The need of the hour is unity among the liberal, democratic and nationalists forces

Narendra Kumar Chaudhary

CC member RPP

Mr. Chaudhary: First of I would like to congratulate Prime Minster Koirala for bringing the Maoists into the main stream politics and for forming the interim government with their participation.

Declaring the dates for the CA polls is also a welcome move. A new era has dawned in the country.

This interim government may hold the elections peacefully. I further hope that the worsening law and order situation will be arrested soon. Whether or not this government succeeds in this regard remains yet to be seen. Most disappointing of all the recent political developments is the meager participation of the Terains in the recently formed government. The discrimination continues unabated even after the restoration of Lokatantra. This is very sad.

As far as the Maoists are concerned, as I have come to know, they are still continuing vandal activities because of that people still suspect their democratic credentials and whether they will allow free movement of all the parties participating in the CA polls is yet to be seen.

Since the Maoists have already entered into the interim government we the people must wait and see how they perform in the changed context and how they take the competitive politics. If they act in a manner that is demanded of them in the multiparty system we must congratulate them.

However, their recent activities prior to their induction in the interim government does amply hint that there words and deeds differ markedly. It would be in the fitness of things to carefully watch as to whether they comply with the norms and values of peaceful coexistence with other parties- that may differ with their views.

Now, looking into the maiden speech of newly appointed Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala made inside the parliament on Sunday afternoon what was surprising of it all is that he only sought the support of the Eight Parties in the Alliances and in the government and summarily rejected the assistance from the parties well inside the parliament other than the EPA. It would have been an act of wisdom had the Prime Minister spelt out in his speech that he needed the support from all the parties whether in government or in parliament or in the streets. This was unfortunate.

Mr. Chaudhary: Before this issue cropped up, our president I had an opportunity to talk to our president Mr. Pashupati Sumsher Rana, to know the views of the Maoists regarding our party.

What Prachanda assured at the meet is that they would not disturb the RPP-Pashupati faction. Despite of such verbal assurances, the Maoists cadres more often than not been seen in different parts of the country indulging in acts that can in no way be termed as democratic ones. In effect, Prachanda must instruct his party men at the local level not to harm the men belonging to different ideologies.

It remains yet to be seen how long it takes Prachanda’s instructions to trickle down to his cadres to the district and village levels. How the Maoists cadres behave with us and others in the impending future will have to be watched. The recent acts of the Maoists who restricted our President’s entry into his own constituency last week was an unfortunate and a deplorable event.

But, nevertheless, let us hope that Prachanda is serious to his words given to our party President.

Mr. Chaudhary: In democratic practices the existence of opposition is universally accepted. If ours is a democratic system as well, Nepal’s case cannot be an exception to the rule. Democracy sans opposition is a Dictatorship.

However, PM Koirala on Sunday during his speech did accept the existence of opposition in the parliament. The Prime Minister explicitly mentioned that if a 2/3rd majority votes could sack him from his post meant the presence of opposition in the parliament. This a welcome move.

However, what remains yet to be done is that the content and the meaning of his speech must be well recorded in government documents. Or else, verbal speeches have no meaning.

Mr. Chaudhary: As a RPP central committee member, the party has not yet officially decided on the unification matters.

However, as regards matters of unification in my opinion the Surya Bahadur Thapa led RJP must be brought back to the mother party. If this does not happen it would be most unfortunate for us all the liberal forces.

The need of the hour is unity among and between the liberal/nationalist/democratic forces for obvious political reasons. Even the cadres in both the camps to the best of my knowledge appear to be in a mood to unify. If this does happen the strength of liberal forces will come up which would allow them to face the CA polls in a much more competitive manner.

Mr. Chaudhary: The Terai has been exploited since ages.

In my opinion, even after the restoration of democratic order in 1950, the terai people continued to be exploited by the ruling elites. They have never been given a chance and opportunity to bring them in the main stream by the ruling elites stationed in Kathmandu. The fact is that the Teraians were never allowed or encouraged to be a part of the system under any government policies since 1950. They were always treated as second class citizens. The rightful demands coming from Terai were even not addressed or listened to while promulgating the interim constitution. Thanks that my party RPP-Rana had suggested the state to look into the Terai genuine demands through submitting amendment proposals. If our proposal were heard seriously by the state the current terai unrest would have not only been hailed but a sort of deepawali would have been observed in the entire terai belt. Unfortunately, this was not to happen.

The current unrest is the sum total of these discriminatory state behavior that the Teraians this time came to the streets spontaneously demanding their rightful dues from the state.

As to the issue of Madhesh/Tharuhat and Terai, intellectual debates are always a welcome move. I am happy to note that your newspaper became a platform for such a debate.

However, let me put the things in right perspective.

The fact is that, it has been proved that Gautam Buddha belonged to the Tharu Community. This means the Tharus are the real inhabitants of the Terai. The areas which are being now termed as Madhesh by some Nepali Intellectuals are basically the land of the Tharus- the Tharuhat. The Mourya Emperor, Chandra Gupt of Patali Putra-currently Patna in India, was an inhabitant of Champaran district in India who was crowned as the Emperor by none less than Chanakya-the noted diplomat of that time who later pronounced his own code called even today as Chankaya Niti or Chankaya code. Champaran district even today continues to be densely inhabited by the Tharus. This implies that the personality whom Chankaya took with him and made him the emperor was none less than a Tharu.

To substantiate this claim, I would suggest all to go through the book, “Two Great Sons of Tharus” penned by Subodh Singh. Mr. Singh’s book contains all the details of Emperor Chandra Gupta Mourya. Emperor Ashoka who later spread Buddhism all over the world is on record to have said that Lord Buddha was born in Nepal. Mr. Singh in his book mentions that the two great Tharus were none less than Lord Buddha and Emperor Ashoka-the Great. Its corollary would be that the entire region of Terai was basically a Tharuhat but not the Madhesh.

However, later from the Southern plains, people those who gradually migrated to this area and settled for good began to call themselves as Madhesis.

We the Tharus used to call such migrants as Deshi or Bazi.

Now after the Sugauli treaty in 1816, and further later when the British India handed over some territories back to Nepal, which created a New Nepal what it is today. So the people residing in these areas are all Nepalese but not the Indians. Those who are residing in this area since long time must not be seen and taken otherwise.

Now coming to the debate of Madhesh and Tharuhat, I would say that the identities of the Tharus must be accepted by all. We stand for an identity but not for waging an unnecessary debate or fight over an issue that if prolonged might weaken us all.

In my view, the word Madhesh and Madheshi must be redefined because in the present context, these two words do not include the Tharus and other indigenous people living in the same Terai plains.

To the Tharus, Madhesh and the Madhesis mean those who migrated from South. There is this confusion which demands redefining of these two specific words.

As regards this debate, I feel strongly that all that we both demand from the state is our respective identities. We can sort out our differences, if any, amicably.

We both must come closer and fight with the state for the formation of a federal structure in our area and it should be one and only one federal state wherein we both can live peacefully.

Frankly speaking, we both possess some similarities on matters of livelihood, language and some of our traditions have intermingled with each other. This aspect can’t be dismissed. We must live together.