Is the Involvement of International community obligatory to resolve the Madhes issues?
Of course, the Madhesi issues are directly concerned with social, political, economic, administrative, security, developmental and diplomatic affairs. To address the issues, Nepal Government need lots of money, technical assistances and diplomatic cooperation, especially from India since the entire major past political negotiations between State and Nepalese political/revolutionary groups conducted either in Indian ground or by influential intercession of Indian power. So it is crystal clear that we need positive interventional cooperation and much more assistances from International community to resolve the ongoing Madhes issues efficiently. In technical perspective, there could be also management issues of Madhesi guerrilla, arms/weapons, federal system, federal governances, positive discrimination, proportional representation, governance system, developments, redistribution policy, Human rights, self-determination etc and more that need lots of compulsory multi dimensional supports from International community.
Do the Madhesis need rights of self-determination which is being most disputable?
Yes, all people/groups should have rights of self-determination as per norms of legitimated human rights and applied concept of democracy. So, what is wrong if Madhesis want it? There are various schools of thoughts about the rights of self-determination, although single interpretation can not be carried out as concrete one. The research concluded that the Madhesi version of self-determination signifies a kind of improved version of powerful decentralisation which is not totally new concept even for Nepal, it can be also considered as improved and modified democratic version of previously introduced the regional and local decentralisation concept, local governance acts and polices. Madhesis do not want any disintegration; they want just their own parliament, executive, judiciary and administrative system as per motto and goal of democracy based on federal State structure system. It is justified and natural that has already proved and applied in the cases of US, Switzerland, Germany, and India etc. Hence, it is not unusual. However, the modality and design of self-determination should be formed to enable more the rank of the nationalism, national interests, harmony and integration of Nepal.
Another manipulated version is made and propaganda disseminated that self-determinations is a synonyms of disintegration/separation which is totally misleading and ridicules notion. It is a kind of continuation of constructive former colonial-feudalism strategy against Madhes. The logic behind such misleading conception is based on Kashmir case, and previous Indian experience (cases of Pakistan, Bangladesh etc), former Yugoslavia etc, which have totally different scenario and angle than Madhes issues and its’ postulated version for right of self determination.
Is really Madhesi want disintegration/Separation from Nepal?
No, not at all, majorities Madhesi people, arm and unarmed warrior groups have made already clear about the points that they do not want any disintegration or separation from Nepal. However, only one group Jantantri Mukti Morcha( Jawala Singh) declared Madhes as separate State but it is neither legitimated by Madhesi people nor clearly defined and extended by Jawala Singh as a strong precondition of dialogue, so experts say, the declaration is as a part of temporary aggression or frustration due to continuous blackguards Governmental behaviour towards the Madhes issues.
Is the Madhes issue a kind of Indian/Palace created disorder?
No-no, this is an absolutely constructed propaganda made by ruling parties and some elite autocratic feudal political characters who want to suppress and kills the democratic voices of Madhes, as justification one can check out the demands of Madhesis which is clearly defined and based on the globally legitimated norms of Human Rights, motto of federal structure based democracy, devolution, branded concept of Inclusion, recognition and identity and natural fundamental rights etc. However, partial political and diplomatic interest of India can not be avoided. Of course, there are also some influences from the hardcore Hindu fundamentalists groups and pro-monarchical politicians. In addition, some Indian criminal groups are also taking advantages from the Madhes disorder. Though, it is natural and indeed little percentages exist in any public movement and insurgency everywhere in the world. Therefore, such little negative aspect can not be translated whole Madhesh disordered as an Indian/Palace created strategy.
What is going wrong in ongoing Madhes movement?
There are several doubts and faults on the raised Madhesi issues. First of all, the definition of Madhes and Madhesi is neither defined officially by government nor by Madhesi political powers themselves. The little hidden involvement of regressive forces, Madhesi political opportunist, criminals and Hindu fundamentalist has made movement’s impression misleading and radical, which is beyond the true aspiration and shibboleth. For instance “one Madhes one, One prades/state” can not be technically feasible in anyways. Secondly, Madhesis groups are lacking unity on common agendas, faulty ways of movement and revolution and its’ efficiency in leaderships. Furthermore, the Madhesi movement is being implemented as disintegrative communal agenda and some hardcore Madhesi insurgents groups are intentionally treating and attacking on Madhes based non-Madhesi groups and their properties, people as enemy which is totally wrong and crime against humanity. Another principle erroneous is means of violence/am insurgency which can not be considered as a peaceful legitimated ways to achieve any democratic needs and rights. Regular bandh, strike and frequent attack on basic public service delivery wings and system are also ailing issues.
What could be the adhoc recommendation to address the ongoing Madhes crisis?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
