And, this one is a follow up discussion. Here, I am talking about problems with some political demands (electoral seats and proportional election) of Madhesi leadership and a weakness of Nepal government (panicking). From: "Deepak Khadka" To: "nepal democracy" Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 ... Subject: [ND] Re: Discrimination against Madheshi and Change of Heart (Cont.) Dear XX-jee, I broadly agree with everything you said. My earlier post had a very limited purpose- of trying to convince you that non-Madhesi people's support for Madhesi movement was as genuine as any justice loving people's support could be and that the progressive section of Pahadi people have since long been fighting with the status-quoist Pahadis for securing justice and equality to Madhesi and all other marginalized groups in the country. In other words, I was trying to show how things are not pure black and white and how our future is really bright. And I feel great to see that you share my optimism and hope. And the same goes with YYjee's short but right on the mark remark. As for the comparison of political discrimination against Madhesi and social discrimination against Dalits, I think the latter is more severe, more lengthy, more deep rooted, more rigid, more inhuman, more degrading and more impossible too. In fact, this one is a discrimination that is social, cultural, religious, political, intellectual, Godly (lack of intervention for so long ! ) and everything else that there is. I have meditated on this quite a bit and have concluded that only very radical way and approaches unthought of ever before shall be able to emancipate Dalits. Dalits will have to go very far far, say, beyond how far Madhesi movement went recently, to bring that kind of revolution. Of course I am not talking about violence. I am talking about non-violent radicalism. Radicalism that is strong enough to force radical reforms to ENFORCE respect to Dalits. That kind. Anyway, this is little off the topic. Back to Madhesi movement, I am glad to see it's achievements and particularly the sense of respect and power a Madhesi might be feeling now irrespective of the political demands fulfilled. I really celebrate the latter, because that is the most important part. As I said, I dream of a day when a Dalit would feel the same. We do have a long way to go. That said, there are things I am not happy with. First of all, I felt that the government, instead of getting enlightened by Madhesi's movement and start working vigorously to work out a "samyantra" (system) to deliver justice to ALL exploited/ marginalized groups, appeared making decisions for Madhesi group only out of PANIC. Of course there were things to panic about and to address them without losing a single possible minute (violence, loss of lives and properties, growing mistrust). But there were also things (important not only to Madhesi but also other groups) that were needing a broad based (participated by non-Madhesi groups as well) discussion. Before talking about specific points, I would like to repeat my earlier philosophization that the political leadership of Madhesi movement or, to be more specific, the list of political demands presented by them were insufficient and inexact to fully articulate what a common Madhesi folk was trying to say through his agitation/ movement/revolt whatever we call it. Now the question, to myself of course, is what kind of additional political demands and what kind of revision to the existing demands would make them more comprehensively and more accurately articulating the Madhesi movement ? Well, I do not think I am articulate enough to articulate them the way I think they need to be articulated (I hope I am saying it right). However, I am going to talk about some problems with some of existing demands, even when they are fulfilled or near-fulfilled, which I hope will point to the inadequacies I am talking about. Basically, these demands failed to convey the message that Madhesi movement/revolt is about Madhesis's rightful share and not about compensation to the past injustice to them at the cost of other groups' share. (the demands of electoral seats based ENTIRELY on the population statistic would be a case for this one). And then it failed even to remind itself, let alone convince others, that future Madhesi autonomy it envisions shall not replicate the old non-inclusive state structure of Nepal at local level in Madhesh. (the demand of proportional election based on entire Madhes as a single group would be a case for this one). Let me explain them in more detail. 1. Distribution of electoral seats based solely on the population and not at all on geographical condition will do injustice to the people living in "bikat" geography. How ? Here is how. Let's start with the logic of population based electoral distribution. What is the logic, I mean the scientific reasoning ? The reasoning is the equal accessibility of the voters to the elected candidate, just like equal teacher/students ratio across all schools. There is no other scientific reasoning. Now, it is not difficult to see how, among two constituencies with equal population, the voters of a constituency with a stretched area and difficult terrain or transportation will have lesser accessibility to their elected representative than the voters of the constituency with smaller area and easier terrain and transportation. Now, back to the movement and the political demand, I don't think an ordinary Madhesi was fighting for a formula that would deprive, let's say, his fellowman living in Himal some Pahad and even some Madhes area with poorer transportation condition, of equal right of accessibility to the political tools that represent them. This much for the demand of population based electoral seats. 2. I want "Proportional" but I don't know what it is. In my earlier post and elsewhere, I have claimed and explained how Madhesi leadership (and I will add here that not only political leadership, but also academic leadership, the latter includes all Madhesi as well as non-Madhesi intellectuals supporting all political demands in full, that means everybody in this forum included !) itself is in utter confusion about what exactly it is demanding and what exactly it is opposing in this particular case. I did not get any response from anybody on that. So, this time I would like to be a little bit more provocative. I would like to invite certain friends specifically to this discussion. But first, let me restate my argument. My argument is that I think Madhesi leadership's opposition to the provision of "mixed member proportional election" mechanism adopted in the interim constitution [Bhag 8, Dhara 63(3) (ka) and (kha)] is ignorant because what else might they be demanding when they are demanding (a) certain number/ formula for electoral seats, and, (b) proportional election, together. I mean what is the purpose of 205+ electoral constituencies if it is not for traditional "single member district plurality voting" as described in Bhag 8, Dhara 63(3) (ka) of the interim constitution ? Could you please somebody (may I request ZZ-jee, WW-jee or anybody. I re-read ZZ-jee's piece "Doing Justice Right" and found that these two conflicting demands of "proportional representation" and "population based constituencies" are stated just like that, so may I request ZZ-jee to explain how they are not conflicting ?) Now, one more contradiction. Some Madhesi leaders (Jaya Prakash Gupta, for example) are opposing Dalits being splitted from Madhesi group for the purpose of separate "inclusion". If I am reading well, all Madhesi leaderships are asking to treat Madhes as a single group for the purpose of inclusion/proportion. This is exactly what I was calling a mistake of replicating the old state of Nepal in Madhes. If this demand is fullfilled, it will end up doing nothing but just creating a small and new Madhesi elite leaving the rest of the population "excluded" as before (interestingly, one of the unfortunate possibilities our member Gagan Thapa was forseeing in his recent article in Kantipur !) So, I think, now that Madhesi people saw their power as a "part", it's time for it's leadership to refine it's political demands/positions to connect sensibly to the "whole". With this, I will conclude this installment of my ganthan. References: Interim Constitution: - http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/jan/jan15/Constitution_2063.doc Doing Justice Right by Bindu Chaudhary - http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/others/guestcolumn/feb/guest_columns_03.php DK ______ Nepe