Inheriting the earth

Inheriting the earth

- DAULAT JHA

 Rearranging of class and caste orders in Tarai
Prejudices are always rooted in history. The nature and intensity of the prejudices may vary depending on contemporary dynamics but they are ‘justified’ by appealing to historical narratives, often revisionist in nature. When I looked at the historical causes of caste, class and ethnic inequities existent in the Tarai in my previous article (Once we were farmers, Oct 8), the intention was not to blame any particular group of people or to suggest that time should turn backwards, as some have suggested (most notably Jay Krishna Goit who believes that the annulations of all previous treaties following the Nepal India Friendship Treaty of 1950 grants sovereignty to the Tarai by default, using some clever twisted logic). When I looked at the history of the current inequities, it was rather to look for the origins of our current predicament. While history in itself cannot be prescriptive, any prescription to end the prevalent inequities cannot be complete without understanding the causes behind it.

In my article, I had argued that since the inception of Nepal as a modern-state, an ad-hoc mechanism had been set up by the rulers that allowed for efficient taxation, while also being politically expedient. For centuries, feudalism was thus adopted as the official political system, leading to inherently unequal distribution of land, which adversely affected the lower and middle castes and indigenous communities in particular. Later, with the adoption of the oxymoronic ‘one party democracy’ system called the Panchayat, Mahendra promulgated a series of land and resettlement acts which achieved the opposite effect of reform – it further entrenched asymmetric land relations, while importing the feudalistic ethos in modern bureaucracy. Thus, we end up at this unique position where our political parties, our bureaucracy (including vital institutions) and our economy (mainly agricultural) are all shaped by and imbibe the spirit of feudalism. Only recently, fuelled by the Maoist-led People’s War and the resurgence of ethnic movements, has there been any serious challenge to this ossified and antiquated system. In this article, I shall focus on how shifting patterns of productivity and economic activity is slowly hammering on the cracks that have appeared in the system, even as resistance to change by the old guard remains strong.

Following the restoration of democracy in 1990, some inevitable changes were made. This included the liberalization of the economy, expanding the network of public services and freeing the media. Despite the obvious failures of multiple post-1990 governments, inter-party rivalry and opportunistic power games ensured that the issues of more interest groups than ever were heard. However, what was lacking at the heart of these changes was that a large portion of the population belonging to lower castes, excluded ethnicities, and living predominantly in villages remained in the margins of the developmental process.

The Maoists were quick to capitalize on the marginalization of these groups – the Dalits, other oppressed lower-castes and indigenous communities. With a shrewd understanding of guerilla tactics, both political and military, they led a textbook example of communist insurgency following on the footsteps of many Latin American countries.

The Maoist movement, however, did not have as much influence in the Tarai as they would have wanted for many reasons, including more entrenchment of the caste system, more asymmetric land relationships, stronger bases of traditional political parties and some strategic errors like criminalization of the party rank-and-file. Logic would suggest that problems of caste and land being more amplified in the Tarai should have favored the insurgency. However, this was not the case because the levels of dependency were simply too strong. The economic and social repercussions for potential recruits were too great. They did, however, gain a significant foothold among the Dalit community and to a certain degree on other landless communities (consequently leading to upper-caste led vigilante groups that were precursors of today’s armed and criminal groups).

It was instead the opening of foreign labor markets that would pave the way for seismic changes in Tarai politics. Already, for decades, many of the middle-class and upper-caste landed families were shifting vocations, choosing governmental or private sector jobs, with rising levels of education. Disillusionment with the Nepali state remained strong because many in this substratum lacked political access. This is reflected today in the large number of civil servants in health, education and infrastructure development sectors, though not proportionally represented in the upper rungs.

In the other substratum were the landed families of both the middle and lower castes. They benefited from the shift from agricultural to non-agricultural vocations of the upper-castes, gradually augmenting their landholdings. Many were also quick to join the exodus of migrant workers in the initial stages of the opening of foreign labor markets. They too now enjoyed better economic prospects but were growing increasingly restless with the lack of political representation.

The third substratum consisted of the landless lower-castes – ‘the wretched of the earth’, to appropriate Franz Fanon’s words. Historical caste inequities had now put them in a position where they could now reap the most benefits of the opening of foreign labor markets. For generations, they had worked as artisans, fulfilling their role by doing jobs that other castes considered ‘beneath’ their station. Now, it was precisely these jobs that were most in demand. Initially, lack of awareness and initial capital inhibited them from benefiting from new opportunities being created. However, as the first few members of the community returned from abroad, they became examples not only of prosperity that lay ahead but also as emerging leaders of the community. It is a testament of the strong sense of these communities that new cooperative structures were put in place, such as migrant labors pooling resources together so that a newly arrived member could pay back the credit owed back home before the interest became too high. This broke the historical shackles of credit that had perpetuated a vicious cycle (first through cultural malpractices such as dowry and high ritual costs and later by credit required for investment in the future), which was now being replaced by a virtuous cycle – as more members of a community went abroad for work, they made it easier for other people of the community to join them. Furthermore, they became more aware with exposure to foreign lands and cultures.

All three substrata were gradually becoming more economically empowered, which inevitably would lead to the quest for political influence. Oblivious to these tectonic shifts in demographic dynamics, our traditional political parties were trapped in a bubble pretending that the post-Jana Andolan II era was just another ‘restoration’ of democracy. That the Madhes Movement would burst forth with unprecedented momentum was inevitable. Issues that the Tarai Congress and later the Nepal Sadhvawana Party had been raising could now not be wished away. Along with a larger pan-Madhesi movement, current dynamics are also changing inter-caste and inter-class relationships, most measurable and apparent in landowning. (One should, however, be careful not to oversimplify the caste and class dynamics – these processes have many other facets as well.)

These processes – shifting patterns of economic activity and political influence – are anything but static. It will require a nuanced understanding of these forces of change to better manage them. Policies will have to take them into account. Political parties will have to attune to these growingly powerful voting bases. There will be attempts to misuse these dynamics, as is always the case when changes happen. As I have witnessed firsthand during this festival season, there is a growing dissatisfaction among the upper-castes about the ‘decay in the social fabric’, by casually attributing increase in criminal activities and even more ridiculously load shedding on the growing wealth of the lower and middle castes (now even the teli-suris have television sets and thus more electricity consumption, so the logic goes). What is undeniable is that whether or not the government policies help the worse off in the society, the opening of foreign labor markets has helped them climb the ladder of growth. As Jesus aptly put it in a sermon – Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth

source::http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=10955

The Begam from Birgunj

The Begam from Birgunj who beat big bureaucrat

• Getting candid with Karima

- ANIL GIRI

KATHMANDU, NOV 14 – “I am certainly not as destructive as I have been portrayed to be,” says State Minister for Agriculture Karima Begam, whose brand-recall currently stands at par with top-notch political leaders of the country.

Begam grabbed media headlines after she slapped a senior government official on Tuesday over an old car row. Following the incident, while civil servants are boiling with fury, an FIR has been lodged, and an arrest warrant for the minister has been issued. But her high-profile position has definitely been a leverage that has allowed her to walk free. At least, until this news report was filed.

Many might be intrigued by this name. ‘Who is Karima Begam’ was probably the first thought in many minds when the incident occurred earlier this week. But those who know the 34-year-old closely describe her vividly. Her five-year-old political career has been fortune-fluctuated, a roller-coaster that she herself describes as ‘chequered’.

“I got into politics by kismet (fate),” she says. “I was a housewife until 2004. Then I was picked as the district chief of the Women Forum of Nepal Sadbhavana Party.”

But Begam came into the national limelight after the Tarai uprising in 2007. When the movement was at its peak, Begam turned to Upendra Yadav, who was leading the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum that was steering the movement. “She brought in more than 5,000 people on her own in Birgunj and that impressed me,” recalls Yadav.

Soon after, her party handed her the responsibility to lead the Women Forum of Parsa district. This mother-of-four-turned-politician was so quick to cash in on the responsibility that in no time, she shot up to the position of the central vice-chair of the Women Forum.

Begam then established a pro-woman organisation called Bari Women Association. But last year, a group of women publicly accused Begam of embezzling organisation funds. In a political career that had just begun, it was a significant setback. “It seems she was framed,” says a central leader of the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum-Loktantrik, Nepal—the party now she is with.

Begam these days finds it hard to spend quality time with her family. “Since joining politics, I am not at home most of the time,” the minister reveals a motherly side to her.

Begam cleared her grade 10 examinations from Motihari, in Bihar, India. Soon after, she was married to Mohammed Sallauddin. Her critics maintain that if it were not for the Tarai agitation, she wouldn’t have had a political career. “She did not have much political credential before she was elected to the Constituent Assembly,” said a CA member from Parsa, preferring anonymity. But that can be said about many other male leaders from the Tarai too.

At the same time, her street-cred also seems to be based around the Begam that assaulted the CDO last week. “She was an anarchist of sorts, disruptive in behaviour, and undisciplined,” says Yadav, the chairman of Madhesi Janadhikar Forum. During the second general assembly of the party this year in Birgunj, Yadav says Begam repeatedly presented herself so rudely that the party had to reach a decision to expel her.

When reminded of the recent assault, the ‘angry young woman’ says the CDO, Durga Prasad Bhandari, “touched me”. “He told me that if you think you were so powerful, why did you not transfer me?” she gives her version of events. As she continues, it seems that her assault was not a spur-of-the-moment decision. It seemed to have been pent-up, eventually lashing out at the “audacious” CDO with four slaps. “For the last one month, I had repea-tedly asked him to take action against those who had killed five people but he didn’t pay any attention to me,” fumes Begam.

How’s life as a state minister, then? “There is nothing much to do,” Begam gushes. “Mantriji (Mrigendra Kumar Singh Yadav) takes care of everything.”

But still, what makes Begam Sahiba (pun unintended) so colourful? So full of tantrums?

“I am the way I am,” she says, unrepentant.

source::http://www.kantipuronline.com/2009/11/14/top-stories/The-Begam-from-Birgunj-who-beat-big-bureaucrat/302868/

Tarai-Madhes Searching for Identity Based Security

Situation Update:                                                                    88 October 14, 2009

Tarai-Madhes :Searching for Identity Based Security

• • Bishnu Pathak, PhD*
• • Devendra Uprety**

Peace, justice and freedom must be major components of any future security in Nepal. However, Nepal’s transition is deepening in crisis due to the growing ranks of rebel forces, particularly in the Tarai-Madhes. While the State fails to deliver security to the ordinary people, particularly in countryside, the peace process of Nepal is endangered, justice is delayed, and freedom is restricted. The migration of hill-and-mountain dwellers out of the Tarai-Madhes has not stopped. The people who remain in such places have had much to fear. The cases of extra-judicial killings, forceful disappearances, torture, extortions, rapes and so forth continue. To understand this unfortunate state of affairs, it is necessary to delve into a brief history of the region.

Understanding the Tarai-Madhes

Nepal is divided into three areas topographically; Mountains1, Hills2, and Tarai-Madhes3. The Tarai-Madhes, though the flattest and most accessible part of the country, remained isolated until the mid 20th century due to malaria-infestation4. This area stretches from the Indo-Gangetic plains to the Himalayan foothills and connects the plains culture to the hill culture. Constrained between the Mechi River in the east and Mahakali River in the west, it makes up about 23 percent of the total land area of the country. With an average elevation of less than 100 meters (in sharp contrast to the highest Mountains in the world), the average length and breadth of the Tarai-Madhes are about 900 km and 70 km respectively5. The Tarai-Madhes incorporates 20 out of 75 districts, including close to half the 26 million population of the country. The region was annexed into Nepal during the unification period, beginning in the mid 1770s, by Prithivi Naarayan Shah. However, much of the ancient Tarai-Madhes areas, ruled by various kings and principalities for centuries, are now in the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh states of India6. The Anglo-Nepalese war between 1814 and 1816, and the resulting Treaty of Sugauli and subsequent treatieswith British India further reduced the Madhes region. The outer Madhes areas south of Dang and Chitwan valleys were previously under Indian Territory7. Banke, Bardia, Kailali and Kanchanpur districts within this region were once called the ‘New Nepal’ as they were ceded to Nepal by the East India Company in appreciation of the service of Nepali Gurkhas in suppressing India’s independence movement. The label “Tarai-Madhes” is of relatively recent public socio-political discourse in Nepal. The word “Madhes” is derived from the Sanskrit word Madhyadesh8 (middle country), collectively called Madhises or Madhesiyas. Even Manusmriti and Vinayakpitak, have indicated that it is attached to ancient historical traditions9. The Madhyadesh distinguishes the plains from the hill region or Parbat, from which is derived the meaning of Pahade (hill and mountain dwellers) in modern Nepal. A Madhesi, therefore, originally meant an inhabitant of this region10. Similarly, the Tarai (Nawalparasi to Kanchanpur districts) refers to the fertile strip of low-lying land sandwiched between the hills of southern Nepal.

In recent days there has been an issue of severe contention. Tharu, being of native origin, prefer to call the region the Tarai, whereas some others in the region prefer to call it the Madhes. In Tharu language ‘Tar’ means low, leading some to claim that the word “Tarai” is derived from the Tharu language.11 Others obviously disagree, as Wikipedia states:

“The Terai (“moist land”) , or (“foothill”) in Persian language, is a belt of marshy grasslands, savannas, and forests at the base of the Himalaya range in India, Nepal, and Bhutan, from the Yamuna River in the west to the Brahmaputra River in the east12.”

The resolution of this issue is beyond the scope of this update. However, the issue itself serves to highlight one of the overarching socio-cultural conflicts; the struggle for national identity between the indigenous ethnicities of the Tarai-Madhes, and the relatively recent immigrants from India (since the eradication of malaria). Tarai- Madhesi groups interact with each other, immigrants from the hills, and the rest of the country, in different ways.

Literature

The Tarai-Madhes is a less recognized area of study than many others in Nepal13; however, there are several works on the Tarai-Madhes that have been studied time and again by non-native and native scholars. Among the non-native scholars, Gaige14 (1975), Byrne15 (1999), Krauskopff16 (2000), Guneratne (2002)17, Anderson (2004)18, Bernando (1999)19, and among the native Bista20 (1991), Dahal21 (1996), Hachhethu22 (2007), Gupta23 (2004), Jha24 (1997), Lawoti25 (2001), Chaudhary (2065 BS) 26, Chaudhary (2064 BS)27, Panjiar28 (2000), Yadav29 (2003), Pathak (2007)30 Yadav (2060BS)31, can help in understanding the multiple dimensions of the region.

History of Discrimination and Injustice

In 600 BC, Shakya kings ruled the mid western Madhes. Gutam Buddha, who was born in 563 BC belonged to the Shakya (Tharu) dynasty. Similarly, Tarai-Madhes kingdoms were established in Simraungarh in the present day Bara district32. Indeed, several kingdoms were established and ruled by many dynasties. These states perished with time and the land was reclaimed by forests33. Gaige writes: “The ancient and medieval history of this region is a cyclic one in which men and forests havedominated in turns34.” King of Mithila, Hari Singh Dev, defeated by Mugals in 1324, arrived in Bhadgaon (present Bhaktapur) and formed an army of Mithila. Approximately 240 years ago, during the unification of the small warring states, Prithvi Narayan Shah defeated the Sen dynasty Kings of Madhes and then captured Kathmandu valley. When Prithvi Narayan Shah attacked Kathmandu in 1774, Jaya Prakash Malla countered with a 12,000 strong Mithila army, that had been known as Tirhoot army. Shah demolished the Tirhoot army upon conquering it. Following this, the dispute with the East India Company and greater Nepal intensified while the post-Prithvi regimes continued to attack weak principalities. Soon, the dispute of Butwal triggered the Anglo-Gorkha War 1814- 1816 AD. It seems somewhat unclear whom the local people supported, but the literature indicates that Madhes dwellers were closer with the British East India Company35. W. Brook Northey writes that a large number of undisciplined volunteers fought against Gorkha during the Anglo-Gorkha war36. The Treaty of Segowlee (Sugauli Treaty) presented on December 8, 1816 states “the Rajah of Nipal agrees to refrain from prosecuting any inhabitants of the Tarai, after its severance to his rule, on account of having favored the cause of the British Government during the war”. So, it seems there was a lot of dissatisfaction among native Tarai dwellers against the ruler of Gorkha37. Though Article 7 of the memorandum on the Sugauli Treaty mandated that the Nepali government would not take any action against the people living in the Madhes, many Madhesi dwellers were, nonetheless, ill-treated, tortured, and punished on the charges of treason. In this way, the consequences of the actions of the elite landlords overflowed to the common Madhesi. The Madhesi were alleged to be ‘followers of British and adversary of Nepali’ and their recruitment into the army was stopped38. It had not been resumed in the later regimes until now. The Madhesi have felt this an insult, as they were excluded from the national security force (and more likely to suffer brutality as a result). Subodh Kumar Sing writes that after the unification, Shah Rulers saw the virgin Tarai as a source of revenue and distributed land to the king’s family members, courtiers, and to army generals and colonels to garner their support39. Just after the Tarai integration into the Gorkha Kingdom (present Nepal), a number of conflicts erupted with the native Taraian people. Native Saptari people seemed to be uncooperative with Gorkhali at the beginning of 1774. A letter of Abhiman Simha from the period states that for salaries to troops and to meet other expenses, the revenues had been collected in the Tarai areas from Ambarpur and Vijayapur40. During the Rana Regime, prior to 1950, because of their strong relationship with the British, the latter was silent about the ill-treatment of the Madhesis. One form of discrimination toward the Tarain-Madhesi at the time was that they had to obtain visas to visit Kathmandu issued by the elite Kathmandu-based government from the Badahakim (Regional Administrator)41. Mahesh Chandra Regmi writes that both the pre-Rana and Rana rulers viewed the Tarai as a colony, and regularly granted large tracts of land to others. Sometimes even whole areas were captured for themselves, their families and their Bhardar as Birta (granted land) to loyal senior officials.42 However, the ruling elites, both Shah and Rana, did not have an interest in developing the Tarai in their long-term perspective. They feared that such development would not only attract a flood of British colonialism, but were also afraid that it would open the door to revolutionary ideas from south India.

[Read More]

CS Center -C o n f l i c t S t u d y C e n t e r

PO Box 11374, 214 Rohini Marg, Purano Baneswar, Kathmandu, Nepal. Tel: +977-1-6218777

Email: cscenter.nepal@gmail.com/cscenter@wlink.com.np; www.cscenter.org.np