"Jai Madhesh" and the India-Nepal relations

Pratim Ranjan Bose

The call for establishing Madhesi rights was given by Maoists who successfully paved Nepal’s journey to democracy in 2008.

Madhesis – a large number of people from the Terai region of the country on the South who having cultural bonding with communities living primarily in the Indian state of Bihar – extended support to the movement, and joined the coalition to form the first democratic government headed by Prachanda aka Pushpa Kamal Dahal, now the head of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

The topsy-turvy in Nepal politics in the following years saw repeated change in governments. And, in that melee, the political class, including the Madhesi parties, failed to address the popular aspirations of those people living in the plains of Nepal. 

And, when the Prime Minister K P Oli announced the adoption of a new constitution, in September this year, Madhesh erupted in protests.

There were popular dissents against at least four controversial clauses, which – Madhesis allege - were adopted to deny them proportional representation in decision making and government jobs and, relegate them as a second class citizen. 

The angry agitators blocked the main trading route of the landlocked country not merely with India but with the rest of the country. Birgunj border, where an economic blockade is on for last three months, accounts for nearly two-third of India-Nepal trade and almost the entire import by Kathmandu from other countries through India.

The agitation is proving costly Nepal. At least 40 lives were lost and the life of common Nepalis (that includes Madhesis) is thoroughly disturbed due to short supply of essentials. Tourism, the biggest industry, as well as the primary source of foreign exchange to the country, suffered the biggest blow as arrivals have halved. There is an undeclared economic emergency in Nepal that seriously affected India-Nepal relationships.

The K P Oli government in Nepal squarely blames India for taking the side of Madhesis and not doing enough to send supplies, if necessary through other border gates. The allegation is not entirely unfounded.

Just before the adoption of the constitution, the Indian foreign secretary Subrahmanyam Jaishankar landed in Kathmandu, reportedly to impress Nepal to take a second look to the Madhesi cause. Hearsay reports suggest Oli government rejected the Indian request. 

Nepal was surely within its right to do so. And some analysts, like Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury Director of the Centre for Nepal Studies at the Rabindra Bharati University in Kolkata feel Indian diplomacy could have been more nuanced.

But the allegation may not be entirely true also.

First, India and Nepal shares a nearly border-less existence, with people of either country allowed to move freely in each other’s territory. This and the strong familial links of Madhesis in Indian side make it a trans-border social issue that no India government can ignore or suppress.

Second, in so far as the border trade is concerned, India cannot redirect the heavy Birgunj traffic through other gates due to infrastructural inadequacy. Leaving all protocols of border trade aside, there will not be enough roads or clearing facilities to tackle this huge quantity of cargo at other gates.

The bilateral relations have further worsened with Nepal flashing China card. While it makes sense for Nepal to open more trade options, there are definite geographical disadvantages for Kathmandu in trading through China.

Only one example will substantiate this point adequately. The third country imports through Kolkata port in India travels 750 km by road or rail to enter Nepal through Birgunj. In contrast, all such cargo has to travel a few thousand kilometres from the East coast of china before it enters Nepalese territories. And, longer the distance higher will be the cost impact.

So what will happen to India-Nepal relations and trade? To know, I will be travelling to Kathmandu next week.

Tweet: @pratimbose