UCPN (M), Madhesis trying to bridge distance

Pranab kharel

ekantipur

KATHMANDU, OCT 24 - At a time when differences among the parties on major issues of the new constitution remain strong, the main opposition UCPN (Maoist) and the Madhes-centric parties are talking about finding common ground.

At a condolence meet organised in memory of Jayanarayan Patel, who was killed in a police firing on October 11 in Simraungadh, Bara, Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal claimed to be pro-Madhes, adding Maoists and Madhesi parties were complementary forces. “If the Maoists give up on the issue of the marginalised, including Madhes, our identity will be lost,” remarked Dahal.

But even as the UCPN (Maoist) continues cozying up to the Madhesis, it is the issue of identity-based federalism and inclusion that the party needs to have a clear position on in order to secure their relationship with the Madhes.

The relationship, which has been on a roller-coaster ride in the past decade, is said to be an “issue-based alliance,” wherein the idea of state-restructuring is at the core.  In the past, there have been violent clashes between them: the Maoists and the Upendra Yadav-led Madhesi Janadhikar Forum-Nepal fought a pitched battled, in 2007, where 26 Maoists lost their lives.

The same year, the killing of Ramesh Mahato, a Madhesi youth, in Lahan, by Maoist cadres acted as catalyst that triggered the Madhes movement.

Sidelined by the 2013 election drubbing, both sides are now trying to get past the bitter history.

“Federalism, inclusion and institutionalising the republic are some of the issues where we stand together,” said Laxman Lal Karna, co-chairperson of the Sadbhawana Party. And it is because of these issues, the Maoists have entered into an alliance with the Madhes-centric parties in the 22-party opposition alliance, which organised the Simraungadh condolence meeting, reportedly the largest political gathering in the Tarai in recent times.

Karna claimed the two sides “view the common agenda as being of utmost importance.  There are no permanent friends and enemies in politics.”  

Maoist leaders agree that federalism is the cornerstone of the relationship and there is a reason to revisit the relationship. “Granted, we don’t agree on all the major issues, but there is common understanding on identity-based federalism,” said Maoist leader Agni Sapkota.

But he pointed out that they hold divergent views on the issue of the forms of government, as the majority of Madhesi parties are for a parliamentary system, similar to the form advocated by the Nepali Congress.  

Both Maoists and Madhes-based parties call for either federating the country on the basis of the State Restructuring Commission report which calls for 10 provinces or the report by the previous CA committee that makes a pitch for 14 provinces.  

But the broader context does colour the relationship between the Maoists and the Madhes-based parties, something that was reflected in the 2013 CA election, when many of the senior Maoist leaders contested from the Madhes.

 “The challenge is to establish the issues relating to Madhes as a national agenda in relation to federalism. For the Madhes-centric parties, it is the helping hand lent by a national party that will help them get established even in the hills,” said analyst Chandrakishore Jha. But he believes the Madhesi parties and Maoists share a “love-hate” relationship, a point which fellow commentator Dipendra Jha concedes.

“The two have had a bitter past where the Maoists found it very hard to enter the Madhes. But it is also true that the 10-year war launched by the Maoists helped Madhesis gain confidence and launch their own movement,” he remarked.