![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Studies suggest that the democratic system constructs a permissive environment for ethnic autonomy. This argument does not, however, fit in the case of Nepal in which the Constitution has institutionalized the democratic system and rejected the Madheshi autonomy. Nepal’s constitutional position makes it imperative to examine the limits of the democratic system to address ethnic ambitions. In response, this paper has examined the following question: How did the democratic political system affect the Madheshi demand for autonomy and self-determination? It identifies that the democratic system socialized the mainstream parties to consider that democracy supports individual rights and provides all citizens with equal opportunities. In contrast, self-determination gives additional privileges to some communities over others and hurts the citizens’ rights to equal treatment from the state. Due to this perception, the mainstream parties characterized self-determination as an undemocratic right and used numeric strength to refuse the Madheshi autonomy.
Acknowledgments
I am thankful to my PhD supervisor, Professor Dan Gorman, Chair, Department of History, University of Waterloo, for their insightful comments on the earlier draft of this paper. I am also thankful to Dr. Karun Karki, Assistant Professor, School of Social Work and Human Services, University of the Fraser Valley, British Columbia, Canada, for reading the revised version of my manuscript and suggesting edits.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Ghai, “Ethnicity and autonomy.”
2. Hastings, Construction of Nationhood.
3. Lijphart, “Patterns of democracy.”
4. Nepal elected the first CA in 2008 for writing the Constitution, but this CA dissolved without completing its task. The second CA, elected in 2013, promulgated the Constitution in 2015.
5. The Madheshis are a heterogenous group of people who are concentrated in the Tarai region, speak Hindi, Urdu, Maithali, Bengali, Bhojpuri, Awadi, etc., and are different from the people of hill origin.
6. Jha, The Madheshi Upsurge.
7. The term “mainstream parties” refers to Nepali Congress (NC), the Communist Party of Nepal, the United Marxist and Leninist (CPN-UML), and other small parties that advanced the democratic politics after the 1990s. In 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal, Maoist (CPN-M) launched the armed protest against the parliamentary democratic system. However, after the peace accord of 2006, the CPN-M joined the democratic politics.
8. International Crisis Group, Nepal’s Divisive New Constitution.
9. The NC and CPN-UML were in the first and second position, respectively with 196 and 175 seats in a 601-member CA.
10. In Nepal, the Tharus and other Indigenous nationalities were also denied this right. This paper has, however, taken the Madheshi perspective just because other groups did not have strong presence in the CA, and there were no substantive debates about these groups. In the absence of significant discussions on other groups’ demand, it is difficult to identify why the Nepalese government rejected their demand.
11. Jha, Nepal’s New Constitution.
12. Jnawali, “Indian Intervention.”
13. Acharya, “Vertical Power Sharing.”
14. Khobragade, “India – Nepal Relations.”
15. Shah, “Indo-Nepal Relations.”
16. Burke, Evolution of International Human Rights.
17. UN, Civil and Political Rights.
18. Anderson, “Paradox of federalism.”
19. UN, Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
20. Cobo, Discrimination against Indigenous Populations.
21. ILO, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.
22. CA Secretariat, Constituent Assembly: Full Description.
23. UN, Civil and Political Rights.
24. Dunmire, “Political Discourse Analysis,” 737.
25. Blommaert & Bulcaen, “Critical Discourse Analysis.”
26. Tenorio, “Critical Discourse Analysis” 187.
27. Van Dijk, “Political Discourse Analysis.”
28. Basnet, “Incipient middle caste politics.”
29. Jha, Madheshi Upsurge and the Contested Idea of Nepal.
30. Gaige, Regionalism and National Unity in Nepal.
31. Jha, The Madheshi Upsurge and the Contested Idea of Nepal.
32. Ibid.
33. Basnet, “Incipient middle caste politics.”
34. Nayak, “Nepal-China Transit Agreement.”
35. Hatchhethu, Madheshi Nationalism.
36. Riker, Federalism.
37. Ibid.
38. CA Secretariat, Constituent Assembly, 1330.
39. Ibid., 1635.
40. Ibid., 1671.
41. Breen, “Federalism and Participatory Constitution-Making.”
42. Guneratne, “Tharu-State Relations in Nepal.”
43. Pandey, “Tharu Contestation of Madheshi Identity.”
44. CA Secretariat, Constituent Assembly: Full Description.
45. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nepal Profile.
46. Jha, Interview with Upendra Yadav.
47. GA, Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Nepal.
48. Daes, “Self-Determination and the United Nations.”
49. Burke, Evolution of International Human Rights.
50. Davis, “Indigenous Struggles in Standard-Setting.”
51. Haklai, “Evolution of National Self-Determination as an International Order Principle.”
52. Norman, Negotiating Nationalism.
53. Smooha, “How do Western Democracies Cope?”
54. Anderson, “Paradox of Federalism.”
55. Zakaria, “Rise of Illiberal Democracy.”
56. Mukand & Rodrik, “Political Economy of Liberal Democracy.”
57. Zakaria, “Rise of Illiberal Democracy.”
58. Ibid., 22.
59. Nyirkos, Tyranny of Majority.
60. Pabst, Demons of Liberal Democracy.
61. Weber, “Nation.”
62. Patten, “Autonomy Argument for Liberal Nationalism.”
63. Norman, Negotiating Nationalism.
64. Anderson, “Paradox of Federalism.”
65. Nimni, Osipov, & Smith, Challenges of Non-Territorial Autonomy.
66. Smooha, “Types of Democracy and Modes of Conflict Management.”
67. Stamatopoulou, “Human Rights as a Developing Dynamic.”
68. Smith, “Nationalism and Modernism.”
69. Freeman, “Democracy and Dynamite.”
70. Bhattachan, “Ethnopolitics in Nepal.”
71. Van Cott, “Building Inclusive Democracies.” 820.
72. Kymlicka, “Nation-Building and Minority Rights.”
73. Lijphart, “Patterns of Democracy.”
74. Smooha, “How do Western Democracies Cope?”
75. Eatwell, “Extreme Right Challenge.”
76. Chandra “Postcolonial Approach.”
77. Prasad, Darker Nations.
78. Gellner, Elections in Nepal.
79. Nepal Law Commission, Constitution of 1990.
80. Ibid.
81. Lawoti, “Ethnic Dimension of Maoist Insurgencies.”
82. Nepal Law Commission, Constitution of 1990.
83. Ibid.
84. Central Bureau of Statistics, Population Monograph of Nepal.
85. Lawoti, “Ethnic Dimension of Maoist Insurgencies.”
86. Nepal Law Commission, Constitution of 1990.
87. Khanal, “Current Discourse on Constituent Assembly.”
88. Bharadwaj, Dungana, & Upreti, “Problems of Governance in Nepal.”
89. Lewis, Direct Democracy and Minority Rights.
90. Lijphart, “Patterns of Democracy.”
91. Kymlicka, “Nation-Building and Minority Rights.”
92. Lijphart, “Consociational Democracy.”
93. SATP, 40 Points Demand.
94. Rohde, “King Fires Prime Minister.”
95. Aljazeera, “Nepal’s Political Turmoil.”
96. Hutt, “King Gyanendra’s Coup.”
97. Hutt, “Is Nepal’s New Constitution Settlement a Seismic Constitution?.”
98. Asian Center for Peace and Conflict Transformation. Conflict to Peace in Nepal.
99. United Nations Peacemaker, “Comprehensive Peace Agreement.”
100. Nepal Law Commission, Interim Constitution.
101. Freeman, “Democracy and Dynamite.”
102. Berman, Lyons, & Falk, “Proceedings of the Annual Meeting,” 191.
103. Daes, “Self-Determination and the United Nations.”
104. CA Secretariat, Constituent Assembly, 1235.
105. Ibid., 1699.
106. Ibid., 1464.
107. Ibid., 1478.
108. Ibid., 1473.
109. Ibid., 1308.
110. The Maoists and the Madheshi parties, which were demanding self-determination, were respectively in the third and fourth positions in the second CA.
111. CA Secretariat, Constituent Assembly: Full Description, 1308.
112. Ibid., 1310.
113. Ibid., 1311.
114. Ibid., 1469.
115. Cobo, Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples, 20.
116. CA Secretariat, Constituent Assembly: Full Description,1243.
117. Ibid., 1255.
118. Gurung, “Social Inclusion/Exclusion.”
119. Middleton & Shneiderman, “Reservations, Federalism, and Politics of Recognition.”
120. Nepal Law Commission, Interim Constitution.
121. Ibid.
122. Middleton & Shneiderman, “Reservations, Federalism, and Politics of Recognition.”
123. Subedi, Rafiq, & Ulker, “Effects of Affirmative Action.”
124. Nepal Law Commission, Civil Service Act.
125. Legislative Parliament Secretariat, Sambhidhan Sabha Darpan.
126. Nepal Law Commission, Constitution of the Federal Democratic Nepal.
127. Daes, Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples, 5.
128. CA Secretariat, Constituent Assembly, 1500.
129. Democracy for Nepal, Narhari Acharya Proposal.
130. CPN-UML, Political Document.
131. House of Representatives, Pushpa Kamal Dahal.
132. Ibid.
133. Asian Center for Peace. Conflict to Peace in Nepal.
134. Ibid.
135. In 2008, three Madhesh based parties – MPRF, Nepal Sadbhavana Party, and Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party–formed an alliance to advance the Madhesh movement.
136. Asian Center for Peace. Conflict to Peace in Nepal.
137. Ibid.
138. Ibid.
139. Ibid., 52.
140. CA Secretariat, Constituent Assembly: Full Description,1391.
141. Ibid., 1411.
142. Nepal Law Commission, Interim Constitution.
143. Asian Center for Peace. Conflict to Peace in Nepal.
144. Madhesbani, Khanal Netriwako Sarkarma Jana Gairyeko Sahamati.
145. Lijphart, “Patterns of Democracy” 221.
146. Madhesbaani, Khanal Netritwako Sarkarama Jana Gariyeko Sahamati.
147. The Carter Center, Nepal Constituent Assembly Election.
148. Gellner, Democracy in Nepal.
149. SATP, 40 Point Demand.
150. Eck, “Recruiting Rebels.”
151. Lawoti, Towards a Democratic Nepal.
152. Mabuhang, “State Restructuring and Inclusive Measures for Marginalized Groups.”
153. Pahari, “Continuation of People’s War in Nepal.”
154. Miklain, Nepal’s Tarai.
155. Kantha, “Maoist-Madheshi Dynamics.”
156. Ibid.
157. UN, March Killings in Gaur.
158. CA Secretariat, Constituent Assembly, 1240.
159. Phillips, “Opportunities and Autonomy” 2.
160. CA Secretariat, Constituent Assembly.
161. The Carter Center, Nepal’s Constituent Assembly Election.
162. Conversi, “Majoritarian Democracy and Globalization,” 802.
163. Hutt, “Is Nepal’s New Constitution Settlement a Seismic Constitution?.”
164. Conversi, “Majoritarian Democracy and Globalization.”
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Hari Har Jnawali
Hari Har Jnawali is a post-doctoral fellow at the Centre for Studies on Democracy and Diversity at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. He has published articles in journals such as Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, Ethnicities, Ethnopolitics, Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, and International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. Currently, he is working on a project that examines how South Asian countries are using population settlements against the minorities’ demands for autonomy and self-determination.