Maoist, Madhesi parties will get more votes in Tarai

With 22 days remaining for the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections, political parties are giving special attention to securing more votes in the Madhes. Political analyst and associate professor of political science at the Tribhuvan University Vijay Kant Karna, spoke to Pranab Kharel and Darshan Karki about election dynamics in the Madhes, the failure to address Madhesi issues and poll prospects.

How are election preparations going on in the Madhes?

All Madhesi parties are busy preparing for elections. None of the parties from the Madhes have gone against elections, apart from a few armed groups. This is a good thing for democracy as an institution. But the agendas raised during the Madhes Movement have been lost. I see two reasons for this. The first is the division in the parties that came into power after the Movement and the second is that the relationship Kathmandu tried to establish with the Madhes was focused more on a power balance rather than the agendas raised.

Are those issues (inclusion, identity, language recognition, access to state resources) raised by the Madhes Movement now an agenda of non-Madhesi parties too?

The sad thing on part of national level parties is that they do not raise issues of the people. Due to this, Janajatis, Madhesis, women and Dalits have all had to launch movements of their own.

Does this mean no progress has been made in addressing the issues of inclusion and federalism?


Efforts to address these issues have not been sincere. The bill of inclusion was presented at the CA twice but it was not allowed to pass. Only cosmetic changes like reservations in the bureaucracy were made. Now, Madhesi parties and the UCPN (Maoist) have raised those issues again in their election manifestos. But how do we develop a mechanism for issues on which parties differ? It is clear that the efforts of the Madhesis and the UCPN (Maoist) alone are insufficient. A two-third majority for them is not possible at the moment either. The issues should have been discussed within the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML too. So I am worried whether the new CA will be able to address these issues.

What do you think is the reason behind the absence of dialogue on these issues among parties?


Opposing parties think that they own what is being demanded. I remember an incident during the Madhes Movement. Some parliamentarians from the NC, UML and Madhesi parties had gone to meet Girija Prasad Koirala.  The NC leader told the rest, “I have already given so much. How much more should I give?” One person present there asked, “Is this an issue of you handing us something and us accepting it? Are we representatives of a student union that have been granted an audience with the campus chief?” The current demands for inclusion and federalism are not something one person grants the other. They are about internalising the fact that the country belongs to all its citizens. The clique of businessmen, elites, the military and bureaucracy do not want to address these issues and instead want to keep this country in conflict forever.

What has the role of the major parties been in addressing Madhesi issues?

The NC, among others, must understand the cause of the Madhesis, as they have traditionally been its supporters. But the NC has failed to understand this. There has never been a relation between the UML and the Madhes; its leaders do not know the Madhes and vice-versa.

Speaking of the UCPN (Maoist), especially after 2002, the way it included the issues of Madhesis, Janajatis and Dalits in its strategies helped bring some awareness in the Madhes. It led the Madhesis to believe that they could fight for their rights too. Still, the UCPN (Maoist) failed to fully incorporate the demands of the Madhes and marginalised groups in the Interim Constitution.

On the part of the government, it only agreed to do certain things once it felt the heat of the Madhes Movement. But when it was time to implement those decisions, it refused to do so.

How did the NC falter in addressing the aforementioned agendas?

The NC had the huge responsibility of fulfilling the understanding reached between Girija Prasad Koirala and the Maoists after the war. However, after the formation of the 2008 CA, the NC backed away from that mission. The NC was confused about fulfilling its commitments to the peace process and going against it due to fear that doing so would wipe out the party. When election results did not turn out as expected, the NC perceived itself as the government and the Maoists as the opposition. But the 12-point agreement, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution did not envision an opposition.  Those documents only aimed at completing the peace process and then transforming the country. So the NC abandoned its duty halfway.

What about the UCPN (Maoist)?

The UCPN (Maoist) came into mainstream politics through a revolution. Moreover, it is a communist party based on the ideology of Mao. No matter what is said, national and international powers did not accept the party and the Maoists faced problems from the very beginning. These powers will accept the UCPN (Maoist) only by killing its agenda and essence, or by turning Prachanda into Girija Prasad Koirala and Baburam Bhattarai into Madhav Kumar Nepal.

In that case, how will national parties fare in the elections in the Madhes? Will the fragmentation of Madhesi parties affect their voter base too?



The fragmentation of Madhesi parties, their non-delivery even while in power, in-fighting for positions were all seen by the people. People were hugely disappointed and still are. If the traditional powers had done any better, people would have been attracted to them.

There is a rise of two kinds of political forces in the Madhes. First, those who advocate for identity, inclusion, federalism and access to resources and instruments of the state. Second, those who say that we will accomplish things slowly through the old parliamentary system.The elections will be a competition between these two.

People will still vote for Madhesi parties. While I travelled to the Madhes about four months back, there was so much anger against them. When I visited those places (Jhapa, Morang, Sunsari, Siraha, Dhanusha, Sarlahi, Rautahat, Bara, Parsa, Kailali) again recently, they seem to have calmed down. They do not see a better option.

Will the Maoists be able to retain the Madhesi votes they secured in 2008?

The Madhesi parties and the UCPN (Maoist) will secure more votes than in the previous election. The UCPN (Maoist) has a stronghold among Dalits, Janajati and marginalised communities. But Madhesis will vote for Madhesis. There are many other factors like caste, personality etc. Madhesi parties are still political parties in the making. These parties were formed in 2007 and still have a lot to do: build leadership, socialise, form an ideology, build a structure. I think it will take 10-15 years more for them to evolve as institutions.

In the run-up to elections two major incidents took place in the Madhes: the tensions between Hindus and Muslims in Siraha and the murder of Mohammad Alam. Are these indicative of the security situation in the Madhes?


In Siraha, it was not the first time a person from one community teased a girl from another community. But there were attempts to trumpet this event into a Hindu-Muslim conflict. However, the local administration, political parties and the existent social fabric among communities managed it. In Mohammad Alam’s case, investigations are currently under way.

That aside, the categorisation of ‘sensitive districts’ is interesting. Twelve out of 16 districts categorised as ‘sensitive’ from a security perspective fall in the Madhes. As campaigning intensified right before and after Dashain, no violence has been observed in the Tarai. Security events were instead reported in Terhathum, Taplejung, Dadeldhura and Dang. So I doubt the ability of our security intelligence and government in analysing the security situation.

Does that mean there are no major security concerns in the region?

There are some armed groups with whom the government held talks, and signed agreements but did not follow through. So they are back. In case of others, the government has been unable to hold talks with them. These groups had released statements saying that they would not allow elections to take place some months back. Second, the CPN-Maoist is not taking part in the polls. These two groups could hamper peaceful and credible elections. Only when elections are peaceful, can they be free, fair and credible. 

Labels: Highlight, Interview