The Commandar of Terai Madhesh Rastra Mukti Sena (TMRMS) has been shot dead in police firing in Janakpur Wednesday morning.Ram Yadav, popularly called by the name Akash Tyagi, was killed. In another incident Ganesh Sah called Abinash member of Jantantrik Terai Mukti Morcha(Rajan) dead until treatment.Sah injured with the clashes between villagers.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Commander dead
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Small arms used in Nepal
http://www.unrcpd.org.np/uploads/conferences/file/Nepal%20Session%20III.pdf
Country paper of Nepal for Regional Seminar on Enhancing International & Regional Cooperation to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate Illicit Brokering in Small Arms and Light Weapons in South Asia and Central Asia (17 - 18 June, 2009)
24. Madeshi Rastriya Mukti Morcha (Sambhu Mandal)
Salient features of the seized weapons and arrested persons
Nepalese legal provisions regarding the prevention and eradication of illicit brokering of SALW.Arms and Ammunition Act, 2019 (AD 1963)
CDO (Chief District Officer) has the right to search and seize weapons if
Section 24 Ka
Sunday, July 12, 2009
watch madesh
EDITORIAL: Nepal Madesh continues to be neglected
Posted by barunroy on July 6, 2009
FROM GARHWAL POST
Nepal and India sharing open boarder with each other is the cause of a number of problems for both the nations. However, an open border also has few positive aspects as well. In the recent times, the open boarder is allowing groups of criminals to flourish. They commit crime in one country and then cross the boarder before being caught. Many armed groups are operating actively in both the countries but more so in Nepal due to the poor security management and political instability there. This is affecting the lives of thousands of people in the Tarai Madesh area, which is largely occupied by the Nepalese of Indian origin.
According to a study there are above 70 groups that seek to be recognised as ‘armed groups’ and most of them do not have any political background. Some groups are made up of as small as 3 or 4 number of people and taking up arms with the sole purpose of looting the people for survival. Around 30 groups are pro active in such activities. While it is affecting the whole country, the direct victims are the people living in the districts along the boarder sides.
After the Maoists ended their decade long insurgency and joined mainstream politics two years ago, this had had immediate impact upon social life of the people. This totally changed the picture of the then Nepal, which was soaked in blood. Tourism flourished once again, number of students going abroad also reduced as the local educational institutions began to come to the track and the people displaced from villages started returning to their place. The economy was prevented from further deterioration though it was taking time to rise up significantly. Overall, the Maoists joining the mainstream politics was a very big relief to the people of Nepal and they thought that it was the end of violence in their country.
However, now due to the armed forces operating openly, violence has become a part of life in the Tarai Madesh areas. Neither there is a strong and stable government to watch out and control such things, nor are the Maoists in control, who actually sowed the seed of violence in the country (as the Maoists came to power through the path of violence, armed groups kept on mushrooming) feels responsible for this and is ready to counter the problem. Even when Maoist chairman Prachanda was the Prime Minster of Nepal, he took least interest in this issue. Similarly, Tarai Madesh Loktantric party and Sadvawana party among others which were established as a powerful political parties after the constituent assembly election are not concerned enough about the problems of the people who voted them to power. There are enough number of Madeshi faces in the parliament now, still, the lives of the people in Madesh is equally hard.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
THE ISSUES OF MADESH
Social Inclusion of
Madheshi Community in
Presented by
Shree Govind Shah, Ph.D.
Civil Society Forum Workshop
for
Research Programme on Social Inclusion and National
Building in
Organised by
Social Inclusion Research Fund
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Madheshi community in spite of having a long history of origin and habitat within the present
day
face exclusion in active political participation, administration and governance, decisionmaking
and policy planning, and moreover, they face serious humanitarian problem i.e. of
their true identity in their own native land. The Madheshi people feel highly discriminated
and has almost lost ‘the sense of belongingness to this nation’. Since the early 1990s,
Madheshi people have organized community groups and formed societies or organizations
for the cause of Madheshi community. The issues of Madhesh and Madheshi community
have been time and again raised by Jha (1997), Lawoti (2001), Shah (2002) Yadav (2003),
Gupta (2004) and few others. Many Madheshi people feel that the entire Madhesh region and
its inhabitants do not practically exist in
consciousness of much of the outside world. Lawoti (2001) reported a very low level of
Madheshi people (11.2%) in the integrated index of governance with none in culture,
academic and professional leadership.
The exclusion of Madheshi community from the national mainstream, which shares 32% of
the country’s total human resources, has been the negative factor for the sound economic
development in the country. Moreover, the spirit of harmonious partnership between the two
groups of Pahadi and Madheshi community has never been developed. Socio-political and
economic inclusion of Madhesh, initially considered as ‘bread basket’ and the major source
of revenue generation, and the Madheshi people is what the country needs for building a
more inclusive nation based on democratic norms and processes. This paper analyses the
current status of Madhesh and Madheshi community, the emerging socio-political and
economic issues, and recommends relevant research agenda on the issues of social inclusion
and nation building. All the issues discussed here are data based; there are many minor issues
talked very often but data and information related to those issues are not available.
2. TARAI REGION
2.1 Tarai Districts
The term Tarai is of recent origin describing the plain areas on the southern side of Siwalik
range in
orogenic activity as well as by alluvial action in the Siwaliks and the Himalayan ranges
(Spate and Learmonth, 1967). It has unique ecological features having tropical to subtropical
climatic conditions. In
Tarai’, the later is also called ‘Vitri Madhes’ – the low lying river valleys north of Siwaliks.
In 1963, government established 75 districts in the country and the previously 17 districts in
Tarai were restructured into 20 districts which also included part of Siwalik range and hills.
District demarcation was not based on ecological or social basis, which could have then
included only the outer Tarai and Vitri Madhes area. All the Tarai districts have varying
proportion of Siwalik and mid mountain areas, the highest being 77.5% in Nawalparasi
district, 51.5% in Chitwan district, 50.8 % in Banke district and 41% in Kailali district to the
lowest 8.9% in Sunsari district and about 7% in Jhapa district; the average being 32.4% for
the 20 districts.
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
2
It appears that the well calculated government decision including part of hills in Tarai district
aimed at gradually increasing the dominance of hill people and their distinctive culture,
practices, language and architectural style of the hill region in the plains. Gaige (1975)
reported the hill culture and more flexible social traditions and practices penetrating the plain
region where the people practiced vegetarianism, observing dietary restrictions and
considering inter-caste marriage as social taboo. The inclusion of hill areas in Tarai districts
increased the number of hill people in the district reducing chances of plain people to play
decisive role in political arena and the governance system in their own area. It also made the
holistic planning very difficult for the Tarai districts, which since 1963 are ecologically
heterogeneous.
2.2 Area and Population
The total land area in the 20 Tarai districts is 34,109 sq km which accounts for 23.1% of the
country’s total land area (Table 1). In 2001, 48.4% of the country’s total population of 23.2
million lived in Tarai districts with a density of 329 persons/sq km. Tarai plain and Vitri
Madhesh together covers 15.6% of the country’s total area.
Table 1 Land Area in 20 Tarai Districts
Ecological area Sq km Percentage % of
Mid mountain and Siwalik 11,041 34.2
Tarai plain including Vitri Madhesh 23,068 67.6
Total 34,109 100 23.1
Source: ISRSC (2004)
Note: Population for
Country’s total area is 147,484 sq km.
3. MADHESH AND MADHESHI
3.1 Madhesh
The term Madhes implies to the Gangetic plain and the Vitri Madhesh area bordering
on the southern side and spreading north up to the foothill of Siwalik range. The word
Madhesh is derived from Sanskrit word ‘Madhyadesh’ which extends from the foothill of the
Himalayan region in the north to the Vidhyachal mountain in the south situated in central
that Madhesh does not cover all parts of Tarai districts; it excludes Siwalik and mid mountain
areas. Madhesh is a well defined ecological region, which is approximately 885 km long from
its western boundary, the
average width along its entire east-west axis is only 26 km varying from 4 km to 52 km.
3.2 Madheshi
Madheshis are the non-hill origin people living in Madhesh region. The Madheshi
community is composed of the traditional Hindu caste hierarchy such as Brahmin, Kshatriya,
Baisya and Dalits, and indigenous Janjati ethnic groups, other native tribes and Muslims.
Gaige (1975) used the terms ‘hill people’ and ‘plains people’ living in Tarai districts, and
defined a) “plains people are those who speak plains languages as their mother tongues or
first language, whether they were born or live in the plains or hills”; the plains languages
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
3
being Maithili, Bjojpuri, Awadhi, Urdu, Hindi and Bengali, and dialects of these languages
used by Janjati groups, and b) “hill people whose mother tongue or first language is one that
predominates in the hill region of
others. Sociologically, hill people belong to Hindu caste groups, hill Janjati groups and
Newars. The hill people are also called ‘Pahadi’ or ‘Pahadiya’. Dahal (1996) divided
Madheshi community into four groups a) Indigenous Janjati ethnic people living in Madhesh
for generations, b) people belonging to traditional Hindu caste hierarchy, c) businessmen of
Indian origin e.g. Marwadi, Sikh and others, and d) Muslims.
3.3 Historical Background
Madhesh has a long historical background dating back to the
established in eastern to central Madhesh and a part of the present day north
(Malangia, 1997). In the mid western Madhesh, Shakya kings ruled in 600 BC, the Buddha
belonging to the Shakya dynasty was born in 563 BC. Similarly, kingdoms were established
in Simraun Garh in the present day Bara district. In Madhesh, several kingdoms were
established and ruled by many dynasties (Thakur, 1956), which all perished with time and
were abandoned and the land converted into forests. Gaige (1975) concluded: “the ancient
and medieval history of this region is a cyclic one in which men and forests have dominated
in terms”. Many ruins which are still to be identified and properly studied would tell the
ancient history of this region. The history of
been studied and reported by Pahadi scholars and historians in much detail while they ignored
Madhesh region. Again, there are very few Madheshi historians and scholars who due to lack
of resources have not yet studied in detail the complex ancient history of Madhesh. In recent
decades, Lumbini area in Madhesh, the birth place of Buddh, received worldwide recognition
and support for meaningful excavation, detail study and renovation of key sites.
The Madhesh region was annexed to
mid 1770s by Prithivi Naarayan Shah, however, much of the ancient Madhesh areas ruled by
various kings and principalities for centuries are now in
Sugauli and subsequent treaties with
Madhesh areas south of Dang and Chitwan valleys are under the
3.4 Migration and Population Distribution in Madhesh
Migration in Hills
The historical evidences indicate that most of the hill people excluding the indigenous ethnic
groups migrated from various parts of
the 12th-14th centuries in
regions of the present day western
accommodated some aspects of hill tribe culture to their owns and developed the hill culture
of to-day. Around the 12th century, there was eastward migration of people speaking a
Sanskrit-based language – which later on developed as Nepali language (
Comparatively inhospitable and resource poor western hills, and gradual overpopulation and
agriculture deterioration pushed the hill people, both the migrants and the indigenous people,
to eastern hills up to
and were wetter (Gaige, 1975). This could be the reason of accepting speakers of Nepali and
hill tribal languages from
largely enjoy both the Indian and Nepali citizenship.
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
4
Migration to Madhesh
Between 1860s and 1951, government encouraged and made efforts to vertical migration of
hill people in Madhesh region. The response was not much favourable due to the alien
climatic conditions in Madhesh to hill people (Paudel, 1980). There were settlements in
Madhesh region south from the dense forest area and Vitri Madhesh was inhabitated by
indigenous Janjati people. As land, water and forest resources were abundant in Madhesh,
people from the densely populated Indian districts bordering Madhesh region having similar
cultures, tradition, practices and languages migrated to various parts of Madhesh between
mid 19th and the mid 20th century.
Overpopulation, agriculture and economic deterioration, natural calamities resulting famine
and many other reasons pushed the hill people of both Hindu castes and indigenous Janjati
groups to out-migrate in Madhesh region. Better economic opportunities, abundant land and
forest resources and the malaria eradication programme launched by the State encouraged
involuntary migration into Madhesh (. People migrated mostly to northern Madhesh region
and Vitri Madhesh areas, which were forested and had smaller settlements; large areas of
forests were cleared for farming and settlements, which gradually reduced access to forest
resources for Madheshi people. Hill people established settlements and farming areas along
towns such as Janakpur and practically none to the large Madhesh settlements.
Table 2 Linguistic Characteristics of Population in Madhesh Districts
People % of population in 1961 1/ % of population in 1981 2/
speaking
languages Eastern Mid
western
Far
western Eastern Mid
western
Far
western
Hill languages 2.1- 24.5 1.2 - 6.3 3.2 – 5.8 12.1- 86.2 28.9- 66.3 46.1- 80.7
Plains
languages 75.5- 97.9 93.7- 97.8 94.2 – 96.8 13.8 – 87.9 33.7 – 71.1 19.3- 53.9
Source: 1/ Census of Nepal, 1961 (as cited by Gaige, 1975)
2/ Census of
NOTE: In 1963, Madhesh districts were restructured and their number increased from 17 to 20; pars of Siwaliks and mid
mountains were included in Madhesh districts.
The linguistic characteristics of population in Madhesh districts significantly changed
between 1961 and 1981 due to influx of hill population in Madhesh as well as inclusion of
some parts of Siwaliks and mid mountains to Madhesh districts. This marginalized the
population speaking plains languages. This resulted in dominance of hill culture, tradition,
practices and languages in Madhesh region particularly in Jhapa, Chitwan, Dang and
Kanchanpur districts where about 67% to 85% of the district’s total population consist of hill
linguistic groups. The current trend of changing cultural equation indicates that in two to
three decades time most of Chitwan, Jhapa, Kanchanpur, Dang, Nawalparasi, Kailali, and
Morang districts, half and more of Sunsari, Rupendehi, Banke and Bardia, and the northern
third of Sarlahi, Bara, Parsa and Rauthat districts the plains culture, tradition and practices
would gradually reduce.
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
5
Population Distribution of Madheshi Community in 2001 (% of total population) is as follows:
Low 15.3 - 47.5% Chitwan, Jhapa, Kanchanpur, Dang, Nawalparasi, Kailali and
Morang (7)
Medium 58.7 – 61.3 Sunsari, Rupandehi, Banke and Bardia (4)
High 77.5-93.5 8 districts between Koshi and Narayani rivers, and Kapilbastu
According to 1952/54 population census, only about 6% of the population in Madhesh
districts was of hill origin and the rest 94% population was composed of Madheshis of Hindu
caste hierarchy, indigenous Janjati groups, Muslims and other tribes. The population
dynamics significantly changed in 1981 increasing the percentage of hill people from about
6% in 1952 to 43% in 1981. The Pahadi population increased many fold from merely
142,000 in 1952 to 4.1 million in 2001 while the Madheshi population increased just over
two fold from 2.5 million to 5.3 million over the last 50 years (Table 3).
Table 3 Changes in Madheshi and Pahadi Population
(Population in ‘000)
Year Highland group Lowland group Total % of lowland group
1952/54 142 2,246 2,388 94.1
1981 2,795 3,762 6,557 57.4
1991 3,444 5,262 8,706 60.4
2001 4,120 7,092 11,212 63.3
Source: Gurung, H. (1998). Social Demography and Expressions,
CBS (2001). Population Census.
3.5 Madheshi Community in
The 59 castes and ethnic nationalities identified in 2001 census are broadly grouped into
Hindu caste hierarchy, Indigenous Janjati and Muslims and their population both in 20 Tarai
districts and in other remaining 55 districts are given in Table 4.
Table 4 Madheshi Community in
Population in ‘000
Madheshi Community
Tarai districts Remaining districts
Hindu caste hierarchy
Brahmin/Kshtriya/Kayastha 215.7 13.3 229.0 3.1
Baisya, Yadav and others 3,126.6 168.9 3,295.5 44.3
Dalits 874.1 12.7 886.8 11.9
Indigenous Janjati 1,940.1 106.4 2,046.5 27.5
Muslim 935.5 41.7 972.3 13.2
Total 7,092 343 7,435 100
Source: CBS (2001)
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
6
Baisya, Yadav and other Hindu caste group share 44.3% of the total Madheshi population
followed by Indigenous Janjati (27.5%), Muslims (13.2%) and Dalits (11.9%). Indigenous
Janjati, Dalits and Muslims are socio-economically more disadvantaged compared to other
Hindu castes. Brahmin, Kshatriya and Kayastha are in minority but they are relatively welleducated,
resource rich and more aggressive in politics, governance and in leadership role.
Madheshi community tends to be less migratory in nature compared to hill people and they
prefer to remain closely in their traditional settlements. This reduces their chances of
integrating with new socio-economic environment as well as with other communities. In
general, 95.4% of the Madheshi people live in Madhesh region while the remaining 4.6% live
in hills and mountains. Whereas, about 18% of the hill people live in Madhesh region and
they out-migrate more easily from their settlements. The hill Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars
are well-educated, resource rich, more land and capital and they have achieved leadership
dominance not only in their settlements or regions but also in Madhesh region.
4. RESOURCE USE AND MANAGEMENT
Most of the data and information available on natural resources such as land, forests,
productivity and production, economic activities and general economics are given at district
level. The data available for Madhesh region is briefly described here.
Table 5.
Area Tarai districts Madhesh region Hilly region
Total area in Tarai districts 3,411 2,307 1,104
Arable land 1,414 1,234 180
% of arable land 41.5 53.5 16.3
% of forest land 40.0 21.1 79.5
Source: ISRSC (2004)
The 20 Tarai districts have in total 1.414 million ha of arable land; 87.3% of the total arable
land is in Madhesh region and the remaining 12.7% in hills (Table 5). Arable land covers
53.5% of the Madhesh region while only about 16% of hills in the Tarai districts are
cultivated. This unbalanced arable land distribution could exert more pressure on Madhesh
region for farmland resources.
Although the irrigation facility developed in the last 100 years or so cover about 62% of the
total farmland but due to various technical and management problems only about 46% of the
total farmland is actually irrigated at least during wet season (Shah and Singh, 2001). It has
been estimated that only about 22% of the farmland is irrigated during winter months and just
below 5% in spring. Multiple cropping and commercial crops would require water throughout
the whole growing season. This would put barrier to economic development of Madhesh
people whose economic activities are mainly agriculture based.
There is unbalanced forest distribution in Madhesh region; only about 21% of the Madhesh
region is forested compared to about 80% in hilly areas of the 20 Tarai districts (Table 5).
People in Madhesh region has very little access to forest resources, and again, a large chunk
of the forests are located in national parks and wildlife reserves.
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
7
5. EXCLUSION OF MADHESH AND MADHESHI COMMUNITY
and geographical area have prospered while many other communities and districts have not.
There is strong conceptual debate around the notions that exclusion either social, economic,
political or geographical have been the main causes of unequal society. Exclusion results in
poverty, unequal distribution of resources and development initiatives, and inability of certain
community or geographical area to participate in socio-economic and political development
processes.
Social exclusion is defined as “the inability of our society to keep all groups and individuals
within reach of what we expect as a society and the tendency to push vulnerable and difficult
individuals in the least popular places”. Education, skills, social behaviour, social network
and groups, social contact, welfare, health, child poverty and isolation and vulnerability are
the key social exclusion indicators. Children living in poverty may enter a cycle of poor
educational achievement, unmanageable behaviour, unemployment and homelessness.
Economic exclusion would primarily include unemployment, income, economic opportunity,
social and support services such as health and drinking water and basic infrastructure. There
is positive relation between social exclusion and economic exclusion; illiterate and poor
individuals are even more excluded because their low ability to read and write prevents their
adaptation, professional conversion and their social mobility (Layachi, 2001).
Political exclusion inhibits basic citizenship rights and when done on a large scale, it prevents
communities and even geographical areas from participating in political arena, which inhibits
democratic process. The key variables are basic citizenship rights, participation in political
life, making public policies, decision-making process and representation.
5.1 Geographical Exclusion
In
infrastructures and facilities and providing development opportunity. In recent years, few
researchers have linked the results of geographical exclusion such as wide spread poverty,
inequality in resource distribution, increasing vulnerability and marginalizing the local
inhabitants particularly in the mid-western and far-western region of
insurgency (Nayak, 1998; Panday, 1999; Kumar, 2000; Upreti, 2002; and others).
There are examples of geographical disparity in other parts of the world e.g.
the northern and the southern parts of the country. Tarai districts are located in the southern
part of
districts in Tarai administrative area and 55 districts are located in hills and mountains where
82.2% of the Pahadi people live. Resource Endowment Ranking Index values are used to
measure geographical disparity in the country.
a) Social Exclusion
Poverty
Worst poverty prevails in the Tarai districts. About 45% of the 20 Tarai districts have worst
poverty rankings and only 25% are ranked as ‘best’ compared to 35% districts in hills and
mountains are ranked as ‘best’ and 29% are ranked as ‘worst’. The Tarai districts having
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
8
good access to transportation and marketing systems are also reported to have rich natural
resources endowment rankings particularly the cultivated land (Table 6).
There appears to have ethnicity and poverty interaction. Rauthat, Siraha, Mahotari, Dhanusha
and Sarlahi districts, where about 78-94% of the total population is Madhesi people, are
ranked as having worst poverty cases; the poverty ranking index ranges from the lowest 4 in
Rautahat to 13 in Sarlahi district. The poverty level is reported to be very low in Jhapa,
Chitwan and Morang districts where majority of the people are of hill origin.
Table 6. Poverty and Natural Resources Ranking Index
(Number of Districts)
Index Ranking Poverty Ranking NR Ranking
Group
Tarai districts H/M districts Tarai districts H/M districts
Ranking 1-25 Worst 9 16 0 25
Ranking 25-50 Intermediate 6 20 3 19
Ranking 51-75 Best 5 19 17 11
TOTAL 20 55 20 55
Source: Sharma and Shah (2002), ICIMOD (1997)
b) Education
About 90% of the Tarai districts have a large number of educationally deprived populations
compared to only about 13% in hills and mountain districts (Table 7). Siraha, Bardia,
Dhanusha, Mahotari, rauthat and Sarlahi have the largest number of educationally deprived
people.
Table 7. Educationally Deprived Population and Child Literacy Rates
(Number of Districts)
Educationally deprived
Index Ranking population Child literacy rates
Group
Tarai districts H/M districts Tarai districts H/M districts
Ranking 1-25 Worst 18 7 10 16
Ranking 25-50 Intermediate 1 25 7 17
Ranking 51-75 Best 1 23 3 22
TOTAL 20 55 20 55
Source: Sharma and Shah (2002)- New ERA, ICIMOD (1997)
Fifty percent of the Tarai districts have ‘worst ranking’ for child literacy rates compared to
29$ in hills and mountain districts. Rauthat, Sarlahi and Mahotari are the worst in child
literacy index values. Again, 40% of Tarai districts have lower overall literacy rates
compared to 31% in hill districts.
b) Economic Exclusion
There is disparity in per capita budget allocation between Tarai and hill districts; 10 out of the
20 Tarai districts have ‘worst’ index values compared to about 17% of the hill districts.
Similarly, more number of Tarai districts has lower primary sector development compared to
hill districts (Table 8).
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
9
Table 8. Per Capita Budget Allocation and Primary Sector Development Index
(Number of Districts)
Per Cappita budget allocation Primary sector development
Index Ranking Group
Tarai districts H/M districts Tarai districts H/M districts
Ranking 1-25 Worst 10 9 8 16
Ranking 25-50 Intermediate 5 18 8 14
Ranking 51-75 Best 5 28 4 25
TOTAL 20 55 20 55
Source: Sharma and Shah (2002)- New ERA, ICIMOD (1997)
The data and information so far available indicate that the Tarai districts having higher
proportion of Madheshi population have much lower socio-economic index values compared
to districts where hill people are in dominance. However, there are no information and data
available for comparing hill people and plains people living in the same district; the hill
people generally live in the northern part of the district, along the highways and in growth
centres whereas plains people mostly live in the rural areas with less accessibility to
education, health and other development parameters.
Government and political organisations have been advocating and focusing poverty reduction
programme mostly in the hills and mountains, and they have been advocating the donors that
only the hills and mountains have large number of poor people. It appears that the politicians,
policy makers, decision makers and national planners who are mostly of hill origin ignored
the socio-economic development issues of Madhesh and the Madheshi community. The fact
is that the Madheshi people are not in the right place and their voices are not heard or
considered.
c) Political Exclusion
Electoral Constituencies
The average population per constituency is considerably higher in Tarai districts (127,414)
than in the mountain (73,026) and 109,081 in the hill districts (Table 9). This reduces the
number of parliamentarians representing Tarai region where about 96% of the country’s total
Madheshi people live while increases their number from hills and mountains where 82% of
the country’s total Pahadi people live.
Table 9. Political Constituency Delineation in
Mountain Hills Tarai Total
Districts 16 39 20 75
Population (‘000) 4,141 10,398 8,644 23,183
Constituencies 23 94 88 205
Population/Constituency 73,026 109,081 127,414 103,174
Population/Constituency
Range
9,587 to
121,996 67,434 to 154,549 114,056 to
157,349
Source: District Demographic profile of
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
10
5.2 Exclusion of Madheshi Community
About 96% of the Madheshi community lives in 20 Tarai districts and 15 of these districts
have intermediate to worst poverty situation. Although there is no authentic data available,
the general observation indicate that the Madheshi people living in traditional settlements in
rural areas have nominal access to social infrastructure and facilities and, moreover, the
induced economic opportunities are practically non-existent in their habitats. Many of the
modern day basic facilities have not yet reached Madhesh villages.
Nearly 40% of the Madheshi population is Dalits and indigenous Janjati who are inherently
disadvantaged in many social and economic aspects. Again, poverty is very high among the
Muslim population living in rural areas; they have average low rate of literacy and their
socio-economic development voices have reached nowhere; they share 13% of the total
Madheshi population
In fact, the Madheshi community has never been fully integrated in the overall political,
socio-economic and human resource development agenda of the country. They have been
excluded from the national mainstream. There is widespread feeling among the Madheshi
community that they have been strongly discriminated and are not given proper opportunity
in the country. They lack proper share in development activities and are not represented in
politics or decision-making processes. Education facilities and job opportunities either in
government or international organisations functioning in the country are not easily available
for Madheshi people. They are not allowed to work in military service and very few people
work in police service.
a) Social Exclusion
Poverty
Poverty line in
of Muslims and 33% of indigenous Janjati population are below the poverty line (World
Bank, 2006). Together these three major ethnic groups have 52.6% of the total Madheshi
population. The rest 47.4% of the Madheshi people have lower poverty level. The above
poverty data indicates that a large proportion of Madheshi households are excluded from the
mainstream development. Poverty itself is the main factor of exclusion; the poor people could
not afford basic education, primary health care, sanitation practices and decent housing.
Land Assets
Landlessness has become a major problem among Madheshi community. The recent report
indicates a grave situation particularly in Dalit, Janjati and Muslim ethnic community; about
37% of Dalits, and 32% of Janjati households do not own agricultural land while 41% of
Muslims are landless. About 79% of Mushar, a Dalit community, do not own land; they have
the lowest literacy rate of 7.3%.
Education
About 79% Dalits, 68% Muslims, 54% indigenous Janjati and 42% mid caste population are
illiterate. The female literacy is very low, below 11%, among Dalits and Muslim. A large
Madheshi population has been excluded from basic education. Again, the level of education
in rural Madhesh is of much lower grade.
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
11
b) Economic Exclusion
Employment
Three castes/ethnic groups namely Brahmins, Chhetri and Newars have dominated the civil
service in the country. In 1991 these three castes constituted 36% of total population in
but occupied 89.2 percent of position in civil service, while Madheshi community accounted
for 32% of population but occupied only 8.4% of position in civil service (Table 10). This
indicates that Madheshi people have highly discriminated in government services. It is
interesting to note that in 1971 these three castes had occupied 89% of posts in civil services.
Thus the pattern of civil service had not much changed over the past twenty years having
these Brahmin, Chhetris and Newars dominating the civil service over the years and it is very
unlikely that this trend will change in near future.
Table 10. Representation of different Caste/Ethnic groups in Civil Service
Share in Civil Service (in Percent)
Caste/Ethnic Group
% of Population in
1991 1971* 1991**
Brahmins 12.9 32.0 41.3
Chhetri & Thakuri 17.6 21.0 14.7
Newar 5.6 36.0 33.2
Tarai (Madheshi) 32.0 7.0 8.4
Hill Social Group 22.4 4.0 2.4
Others 8.3
Source:
* Pashupati Rana’s
** D.N. Dhungel’s article “ The Nepalese Administrative System” in Contemporary Nepal .P.P. 122-123.
Manpower involved in International organisations in
these organisations is given in Table11. About 81% of the total manpower involved in the 30
multilateral agencies working in
Pahadi community, 14.1% are foreigners and the rest 5.2% are Madheshi people.
Table 11. Manpower Involved in International Organisations in
Organisations/ Manpower Ivolved, 2001
Agencies No.
Foreigner Pahadi Madhesi Total
International
(Multilateral) 30 121 (15.8%) 608 (79.2%) 38 (5.0%) 767
Projected
implemented by
Multilateral Agencies
61 21 (8.6%) 209 (85.3%) 15 (6.1%) 245
TOTAL 91 142 (14.1 %) 817 (80.7%) 53 (5.2%) 1,012
Source: UNDP (2001). Directory of the United Nations and Its related Specialized Agencies in
September 2001, UNDP,
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
12
Judiciary
Just over 8% of the total judges in the country are from Madheshi community, while the rest
92% are from Pahadi community (Table 12). Participation of judges from Madheshi
community at the
participation’ compared to 6.1% at the District Courts. The lower number of judges could
probably be due to a) discrimination of Madheshi community to enter into the judiciary
agencies, b) low number of law graduates from Madheshi community, and c) unwillingness
to join the judiciary services for various reasons.
Table 12. Man Power Distribution in Judiciary, 2001
Type of Judiciary Pahadi Madhise Total %
Madhise
Chief Justice & Supreme Court Justices 18 2 20 10.0
Chief Justices of
Judges of
Judges of District Court 123 8 131 6.1
First class officers in judicial services 18 0 18 0
TOTAL 233 21 254 8.3
Percentage 91.7 8.3
Source: HMG (2001). Nyaya Parishad Bulletin, Nyaya Parishad Secretariat, 18 December 2001 (3 Paush 1958)
Employment in Higher Posts
The Pahadi people particularly the Brahmins and Chhetris control most of the positions of
power and influence the government, other governing institutions in their action. They
consider Madheshi people as ‘non-Nepali’ or ‘less Nepali’ and the later gets excluded from a
higher post unless a Madheshi person is in their high level of confidence. The Table 13 shows
a very low level of involvement of Madheshi people in constitutional bodies and in higher
posts – these people make national policies, and are the key decision makers and policy
implementers.
Table 13. Madheshi Representation in Cabinet, Constitutional Bodies and High Official Posts
Post and Organisations Posts Pahadi Madheshi % Madheshi
Ministers 24 21 4 16.7
Royal Standing Committee 8 7 1 12.5
Judges in Supreme Court 21 12 2 9.5
Chiefs of the Constitutional bodies 7 7 0 0
Members of Constitutional bodies 19 17 2 10.5
National Human Rights Commission 5 4 1 20.0
National Planning Commission 6 5 1 16.7
Ambassadors/Consulate Generals 23 22 1 4.3
Secretary/regional administrators 37 36 1 2.7
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
13
Vice-Chancellors 5 5 0 0
Vice-Chancellor RONAST,
Chief of Security forces 3 3 0 0
Dept. heads of HMG’ 47 43 4 8.5
Chief of Govt. Corporations and Committees 56 52 4 7.1
Chief of Govt. Information and Communication
agencies 4 4 0 0
Heads of Parliamentary bodies & committees 15 12 3 20.0
Source: Singh, A. (2003) Restructuring of
Note: Number of Minister is of Girija Prasad Kiorala cabinet in 2001, all the other data are before October 2002.
c) Political Exclusion
In the two houses of parliament composed after the 1991 election, Brahmins held 38.1% of
the seats and Newars 8.3%, the highest proportion in all four legislatures which were the
products of adult franchise (Table 14). Similarly, they continued to retain their numbers even
in the election of 1999 where Brahmins and Newars held 39.6% and 8.3% respectively.
Brahmins, Chhetri and Newar dominated the seats in combined upper and lower houses of
parliament constituting 65.2% of seats while they represent 36% of population. On the other
hand, Madhesh community constituted only 17.4% of seats while representing 32.0% of
population. Thus one finds a serious imbalance in the representation in our law-making body
so called national legislature.
Table 14. Representation of Various Caste and Ethnic Groups in National Legislature
(In per cent)
Caste/Ethnic Groups National Legislature Population
1959 1981* 1991 1999 1991
Brahmins 27.5 13.3 38.1 39.6 12.9
Chhetri/Thakuri 31.2 36.3 18.2 17.3 17.6
Newar 3.7 8.1 8.3 8.3 5.6
Subtotal 62.4 57.7 64.6 65.2 36.1
Madheshi 22.0 18.5 19.6 17.4 32.0
Hill SocialGroups 15.6 23.0 14.7 14.7 22.4
Others --- 0.7 1.2 1.5 8.3
Source: Pashupati Rana’s Article “The Evolution of Nepalese Nationalism” in Contemporary Nepal, pp 83
IIDS, The Fourth Parliamentary Election.
• Gurung, Harkha, The Sociology of Election in
1982, p.313
The structure in the political parties is mostly centralized and is largely non-inclusive. Again,
the major leaders in any political party are the hill Brahmins and Chhetris and normally they
discriminate the Madheshi people in most actions. Central Committee of any political party is
vital for formulating policies and the members make collective decision for important action.
It appears that the Pahadi leaders do not have confidence over the Madheshi people and they
tend to exclude the latter in policy formulation and decision-making jobs. Nepali Congress
and the UML are the major democratic parties in the country but they have included only few
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and
14
Madheshi as members in their Central Committees (Table 15.). They advocate the
proportional representation but in action it does not happen. Again, representation of
Madheshi politicians in both Upper House and Lower House is considerably low (Table 16).
This could greatly inhibit the democratization process in the country. The findings clearly
indicate that Madheshi people are highly ignored and are under represented in the current
political arena, which may, in long run, create vulnerable situation in the country.
Table 15. Central Committee Members in Major Political Parties
Political Parties Total Pahadi Madheshi % Madheshi
Nepali Congress 38 35 3 7.9
Communist Party of Nepal (UML) 69 65 4 5.8
Nepali Congress Democratic 30 25 5 16.7
Jan Morcha Nepal 44 43 1 2.3
Source: Madhesh Vani, January 2006.
Table 16. Number of Madheshi Member of Parliament in 1999
Total MPs Lower House Upper House
Political Parties Lower
House
Upper
House Pahadi Madheshi Pahadi Madheshi
Nepali Congress 113 24 90 23 21 3
Communist Party of Nepal (UML) 69 20 59 10 19 1
Rashtriya Prajatantra Party 11 5 7 4 5 0
Nepal Sadbhavna Party 5 1 1 4 0 1
Rashtriya Jana Morcha 5 0 5 0 0 0
Nepal Majdoor Kishan Party 1 0 1 0 0 0
United People’s Front 1 0 1 0 0 0
King’s Nominees 0 10 0 0 9 1
Total 205 60 164 41 54 6
% Madheshi 20.0 11.1
Source: Parliament Secretariat Records, Singha Durbar, Nepal, 1999.
Involvement of Madheshi People in Media
Both the government and private sector or non-government media sector have excluded
Madheshi people from their management committee similar to the political parties (Table
17). Media seldom raises the socio-economic, development and political issues of Madhesh
and Madheshi people positively. The voices and the grievances of the common Madheshi
people unless they hold a major position are lost.
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation Building
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and Nation Building in Nepal, Day 2, Session 1
15
Table 17. Involvement of Madheshi people in Media
Total Pahadi Madheshi % Madheshi
A. Government Media: Management Committee
Press council 13 10 1
Radio Nepal 5 4 1
Gorakhapatra 5 5 0
Nepal Television 5 5 0
Rastriya Samachar Samiti 5 5 0
Subtotal 33 29 2 6.01
B. Non-government Media
Nepal Patrakar Federation 24 23 1
Press Chautari 21 21 0
Nepal Press Union 12 12 0
Press Group 23 22 1
SAAF Nepal 25 25 0
Nepal Environment Media Group 13 15 0
Federation of National News Media 13 12 1
Subtotal 131 128 3 2.3
Source: Madhesh Vani, January 2006.
6. EMERGING ISSUES OF MADHESHI COMMUNITY
Madheshi community in general has been marginalized and the people suffer from a
combination of linked problems such as illiteracy, poverty, poor skills, unemployment in
public sector and the average low incomes. Undoubtedly, there is affluent society in Madhesh
community such as Brahmin, Kshatriya and Kayastha who are relatively educated, well off,
prosperous and lead a comfortable life, but they are in minority in number – just 3.1% of the
total Madheshi population. The majority of the population belonging to Dalits, Janjati,
Muslims and other caste groups living in rural areas are facing acute hardship. Poor
investment, unplanned management of already deteriorating land resources, poor socioeconomic
infrastructures and facilities and lack of socio-economic planning have adversely
affected the majority of the Madheshi people.
There have been little efforts to prevent social, economic and political exclusion and to
reintegrate those who have become excluded through unemployment, landlessness,
homelessness and so on. The past discriminatory public policies and the general unhealthy
attitudes of the hill people who are in governance towards the average Madheshi have been
detrimental to national integration. Their problems have not been solved or rather ignored by
the State. The major emerging social, economic and political issues which need immediate to
short term action are briefly described here.
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation Building
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and Nation Building in Nepal, Day 2, Session 1
16
a) Social Issues
1. Identity and Recognition
Most of the Madheshi people are loosing their identity since they are treated as ‘less Nepali’
or ‘non-Nepali’ by Pahadi people. One of the main reasons could be attributed to their sociocultural,
linguistic and physical affinity with the communities living immediately on the other
side of the border in India, which historically was a part of Madhesh. Culture, tradition,
practices and language have great influence on ‘identity’ of a person e.g. a Nepali or hill
language speaking person from Darjeeling or Sikkim, who have been living their for
generations, is readily accepted in Nepal as a Nepali and he or she enjoys all the sociopolitical
benefits. Whereas a Madheshi who does not speak Nepali or any other hill language
and who does not follow hill tradition and practices is not easily accepted as Nepali by hill
Nepalese.
2. Illiteracy and Poor Skills
There is mass illiteracy among the Dalits, Janjati, Muslims, and the other caste people living
in villages. Female education is practically non-existent among many communities living
outside the urban centres. The traditional society has very little changed in the last fifty years
or so and doe to the non-migratory nature they have little interaction with other community.
Again, the level and quality of secondary or higher secondary education in Madhesh region is
quite inferior compared to education in hill areas. Consequently, the Madheshi people getting
all their education in Madhesh could not compete with Pahadi people having their education
in hills where it is comparatively superior; they loose opportunities.
3. Poverty and Vulnerability
There is widespread poverty (45% of the Madhesh districts) among Madheshi community
particularly Dalits, Muslims, Janjatis and other caste people living in traditional settlements
who are nearly landless. They lack assets for economic production and the lack of food
security has many widespread effects influencing health and nutritional standards as well as
child education. It also forces them to have less concern for environmental considerations.
Poverty and illiteracy increases vulnerability and in vulnerable society democratic values and
democratization have very little meaning.
b) Economic Issues
1. Unemployment and Under Employment
In the absence of off-farm economic opportunities in villages, most of the people are under
employed. In recent years, uneducated teenagers and the young people have temporarily
migrated to India for economic opportunity – this has unbalanced labour supply to farming in
many parts of Madhesh region. Again, there is unemployment for the educated Madheshi
people in government or non-government organizations or in INGOs or international
organizations working in Nepal primarily due to the exclusion behaviour of these institutions
towards Madheshi. This is a serious issue to tackle.
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation Building
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and Nation Building in Nepal, Day 2, Session 1
17
2. Weak Social Organizations and Support Services
In the past two decades, social institutions advocating and working on social, economic and
political development in Madhesh region have been formed by Madheshi community. Such
entities are of varied natures and are based on castes and ethnicity, language, research and
studies, human rights and advocacy, political rights, and socio-economic works. These
organizations find hard to get financial and working support from the State as well as from
the donor communities. In general, most of these organizations are committed to the cause of
Madheshi community, but lack of coordination among them, missing unified vision, divided
opinions, and unfocused objectives have made them inadequate in yielding desired results.
Again, the government support services are dwindling and have not yet reached in many
villages where most of the households are Madheshi. Most of the project implementers at the
district level are of hill origin and they tend to implement their programme in areas
dominated by hill people due to various reasons such as good communication, high level of
programme adaptation and so on.
3. Low Level of Investment and Lack of Economic Opportunity
Although government collects most of its revenue from Madhesh region, there is very little
return in the form of investment in rural areas where majority of the Madhesi people live.
Investment both from the government and the donor community in rural Madhesh appears to
be very low. Most of the industries are located in urban centres and they could not much help
the local rural people. Again, the agro-based industries established in the Madhesh region are
not tied up with agriculture farming; they import raw materials from other countries which
could be technically produced in Madhesh.
The issue of renovation and reconstruction of the Hulaki Road has been raised on many
occasions. This road was constructed in early 20th century and connects the inner part of
Madhesh region from Jhapa in the east to Kanchanpur in the west.
c) Political Issues
1. Basic Citizenship Rights
This is the major political issue still unresolved by the State or the political parties. Many of
the Madheshi people who are landless or homeless – a large number of Dalits, Janjatis,
Muslims and other caste people are landless- are denied of citizenship certificates. The
government law and the public policies are not very clear and positive, and moreover, the
persons at district level authorized to give citizenship certificates that are mostly high caste or
affluent hill people usually show negative tendencies while granting citizenship. Denial of
citizenship means no rights to get job in government, corporations or even private companies,
can not get government support or loan from the bank or purchase land for housing or
farming. Many Madheshi people have lost right to vote and it prevents them to participate in
political life even at the village level. This is humiliating for the Madheshi people who are
denied of their natural right.
2. Demarcation of Madhesh Districts
The current demarcation of Tarai districts does not follow any scientific, ecological or social
basis. Amendment is required and a new demarcation needs to be done, which would include
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation Building
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and Nation Building in Nepal, Day 2, Session 1
18
only the outer and Vitri Madhesh region for efficient socio-economic planning for holistic
development. This would increase participation of Madheshi community decision-making
process.
3. Participation in Political Arena
Low level of participation in policy and decision-making body of political parties such as
central committees and lack of proportional representation in parliament are the emerging
issues. The political parties have so far ignored emerging issues of Madhesh and Madheshi
people and the under representation prohibits advocacy for betterment.
4. Census Mechanism
Many people believe that the results of the past census are not satisfactory; the data on
Madhesh population and the resources they use do not seem to be accurate. Some sample
survey done in the Madhesh area indicates much higher Madheshi population than shown in
the last census.
5. Migration of People in Madhesh
Madhesh region is already over crowded and the resources are dwindling to maintain the
increasing population. The issue of discouraging population to permanently migrate from
hills and from the adjoining areas in India to Madhesh region has been very often raised.
7. RELEVANT RESEARCH AGENDA
The inclusion of Madheshi people in the national mainstream would be the main drag on the
country’s economy. People believing in integration of societies often ask a question – how to
achieve that goal? Social, economic and political exclusion exist in many countries and
within a society or geographical area. However, there are some good examples of positively
integrating the varied societies and nationalities within a country, which are all initiated at the
economic and at the political level.
There is continued conceptual debate around the notions of exclusion and inclusion. How an
excluded community or group could be included in the mainstream for nation building.
Firstly, we need to understand the dynamic processes taking place which encourages different
forms of exclusion in Nepal. The is lack of data and information on various sub components
of social, economic and political exclusion. And then to investigate the institutional aspects
which could prevent exclusion and promote recovery, regeneration and inclusion. These fact
finding attributes would form the research agenda and discussed in a group before finalizing
them. The attributes, their nature and usefulness would be more detailed in the seminar.
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation Building
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and Nation Building in Nepal, Day 2, Session 1
19
References
Bista, DB (1991). The people of Nepal. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, HMG,
Kathmandu, Nepal, 1967.
Bista, DB (1991) Fatalism and Development Nepal’s Struggle for modernization, Patna
Orient Longman, 1991.
Byrne, D (1999). Social Exclusion. Open University Press, 1999.
CBS (2002). Statistical Pocket Book Nepal. Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Clark, TW (1963). A First Year language Cpourse. Cambridge: Heffer, 1963
Dahal, DR (1996). Madhesiya Pahadiya Antar Sambandha (Madheshi Pahadi Interrelationship).
Himal, Kathmandu, September 1996.
Gaige, FH (1975). Regionalism and National Unity in Nepal. Vikram Publishing House,
Delhi, India, 1975.
Gupta, J (2004). Madhesh: Social Demography and Discrimination. Madheshi Human Rights
Conservation centre, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2004.
Gupta, J., Yadav., U., Jha, HB., and Jha, AN (2004). Nepali Madhesi Ka Samasya. Centre for
Protection of Madheshee’s Human Rights, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Guring, H (1982). The Sociology of Election in Nepal: 1959-81, Asian Survey, Vol XXII,
p.313, March 1982
ICIMOD (1997). Districts of Nepal: Indicators of Development. International centre for
Integrated Mountain development, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1997.
ISRSC (2004) District Development Profile of Nepal 2004. Informal Sector Research and
Study Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal, August 2004.
Jha., HB (1993). The Tarai Community and national Integration in Nepal. Centre for
Economic and Technical Studies/ Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1993.
Lawoti, M (2001). Racial Discrimination toward the Indigenous peoples in Nepal. Nongovernment
Report for the Third World Conference Against Racism (WCAR),
Kathmandu, Nepal, 2001.
Layachi, A (2001). Reform and the Politivs of Inclusion in the Maghrib. The journal of North
African Studies, Vol. 5, Issue 3.
Malangia, M (1997). Yo janakpur Ho (This is Janakpur). Majdoor Pustak Bhavan, janakpur,
1997.
Nayak, P (1998). Economic Development and Social Exclusion in India. Delhi School of
Economics, University of Delhi, India, 1998.
Panday, DR (2001). Corruption, Governance and International Cooperation: Essays and
Impressions on Nepal and South Asia. Transparency international, Kathmandu, 1998.
Rana, P (1982). The Evolution of Nepalese Nationalism in Contemporary Nepal, pp 83
The Fourth Parliamentary Election, IIDS, Kathmadu, Nepal
Shah, S (2001). The Politics of Exclusion. A paper presented at the American University in
Washington DC, USA, March 2002.
Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation Building
Civil Society Forum Workshop For Research Programme on Social Inclusion and Nation Building in Nepal, Day 2, Session 1
20
Shah, SG and Singh, GN (2001). Irrigation Development in Nepal: Investment, Efficiency
and Institution. Research report Series No. 47., Winrock International, Kathmandu,
Nepal, December 2001.
Sharma, S. and Shah, SG (2002). Nepal report: The Link between Poverty and Environment –
Situation Analysis and Strategy for Change. New ERA, November 2002.
Singh, A. (2003) Restructuring of Nepali State: A Madheshi Perspective, New Delhi, 2003.
Spate, OHK and Learmonth, ATA (1967). India and Pakistan: A General and Regional
Geography, 3d ed., London, 1967.
Upreti, BR (2002). Nepal: A Nation in search of Peace and Development. A Country
Assessment Report, Swiss Agency for development and Cooperation, Berne.
World Bank (2005). Citizens With (Out) Rights: Nepal Gender and Social Exclusion
Assessment. Summary Report, The World Bank, Kathmandu Nepal, June 2005.
Yadav, U (2003). Madheshi Vani. Madheshi Jana Adhikar Forum, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2003.
Yadav, U (2005). Conspiracy against Madheshi. Madheshi People Rights Forum, Nepal,
2005.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)