The free Madhes campaign is led by CK Raut, who was arrested by the Nepali government and charged with treason in 2014. He was acquitted by a Special Court and lives in the Tarai town of Rajbiraj, under close state surveillance.

In Delhi on a private visit, he spoke exclusively to the Hindustan Times on his personal trajectory, why he seeks a free Tarai, expectations from India, and if such a campaign can be successful in 21st century South Asia.

Q. Why do you want an independent Madhes?

A. This is not a matter of only Nepal or Madhes. Wherever there is colonial rule in the world, the only solution is complete freedom from the colonising force and that is why we have selected this method. No other means, be it federalism or anything else, can provide a solution for colonial rule.

Read: Madhesi front announces fresh protest after shunning statute rejig

Q. What makes you say Tarai is a colony of Nepal?

A. There are several reasons. One, look at the army. Ninety five percent of the army present in the Madhes hails from outside Madhes, ie from pahad, hills. Even in India, during colonial rule, only 3 to 5% of the armed forces were from Britain. The Tarai is heavily colonised by the pahadi invading force.

Two, in colonisation, people from ruling class migrate and settle there. In 1951, people from ruling class constituted 6% in Tarai but today, it is 36%. This is one- sided migration. Three, even up to 1958, Madhesis required a visa to enter Kathmandu, which proves that we had a separate existence until then.

Fourth, in colonial rule, the colonial power goes to colonised land and exploits resources and brings it back. In Madhes, pahadi ruling class came to Madhes, exploited land, forest and rivers, raised revenues and took it back to the original place. Three-fourths of the revenue is collected from Tarai, but only 10% of the budget is spent on Tarai. There is cash flow from the Tarai to the hills. And fifth, the colonisers impose their language and culture in colonised territory. And in the Madhes, they have imposed the Nepali language and Nepali dress. This is all evidence for colonisation.

Democracy and violence

Q. Even if you are right historically, with democracy, isn’t there a possibility of accommodating Madhesis within the ruling structures of Nepal? In the last 10 years, there has been a Madhesi president and vice-president; there were over 200 Madhesis in the legislature; there is increased representation in bureaucracy. Should this process of integration and inclusion not be supported?

Read: 3 Madhesi protesters killed in fresh violence in Nepal

A. For democracy, you need freedom of choice. But that is not possible without liberation. On inclusion, it is not just a matter of numbers or proportion. During British rule, Indians outnumbered British in administration or bureaucracy but the British ruled India. The issue is the quality of inclusion. A small group of the ruling class can have the final say. It does not matter if a Madhesi could become president or vice-president; they could not practice their due rights granted by the constitution. They could barely rise above being second class citizens.

Q. There are other problems with a secessionist movement. The first is it will invite repression. And the second it is not feasible. South Asia’s map has not been redrawn since 1971 and will not happen now. Isn’t this a futile cause?

A. In today’s world, human rights have been established. There is well established international law. We can say that in this era of international order, there is a good mechanism for waging a peaceful revolution and asking for liberation. And there are already proper mechanisms like referendum that can liberate a land.

And second, it is not impossible at all. For example, 70 years ago, only 51 countries were registered in UN and now we have 193. In the past 25 years, more than 30 countries have got independence. It is not impossible.

Q. So is your immediate demand a referendum?

A. Yes. We want a referendum in the Tarai on the question of whether Tarai wants to be independent from Nepal or not.

Q. And what if the majority of the people in Tarai say they want to be a part of Nepal. Will you accept it?

A. Yes, I will accept it.

Q. Whenever you raise such an issue, it is inevitable that elements will pick up the gun. Peaceful movements are seen as ineffective for a cause like this. Don’t you think your demand will lead to violence and counter violence?

A. I am fully committed to non violence for both reasons of principle and pragmatism. The world is more united against violence than ever. There is no place for it. Second, even if you achieve independence with violent means, you cannot keep it for a long time. We have seen that with the Tamils in Sri Lanka and even the Maoists in Nepal.

People doubt the effectiveness of non violence, but research shows that with non violence, success rate is 70% while it is only 10% for violent movements. The third reason is that wherever there is violence, that society is most affected. We don’t want Madhes to be affected like Sudan and African countries.

Q. Where did the Tamils go wrong in your assessment?

A. The whole problem was the violent means. That was a complete mistake. That is why despite hundreds of thousands of Tamils being killed, the international community could not take any significant measures.

The Tarai’s internal dynamic

Q. The Tarai itself is so diverse. There are multiple castes within Madhesis; there are Tharus; there are Muslims. What makes you think they all want to live together, but separately from Nepal?

A. These are artificially created divisions by the Nepali state so that the ruling class can appear strong. But we are well connected by our language, culture, history and aspirations. The most effective uniting factor is that we are all discriminated and tortured by the Nepali state.

Q. But this is a negative conception of nationalism. You want to build nationalism based on only a common enemy ie the Nepali state? What is the positive thing that binds you?

A. This is just one aspect of nationalism – a common mental aspiration or expression. Madhesis also share other aspects like history, culture, language, economic structures.

Q. But even there, one could argue that history as the Dalit sees it, as the Tharu sees it, as an upper caste Madhesis, as a Muslim sees it is different. One could argue that there is no common language either. How would you respond to that?

A. As I said, those differences are created and projected by the Nepali ruling class. Look at language – you can go from Jhapa to Kanchanpur, and speak in one language, which is Hindi. But the ruling class people taught us that Hindi is not our language, and we must not speak it. You can see the conspiracy right there.

Q. You mentioned that divisions are a creation of Kathmandu. But caste is not a product of Kathmandu’s politics. The fact that women in Madhes are treated unequally is not because of Kathmandu. Aren’t these the real problems in Tarai?

A. The caste question is not unique to Madhes. It has been a feature in the Indian subcontinent. Once we have control, we can handle it. The whole control is out of our hands. As long as that key does not come in our hand, we cannot solve anything. That key is freedom. Once we have it, we can take decisions and form a strategy.

Q. As you said earlier, over one-third of the population in Tarai includes people of hill origin. They would, one can assume, strongly oppose any secessionist movement. How will you deal with that?

A. We are not against any community. This is the end of colonial rule for everyone living in the Tarai, and not just one community or the other. Two, even in the US it was the British immigrants who participated in the struggle for independence. In India, AO Hume or Annie Besant supported the nationalists.

We would urge people of hill origin to join the movement. And finally, when the Tarai is colonised, when it is deprived of its share of resources and budget, the pahadis living there also suffer. So it is for their rights too.

Constitution and the Madhes andolan

Q. How do you see the current constitution?

A. The ruling class has done its best job for preserving its agenda and benefits. It is not surprising at all. It is not for Madhesis at all. All articles have been written to exploit Madhesis.

Q. There is a movement underway to revise those aspects of the constitution which Madhes sees as discriminatory. Do you have views on that?

A. We have already done enough movements in the past with the same agenda. That has proven futile. This time, it is coming out of sheer frustration, rather than any definite agenda. The Madhesi parties have not been very consistent in demanding how many federal provinces should be in Tarai. The demands have been wavering.

Q. How do you assess the role of the moderate Madhesi parties?

A. I will say that basically they understand there won’t be any achievement except building their party base. Their effort must be appreciated for keeping the movement alive for five months, and preventing any major ethnic clashes and violence during this time.

Q. Do you think that the movement will bring about change the structure of the Nepali constitution and state?

The ruling class has been clear about it – that they do not want to give rights. We are not clear. The problem is with us. Our Madhesi leaders are not clear. They are just busy strengthening their party base. This movement will prolong till the next elections, and everything will be forgotten. The issue will get lost. The movement will end. There will be normal political procedure. Kathmandu has already been victorious. They have not even consulted the Madhesi parties during the recent amendment process.

The politics of sedition

Q. If Kathmandu wins, then what happens? Does your movement become stronger?

A. Yes, yes. If we have can have a referendum right now, it will show that majority of Madhesis already want independence. There is only one way left now.

Q. If there is no referendum and independence is not granted, what happens then?

A. We should not be seeking independence as being granted from them. We should be holding elections, forming our own legislature, and government. It is under our own control. When we are prepared, we should form the government and seek recognition from international community. It is a question of our preparedness.

Q. But that will be sedition and the Nepali state will crack down?

A. That is why we are doing this through peaceful means. If hundreds of thousands of people rise, then the state cannot crack down and charge treason against all of them.

Q. You were arrested last year on sedition. What are that experience like?

A. It was a great experience. I am proud of the time in jail. It gave me a lot of confidence in myself and my way. It also showed the power of non violence. There are many armed groups in existence but the state did not go after them, but us because they know power lies in non violence.

Q. You don’t think asking for independence is sedition?

A. Not at all – because sovereignty lies with the people and it is the people who should decide whether Madhes or any region should be independent or not.

Q. Where are you getting support from? Such a movement cannot run on air. There has to be financing, organisation.

A. From the people, the general mass of Madhes. Once they understand why we need independence, they are ready to sacrifice everything because nothing is more valuable than freedom.

India’s role

Q. How do you see India’s role at the current moment and what is your expectation from Delhi?

A. India has a unique role about Madhesis. It has a great responsibility to ensure that Madhesis are not prosecuted. India has played a positive role. Because of the open border and other affinities, India cannot close its eyes at all. If the region becomes violent, it will affect India. During the current movement itself, thousands of Madhesis sought refuge in India. And if the violence increases, that number will significantly increase. If Madhes does not become independent in the next 15 years, there may be hundreds of thousands of Madhesi refugees in India.

Q. But India values its state to state relationship with Nepal; it is committed to Nepal’s unity and territorial integrity.

Why should India take a stand in favour of a break up of a friendly state? It has not done so anywhere in the region.

A. The last five months has proved that Madhesis will not get any rights within Nepal. It has also proved that Nepal is not in the hands of India. It is in the best interests of India to support a free Madhes because that will lead to a friendly, stable and peaceful neighbour which is Madhes rather than having a violent trodden, communist region that is Nepal.

Personal trajectory

Q. You were among the most successful Madhesi professionals in Nepal – you studied on a scholarship in Japan, and then did a PhD from Cambridge, and you were working in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Most people would like to move from Rajbiraj to Boston, you came back when you could be earning thousands of dollars. Why?

A. I used to make that kind of money. The thing is that once you satiate material desires and pass all those levels of human needs, then you start looking beyond personal and familial needs. Once I became what people call successful, I started looking beyond myself – to my society and when I looked beyond, I saw poor Madhesi people and the problems they were facing.

And because I was at the top of the ladder, I felt it is my responsibility as well to solve those problems. I had worked for two years in the US, and planned to stay for ten years there. But I went on a tour from Mechhi to Mahakali across the Tarai and during that tour, I saw many pitiful scenes of Madhes. People far from my home looked at me with pitiful eyes, hoping I would give a solution. That journey forced me to decide that I must return from the US immediately and do whatever I can on this very land.

Q. Was there a particular moment when you decided you would fight for Madhesi freedom? What was the trigger?

A. Prior to the Hrithik Roshan scandal in December 2000, I used to consider myself a true Nepali. That incident turned me into a Madhesi. For an alleged anti-Nepali remark from Hrithik Roshan, riots were triggered across Nepal and Madhesis were targeted. (Roshan denied making such comments). I was an engineering student in Kathmandu and was staying there during my winter vacation.

I observed it first hand; saw Madhesis severely beaten. Houses of Madhesis were burnt. I was a victim from my own close friends. That incident actually forced me to look at myself and search for my identity and nationality. I was questioned that I was not a Nepali when I considered myself someone ready to die for Nepal.

I was not very open about it because I also had a spiritual inclination. I was always in a dilemma – whether to pursue spiritualism or fight for identity, dignity and rights. I went on a spiritual tour across India and I realized there is no way to run away from one’s own identity. That forced me to fight for my identity and nationality. That was the turning point of my life. Then I became an advocate for independence.

Even as moderate Madhesi parties wage a movement to seek revision in Nepal’s new constitution, the country is witnessing a nascent separatist movement in the Tarai.

The free Madhes campaign is led by CK Raut, who was arrested by the Nepali government and charged with treason in 2014. He was acquitted by a Special Court and lives in the Tarai town of Rajbiraj, under close state surveillance.

In Delhi on a private visit, he spoke exclusively to the Hindustan Times on his personal trajectory, why he seeks a free Tarai, expectations from India, and if such a campaign can be successful in 21st century South Asia.

Q. Why do you want an independent Madhes?

A. This is not a matter of only Nepal or Madhes. Wherever there is colonial rule in the world, the only solution is complete freedom from the colonising force and that is why we have selected this method. No other means, be it federalism or anything else, can provide a solution for colonial rule.

Read: Madhesi front announces fresh protest after shunning statute rejig

Q. What makes you say Tarai is a colony of Nepal?

A. There are several reasons. One, look at the army. Ninety five percent of the army present in the Madhes hails from outside Madhes, ie from pahad, hills. Even in India, during colonial rule, only 3 to 5% of the armed forces were from Britain. The Tarai is heavily colonised by the pahadi invading force.

Two, in colonisation, people from ruling class migrate and settle there. In 1951, people from ruling class constituted 6% in Tarai but today, it is 36%. This is one- sided migration. Three, even up to 1958, Madhesis required a visa to enter Kathmandu, which proves that we had a separate existence until then.

Fourth, in colonial rule, the colonial power goes to colonised land and exploits resources and brings it back. In Madhes, pahadi ruling class came to Madhes, exploited land, forest and rivers, raised revenues and took it back to the original place. Three-fourths of the revenue is collected from Tarai, but only 10% of the budget is spent on Tarai. There is cash flow from the Tarai to the hills. And fifth, the colonisers impose their language and culture in colonised territory. And in the Madhes, they have imposed the Nepali language and Nepali dress. This is all evidence for colonisation.

Democracy and violence

Q. Even if you are right historically, with democracy, isn’t there a possibility of accommodating Madhesis within the ruling structures of Nepal? In the last 10 years, there has been a Madhesi president and vice-president; there were over 200 Madhesis in the legislature; there is increased representation in bureaucracy. Should this process of integration and inclusion not be supported?

Read: 3 Madhesi protesters killed in fresh violence in Nepal

A. For democracy, you need freedom of choice. But that is not possible without liberation. On inclusion, it is not just a matter of numbers or proportion. During British rule, Indians outnumbered British in administration or bureaucracy but the British ruled India. The issue is the quality of inclusion. A small group of the ruling class can have the final say. It does not matter if a Madhesi could become president or vice-president; they could not practice their due rights granted by the constitution. They could barely rise above being second class citizens.

Q. There are other problems with a secessionist movement. The first is it will invite repression. And the second it is not feasible. South Asia’s map has not been redrawn since 1971 and will not happen now. Isn’t this a futile cause?

A. In today’s world, human rights have been established. There is well established international law. We can say that in this era of international order, there is a good mechanism for waging a peaceful revolution and asking for liberation. And there are already proper mechanisms like referendum that can liberate a land.

And second, it is not impossible at all. For example, 70 years ago, only 51 countries were registered in UN and now we have 193. In the past 25 years, more than 30 countries have got independence. It is not impossible.

Q. So is your immediate demand a referendum?

A. Yes. We want a referendum in the Tarai on the question of whether Tarai wants to be independent from Nepal or not.

Q. And what if the majority of the people in Tarai say they want to be a part of Nepal. Will you accept it?

A. Yes, I will accept it.

Q. Whenever you raise such an issue, it is inevitable that elements will pick up the gun. Peaceful movements are seen as ineffective for a cause like this. Don’t you think your demand will lead to violence and counter violence?

A. I am fully committed to non violence for both reasons of principle and pragmatism. The world is more united against violence than ever. There is no place for it. Second, even if you achieve independence with violent means, you cannot keep it for a long time. We have seen that with the Tamils in Sri Lanka and even the Maoists in Nepal.

People doubt the effectiveness of non violence, but research shows that with non violence, success rate is 70% while it is only 10% for violent movements. The third reason is that wherever there is violence, that society is most affected. We don’t want Madhes to be affected like Sudan and African countries.

Q. Where did the Tamils go wrong in your assessment?

A. The whole problem was the violent means. That was a complete mistake. That is why despite hundreds of thousands of Tamils being killed, the international community could not take any significant measures.

The Tarai’s internal dynamic

Q. The Tarai itself is so diverse. There are multiple castes within Madhesis; there are Tharus; there are Muslims. What makes you think they all want to live together, but separately from Nepal?

A. These are artificially created divisions by the Nepali state so that the ruling class can appear strong. But we are well connected by our language, culture, history and aspirations. The most effective uniting factor is that we are all discriminated and tortured by the Nepali state.

Q. But this is a negative conception of nationalism. You want to build nationalism based on only a common enemy ie the Nepali state? What is the positive thing that binds you?

A. This is just one aspect of nationalism – a common mental aspiration or expression. Madhesis also share other aspects like history, culture, language, economic structures.

Q. But even there, one could argue that history as the Dalit sees it, as the Tharu sees it, as an upper caste Madhesis, as a Muslim sees it is different. One could argue that there is no common language either. How would you respond to that?

A. As I said, those differences are created and projected by the Nepali ruling class. Look at language – you can go from Jhapa to Kanchanpur, and speak in one language, which is Hindi. But the ruling class people taught us that Hindi is not our language, and we must not speak it. You can see the conspiracy right there.

Q. You mentioned that divisions are a creation of Kathmandu. But caste is not a product of Kathmandu’s politics. The fact that women in Madhes are treated unequally is not because of Kathmandu. Aren’t these the real problems in Tarai?

A. The caste question is not unique to Madhes. It has been a feature in the Indian subcontinent. Once we have control, we can handle it. The whole control is out of our hands. As long as that key does not come in our hand, we cannot solve anything. That key is freedom. Once we have it, we can take decisions and form a strategy.

Q. As you said earlier, over one-third of the population in Tarai includes people of hill origin. They would, one can assume, strongly oppose any secessionist movement. How will you deal with that?

A. We are not against any community. This is the end of colonial rule for everyone living in the Tarai, and not just one community or the other. Two, even in the US it was the British immigrants who participated in the struggle for independence. In India, AO Hume or Annie Besant supported the nationalists.

We would urge people of hill origin to join the movement. And finally, when the Tarai is colonised, when it is deprived of its share of resources and budget, the pahadis living there also suffer. So it is for their rights too.

Constitution and the Madhes andolan

Q. How do you see the current constitution?

A. The ruling class has done its best job for preserving its agenda and benefits. It is not surprising at all. It is not for Madhesis at all. All articles have been written to exploit Madhesis.

Q. There is a movement underway to revise those aspects of the constitution which Madhes sees as discriminatory. Do you have views on that?

A. We have already done enough movements in the past with the same agenda. That has proven futile. This time, it is coming out of sheer frustration, rather than any definite agenda. The Madhesi parties have not been very consistent in demanding how many federal provinces should be in Tarai. The demands have been wavering.

Q. How do you assess the role of the moderate Madhesi parties?

A. I will say that basically they understand there won’t be any achievement except building their party base. Their effort must be appreciated for keeping the movement alive for five months, and preventing any major ethnic clashes and violence during this time.

Q. Do you think that the movement will bring about change the structure of the Nepali constitution and state?

The ruling class has been clear about it – that they do not want to give rights. We are not clear. The problem is with us. Our Madhesi leaders are not clear. They are just busy strengthening their party base. This movement will prolong till the next elections, and everything will be forgotten. The issue will get lost. The movement will end. There will be normal political procedure. Kathmandu has already been victorious. They have not even consulted the Madhesi parties during the recent amendment process.

The politics of sedition

Q. If Kathmandu wins, then what happens? Does your movement become stronger?

A. Yes, yes. If we have can have a referendum right now, it will show that majority of Madhesis already want independence. There is only one way left now.

Q. If there is no referendum and independence is not granted, what happens then?

A. We should not be seeking independence as being granted from them. We should be holding elections, forming our own legislature, and government. It is under our own control. When we are prepared, we should form the government and seek recognition from international community. It is a question of our preparedness.

Q. But that will be sedition and the Nepali state will crack down?

A. That is why we are doing this through peaceful means. If hundreds of thousands of people rise, then the state cannot crack down and charge treason against all of them.

Q. You were arrested last year on sedition. What are that experience like?

A. It was a great experience. I am proud of the time in jail. It gave me a lot of confidence in myself and my way. It also showed the power of non violence. There are many armed groups in existence but the state did not go after them, but us because they know power lies in non violence.

Q. You don’t think asking for independence is sedition?

A. Not at all – because sovereignty lies with the people and it is the people who should decide whether Madhes or any region should be independent or not.

Q. Where are you getting support from? Such a movement cannot run on air. There has to be financing, organisation.

A. From the people, the general mass of Madhes. Once they understand why we need independence, they are ready to sacrifice everything because nothing is more valuable than freedom.

India’s role

Q. How do you see India’s role at the current moment and what is your expectation from Delhi?

A. India has a unique role about Madhesis. It has a great responsibility to ensure that Madhesis are not prosecuted. India has played a positive role. Because of the open border and other affinities, India cannot close its eyes at all. If the region becomes violent, it will affect India. During the current movement itself, thousands of Madhesis sought refuge in India. And if the violence increases, that number will significantly increase. If Madhes does not become independent in the next 15 years, there may be hundreds of thousands of Madhesi refugees in India.

Q. But India values its state to state relationship with Nepal; it is committed to Nepal’s unity and territorial integrity.

Why should India take a stand in favour of a break up of a friendly state? It has not done so anywhere in the region.

A. The last five months has proved that Madhesis will not get any rights within Nepal. It has also proved that Nepal is not in the hands of India. It is in the best interests of India to support a free Madhes because that will lead to a friendly, stable and peaceful neighbour which is Madhes rather than having a violent trodden, communist region that is Nepal.

Personal trajectory

Q. You were among the most successful Madhesi professionals in Nepal – you studied on a scholarship in Japan, and then did a PhD from Cambridge, and you were working in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Most people would like to move from Rajbiraj to Boston, you came back when you could be earning thousands of dollars. Why?

A. I used to make that kind of money. The thing is that once you satiate material desires and pass all those levels of human needs, then you start looking beyond personal and familial needs. Once I became what people call successful, I started looking beyond myself – to my society and when I looked beyond, I saw poor Madhesi people and the problems they were facing.

And because I was at the top of the ladder, I felt it is my responsibility as well to solve those problems. I had worked for two years in the US, and planned to stay for ten years there. But I went on a tour from Mechhi to Mahakali across the Tarai and during that tour, I saw many pitiful scenes of Madhes. People far from my home looked at me with pitiful eyes, hoping I would give a solution. That journey forced me to decide that I must return from the US immediately and do whatever I can on this very land.

Q. Was there a particular moment when you decided you would fight for Madhesi freedom? What was the trigger?

A. Prior to the Hrithik Roshan scandal in December 2000, I used to consider myself a true Nepali. That incident turned me into a Madhesi. For an alleged anti-Nepali remark from Hrithik Roshan, riots were triggered across Nepal and Madhesis were targeted. (Roshan denied making such comments). I was an engineering student in Kathmandu and was staying there during my winter vacation.

I observed it first hand; saw Madhesis severely beaten. Houses of Madhesis were burnt. I was a victim from my own close friends. That incident actually forced me to look at myself and search for my identity and nationality. I was questioned that I was not a Nepali when I considered myself someone ready to die for Nepal.

I was not very open about it because I also had a spiritual inclination. I was always in a dilemma – whether to pursue spiritualism or fight for identity, dignity and rights. I went on a spiritual tour across India and I realized there is no way to run away from one’s own identity. That forced me to fight for my identity and nationality. That was the turning point of my life. Then I became an advocate for independence.

In the past few months, the Nepal Police has made its presence conspicuous in the vicinity of the residence of Dr. CK Raut in Rajbiraj, Saptari District. The number of personnel ranges from 2 to well over a dozen, rising when they think Dr. Raut has reason to leave his home. They have placed Dr. Raut under 24-hour surveillance, and to do so, they have rented a house nearby and deployed some female members of the police there too. The police personnel have been doing their assigned job, however this is obstructing day-to-day life of Dr. Raut. Even his family members are living in fear due to constant surveillance.

The police have been intruding into the security and privacy of Dr. Raut’s family. They have been entering the house of Dr. Raut uninvited, anytime, grilling children, women, and senior members of his family, and searching his house without warrant.

One night last week, at around midnight, female police personnel, and possibly some policemen as well, climbed up on the roof of Dr. Raut’s house, using a neighboring property, to peek through windows into Dr. Raut’s room. It is not known to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) whether the police interlopers took photographs or recorded film of what they observed. However, what is known is that this act of clambering onto the roof at night to peek through the windows was repeated again this week as well.

The police also keep on circling Dr. Raut’s house on motorcycles at midnight, and past midnight, even up to 2 a.m. sometimes. This behavior of law enforcement is terrorizing the Dr. Raut family, including several senior members, women and children. They sleep in fear not knowing when the police will sneak about to peek through which windows, or intrude into the house from which direction.

Despite the Special Court having given him a clean chit on the treason charge filed against him on 8 October 2014, the police are denying Dr. Raut the most basic freedoms. He has been virtually placed under house arrest, forbidden to speaking to the public, hold a mass-assembly, or even make statements to the press. The last time he managed to come out of his house, somehow, was on June 24, to attend a meeting about foreign aid induced deforestation, migration, and resettlement projects in Madhes/Terai. And, even then, he was arrested at Lahan.

Prior to that, it was on May 26 that he managed to leave his house to be interviewed by Arena Television in Itahari, Sunsari District. On that occasion he was arrested from the interview room before the interview could be recorded, and kept in custody under cruel conditions. In the past, he has been arrested even when going to the hospital (on 2 April 2015), and prevented even from attending funeral rites (on 12 February 2015). The police have even broken his leg during a brutal attack on 3 January 2015 in Biratnagar. In another violent police crackdown on 4 April 2015, his head and arms suffered serious injury. The kind of torture he was forced to undergo in police custody, led him to undertake a fast-unto-death (from 21 September to 1 October 2014).

In addition, almost a hundred Madhesi activists have been injured in police suppression in the last few months; the police have filed more than a dozen fake public offence cases against the activists for supporting Dr. Raut. Dr. Raut’s supporters are being regularly harassed and tortured by the police.

Dr. Raut has also received dozens of serious death threats, even from government-registered organizations, which have officially issued death threats on their letterheads. However, the government has not taken any measures against those who have made these open threats.

The AHRC strongly urges the government of Nepal to respect Dr. Raut’s rights to freedom of speech, movement, peaceful assembly and association, which are fundamental rights of all human beings everywhere, as also mandated by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which Nepal is a signatory.

Dr. Raut has been advocating for the constitutional right of secession in the upcoming Constitution and has been seeking an independent Madhes. This advocacy, however, does not justify the government of Nepal using intimidation, threat, harassment, fabricated cases, and violence to deny fundamental rights to Dr. Raut, his family, and his supporters.

The AHRC would like to draw the attention of concerned authorities, human-rights organisations, and civil society about the invasion of privacy and security of Dr. Raut and his family members by the Nepal Police. The Nepal Police must respect citizen’s privacy and security. The harassment of Dr. Raut and his family by the police must stop.

The government of Nepal will bear responsibility if anything happens to any of Dr. Raut’s family members from the intrusive activities of the Nepal Police, which include peeking through windows and entering the house uninvited at midnight.

Document Type : Statement
Document ID : AHRC-STM-105-2015
Countries : Nepal
Issues :International human rights mechanisms, Administration of justice, Freedom of assembly, Freedom of association, Freedom of expression

July 3, 2015

In the past few months, the Nepal Police has made its presence conspicuous in the vicinity of the residence of Dr. CK Raut in Rajbiraj, Saptari District. The number of personnel ranges from 2 to well over a dozen, rising when they think Dr. Raut has reason to leave his home. They have placed Dr. Raut under 24-hour surveillance, and to do so, they have rented a house nearby and deployed some female members of the police there too. The police personnel have been doing their assigned job, however this is obstructing day-to-day life of Dr. Raut. Even his family members are living in fear due to constant surveillance.

The police have been intruding into the security and privacy of Dr. Raut’s family. They have been entering the house of Dr. Raut uninvited, anytime, grilling children, women, and senior members of his family, and searching his house without warrant.

One night last week, at around midnight, female police personnel, and possibly some policemen as well, climbed up on the roof of Dr. Raut’s house, using a neighboring property, to peek through windows into Dr. Raut’s room. It is not known to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) whether the police interlopers took photographs or recorded film of what they observed. However, what is known is that this act of clambering onto the roof at night to peek through the windows was repeated again this week as well.

The police also keep on circling Dr. Raut’s house on motorcycles at midnight, and past midnight, even up to 2 a.m. sometimes. This behavior of law enforcement is terrorizing the Dr. Raut family, including several senior members, women and children. They sleep in fear not knowing when the police will sneak about to peek through which windows, or intrude into the house from which direction.

Despite the Special Court having given him a clean chit on the treason charge filed against him on 8 October 2014, the police are denying Dr. Raut the most basic freedoms. He has been virtually placed under house arrest, forbidden to speaking to the public, hold a mass-assembly, or even make statements to the press. The last time he managed to come out of his house, somehow, was on June 24, to attend a meeting about foreign aid induced deforestation, migration, and resettlement projects in Madhes/Terai. And, even then, he was arrested at Lahan.

Prior to that, it was on May 26 that he managed to leave his house to be interviewed by Arena Television in Itahari, Sunsari District. On that occasion he was arrested from the interview room before the interview could be recorded, and kept in custody under cruel conditions. In the past, he has been arrested even when going to the hospital (on 2 April 2015), and prevented even from attending funeral rites (on 12 February 2015). The police have even broken his leg during a brutal attack on 3 January 2015 in Biratnagar. In another violent police crackdown on 4 April 2015, his head and arms suffered serious injury. The kind of torture he was forced to undergo in police custody, led him to undertake a fast-unto-death (from 21 September to 1 October 2014).

In addition, almost a hundred Madhesi activists have been injured in police suppression in the last few months; the police have filed more than a dozen fake public offence cases against the activists for supporting Dr. Raut. Dr. Raut’s supporters are being regularly harassed and tortured by the police.

Dr. Raut has also received dozens of serious death threats, even from government-registered organizations, which have officially issued death threats on their letterheads. However, the government has not taken any measures against those who have made these open threats.

The AHRC strongly urges the government of Nepal to respect Dr. Raut’s rights to freedom of speech, movement, peaceful assembly and association, which are fundamental rights of all human beings everywhere, as also mandated by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which Nepal is a signatory.

Dr. Raut has been advocating for the constitutional right of secession in the upcoming Constitution and has been seeking an independent Madhes. This advocacy, however, does not justify the government of Nepal using intimidation, threat, harassment, fabricated cases, and violence to deny fundamental rights to Dr. Raut, his family, and his supporters.

The AHRC would like to draw the attention of concerned authorities, human-rights organisations, and civil society about the invasion of privacy and security of Dr. Raut and his family members by the Nepal Police. The Nepal Police must respect citizen’s privacy and security. The harassment of Dr. Raut and his family by the police must stop.

The government of Nepal will bear responsibility if anything happens to any of Dr. Raut’s family members from the intrusive activities of the Nepal Police, which include peeking through windows and entering the house uninvited at midnight.

Document Type : Statement
Document ID : AHRC-STM-105-2015
Countries : Nepal
Issues :International human rights mechanisms, Administration of justice, Freedom of assembly, Freedom of association, Freedom of expression

Source: http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-105-2015

Until now none of Madhesh-based parties has come out in support of Raut on separation and independence, although most Madheshi leaders have issued statements asking for Raut’s immediate release, arguing that in a democracy citizens have a right to debate any issue and express any opinion, even when it is not to the liking of the administration and law enforcement officials.

While the administration doesn’t deny that people are free to exercise their democratic rights to speech, they contend that Raut’s advocacy of secession and independence far exceeds democratic norms and is hence a treasonous act, aimed at creating disorder, rebellion, and break-up of the country.

Raut’s categorization as a trouble-maker, separatist, and violent rabble-rouser doesn’t fit the mold of ordinary activists. His case is extraordinary and his motivation for this struggle can be taken as nothing less than a divine intervention to salvage the pride of millions of people who have suffered from a different kind of tyranny—of keeping a whole people in a sort of solitary confinement.

Most likely, the court will show leniency towards Raut, releasing him on a conditional basis, most likely ordering him to refrain from his secession and independence rhetoric.

Probably this is the highest punishment that can be meted out to Raut. If so, it can help calm the situation and induce the entire gamut of stakeholders to look at root causes of Raut’s militancy and rebellion, and then decide on longer-term solution to Madhesh problem.

To preempt further troubles, the government—the current one as well as any future government—must listen to the grievances that have now got public attention through Raut. Ignoring the issue, on the other hand, will ensure that such eruptions could take place in the future as well, with much uglier
consequences.

The Madhesh issue that Raut’s activism has brought to the fore can be accessed from two opposite angles. One is that Raut has engaged in anti-national activities—remember the Arashtriaya Tatwa labeling of democracy advocates by panchayat regime eons ago!— aimed at dismemberment of the State and, accordingly, he deserves to be punished for treason.

But another—more reasonable and appropriate—view would be that Raut’s outrage and extremism are a result of denial of civil rights to Madheshi citizens and, more generally, the government’s exclusionary politics intended at minimizing their participation in state affairs.

Whether Raut is absolutely right or absolutely wrong (or somewhere in between), that is up to each person to decide for himself. I for one like to call myself a liberal, someone who takes great pride in his country, someone who has had international exposure, and above all a full-blooded Madheshi. As such, I completely agree with Raut’s depiction of Madheshi citizens’ plight while I as strongly disapprove of his means for attaining his goals—secession and armed struggle.

Raut’s grievances against the Nepali State with respect to its treatment of Madheshi residents are credible and compelling. In fact, Nepal’s exclusionary politics has no close parallel anywhere in the world; for that we need to go back to South Africa’s apartheid a quarter century ago.

Not only do Madhesis have no effective representation in core administration and constitutional wings—army, police, civil service, diplomacy, and government in general—they face exclusion even in the private sector.

How many of 2,000-3,000 taxi drivers in Kathmandu are native Madheshis? None! Of a dozen supermarkets in Kathmandu employing thousands of clerical and sales staff, not a single Madheshi is visible. In high-class hotels in Kathmandu, there is hardly a Madheshi working, except may be as barbers.

Also, a minuscule number of native Madheshis are employed in private sector—in banking, finance, travels or telecom services. Over fifty years of traveling in Nepali air carriers, I haven’t met a single native Madheshi hostess or service staff. And, finally, airport services in places like Kathmandu and Janakpur are almost completely manned by non-Madheshis.

Looking at security establishments, almost 100 percent of people are from Pahade communities, making the whole of Madhesh appear like an occupied territory!

Overall, considering all aspects of Nepali life—especially the way this has been projected overseas—exclusion of Madheshi natives is almost complete, much so than of Indians in British India; of Bengalis under Pakistan; or even of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

Therefore, the grievances of Madheshi people against exclusionary politics and economics practiced by an ethnic Pahade state are genuine and compelling and can’t any more be ignored or suppressed—a tactics that has been in official consciousness for the entire duration of the existence of Nepali state.

Segregation and exclusion policy has been so complete that the whole region gives the look of an abandoned property.

There is no development, no modernization, and no opportunities except primitive farming and petty trades. Labor migration from Madhesh to foreign countries is driven, in the main part, by a total absence of alternate means of livelihood.

Equally harmful but less visible has been the effect of exclusionary politics on national interest, most importantly on development and growth of national economy. Madhesh region provides easily exploitable resources for job creation, income generation and poverty alleviation, at a fraction of the cost the same would involve in hill regions.

But because development efforts have been concentrated in non-Madheshi regions, yield on investment has been miniscule. Such misattribution of available resources has meant wasteful use of local savings and foreign aid, reflected in their lowest output per unit of capital, which means persistence of low growth for the national economy.

There are many things that hold back Nepal’s growth and development, but the most powerful ones are the country’s exclusionary politics, especially as practiced with respect to Madhesh. On a broader level, the apathetic Madhesh policy underlies government’s cooling relations with India and reluctance to open up for global trade and investment.

Published on 2014-09-23
- See more at: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=83669

Curtailing rights

Two of the key components of the Interim Constitution—secularism and federalism—have been opposed time and again by leaders Kamal Thapa, who is advocating for a Hindu state, and Chitra Bahadur KC, who is advocating against federalism. Thapa and KC have never been arrested for their views. Rather, they have received space in the mainstream media. So why then was Dr CK Raut arrested for speaking in favour of rights to secession in the new constitution? Raut’s arrest displays the double standard of the government and the differential application of the law when it comes to members of different communities. If the state mechanism is so against Raut’s campaign for an independent Madhes, perhaps it could first question senior Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai, who had invited Raut to Singha Durbar through an official letter to express his views.

In a real democracy, all citizens have the right to express their personal views in peaceful ways. The refusal to do so can ultimately manifest in violence. French philosopher Voltaire is supposed to have said, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ The 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man assured the expression of thought and ideas as a fundamental right. And this right has since become a cornerstone of democracy, mandating the state to protect freedom of expression.

Hence, Raut’s arrest is objectionable, as it curtails a freedom enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 12 (A) and 15 (1) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal. Principle 6 of the 1995 Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression, and Access to Information elaborates that freedom of expression may be punished as a threat to national security only if a government can demonstrate that the expression is intended to incite imminent violence; it is likely to incite such violence; and there is a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence.

Still, it is not difficult to understand the motive behind Raut’s arrest. The Sushil Koirala-led new government has been adopting a two-pronged strategy to curtail freedom of expression. On the one hand, it is trying to enact restrictive laws to curtail individual’s freedom of expression and on the other, it is using security agencies to intimidate those critical of the government and those in power.

‘Certain communities’

The cases of Raju Sah from Bara and Abdul Rehman from Saptari are two exemplars. Sah was arrested for angrily posting a comment on Facebook over Home Minister Bamdev Gautam’s flagrant violation of traffic rules, captured in a photo and circulated on social media. Similarly, police arrested Rehman for posting a comment that said he had to pay Rs 50,000 to get back his stolen motorbike. And now, Dr Raut’s arrest, which clearly reflects the character of this so-called democratic government, led by the Nepali Congress, which has always portrayed itself as the protector of freedom.

As far as Raut’s views go, if a significantly large number of people vote to secede or separate, no power can force them to stay. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of independent India, repeatedly argued, “The question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people”. Take the recent example of the referendum in Scotland. A majority of voters ultimately voted to remain with Britain and the voice for secession from the union was defeated. But in case the vote had gone in favour of separation, the democratic process would have had to be respected.

Amnesty International, the Asian Human Rights Commission and several other human rights organisations have asked the Nepal government for Raut’s unconditional release. The Nepal Police held Raut in custody for more than 24 hours without any charge and later, only charged him under the vague Public Offence Act. Subsequently, the Morang District Administration Office provided permission to hold Raut under remand for six more days. After the filing of a habeas corpus writ at the Supreme Court by Raut’s brother, Raut was finally charged with treason. Raut has since become a prisoner of conscience.

Intolerant of dissent

This whole process is suspect, given that Raut was first arrested, charged under the Public Offence Act, and later, for treason. If charged and convicted of sedition, Raut could be sentenced to life in prison. The charges against Raut hint at political influence in due process. When laws and politics overlap, there is always a risk of the violation of the right to a fair trial, as granted by the Interim Constitution. Moreover, the way Raut was brought to court—handcuffed—shows the discretionary behaviour of the government towards certain communities. This could hurt the sentiments of the Madhesi community.

So this is the right time for the international community and the Nepali media to speak in favour of freedom of expression. UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has demanded Raut’s immediate release. After a few days’ silence, all Madhesi parties also called for his immediate release. The Madhesi community is keenly expecting the support of the UN and Nepal’s diplomatic community. But they have maintained a mysterious silence.

Raut has not been convicted of a crime yet; he was simply arrested for exercising his freedom of expression. He has not been involved in any type of violent activity. The primary icons of his campaign are Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. Non-violence is one of his key principles, so there is no reason for the state to be intolerant of his views.

Pity the nation that feels the need to silence its intellectuals for speaking their mind.

Jha is an advocate at the Supreme Court

Posted on: 2014-09-30 09:03

The government is unsure of how to handle this menace which, actually, it is for the ethnic government in Nepal that has ruled Madhesh region more like a colony for as long as Nepal has been a State.

The ethnic exclusion of Madheshis hasn’t changed a bit, whatever the appearance. Ethnic Madheshis remain alien in their own country, with scant representation in key government services. In most respects, there is no recognition outside the country that Nepal has a huge Madheshi ethnic group. In fact, Nepal government has made a conscious effort to keep this group out of sight and out of mind, minimizing their presence in areas that call for government representation.

If there is a convincing case for an ethnic group to break away for a separate and independent state authority, Nepal’s Madheshi residents should unequivocally get such a distinction.

The surprising and seemingly absurd reality of the situation, however, is that the supposed victims of government’s exclusionary policies—ethnic Madheshis—do not quite share the views of new revolutionaries. At least, there is no evidence of mass discontent among Madheshi people that they are being deprived of their civil and citizenship rights under the ethnic rule of the country that tends to exclude Madheshis or, at best, minimize their participation in the governmental affairs.

As an evidence of Madheshi people’s acceptance of their current situation, we can look at the country’s governance which is anchored by a democratic majority, much like in India and other mature democracies of the West. In the national level elections—most recently in 2013—Madheshi parties have badly lost. In the latest election, Madheshi parties received just a quarter of total regional votes, in a convincing repudiation of Madheshi parties by their own people.

Aside from peaceful resolution of conflict through democratic process, public discontent can be expressed in other ways, including taking up arms against a rogue regime and souring of inter-ethnic relations. Of this also there is little evidence. There have been no large-scale uprisings by Madheshi population except for short periods during 2006-07. But that enthusiasm for Madheshi assertiveness also fizzled out with the results of 2013 election. Madheshi people voted in the manner which shows they are happy with the status quo.

CK Raut and his followers are latecomers to Madheshi politics. For sure, they have the correct idealism—of freeing Madheshi people from the yokes of ethnic colonialism. But, surprisingly, that idealism is not shared by Madhesh natives. In the background of massive betrayal by Madheshi leaders—who opted to divide Madhesh into fiefdoms and strongholds instead of fighting for Madheshi rights—Madheshi people feel safer aligning with their traditional protectors—ethnic Pahades.

For the new revolutionaries it would be much wiser to win the battle for public trust of which there is a definite shortage. They must first tone down their rhetoric to a level that Madheshi people can understand, have reasons to align with, and can expect concrete results, not that they become blind followers of revolutionaries’ unsubstantiated claim of Heaven tomorrow!

In the background of over two centuries of Pahade hegemony and over-lording of Madheshi territory, local people are resigned to the fact that their situation will never change. More surprisingly, Madheshi people have come to like it this way—to keep the things as they are—for they fear Madheshi control of their lives as worse than Pahade rule.

For example, inter-caste and intra-regional divisions among Madheshis are more menacing than separation of Madheshis and Pahades. This kind of mutual mistrust among Madheshis gets reflected in voting patterns, which show Pahade candidates winning elections in overwhelmingly Madheshi territories.

The challenge for CK Raut and his fellow revolutionaries is first to gain the trust of their people which, again, would have to be demonstrated by winning public mandate—peacefully and democratically. With the decline of Madhesh-based parties and their loss of face, there is an opportunity for new revolutionaries to drum up their agenda and get public approval for their revolutionary ideas.

Their vision for change needn’t be for separation and independence which, for most Madheshis, is incomprehensible and far-fetched. This kind of fanaticism will more likely antagonize than unite them.

Instead, their revolution should focus on securing citizenship rights for Madheshis, in a manner that gives Madheshi citizens a fifty-fifty share of everything that belongs to the State—national resources, jobs, opportunities, and a recognition that Nepal is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural domain, not a mono-ethnic, mono-cultural State which the country’s ruling group has made it.

Also, the government’s super-activism in dealing with this Madheshi menace must be toned down. Repression is going to strengthen the revolution, not weaken it. More people are going to be attracted to it, first as onlookers and then as participants. The arrest and jailing of revolution’s leader CK Raut some months ago, and, more recently, police disruption of a public meeting organized by Raut’s group in Kathmandu—which, allegedly, included rounding up Madheshi-looking people from streets of Kathmandu—are instances of wrong-headed approach to taming the revolution and undercutting its adherents.

The smart way will be to ignore the new activists, for Madheshi people do not take them seriously and will not fall behind them. For one thing, these activists are untested commodity and have no credential to launch a revolution, on the pattern of Maoist insurgency. At the same time, Madheshi parties have enough strength to neutralize this new force and make it redundant, without government coming in between.
At the same time, the government must remain vigilant to the change of heart of revolutionaries—should they choose to give up their revolution and, instead, focus on civil and citizenship rights for Madheshis. Such a turnaround will pose more of a threat for the government.

sshah1983@hotmail.com -
See more at: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=88170

Raut is also a brave man—probably one of the bravest of his generation. He has dared to speak publically, what most Madheshis have feared even contemplating privately—that they might be better off if they become an independent country, rather than stay a part of Nepal.

Madheshis have rallied behind Raut’s release. Amnesty International has also urged for his unconditional release. An otherwise vocal Pahadi intelligentsia, however, has largely kept mum.

Raut believes it is best for Madheshis to seek a separate country. He has also peacefully campaigned for this. The question is: Should he be allowed to do so?

As a country, where do we stand on this issue? To what extent does our constitution guarantee the freedom of speech? To what extent does our constitution guarantee peaceful dissent? These are the questions our brightest legal scholars need to answer today.

If the Supreme Court decides that Raut committed treason, then it is a defeat for the freedom of speech. It is also a step backwards in becoming a nation of civilized people. If the Supreme Court decides to let him free, it will be a victory for the freedom of speech. It will tell us that nothing is out of limits when it comes to criticizing the government. It will be a step forward in becoming a civilized nation.

We have in front of us two paths: the North Korea path, where the government decides what kind of hairstyle is acceptable and what is not, and the United Kingdom style that lets its citizens decide whether they want to remain in the union or not. Do we want to adopt a path of the United Kingdom, or do we want to adopt the path of North Korea?

We are a country that has been internally colonized for more than 90 percent of the last 300 years. Our great-grandparents, grandparents and parents, have lived under the tyranny of either the Ranas or Shahs. It has been a North Korea type of government for our ancestors. The question is whether that is what we want for our children and grandchildren. If we want to be more like the UK, and less like North Korea, we need to change our mindset. We have to watch out that we do not let the government oppress us.

Let us hope that the Supreme Court passes a judgment against the Koirala government, and releases Raut. But should the Supreme Court pass a verdict against Raut, the rest of Nepal should rally behind the Madheshis and make the CA change the rule, and seek Raut’s retrial, and grant him freedom.

All of this should happen before the new constitution is drafted. It will show a commitment to freedom for liberal democracy. It will show that Nepal will never be a country where its citizens can be sent to jail for speaking his mind, no matter what they says.

Sending Raut to jail will raise other issues—that of a double standard. Let me explain. Baburam Bhattarai, Prachanda and other top leaders have openly advocated for identity-based federalism. At one point a single Madhesh in the Terai belt was their agenda. Further, the Maoist party was the first party to talk about self-determination (another term for the right to secede from the nation). So what is so treacherous about Raut’s advocacy?

Raut has the commitment, discipline, intellect and the courage to be the Baburam Bhattarai of the Madhesh. After the Maoist revolution, and the Madheshi revolution, his trial at the Supreme Court today is perhaps the most significant day for a Madheshi. No matter what the decision, it is a game-changer. No wonder, his competitor and the former prime minister, who himself has fought for the right of self-determination, recently tweeted: “We cannot agree with the views of CK Raut. But the government has committed a serious mistake by arresting him”. Yes, Koirala government has made the unknown but extraordinary Raut famous. He is going down in history book as a man who was tried for treason for seeking an independent country for Madheshis.

680anand@gmail.com

Published on 2014-09-21 01:22:46
See more at: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=83544#sthash.2wT1VJlb.dpuf

Raut asserts that his demand for an independent Madhesh stems from centuries of state sponsored neglect and exploitation of Madheshis. He argues that even the new Republic of Nepal with its federal structure will not offer Madheshis a path to prosperity. The bias against and exclusion of Madheshis are so entrenched that they will remain forever excluded in Nepal.

Through his work and activism, Raut has credibly documented the systemic exclusion of Madheshis. Decades of neglect come across visibly. Today, Madheshis remain one of the most vulnerable communities in Nepal with little access to even minimal health, education or financial services. Many of them are excluded even from the basic safety net of a citizenship. Many Madheshi communities remain in a vicious cycle of poverty with little opportunities for employment and without even a small patch of agricultural land.

The new generation of Madheshi leaders have done little to help their lot, and have integrated nicely with the same political machinery of Kathmandu that has systemically marginalized Madheshis. Raut offers a different vision: an independent sovereign Madhesh with complete decision making authority including the right to self-determination and offering Madheshis an inclusive path to development and prosperity.

The issue of integrity of Nepal’s national borders technically remains under discussion in the Constituent Assembly. Members haven’t resolved whether the point on the integrity of Nepal’s borders should remain in the preamble that cannot be amended or whether it should belong to the section that can be subsequently amended.

Raut is merely playing out that debate outside the Constituent Assembly and increasingly large numbers, particularly Madheshis, are flocking to hear him speak. If Constituent Assembly members can participate in that debate, why can’t he?

Raut’s argument raises some soul-searching questions about what Nepal means and what it means to be a Nepali. His argument raises some very troubling question about whether the natural glue—shared historical experience; cultural, social and economic ties—is strong enough to hold Nepal together.

It is a question we don’t want to ask because we fear the answer we might receive.

Prior to Prithivi Narayan Shah, Nepal was a collection of principalities and independent states. The unification was the result of brute force rather than natural alliances. The Shah and Rana dynasty ruled for two and a half centuries, drawing its authority not just from divine powers of Gods but also from the fact that they had unified the country. The unification of Nepal entitled them to ultimate authority in the land.

This source of authority remained the basis of political power until the last king was unceremoniously deposed in 2008. Since then the monarchy has been discredited—history rewritten, statues of monarchs blackened and dismantled; palaces seized; the royal palace in Kathmandu has fallen into disrepair with overgrown vines and poor maintenance.

If the monarchy is now irrelevant in Nepal why should the genesis of their authority—the unification of Nepal—continue to remain valid and relevant?

Every year millions of Nepalis travel abroad for jobs and education. Approximately 30-40 percent of our working population is abroad at any time. Most of them are not coming back. Many of them will surrender their Nepali citizenships (or at least hide their new ones) to assume the identity of their adopted host country and join the ranks of Non-Resident Nepalis.

Almost all young Nepalis aspire to go abroad—not just temporarily for education or job, but also to settle there permanently. Except student political leaders sponsored by national parties and young people from rich families who don’t have to work for a living, all the other youth believe there is a better future outside Nepal.

It is inspirational to stand up on a podium, as many of our leaders do, and quote from the likes of John F Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

But when the grim realities hit, it is important to ask what Nepal has done for Nepalis, particularly the poor and disadvantaged communities. Why shouldn’t they be entitled to a better future, even if they believe it is outside of Nepal?

Raut’s movement doesn’t merely boil down to a philosophical question about whether a state within a federal union should ultimately have the right to secession. It raises far more deep-seated questions about the cultural, social and historical ties that define Nepal and whether those bonds continue to remain relevant in a situation where the State and the Government perpetually fail to deliver.

One way to respond to Raut is to muzzle him, slam in the locker and file charges of sedition. Make him a lesson for anyone else wanting to secede.

But our leaders have a bigger responsibility. With the monarchy gone, and after two decades of a brutal war and a long-drawn constitution framing process, Nepalis are tired of Nepal. The romantic songs of harmony and prosperity are nice at flag-waving ceremonies but in the grind of daily life where hope fades and the state fails, there must be a more compelling vision for why Nepal is still the future for Nepalis.

Our leaders need to offer a clearer argument for why Nepal still represents the best hope for all Nepalis—the rich, poor, privileged and marginalized. It is an argument that must be made within the same forums where Raut drew his crowds, often to thunderous applause. There must be a new cause to celebrate the notion of Nepal—a cause for celebration that is free of the sticky biases of past regimes, free of patronage, free of the allure of easy symbolism and with hope for a new generation that want to believe in Nepal.

The best way to respond to Raut is to demonstrate that only one person would voluntarily offer to secede from Nepal and take up citizenship in the Kingdom of Raut: Dr Raut himself.

Every cabinet member of this government should be made to travel from East to West, South to North, much as Raut did, speaking with communities and families, particularly the young, explaining why a unified Nepal is still the best option for all Nepalis.

bishal_thapa@hotmail.com

Published on 2014-10-28 00:10:40
- See more at: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=85495#sthash.7rO0NGFQ.dpuf

Since its virulent eruption in the wake of World War I, nationalists have caused nothing but misery for the marginalized. Socialism in Nazi Germany, fascism in Italy, militarism in Burma, the clash between sectarianism and unionism in Sri Lanka—the list of catastrophes nationalists of various shades have wrought is long. Nobody knows what really goes on inside the only pure communist country of the contemporary world in the northern part of Korea.
Nationalists and communists are bad enough separately, but when they fuse together, the result is mostly disastrous. Joseph Stalin and his Gulags, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and Killing Fields of Pol Pot were all induced by the fusion of communism with nationalism. Unfortunately, internationalism is conspicuous by its absence from the communist lexicon of Nepal. Almost all Nepali communists are unapologetically nationalist.

Predatory praetors

The throne of Asali Hindustan of King Prithvi rested on four legs. A clutch of Hindu mendicants spied and conspired to prop up a possible patron, protector and promoter of the faith. Audacious militia from the indigenous population of an impoverished region fought ferociously for the loot and the spoils of war. Ambitious merchants invested heavily in the hope of acquiring a slice of the lucrative Indo-Tibetan trade. Last but not the least, wily mandarins of Malla courts in Kathmandu valley shifted loyalty in the hope of keeping their privileges intact. They didn’t succeed, and would soon be replaced by Gorkhali loyalists, but the dénouement came too late for them to do anything about it.

Premier Bhimsen Thapa attempted to rein in wayward Hindu mendicants who had become fabulously rich at the cost of the state but he lost the game and his life with it. Jang realized the utility of a mercenary force and succeeded in institutionalizing his family rule. Chandra focused on mandarins to entrench himself in power. Juddha tried to appropriate trade with India through mercantilism but failed in the face of strong opposition in Kathmandu. It was Mahendra’s raw genius, coupled with Cold War candies of preferential trade arrangements, which led to the entrenchment of monarch-military-merchant nexus.

The liberalization, privatization and globalization wave of the 1990s brought free-market fundamentalists to the fore. Market jihadis under the spell of Mulla Mahat surrendered basic services such as education, health and transportation to the profit sector. A clutch of multimillionaires were born overnight even as population pushed off the cliff of capitalism fell into the arms of Maoists. Then came the Narayanhiti Massacre, which changed the game even as players remained the same.

The military came to the forefront as the monarchy lost its luster. Corporate mendicants had already modernized the Hindu order. Merchants discovered new avenues of profit as hundreds of thousands of Nepalis began to fly away to distant shores in search of work. The mandarins regained their lost influence. Apparently, the Gorkhali clique had encircled its wagons. It decided to dump monarchy in order to protect its privileges and defuse Maoist threat.
Cultural nationalism of a republic is even more insidious than that of a monarchy. Khum Bahadur Khadka is perhaps correct in his assertions that most leaders of the reigning coalition are closet Hindutva zealots. The military everywhere needs a faith to fight ferociously—war is essentially a jihad where soldiers embrace death believing that they are dying for a divine cause—and establish its primacy.

Once the patronage of palace is removed, philosophers and poets are under pressure to become populists and pander to the prejudices of the majority. Instead of one master to please, there are multitudes to be appeased. It’s impossible to contest patently communal legends, language, literature, symbols and manners when they are being purveyed as nationalist position of the majority population. When ideologies of security forces and poets merge, dissent becomes dangerous.

Merchants have to go with the majority. There is nothing personal about their position: It is business, plain and simple. The feudal lords of agricultural society had certain independence from the ruling class in capital cities. The commercial guilds and industrial magnets of yore too could afford to confront the ruler. In trade-based economies, merchants have to rely on whoever is in power to protect their holding and multiply profits. The republican majority—unless backed by the political culture of respecting the minority—tends to become chauvinistic purely due to electoral compulsions.

The chauvinistic triad of military, merchants and the middleclass then manufactures a mainstream where right of admission is reserved. A janajati lawmaker admitted in exasperation that only those of her colleagues could make headway in politics that agreed to sing paeans in praise of the established order. Dalits activists tend to play down casteist discrimination and focus on class consciousness to hide their helplessness in the Hindu orthodoxy that reigns supreme in nationalist-communist parties.

Modern mediators

The press was once supposed to be the voice of the voiceless. The media, however, is unabashedly an instrument of the market. Even the so-called social media is hardly as free as it is said to be: Lone voices get drowned out in the cacophony created by hired hands of vested interests. It is commonly believed that defense establishments and corporate entities dominate the internet with their vast human and capital resources. Media was once supposed to be the savior of democracy. It is no longer an unequivocal assumption.

The intelligentsia too owes its rapid expansion to market forces. It has to speak through the media and sustain itself from salaries and fees of the manipulators in the market. An enfeebled state implies that only the lightest minds can stay afloat in the circle of official intellectuals. Recent nominations to various academies have clearly shown that conformism is valued far more than independence of thought.

The NGOs—the WGOs or the Western Government Organizations in the characterization of writer-critic Tariq Ali—sometimes function as tools of pacification. It is extremely difficult for them to survive as forums of dissent: Governments lose no time in silencing them as soon as they begin to voice aspirations of the marginalized.

In such a stultifying environment, what option does someone as brilliant as Dr CK Raut have to vent his frustrations? Madheshi parties were co-opted, defamed, defanged and then dumped. There is no Madhesh media worth the name. The military is intrinsically inimical to Madheshi aspirations. Interests of the corporate Hindu mendicants are closely tied with the establishment. The international community in strategically located countries is wary of upsetting the applecart of status quo. So Dr Raut goes around the countryside canvassing support for his vision of independent Madhesh.

Dr Raut has reportedly been charged with indulging in suspicious activities. Yes, suspicious activities are culpable in a republic that has no bananas to call itself one. The triad seems to be getting tired of democracy, human rights and governance. Rituals such as a political roundtable in Kathmandu or a speech at UN in New York are good shows worthy of a ceremonial government. But someone someday will have to stand up and own absurdities of this ‘nationalist-communist-democrat’ coalition.

Published on 2014-09-15 03:25:33
Source: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=83136

The defense doctrine is usually framed by the legislature after wide consultation and careful consideration of its social, cultural, economic and geopolitical implications. The Nepal Army reportedly adopted one without the issue being mentioned on the floor of the parliament. The office of the President is expected to maintain dispassionate interest in the affairs of the state. President Rambaran Yadav publicly voiced his opinion in favor of small number of provinces in the federalization process. The NC duly obliged the head of state by proposing six or seven provinces instead of higher number and different demarcations agreed upon by the majority in the first Constituent Assembly.

When people agitate for better infrastructure, states normally respond with assurances and value the voice of the people. At Simraungarh in Tarai-Madhesh, the paramilitary (Armed Police Force) shot a protestor in the chest for asking better roads and for demanding that activists not be arrested in arbitrary manner. Meanwhile, a new Chief Justice declared upon taking up the high office that he would zealously guard the independence of judiciary rather than promise that he is committed to delivering justice to the poorest, the weakest and the most marginalized or externalized sections of the population. If past experiences are anything to go by, assertion of what has been called the independence of judiciary usually ends up implying supremacy of the court in the affairs of the state. Oblivious of everything else, the Ceremonial Premier of the country was caught on camera laying foundation stone of not a public school or a philanthropic hospital but a corporate hotel in the heart of the capital.

Freedom of the press is a way of ensuring freedom of expression. Other than incitement of violence, freedom of expression has to be unconditional in order to mean anything at all. However, in an incredulous country that calls itself a “Federal Democratic Republic”, an activist is charged of sedition for advocating separatism in a peaceful manner. The media maintains a supportive silence in the face of such a blatant infringement of one of the fundamental tenets of political freedom.
Perhaps Madheshi rights-activist CK Raut is the lone political detainee in the country at the moment. But nobody would know that from media reports. Ever the vanguard of what it defines to be the “National Interest”, chauvinistic preceptors of Communist Party of Nepal (Unified-Marxist-Leninist) have declared that in addition to donning the national dress, politicos of their party must wear patriotism literally upon their chest in the form of a miniature flag.

Paranoid patriotism

In paternalistic states, divine mandate legitimates absolute power of the ruler. The welfare of the people, however, is the primary duty of the ruling order even in traditional societies. Under fascism or totalitarianism, a militarist state takes over the responsibility of running day-to-day lives of the laity. Militarist states also claim to advance best interests of the people. A democratic state, on the other hand, is based on the belief that only the people know what is best for them, which they determine and implement through their elected representatives. A welfare state is essentially a creation of the democratic system of governance.

Whether it’s written or assumed, a welfare state has to run on the basis of an explicit contract that binds the state with its people. People agree to abide by laws that they have had a hand in the making; pay taxes that their representatives have determined; and participate in activities considered to be for the common good. These are inescapable obligations of every citizen. On its part, the state guarantees fundamental freedoms; ensures safety and security of person and property; provides basic services; and ensures the prevalence of justice on the basis of equity, equality and human dignity of every person and all communities within the country. Post-1950, Nepal once aspired to be a Democratic Welfare State (DWS). The dream evaporated within a decade as a royal-military regime emerged to re-institutionalize its supremacy.

The geo-strategic curse proved to be a blessing for the royal-military regime in the Cold War rivalries of the 1960s. In the name of Panchayat, Nepal embraced what has been called the National Security Doctrine after President Harry S Truman and his notorious National Security Act of 1947 enacted to fight insidious enemies. Academics have identified several easily identifiable characteristics of a National Security State (NSS).

Supremacy of security forces is the fundamental feature of a NSS. The regime proclaims to be democratic but has little respect for the will of the people expressed through free and fair elections. Concentration of all forms of power—economic, social, political and diplomatic—in the hands of elite subservient to the defense establishment is yet another defining characteristic of the regime.

An obsession with external or internal ‘Enemy’ of the state makes NSS permanently paranoid: If one doesn’t exist, it has to be manufactured in order to keep the country alive. And when such an enemy is so pervasive, the state must control fundamental freedoms to safeguard the National Interest and command obedience of the people through coercion, conversion or cooptation.

Religiosity breeds conformism, nurtures compliance and counters rebellious thoughts: When everything is the will of the God, it would be blasphemous to contest it on humane grounds. The NSS loves religions even when it swears by secularism to pacify minorities. The last but not the least, male dominance is built into the belief system of NSS doctrine. Any of these features sound familiar? Even though system of government changed in 1990 and the royal regime fell in 2008, the NSS doctrine continues to maintain its hold over the polity of the country.

Warped worldview

Irrespective of the worth of the meaning in medical professions, English dictionaries hold that schizophrenia is characterized by mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements. The ruling classes of Nepal is unwilling to give up its obsession with NSS but the aspiring elite hasn’t yet forsaken all hopes of creating DWS. Unless the contradiction is resolved, the country shall continue to be stuck in the quagmire of incompetence born out of paranoia. No country that abhors its most prominent neighbor and fears a very significant portion of its own population can make much progress. Other explanations for the continued backwardness of Nepal are unnecessary, if not completely superfluous. The schizophrenic polity of the country needs serious and sustained treatment.

A former premier reportedly observed in exasperation that Nepalis were incapable of taking any decision on their own. Pundits routinely decry the NC, the UML, the UCPN (M), and the Madheshbadis—the supposed Big Four of Nepali politics—for their ineptitude. However, no constitution can be formulated without first determining whether the all-powerful security establishment of the country—with more influence in international community than commonly imagined—will allow the country to be transformed from a NSS to DWS in a peaceful manner. Forms of government, federal structures, inclusive regime, electoral systems or judicial arrangements are not as complicated issues as they are often made out to be. What really matters is whether the Permanent Establishment of the Nation (PEON)—propped resolutely by the Security Forces—is willing to release its hold peacefully or not. Everything else is mere divertissement.

Published on 2014-10-13 00:17:13
- See more at: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=84693

In deference to the persistence of visitors, the officer on duty allowed them to hold a short conversation with the firebrand from outside the metal grills. However, there are socio-political realities that will probably take some time to evolve. In the eyes of the machinery of the Permanent Establishment of the Nation (PEON), any Madheshi is suspect for just being who he is rather than what he has done.

It was clear from the rough language and arrogant manner of prison guards that Raut was not being treated as a prisoner of conscience—a person being held for his convictions—but just as another Madheshi suspect presumed guilty until proven innocent. He is probably lucky that he has been transferred to Kathmandu. Detainees in Tarai-Madhesh are often killed in stage-managed police encounters for lesser reasons.

Nearly three decades after Dr Jha was made to disappear by the security forces on specious charges of treason, Raut is being held for equally fallacious accusations of indulging in ‘suspicious activities’, an expression that stinks of Panchayat-era paranoia when whatever Nepali Congress did was considered to be ‘anti-national’ activity. The NC was blamed of working to undermine national integrity; Raut is being accused of espousing separatism. The NC cadres were considered saboteurs; Raut is condemned of being what the Chinese call a ‘splittist’ undermining the unity of a divine entity.

Former ‘anti-national elements’ are now at the helms of government. Degenerates of democratic socialism, however, are merely fronting for the Male-Mandale—shorthand for chauvinists and fascists that operated under the garb of communism and nationalism during the royal-military regime of Panchayat at the height of Cold War—clique that has managed to recapture the state all over again.

Once the supremacy of courts rather than the constitution was established with the dissolution of first Constituent Assembly, it is no longer possible to question fundamental premises, howsoever flawed, of political structure and social order. The status quo is sacrosanct. Dissent is tantamount to blasphemy. Opposition to mainstream views is a criminal offence.

Dignity denied

From behind the bars of detention center, Raut first responded in Maithili to queries about his health and living conditions. He then turned the topic to political rhetoric and thundered in Hindi that he was being subjected to mental torture and declared that he would go on indefinite fast. In evolving societies where even physical torture of dissenters is routine, it is a bit difficult to comprehend the damage that psychological torment can do to the well-being of a person.

Handled properly in the aftermath, physical injuries are cured after a while and memories of pain fade away when living conditions of the sufferer change for the better. Maoists that managed to come out of notorious interrogation centers of royal-military regime alive haven’t done too badly for themselves.

Tormentors and victims during decade-long insurgency were sometimes relatives and wounds of brutalities have healed, with some exceptions, surprisingly fast. Mental scars, however, damage the worldview of a person for life. It seems intelligence agencies that conspired to arrest Raut in seemingly well thought-out manner have gravely underestimated unintended consequences of their stratagem.

In his student days, Raut was atypical Madheshi. He hobnobbed with hotheads in the student wing of UML rather than the NC-affiliate association; insisted on speaking Nepali with fellow Maithils; and desperately wanted to belong to what was then considered the national mainstream. Like many Madheshi politicos of UML that carry Dhaka topi in their pockets and hastily put it on when they see a leader of the party walking across the street, colleagues of Raut remember him as more of a conformist than a questioner. He showed no signs of becoming a rebel.

Raut’s attitude probably changed once he realized the futility of formalism when he excelled in his chosen field. In the meritocracy of the mainstream, there was no place even for an achiever of his caliber. He was what he was—merely a Madheshi—no matter what he did or how well he behaved. Nothing was going to change the fact that he was the ‘other’ of the ‘ideal’ Nepali self. Dealing with denial of dignity is an excruciating process.

Most members of the marginalized find that it is easier to mold oneself rather than go through the agony of changing ground realities. Some choose to withdraw and create their safe cocoons or hang on to their precarious perches. A few find solace in ghettos built of likeminded people. Majority of minorities make peace with forces of hegemony by accepting their secondary position. That is the safest course; geopolitics permitting, it can take a loyalist to the highest post of the land. However, there comes a point when such options become redundant. After the fall of first Constituent Assembly, mocking Madheshis has become the favorite pastime of anti-Maoist monarchists and anti-minority nationalists alike. Radicalization of Raut needs to be understood in the context of the threat of ‘being made a Paramand’ becoming a favorite phrase of patriotic politics.

Political stability without honoring the principle of “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” is an impossibility. Pursuing one’s right to secede through peaceful means is a political position. It is neither treason nor blasphemy. Its efficacy, however, is suspect at best. More often than not, calls for secession fail because most people see little difference between one state and the other: They are all instruments of coercion that end up serving the interests of the entrenched elite. Countries are created more out of geopolitical compulsions than nationalist uprisings.

Desperate measures

Peaceful struggle in politics is a slow and strenuous journey where every two-steps forward is often followed with a step backward to maintain the stability of society. It is still one-step forward at a time in any case. Radicalism offers a straightforward path where either one keeps climbing the steps or falls off the ladder. The most alluring choice is that of extremism—the equivalent of an escalator in politics—where the goal looks so near that most people don’t pause to ponder the source of power propelling the machine. Extremism, however, pushes plurality offstage and helps create conditions for emergence of powerful personalities.

Conflation of a cause with a leader is fraught with unimaginable risks. Examples can be found everywhere, but the neighborhood in South Asia shows that a personality dominating political movements either gets picked up by the establishment or is defamed and eliminated once his utility is over.

Thiruvenkadam Velupillai Prabhakaran will continue to live in legends, but his utility had ended once he had managed to completely wipe out Tamil leaders working peacefully for federalization of Sri Lanka. He was probably made to realize the futility of his path by Norwegian interlocutors, but extremism burns bridges as it moves forward. There was no way Prabhakaran could retract and survive. He chose martyrdom.

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was propped up to counter the all-pervasive influence of Akali Dal in prosperous and powerful Punjab. After a point, he began to see himself as a later-day prophet of Sikh purity and compromised the integrity of the most respected community of his country. Indian Sikhs are yet to recover from the tragedies of 1980s.

Laldenga compromised, even though he stood on firmer political grounds in Mizoram, once he saw that geopolitics of the region was not amenable to his ambitions. He managed to become the Chief Executive of a province rather than of an independent state.

At home, Upendra Yadav lost his utility once Maoists were checked from spreading in Tarai-Madhesh. Despite the grumble that disunity among Madheshi politicos has discredited dignity politics, perhaps it has survived mainly because there are too many leaders in the region to be undermined either through elimination or cooptation.
The path Raut has chosen for himself is grand, but the government has pushed the country towards lose-lose proposition in its response. If Raut is forced into extremism, the state has little legitimacy left in Tarai-Madhesh to counter his influence. In the long run, Madheshis too have little to gain and much to lose from the politics of brinkmanship, but emotions seldom take cost-benefit ratios into account. His suppression and demonization would merely strengthen his argument that separation is the only honourable solution. Since Nepal without Tarai-Madhesh is as unsustainable as it was in 1816s, geopolitics of the region would foreclose all such options.

The Male-Mandale establishment must show sanity and unconditionally release Raut forthwith. Meanwhile, Raut needs to break his indefinite fast. The state is so naked in its functioning that there is little need to expose it any further. The struggle must continue, but it has to remain within bounds of peaceful politics. Maoist insurgency threw away the crown. Madheshis have to exercise utmost restraint in order to keep the country intact. It is the only one we—Pahadis and Madheshis alike—have for those of us uninterested in applying for DV lottery or dual citizenship.

Published on 2014-09-29 00:08:04
See more at: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=84033