pie which they had
been relishing alone since inception. By labeling this genuine crisis
as artificial and trying to dilute it by promoting the practice of
‘divide and rule’, the state leaders might be close to a short term
pain relief, but certainly far from finding permanent cure to the
problem.

Suppression can never be a solution to any deep-rooted crisis. The
conflict in Nepal is bound to be grave because the Madhesis take this
as a fight for personal and social dignity and equality and hence,
have associated emotional component. On the other side, the
discriminatory practice has been ever growing and institutionalized
into the culture and lifestyle of almost all the remaining population
– the ‘Non-Madhesis’ of Nepal.

The negotiators are always tempted to go by the short stability than
to search a long term sustainability to diffuse the conflict. The
short term approaches are good to save immediate loss of lives and
resources but do not guarantee permanent peace. It is also a
statistical fact that most of such short term cures have failed within
five years of settlement. The negotiators should not be tempted to
push for superficial success to reach to any agreement for the sake of
reaching an agreement. It is the quality that is important in such
agreements. Long term stability should not be sacrificed for short
term expediency.

The recent conflict of Maoist Vs State in Nepal was also instigated by
the state’s attitude of discrimination. However this discrimination
was in distribution of economic resources. There was less of emotional
component involved and was a logical and simple conflict of
redistribution of resources among all. Now, the conflict is nearly to
its logical end in a short span of time, with relatively less loss of
lives and resources. The state should learn some lesson from this. If
the madhes issue is left uncared then there is a strong possibility of
a new conflict that is bound to be a long lasting, multi-decade
struggle. The new struggle will be proportional in magnitude to the
degree of reluctance of the state to involve the madhesis in power
sharing and stop unchecked ethnic discrimination.

Until the negotiating parties do not become sensitive to the
grievances of each other, and genuinely try to find an amicable and
sustainable solution, the negotiation doesn’t bring any lasting
solution. If negotiation fails, some conflict experts have claimed
that mass expulsion or genocide are the only ways that will make deep-
rooted conflicts disappear. In identity based conflicts, partition
becomes the only way out to further stop the violence, once conflict
starts. Is the country prepared for this path?

In deep rooted conflicts, due to the involvement of factors like
identity, dignity and ego, sustainable solution becomes really hard to
find. Sometimes even the basic democratic process like the rule of
majority in decision making or even referendum or other democratic
process that gives verdict in ‘yes’ or ‘no’ have negative effects and
is detrimental in the settlement process. Therefore, basic democratic
values as pluralism, tolerance, inclusiveness, negotiation and
compromise must be practiced with perseverance to reach to a solution
that is based on the spirit of justice and equality like power
sharing, autonomy and proportionality. In Angolan conflict, the loser
party of political transition resumed fighting. They judged it as a
better option as that would give them another chance to accomplish
their deep-rooted objectives, than to stay in the political process in
a powerless position.

The Moaists who are forming the new government has much more
responsibility than their predecessors because they are the hope and
expectation of the marginalized groups. The madhesis do not want
conflict, but if similar discrimination is practiced and tactics like
divide and rule is continued by the state or other stakeholders, it is
but the states invitation to conflict. The government has already lost
its sincerity by making a mock of the agreements with madhesis twice.
It will be impossible for the government to control the situation if a
third round of struggle comes in. It is but an inevitable event unless
the government, media and society understand the severity and
subtleness of the problem and go beyond democratic means to diffuse
the crisis.