It's Me: The Debate of ‘Mithila State’ & ‘One Madhesh, One Province’in Broadsheet Dailies

The Debate of ‘Mithila State’ & ‘One Madhesh, One Province’in Broadsheet Dailies

Independent project

(MEDS 440)

2013

Submitted To:

The School of Arts

Deapartment of Languages & Mass Communication

Kathmandu University

Dhulikhel, Nepal

Submitted By:

Jivesh Jha

Bachelors in Media Studies

(Batch 2009) 4^th Year, 1^st Semester

Deapartment of Languages & Mass Communication

Kathmandu University

Abstract:

The paper deals with the study of the debate of ‘Mithila State’ & ‘One Madhesh, One Province’ with reference to Newspapers. Mithila people of Terai region, Nepal, are demanding Mithila state on the basis of language and culture. Whereas, Madhesh based parties are demanding ‘One Madhesh, One Provine’ to be a state. Madhesh based parties are demanding OneMadhesh composed of entire 20 Terai districts, whereas Mithila movement people are demanding Mithila of 11 districts from Narayani to Jhapa based on historical background. Mithila state is demanded by leaders of Janakpur and Mithila region, whereas One Madhesh by Madhesh based parties like- TMDP, MPRF, NSP and others who split from these parties. More than half of the news articles favor Mithila movement. Newspapers believe that one Madhesh would disintegrate the nation and to maintain national unity several states should be formed in Terai including Mithila.

Abbreviations

CA Constituent Assembly

CBS Central Bureau of Statistics

CSRDSP Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Powers

KU Kathmandu University

MPRF Madheshi People’s Right Forum

NC Nepali Congress

NTC Nepal Terai Congress

NSP Nepal Sadbhavna Party

SRC State Restructuring Commission

THT The Himalayan Times

TKP The Kathmandu Post

TMDP Terai Madhesh Democratic Party

UDMF United Democratic Madheshi Front

UML Unified Marxist Lelinist

Acknowledgement:

I would like to express my profound gratitude to my respected Teacher and Supervisor Mrs. Ekku Maya Pun, Assistant Professor, for her scholarly and insightful supervision, without which the accomplishment of the present research work would have been impossible. I would like to thank Mrs. Pun for her intuitive suggestions, and grammatical corrections.

Mr. Hem Raj Kafle, Assistant Professor, has always encouraged me to work on the universe of Madhesh. It is Mr. Kafle who provided me the very topic of this research paper and encouraged me to study on the debate of federalism in Madhesh. I am equally grateful to him as well. I would like to remember Prof. Dr Jangab Chauhan, Head, Department of Languages & Mass Communication, and Prof. Dr. Nirmala Mani Adhikary for their guardianship.

I would like to thank my colleagues Mr. Shushank Kumar Yadav, Shuv Narayan Yadav, and Ranjit Kumar Jha for their continuous encouragement and support before and while doing this project. My thanks also goes to Kathmandu University Central Library for helping me find some relevant texts for the topic of my study. My sincere thanks also go to my senior Mr. Amol Acharya, student of MA (Development Studies) at KU, Nepal. Mr Acharya helped me to polish the project. Secondly, I am also thankful to Ajay Anuragi, Editor of ‘The Exclusive Weekly’ and Rajesh Mishra, Editor of ‘Bishwadeep Weekly’ for their continuous support in publishing my dozen of articles related to federalism in Madhesh in their newspapers. I pay a strong appreciation to my elder brother CA Arbind Jha for economical support. Deep thanks go to Columnist CFA Pashupatinath Madheshi for those two emails & regular support.

Finally, I would like to remember my Parents without whose blessings nothing would have been possible.

Introduction:

The dissolved Constituent Assembly had made progress in identifying some basics for carving out federal units. Language, culture, territory and capacity are identified as the determinants of the federal provinces. In general, to analyze the debate of federalism in print media and specifically the debate of Mithila state and One Madhesh in Nepal’s print media is objective of the study. How one Madhesh and Mithila state was given coverage by broadsheet dailies? To what extent Mithila state movement got coverage in Nepali print media; to meet the objectives of the study, these questions were asked.

Mithila people are demanding Mithila state comprising of 11 districts on the basis of language and culture. The three major political parties- NC, UML and Maoists, have given solidarity to Mithila movement. Whereas, Madhesh based political parties are demanding, ‘One Madhesh, One province’, comprising of entire 20 Terai districts. Terai (Madhesh) is one of the four geo-ecological zones lying in the southern part of Nepal. It is a plains region that occupies about 23 percent of the land but over 50.27 percent of the population lives here (CBS, 2012). Among the Nepalese living in Terai 64.22 percent are the Terai’s original inhabitants while 35.78 are hill migrants, also called Pahadhis (Rimal, 2009, p. 13). Guneratne, (2011) observes that, “The Terai is the least studied major region of Nepal. This is striking when one considers its importance in the affairs of Nepal, and the ease of access it enjoys in comparision with almost every other region of the country outside the Kathmandu Valley. The Terai observes better; it is the most important part of Nepal outside the valley, and the politics of modern Nepal cannot be understood without understanding the politics of this region and the complex cultural and social forms that shape that politics”. On the other hand, Prof. Dr Ramawatar Yadav also admits that, “The Terai/Madhesh remains till today the least known and the least studied, and the least researched territory of Nepal”. This project aims to fill the gap to some extent. For Ramawatar Yadav (2011), “The Terai/Madhesh is a strip of low-lying territory about five hundred miles long and about twenty miles abroad, lying between the hilly part of Nepal in the north and the Indian provinces of West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhanda in east, south and west. The territory consists of a total of twenty districts of modern-day Nepal”. The Terai people (Madhesh/Mithila) demands, “Include autonomy, regional fedralsim, linguistic rights (declaration of Hindi as a medium language and an end to the hegemony of Khash Nepali language), socio-economic equality, and an end to neglect of Terai, mandatory ‘Daura Suruwal’ (Nepali dress) and racist stereotyping” (Lawoti 2005). “The Nepali state and dominant Hill society do not fully recognize the rights of Madheshi citizens. For instance, millions of Madheshi have still not been able to acquire citizenship certificate” (Upadhyaya 1995), effectively hindering them from enjoying their rights as citizen. “Moreover the Hill community perceives them as immigrants of India and questions their loyality towards Nepali nation state” (Lawoti, 2005).

Demand of separate state on the basis of language is not new to the world. India, Canda and Switzerland have reorganized states on the basis of language. There are nine Hindi speaking states in India, one Gujarati state, one Marathi state, one Telagu state and many others states which have been formed on the basis of language. So, language is a determinant of federal provinces. The paper would analyze the demand of Mithila state with reference to newspapers. Secondly, the paper would shed highlight on the coverage of Mithila state demand and one Madhesh debate by broadsheets. Subsequent part of the paper would study on the news analysis, interpretation and study of the news source. And finally, the paper would give a conclusion.

Literature Review:

The demand of Mithila State within Nepal by Maithili speaking people is not new. People have been conducting various protests and movements to form Mithila, a separate state that would further develop their literature and culture.

In India, “The case of separate Mithila state has been in the forefront ever since the Government of India accepted language, culture, geography etc as proper basis of new state.” (Jha, 1957) In India the Mithilanchal people are demanding a separate state-Mithila, on the basis of Maithili language and her Mithila culture. In Nepal as well, Maithili speaking community is demanding a separate state on the basis of Maithili language and Mithila culture.

Language, ethnicity, culture, and identity have been taken as the basis for federalism. “India and Switzerland have taken language as a basis of federalism and Nigeria and Ethopia have based their federation on race”[1]Similarly, “Canadian federalism has been affected by the country’s linguistic diversity, centered on the French-English relationship, its regional diversity, and its ethno-cultural diversity. Reflecting historical presence of two main language communities, Canada has two official languages, French and English.”(Cameron, 2005) Federalism based on language, “might provide solution to multifarious problems like economic inequalities, lopsided development, and dominance of certain castes or classes.”(Mathew, 2005)

Madhesh based political parties argue that Mithila would be a small state, and it’s not feasible to form a state comprising only 8-11 districts. If we see, international experience, “Saint Kits/Nivas which has an area of only 269 sq. km and has total population of only 46,000 is under federal system and India which has more than 1.06 billion people also has followed federal system. Germany which has only one language is under federal system whereas there is also federal system in South Africa where there are more than ten languages in use.”[2] So, the population size does not matter. In Nepal, according to Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001 data, 2797582 is the the number of people whose mother tongue is Maithili and which is equivalent to 12% of total, and Maithili is also the second largest speaking language in Nepal . So, the country whose population is only 46000 if can enjoy federalism, then why not Mithila.

On the contrary, there are more than half dozen of Indian states formed based on linguistic unity and cultural identity. The demand of Telangana State is at peak, on the basis of Telagu language. Jayshankar argues that, “Next to Hindi, largest number of people in India speaks Telagu. If there can be nine Hindi speaking states with possibility of some more coming up, what is wrong in having more than one state for Telagus?” So, it is clear that, demand of state on the basis of language and culture is not new.

In Nepal, lots of home works and researches have been done to promote the demand of One Madhesh, One Province opposing the view of Mithila. There are lots of books written which primarily gives importance to Madhesh, not to Mithila and researches too in the same area. As Rakesh (2007) observes that “Sita was born in Janakpur, the capital city of Mithila. She was beautiful daughter of King Janaka. Sita was married to Rama, the hero of the Hindu epic the Ramayana, written in 1^st and 2^nd century BC. Madhesh is proud of Mithila which has rich and renowned cultural heritage.” Mithila[3] was an autonomous state, some 5000 years ago. The entire world knows Sita and is widely treated as mother by Hindus, and then Madhesh should be proud of Mithila. Terai (Madheshi) people’s demand of state is not new. Nepal Terai Congress and Nepal Sadbhavna Party in BS 2008 carried two slogans ‘Mago Madhesh, Jago Madhesh’ (Take Madhesh, Awake Madhesh), and ‘One Madhesh, One Province’ and its reflections were seen in Madhesh Movement” (Gautam, 2008). After Ranas were overthrown in 1951, Nepal became a democratic country with a ceremonial monarchy. However, according to Gaige (1975), some Terai elites who helped the political parties to overthrow the Ranas felt excluded from national politics and formed a Terai-centered regionalist political party in 1951, collecting elites of Terai in the name of Nepal Terai Congress (NTC), whose main political demand was to create an autonomous Terai within Nepal and to increase the presence of Madheshis in the civil service (as qtd in Mathema, 2011, p. 5). But the failure of NTC to win any seat in the election of 1959 was a major blow to the party causing to it’s gradually disintegration (p.6).

Kulananda Jha and Baldeva Das of the NTC are the ones who established Madhesha issues in the main stream of Nepalese politics (Yadav, 2008, p. 76). Gajendra Narayan Singh of Nepal Sadbhawana Party (NSP) is also one of the prominent Madheshi activists who built on the Madhesh issues established by NTC (Mathema, 2011, p. 7). During the Panchayat era (1960-1990) when it was illegal to register a political party, Gajendra Narayan Singh formed a cultural organization in the name of Nepal Sadhavawana Parisad that campaigned for greater cultural rights for Madheshis (ibid.). However, in the parliamentary election, followed by the restoration of democracy in 1990, NSP did not get much support from the Madheshi community for whom they claimed they were fighting; the party could only won six, three and five seats in the elections of 1991, 1994 and 1999 respectively (ibid.).

However, there are few media researches done on Madhesh. “After Madhesh Movement of BS 2063Magh, Madheshi issues were considered to be primary in Nepali media” (Bishta, 2011) . “Before, Movement, Madhesh was not considered to be primary by Nepali media” (Premarshi, 2006). “Which means that it’s the Madhesh movement which carried Madheshi issues at political zenith” (Bishtha & Manandhar BS 2064). “Even in academic and intellectual circle, these issues were not important” (Gautam, 2064 BS) . Madheshi were culturally, socially, politically, economically, racially and geographically discriminated and dominated by the state (Gaige, 1975; Yadav, 2005; Rakesh, 2007; Gupta, 2006; Paudel, 2008). “Though Media is advocate of democracy, it could not become democratic. It could not look Madhesh in a very bias free way” (Bishta, 2011). Some of Nepali media has anti One Madhesh editorial policy. Kantipur is against to One Madhesh, and conveyed its message by writing an editorial[4] (ibid). Raut argues that “Nepali media are under control of ruling elites, and at present also, very hardly we can find any Madheshi working in mainstream media. Eventually, if a stone falls from mountain then it becomes news, but if Madhesh face flood which could bring hard lives, does not become news. ..False nationalism and anti-madhesh is the characteristic feature of Nepali media. Any one, who speak againt to Madhesh, they make them hero and the people who fight for the right of Madhesh is shown as villain…Nepali media is responsible to spread racism, and dictatorship. ..Kantipur is an agent to spread animal dictatorship.” Nepali media is hilly people (Pahadi) centric in nature. “To hide reality of Madhesh, Nepali media is influenced by Pahadi and ruling class philosophy. And, Madheshi people are aware of that. This was a big blow to Nepali media’s professional and intellectual standard” (Gautam, 2008). Amol Acharya, a student of MA (Development Studies) at KU, has done a media research on Madhesh and found that, “Kantipur can be called a ‘dynamic’ media which is quick to understand popular sentiment and report about the events accordingly. The change in instance by Kantipur from viewing the Madhesha Movement from negative angle to positive positive angle is a testimony of its ability to understand popular sentiment”.[5]

Tirtha Bishtha, a researcher of Martin Chautari, Kathamandu, has done a content analysis of broadsheet dailies in which he looked how ‘One Madhesh, One Province’ and Hindi language got coverage. He analyzed these two issues from journalistic writings, Journalist’s perspective and other expert (ibid). Madhesh based parties are demanding Hindi as link language of Nepal (Madheshi & Pahadi[6] communicate easily in Hindi) with a national status. Gaige (1975) observes that, “Hindi is important in the Terai because of its use as a second language by plains people who need to communicate across regional language barriers. It is the language in which business activity is carried on throught most of the Gangetic plain and it is used in the Terai wherever itinerant traders or craftsmen meet the local people. One hears Hindi spoken in the village markets and in the streets of the towns. It is the language used by Terai villagers when they travel to India, a relatively frequent experience for many who visit relatives or attend religious festivals. Many people in the Terai and, incidently, also in Kathmandu, learn Hindi by attending the Indian films that are shown in local cinema halls”. On the other hand, manifesto of Nepal Terai Congress forwarded that, Hindi is the only language understood by people throughout in Terai.[7] “The Madheshi first demonstrated their mobilization capability in modern Nepal’s history in mid 1950s when they protested against the imposition of Khash-Nepali by the state as medium of instruction in public school” (Lawoti 2010).

There are no relevant works which have studied demand (debate) of Mithila state and One Madhesh with reference to newspapers. This work is solely based on to find out the representation of ‘Mithila State’ & ‘One Madhesh, One Province’ in Nepali media.

Methodology and Delimitation:

This study investigates on the news regarding the demand of ‘One madhesh , One Province’ and ‘Mithila State’ by three national broadsheet dailies published from Kathmandu Valley. This includes The Kathmandu Post, Kantipur, and The Himalayan Times. These three dailies were purposively selected as these are the three major broadsheets. Content Analysis technique was used for the purpose of analysis. For the study, news stories published from April, 2012 to December 2012, were taken for study. Kantipur is a Nepali daily, while other two is English daily.

The news stories and op-ed page which gave coverage to the issue of Mithila State demand and One Madhesh demand were only selected for the study. 250 news articles were published from April to December 2012, and 4[8] op-ed articles were published on the issue of Mithila Sate demand & One Madhesh, One Province debate. Among four op-ed articles 1 article was published in TKP, and rest 3 were published in Kantipur. THT did not publish even a single op-ed article on the hot discussion-‘federalism in Madhesh[9]’. For the content analysis thematification of the related context was done and then studied. The Themes are: 1. For (Mithila State), 2. Against (One Madhesh) , and 3. Neutral; relevant information were collected and inductive method was applied to reach the conclusion. Each article which has content related to Madhesh has not been selected. Rather, only those which describe about slogan of ‘One Madhesh, One Province’ or Mithila State[10] have been selected for the study.

News of April 30’s blast at the venue of a sit-in protest organised by the Mithila State Struggle Committee at Ramananda Chowk was the base for the selection of stories. Since, from that very day Janakpur was shut down for more than two weeks and at that very period the demand of Mithila state reached the climax and became hot issue of discussion in politics and in the press. So, due to this reason the newspapers from the month of April have been selected. After blast, NC, UML and even Maoist lawmakers of CA (which dissolved at Jestha 14, 2069) gave solidarity to Mithila State Struggle Committee. And, the entire broadsheets gave coverage to the blast. Four persons were killed and more than 18 others injured, the victims have been identified as Bimal Sharan of Janakpur-8, Ranju Jha[11], Jhagaru Mandal and Suresh Upadhyay. Sharan died on the spot, while the three succumbed to their injuries in the Janakpur Zonal Hospital.

The leaders of three major national parties- Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and Masoists, and leaders of Madhesh based parties and activists of Mithila state movement were also interviewed. Structured questions were asked, interviews were based on telephonic conversation because of unavailability of leaders. Further, interviews with political leaders were conducted for the triangulation of data, and central level leaders from different parties were interviewed.

The news stories were categorized in to three types on the basis of headline’s literal meaning and theme: a) For (news in favor of Mithila); b) Against (news against Mithila and in favor of ‘one Madhesh one province); c) Neutral.

The dailies outside the valley were excluded from the study due to limited time and resources for the research. Similarly, the tabloid dailies were also excluded from the study,

because they were not comparable with broadsheet dailies in terms of coverage and presentation of news.

The research paper may not give the whole solution or picture to burning issue of Mithila State demand and One Madhesh debate. The research is purely based on my findings, so it may not address any kind of ideology, be it political or social. So, viewing it with some ideology will not be applicable. The study is a small attempt to add some insight in the debate on federalism.

In general, content analysis of media has wide scope and dimensions; however no single analysis is complete and reflects a complete picture.

Objective and Scope:

The general objective of this study is to evaluate news content of national dailies for ‘For and Against’ the notion of Mithila State.

The study is carried out to:

(A.) Find out various views on the topic

(B.) Comparatively analyze the ratio of for (Mithila State) and against (One Madhesh or against to Mithila) news on the broadsheet dailies

(C.) Find out common voice (common people’s aspiration)

(D.) Qualitatively analyze the stand of political parties, commoners, and newspapers.

The study will help to understand the common voice and in larger context the researcher believes that the study will help to present the overall picture regarding demand of Mithila State and debate of One Madhesh.

Discussion & Analysis:

The demand of Mithila State is basically raised by Maithili speaking people of Nepal. There has been positive and negative criticism from scholars, journalist, leaders, as well as commoners.

In this section my effort is to seek answers of the following questions:

(A.) Is the demand for just?

(B.) Whether demand represents common aspiration?

(C.) Do the media reflect common voice?

(D.) Has the demand taken proper shape?

Federalism Defined

The Oxford English Dictionary defines federal as, “Of pertaining to, or of the

nature of that form of government in which two or more states constitute a political unity while remaining more or less independent with regard to their internal affairs” (Oxford English Dictionary v5, 795). Federalism is the application of a federal government. The application of federalism in different countries results in varying outcomes. For instance, the United States adopted a federal government with the 50 states subordinate to the national government.

“Federalism is a system of government in which the power is divided between a central authority and various constituent units of the country. Usually federalism has two level of government. One is government for the entire country that is usually responsible for a few subject of common national interest. The others are governments at the local provinces or states that look after much of the day to day administering of their states. Both these levels of government enjoy their power independent of other.”[12] In this way federalism is contrary to unitary government. Federalism has “rule by both centre and provinces. Rule by province is confined to its territory, but rule by centre covers the entire country”[13](Federalism Series).

“Self rule within provinces and shared rule at the centre”(Hachhetu & Khanal)[14] is another characteristic feature of federalism. On the contrary before changing any rule, or law both centre and state will have role in federal system.

Province Defined:

Province refers to any principal division of a kingdom or empire that has been historically, linguistically or dialectly distinct. (Oxford English Dictionary, V 12, 715)

Mithila Defined:

According to Shukla Yajurveda,

“भागरीथा उत्तरस्यां दक्षिणस्यां हिमालयात ।

गण्डकी कौशिक्योञ्चैव प्राक्प्रत्यड मिथिला स्मृता” ।।

(Gupta, BS 2066)

The most complete definition of its boundaries is found in Brihad Vishnu Purana, Mithila Mahatmaya Katha:

गंगाहिमवर्तोमंध्ये नदी पंचदशान्तरे ।

तैरभुक्तिरिति ख्यातो देश: परमपावन: ।।

कौशिकींतु समारम्य गण्डकीमधिगम्य वै ।

योजनामि चतुर्विंशत व्यायाम: परिकीत्तित: ।।

गंगाप्रवाहमारम्य यावद्वैमवत वनम् ।

विस्तर: षोदश: प्रवतो देशस्य कुलनन्दन ।।

मिथिला नाम नगरी नमस्ते लोकविश्रुत ।

पंचभि: कारणै पुण्या विख्याता जगतीत्रये ।।

In English, it can be translated as “Ancient Mithila; South of Himalayas, North of Ganga (river) & East of Gandak (river) & West of Koshi (river) was the boundaries of ancient Mithila” (Jha, BS 2063; Thakur, 1956).

“Sugauli Treaty divided the region in to India & Nepal, still the region having own language, culture & geography, history , life style which proves Morang, Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Rauthat, and Bara’s Simraungadh districts are internal parts of present Mithila” (Jha, BS 2063). Maithila Actvist Shital Jha and Dhirendra Premarshi have put forward that from Bara & Parsa to Jhapa, a total of 11 districts fall under Mithila region of Nepal. Morang, Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Rauthat, Bara, Parsa, Jhapa, Sarlahi, Dhanusha, & Mahottary- a total of 11 districts fall under Mithila, if we see its historical background but the different political parties define its area in Nepal differently, basing on their political interest.

Madhesh Defined:

In Ancient times, this land was called Madhyadesh, in Sanskrit, meaning the middle country, from which it derives its current name of Madhesh. Ancient texts give its precise boundary too. For example, Manusmiriti defines the boundary of Madhyadesh as the Himalaya in the North, Vindhya Mountain in the South, Vinasana River in the west, and Prayag in the East.[15]

At present a total of “20 district fall under madhesh, they are: Kanchanpur, Kailali, Banke, Bardiya, Dang, Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparashi, Chitwan, Parsa, Bara, Rauthat, Sarlahi, Dhanusha, Mahottary, Siraha, Saptari, Sunsari, Morang, and Jhapa” (Gupta, BS 2066)

“Madhesh is approximately 25 to 35 km. wide broad belt of alluvial and fertile land stretching from Mahakali to Mechi river between India boarder in the south and Siwalik/ Chure range in the north. Madhuadesh or Matsyadesh whose capital is said to be in Biratnagar With its gistoric values and the word 'Madhesh' has acquired cultural aspect onto it that today it represents different aspects of life style of people living specifically in the region whether it is Madheshi Haat or color or cuisines or Madheshi 'Boli Byabhar' the work has integrated different cultural aspects in to it, and this stands with a cultural connotation”(Shah, 2007).

Madhesh based parties are demanding’ One Madhesh One Province’ comprising of 20 districts out of 75 districts of Nepal.

Why Federalism in Nepal ?

According to Proposed Narayani State Report, there are three major reasons why Nepal is moving towards federal path:

1. To address the rising aspirations of identity of Nepals’ ethnically, linguistically, culturally, and regionally diverse social groups and to manage the country’s diversity

2. To create a strong foundation for democracy by constituting a political structure at the provincial level.

3. To create political economy units for the expansion and distribution of services to the people.

Committee on State Restructuring and Distribution of State Powers (CSRDSP) proposed 14 states, in which ‘Mithila-Bhojpua-Koch-Madhesh’was one of the state. The committee believed identity and capability are two main criteria for constituting federal units.

Fiscal Fedralism:

Constituent Assembly’s CSRDSP, maintains that, Fiscal federalism includes:

1. Income and expenditure of all three levels of governments: central, Provincial and local

2. Sources of their income: Self, Shared and Grants;

3. Equalization through extraction of more revenues from developed provinces and distribution of more grants to under developed provinces.

According to the report of CSRDSP- Tax, VAT. Fees for different services, custom, malpot and other forms of taxes are said to be the source of income. Similarly, the report argues that 85 % of national revenue is collected from 7 out of total 75 districts, and the remaining 15 % collected from other 68 districts. 45 districts (60% of total 75 districts) are unable to generate sufficient revenue to finance their total expenditures. To ensure economic equalization of the provinces over time, the model of Nepal should be co-operative at both level, with

(A.) Vertical relation between center and provinces

(B.) Horizontal relation among the provinces

There should be provision to extract more from developed provinces, and to to provide unequal distribution of grants in favor of the least developed provinces, the report further believes.

News Analysis & Interpretation:

A total of six months news Articles were selected for the study from three broadsheet dailies- Kantipur, The Kathmandu Post, and The Himalayan Times. The quantity of news was analyzed using three variables:

(A.) For (In the Favor of Mithila)

(B.) Against (News not in favor of Mithila, but in favor of ‘One Madhesh, One Province’)

(C.) Neutral

Almost more than half of the news (out of 250), i.e. 60% published on the different pages of media have inclination toward Mithila. The remaining news comprised of Against to Mithila or can be said in support to Madhesh was (17.5%), and Neutral was (22.5%).

Against:

News about Madhesh or can be said against Mithila are understandably negative in nature. For example, ‘The Kathmandu Post’ reported quoting Rajendra Mahato that-‘The Demand of Mithila state in new constitution were baseless and futile’. The newspaper could not analyze Mahato’s verdict from common peoples’ perception by quoting common people, who were protesting for Mithila State in Janakpurdham in the month of May, 2012. The reporter could have written the news from common peoples perspective as well, which could give a broad picture about common peoples’ aspiration.Mahato’s claim was that Madhesh should not be divided in the name of Mithila. On the contrary on May 8, ‘The Himalayan Times’ reported quoting Rajendra Mahato that the people who have called an indefinite strike in Janakpur was breeding disharmony.

Similarly, ‘The Himalayan Times’ made news by quoting Jitendra Sonal, Central Member of TMDP that ‘Madhesh based parties should move ahead united’. The reporter could not present for what reason Madhesh based Parties should move united, to shut the voice of Mithila people? Because though Madhesh based parties are divided, they are united in political ideology, i.e. one Madhesh. Secondly the THT wrote the voice of more than 35 Lawmakers from different 15 parties including NC, UML, and Maoist that they favor autonomous Madhesh.

Leaders of all the Madhesh based parties claimed that Madhesh would be split in the name of Mithila. They argued that Govt. and ruling class would benefit a lot if Madhesh was to broken in different parts like Mithila, Bhojpua, Awadh and more. Similarly, Madhesh based parties claim that entire Madhesh share common culture and identity. Stressing on common culture and identity, there should be one Madhesh, one province with autonomous Mithila & Bhojpura regions.

The newspapers could not carry the common peoples’ voice. “The newspapers could not seek a detail answer from the people who demand One Madhesh and could not start a debate on the very issue” (Bishtha, 2011).

For:

THT wrote news headlined ‘Call for carving out 5 provinces in Tarai Madhes’by quoting Nepali Congress (NC) lawmakers representing the Tarai-Madhes region. Koch-Birat, Mithila, Bhojpuriya-Simraungadh, Awadhi-Lumbini and Tharuhat should be the five states in Terai region. There respect for Mithila is clearly seen.

THT again on April 28^th wrote common voice, the story was entitled as ‘Locals oppose Mithila division’. In the news various activists of Mithila movement were interviewed and the real aspiration of people of Janakpur can be seen. The news had lead story like this-‘Various Janakpur-based organisations have launched protests against the UCPN-Maoist’s proposal on federalism after it left out Mithila state’.

On May 7, Kantipur gave space to an artcle of Ram Chandra Jha, an Activist of Mithila movement, and the article gave a broad picture that’s why a separate Mithila State was necessary. The article claimed that Mithila state is demanded on its historical backgrounds. To respect Mithila culture and Maithili language, Mithila state demand was just.

TKP gave coverage to Janakpur blast which went on 30^th April 2012. Four persons were killed and more than 18 others injured when a bomb went off at the venue of a sit-in protest organised by the Mithila State Struggle Committee at Ramananda Chowk in Janakpur. Shyam Sundar Shashi, Reporter of Kantipur Publication wrote news article of blats by adding his personal experience of the day, also he quoted common peoples’ voice. The article shows how horror was Janakpur on that day after blast. The people of Janakpur were severely threatened to shut down the protest for Mithila and threat was given by different underground armed parties of Madhesh.

Similarly, THT gave space to Dhanusha districts’ lawmakers’ voice who demanded Mithila State. On the contrary Kantipur gave space to cultural expert Dhirendra Premarshi, by publishing story of ‘Why Mithila State is demanded?’ on BS 2069, Baisakh 30. Premarshi in his article claims that to promote Mithila culture and to respect Mithila peoples’ contributions, state demand is just. Similarly, Premarshi made an argument that if Nepali, the largest speaking language of Nepal, can become basis for federalism, then why not Maithili, second largest speaking language. Kantipur on 2069/1/25 published an op-ed article of Ramchandra Jha, UML leader, which shade highlight on Mithila state from historical and linguistic perspective.

(Kantipur published a cartoon on May to give solidarity to Mithila state movement, but no any cartoon published by any of the broadsheets for One Madhesh.)

Similarly, newspapers made stories in favor of Mithila by quoting several leaders. The newspapers who are favoring Mithila State has a base behind it, they believe that One Madhesh could not fulfill the aspirations of indigenous, marginalized and backward people, and eventually One Madhesh would disintegrate the nation. In nutshell, they all believe that one Madhesh is not in national interest.

Neutral:

The news articles which seem to be neutral in nature just gave coverage to political personalities’ speech, and could not give even a brief analysis on that. For, TKP, THT, and Kantipur wrote Sushil Koirala’s speech as one Madhesh would disintegrate the nation, on the contrary the same media wrote Nandan Kumar Dutta’s statement- ‘Descrimination Against Madhesh Could Cost Dear’. So, the newspapers just writing the statements from both sides- One Madhesh & Mithila. There is lacking of interpretation & analysis.

Study of the News Source:

“In journalism, quoted words play an important role. In news, direct quotation helps to make a centre of attraction to a story, to make emphasis on it, and to gain special attraction. Source’s quote helps to make an idvidual thought public.”(Kharel, 2010)

Source of news may be quoted directly and indirectly as well. “Source’s exact word if written under inverted comma in a story then it’s a direct quote” (Sumner & Miller, 2006). “Direct quote adds accountability, and reflects sources’ personality” (Harcup, 2005). Indirect quote is written by journalists’ own language without tampering source’s message.

In nutshell, news sources are the persons, authority, documents, etc from which journalist get information. Under this section, news sources have been categorized in to three types, 1. Leaders[16]; 2. Expert[17]; and 3.Common people[18]. Here leaders mean political figures of different parties, Expert means people who are considered as proficient of Nepali politics and federalism, and common people means ordinary people of Nepal.

A total of 756 news sources were used in 250 news stories, published from April to December 2012 in THT, Kantipur and TKP. Almost 82 % of news source were Political figure, 10% as expert, and 8% of news source were common people. Its’ the expert who can analyze the demands of states from sociological, legal, cultural, linguistic, and international perspective from a very minute level, but unfortunately they were not considered as source of news as powerful as politicians.

Interpretation from Stories and Interviews:

About 70 Constituent Assembly (CA) members belonging to Madheshi people’s Right Forum (MPRF), Terai Madhesh Democratic Party (TMDP), and Nepal Sabhavana Party, including parties that have been formed by splitting from them, had demanded two things time and again. One, inclusion of ‘Article two’ and ‘Article four’ of the Eight Point Agreement reached between the United Democratic Madheshi Front (UDMF) and the Government of Nepal on February 28, 2008. Two, the formation of ‘One Madhesh, One Province’.

Article two of the Eight Point Agreement states, “Nepal shall be Fedral Democratic Republican state accepting the people’s aspiration for federal republican structure and meeting the aspirations of Madheshi people for the autonomous Madhesh province and the people of other regions for their autonomous provinces. The federal structure shall be based on the clear delineation of power between center and provinces. Provinces shall be fully autonomous and with power. Keeping intact the sovereignty, unity and integrity of Nepal, the Constituent Assembly shall allocate the power, and set the structure of provinces, and keep the record of center and provinces.”

Article four of the Eight Point Agreement states, “the government shall inevitably ensure proportional representation of Madheshis, Indigenous people, ethnic people, women, dalits, people of backward communities and minority in appointment , promotion and nomination of staffs to all agencies of the state including the security agency.”

Three major political parties Nepali Congress (NC), Communist party of Nepal-UML (CPN- UML) and United Communist Party of Nepal- Maosit (UCPN-Maoist) could not convince Madhesh based parties to leave their stand-‘One Madhesh’. Similarly, they had not been able to convince Madhesh based CA (dissolved on Jestha 14, BS 2069) members of no need for including these two provisions in Interim Constitution as those provisions would be made the new constitution which supposed to be crafted by the CA. The three major parties believe that the very two provisions should be finalized by CA, and it should not be taken as burden to implement in Interim Constitution.

Three Major Parties Stance at One Madhesh:

Nepali Congress:

On 2012, April 1, TKP, made a news by quoting NC’s President Sushil Koirala that the Madheshi parties have been forwarding the agenda for one Madhesh only to befool the Madheshi population.

UML:

In TKP, on August 30, 2012, a news published with headline ‘One Madhesh demand is an Indian blueprint says Pokhrel’. UML secretary Shankar Pokharel said that the demand for ‘One Madhes’ had been pressed by India through Nepal’s Madheshi parties as India took Madhesh as its ‘Suraksha Kavacha (Cocoon)’. Pokharel further added that as per the wishes of Indians the One Madhesh demand came to be the fore. ‘There can’t be single ethnic nomenclature when the provinces are multi-ethnic in nature and the provinces can’t be named after a single language when they are multi-lingual’ Jhalanath Khanal, President, is quoted by THT on 2012-09-04. President of CPN-UML arguing that such a move would not represent the concerned province’s reality appropriately. Its is clear from Khanal’s statement that ‘One Madhesh’ basing on single ethnic culture is not acceptable to UML, since Madhesh is itself multi-lingual and multi-cultural.

Maoist:

‘The local’s demand for autonomous Mithila state was plausible and legal’ Dr Baburam Bhattrai, Vice-President, UCPN-Maoist, was quoted by selected newspapers in 2012, May. Eventually, it is clear that Maoist is not going to support ‘One Madhesh’, rather they will support Mithila.

Politburo leader of CPN-UML, Mr. Ramchandra Jha, in his article published on Kantipur daily on May 07, 2012, claimed that the idea of single Madhesh province was not in overall interest of Maithili community. He further clarified that the demand of Mithila state has a historical background. On the contrary, “NC has a clear cut concept on Madhesh. We want 5 states in Madhesh, one of them is Mithila. To respect Mithila culture, Mithila state is necessary to form. We strongly support Mithila state movement. Our party would not accept one Madhesh. Terai and Mountain share 50-50% population. If Mountain & Hill needs 8 states, then why not Madhesh needs 5 states. I do not understand that why Madhesh centered parties are arguing that the formation of several states in Madhesh would disintegrate Madhesh. Madhesh is also part of Nepal. Giving respect to multi-culture and multi-language by forming multi-states in Madhesh would further make Madhesh strong”[19], Krishna Prasad Sitaula, senior leader, NC, said. Not only the CPN-UML, Maoist[20] and NC have been already against the notion of ‘One Madhesh’ but also Avadhi, Maithili, Bhojpuri, and Tharu people in Terai and Chure-Bhavar Ekta Party people, as they have experience of living under the absolute rule of 240-years of Shah dynasty and they don’t want to forget the hard life they had during that period. Naturally, they don’t want any other rule imposed on them anymore-even in the name of one Madhesh. They wanted autonomous provinces so that they could develop their natural resources as fot to their people. They don’t want the repetition of the history.

“We (Madhesh based parties) have similar views on autonomous Madhesh Pradesh and have decided to unitedly raise the issue of Madhesh autonomy and inclusion”, Upendra Yadav, Chairman, Madheshi Peoples’ Right Forum Nepal, was quoted in THT on April 18. Mr. Yadav is still demanding one Madhesh. “The government has signed 22 point agreement, eight point agreements and four point agreement with with the Madheshi forces. The interim constitution also guarantees autonomous Madhesh Province. These things should be mentioned in new constitution”[21], said Ram Rijhan Yadav, Press Advisor of PM Dr. Baburam Bhattarai. Ram Rijhan Yadav, further added, “Congress’s assertion of carving out north-south provinces and UML’s talk of dividing Madhesh in Mithila and Bhojpura provinces was against the agreement that the government has signed with Madheshi parties in the past. Madhesh Pradesh should be kept intact with right to self determination. Anything that contradicts these principles should be declared viod and we will fight a legal battle too to ensure Madheshi’s right.”(ibid)

“The government has reached an agreement with United Democratic Madheshi Front to create an autonomous Madhesh State. The concept of autonomous state is closely linked to self-determination provision, which may prove to be a Pandorta’s box in future, leading fragment of the country” (Gautam, S. 2010). “Even Girija Prasad Koirala in an interview has pointed that Terai people will realize very soon the mistake of approaching the Terai issue narrowly” (ibid). The scholars are viewing the demand of self-determination provision from national threat perspective. “Once the federal states get self-determination right, the states can declare either total independence or opt for merger with any neighbouring country of their choice. In that situation, any third country can play pressurizing role to fulfill a certain design” (Gautam, S. 2010).

The three major political parties CPN-UML, NC, and CPN-Maoist have held numerous meetings to discuss issues concerning the Madhesh but they could not reach an agreement on this issue. Similarly, Madhesh based parties had separately held meetings to have their common stand on the issue. Then, all the four political forces together held meetings but could not reach an agreement and consencus. Though, Madhesh centered parties are split in to many, they have common stand on Madhesh, i.e. ‘One Madhesh’.

CPN-UML and UCPN-Maoist have reached to a consensus on not to incorporate the dem, and of Madhesh based parties for one Madhesh. The parties believed that whole Madhesh can not be a single state as it can not be acceptable for whole Madheshis. With the decision, of One Madhesh acceptance, so many oppressed minorities of Madhesh will be deprived of their rights, the parties stated. Maosit Chairman, said, “we can not agree with the demand for ‘One Madhesh, One Province but we wre positive about implementing earlier agreements with Madhesh based parties”, the media wrote quoting Prachanda. Chairman of Sadbhavana Party and Minster for Health & Population, Rajendra Mahato said on May 07, 2012 in Janakpurdham that demanding Mithila in new constitution was baseless and futile. Mahato further added that “autonomous Madhesh has got guaranteed in interim constitution, there must be the formation of one Madhesh. Demand of Mithila state is a joke, Madhesh would get split in to parts in the name of Mithila and again the rulers would get chance over Madhesh to rule. Mithila, Bhojpura, Awadh, Kochila and Tharuhat are parts of Madhesh. If Madhesh gets divided, a stronger Madhesh could not be imagined. NC, UML and Maoist are trying to to colonize Madhesh by dividing it in to many federal states”[22]. However, the very Sadbhavana Party’s another central member; Khushi Lal Mandal said that “the Mithila people should carry on with their struggle to get their demand fulfilled.”[23] Sadbhavana Party has no common understanding over the issues; some favor one Madhesh, and while other Mithila. Ex-President of Federation of Nepalese Journalist, Dharmendra Jha, was also also quoted by all three dailies that he demanded establishment of Mithila Province. He stood against the demand of one Madhesh. All three dailies have made stories quoting high profile people. They could not make stories based on common voice.

On the other hand, according chairman Chitra Bahadur KC of Rastriya Janamorcha Nepal that the demand for one Madhesh has been raised within the objective to eventually split Madhesh from the nation state. “If the demand for autonomous Madhesh is met with, will eventually split southern Terai belt from the country”, KC was quoted by TKP on April 10.

State Restructuring Committee had passed a draft in which Mithila-Bhojpura state was jointly shown a state; and Narayani people opposed the view and said not to incorporate Bhojpura with Mithila. The news was published by Kantipur & TKP. Narayani people are demanding a separate state on the basis of Bhojpuri language.

Madheshi Peoples’ Right Forum-Democratic has a clear stand on one Madhesh officially. But the party members don’t have same stand. CA (dissolved) member representing Madheshi Peoples’ Right Forum-Democratic, Kaushal Kishor Ray said all 22 CA members of Dhanusha should raise voice for Mithila state. THT published the story. It is believed that entire ex-lawmakers and politicians of Maithili community were supporting Mithila state, whether they are from Pahadi centric party or from Madheshi centric party. It is of worth to mention here that one Madhesh is also not accepatable to Tharus of Terai region (Madhesh). News stories were made by quoting Raj Kumar Lekhi, President, and Tharu Welfare Society that he and his community were against to one Madhesh notion.

CPN-UML had clearly respected the demand of Mithila state time and again. UML proposed 13 states including Mithila. The draft of proposed provinces was submitted to SRC, CA. it has proposed Karnali (Khaptad), Tharuhat (Lumbini), Tamuwan, Magarat, Gandaki, Tamsaling, Newa, Bhojpura, Sunkoshi, Mithila, Kirat, Limbuwan, and Birat (Meche) provinces. NC is also supporting Mithila movement, and wants to form 5 states in Terai. They stressed the need of establishing multiple-identity-based provinces (Koch-Birat, Mithila, Bhojpuriya-Simraungadh, Awadhi-Lumbini and Tharuhat) in the Terai-Madhes. Similarly, largest party of CA (dissolved), Maoist have always stood for Mithila. Ram Kumar Sharma, Ex-lwamaker and President of Madheshi Mukti Morcha, said, “Maoist always supporting Mithila people, we don’t want to ignore Maithils and want to form greater Mithila by merging Bhojpura in Mithila, namely, Mithila-Madhesh.”[24]

JP Gupta, of Madheshi Peoples’ Right Forum (Gantantrik), opines that “Madheshi people are suffering from internal colonization since 240 years. Madheshi politics have not decisive right and it’s like Indians during the period of British colony in India. Unlike Indians, Madheshis are ruled by other ruling class of Nepal. So, Madhesh is suffering from internal colonization. If Madhesh is broken in to many states, she woulkd not enjoy decisive rights. Let us suppose, Birat Pradesh to be a state comprising Sunsari, Mortang, and Jhapa. In Jhapa 82 % people are from Mountainous region (pahadi). Similarly, in Morang and Sunsari 49% people are Pahadis.we can easily sayif Birat would be formed, Madheshis would not enjoy decisive rights in Birat Pradesh. The demand of various states in Madhesh is manipulated issues. To mainatain decisive rights of Madhesh, one Madhesh is essential.[25]”

SRC believed that state should be formed on the basis of two major things: Viability and Identity.Madhesh based parties view that one Madhesh is economically viable and entire Madhesh share common identity. For common identity, 5 major things are taken care of:

1. Historic uniformity

2. Common language & dialectic

3. Common Entrepreneurship

4. Common geography

5. Common culture

(By CA, SRC)

Madhesh based parties take Madhesh as common ground for entire Madheshis. According to them, Madhesh have common geography from Jhapa to Kanchanpur, common north Indian language and common culture & history as well. “In Mithila people read Ramayan by Balmiki, where in Nepalgunj, people read Ramayan by Tulshidas”, JP Gupta says. On the contrary, Mithila people are not ready to accept the fact that entire Madheshis share common culture. According to Prameshwar Kapadi, President, Mothila State Struggle Committee, “Mithila people enjoy Maithili as a language, where as other parts of Madhesh enjoys Awadhi, Bhojpuri and other non-Maithili language. So, Maithils are unequal from language perspective. Mithila have supreme culture and literature. Formation of One Madhesh would be another step to colonize Mithila people.”[26] “Mithila is a poor beauty; it has more lovers than a husband”[27].

Mithila State Struggle Committee has support of more than two dozens of other institutions and parties. They are conducting various forms of peaceful movement. But on April 30, four persons were killed and more than 18 other injured when a bomb went off at the venue of a sit-in protest organized by Mithila State Struggle Committee at Ramanand Chowk in Janakpurdham. The bomb was planted with a motive to weaken the Mithila State demand. “Bombing was done by foreign interest. Some countries don’t want Mithila to be formed a state. If Mithila would be formed here in Nepal, the the demand may be high in neighboring country and 3 crore Maithili speaking community many start strong revolt for Mithila State. Madhesh based parties and neighboring country want to kill the genuine voice of Mithila by exploding bombs at peaceful movements” (ibid). Although Kapadi, did not elaborate whom he meant by “neighboring country”, he was clearly referring to India. “India wants one Madhesh, since it would be easy for them to carry agreement or consensus by talking to center and Madhesh, but if Madhesh is broken in to many, they would have to reach consensus with entire Madhesh states. So, for the easiness of India, they want one Madhesh[28]”, another activist of Mithila movement and famous literary figure Dhirendra Premarshi said. Premarshi further adds, “Mithila has historical significance, Mithila is invaluable asset of our forefathers, Maithili is the major language and its not only a language, its political tool as well; and Madhesh is body where as Mithila is life (प्राण हो मिथिला)” (ibid). Premarshi clarified that Madhesh based politicians have no clear vision, ideology and they are not responsible people of Madhesh and Mithila. On the other hand, Madhesh based parties have a common voice that Madhesh will get disintegrated if Mithila and other several states would be formed in Madhesh and Pahadi’s ruling class would get another cheap opportunity to rule over Madhesh. However, to what extent, this hypothesis is right is still a subject of debate.

Rastriya Madhesh Samajbadi Party has also same verdict as other Madhesh based parties have. Sharat Singh Bhandari, President, National Madhesh Socialist Party, opines that-“entire Madhesh share common culture. Mithila state demand would make Madheshi’s identity suffer. If Madhesh would get divided in the name of Mithila, tomorrow ‘Chure Bhavar’ people may demand a separate state. Similarly, in Mithila, the voice could raised for formation of ‘Salhesh state’ , since Salhesh was state some thousands years ago in Mithila’s land. So, to maintain entire Madhesh united in a thread, one Madhesh is must.”[29] Madhesh based poltical parties are saying that entire Madhesh share common language and culture, it may be principally right but practically wrong. Mithila people speak Maithili, where as Bhojpura people speak Bhojpuri, Awadh people speak Awadhi, and Tharuhat people speak Tharu; so they are not same linguistically. On the contrary, Madhesh based leaders are saying that Madhesh Movement happened for the creation of one Madhesh, not for Mithila. They view that the core value of Madhesh movement is formation of one Madhesh. Indeed Madhesh movement was happened to get rid of from internal colonization of ruling class and for Madhesh, but it is also to be remembered that the centre of Madhesh movement was Mithila. Maximum political leaders of Madhesh based parties are from Maithili speaking community. Mithila people thought that by being a part of Madhesh movement, their Mithila state could be formed and Mithila would get institutionalized. Without support of Mithila people, Madhesh movement could not have happened. Notably, almost entire leaders of Madhesh belong to Mithila, then it can be easily examined that who are sponsored and who are independent. For whose interest is being served by Madhesh centered Parties, is still a debate.

The demand of Mithila by Maithili speaking community on the basis of Maithili language & culture can be taken valid and it’s their right. In India, “The State Recorganization Act of 1956 was formed on an ethnic linguistic basis. Besides states, India further divided in to 610 districts for basic governance and administration which were further divided in to villages. Ethnic tensions were resolved reorganizing states in to ethnic and linguistic lines by means of the act.”[30]“Several new states have been created out of existing states since 156. . Bombay state was split in to linguistic Gujrat and Maharastra states on May 1, 1960 by the means of Bombay Reorganization Act. The Punjab Reorganization Act of 1956 divided Punjab in to linguistic and religious lines that created a new Hindu and Hindi speaking state of Haryana, converting northern districts of Punjab in to Himachal Pradesh”[31]. The demand of a separate state on the basis of language is not first time. “In 1956, eight new federal states emerged based on on ethnic-linguistic diversity, following the State Reorganization Act of the year. They are Andra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajstan, Tamilnadu, and Tripura” (ibid).

Similarly, “in between 1960 and 1966, five new federal states such as Gujarat, Maharastra, West Bengal, Nagaland and Haryana was established. Meghalaya, Manipur and Himachal Pradesh were made states between 1971 and 1972” (ibid). it is evident that these states formed based on linguistic ethnicity. For example, Gujarati language is the major language of Gujarat. “71% of Gujarati speaking community lives in Gujarat.”[32] On the contrary, Marathi language speaking community is in majority in Maharastra. The similar cases apply in other states as well. According to CBS, 2001 data about 28 Lakhs people are Maithili speaking community and Maithili is the second largest speaking language in Nepal. Then, why not Mithila state should be formed basing on at least its language and culture.

In India federalism got successful by forming states on the basis of linguistic lines. “India’s federalism/Unitary model may be the best example opf federalism for Nepali people too due to our similarities in ethno-cultural arrangement and ideological liberal democratic nations”[33].

Madhesh based parties are trying to merge Mithila in to Madhesh which will be Pandora’s Box sooner or later. It can be witnessed from Indian federalism. States were demanded basing on linguistic unity and it established. Telagu speaking community is demanding Tengana state on the basis of Telagu language. The similar cases may apply in Nepal as well. “If Mithila people could not get Mithila state, they may go for various revolts and protests sooner or later for the establishment of Mithila State. In Bihar, the demand of Mithila state is almost at peak. There are more than 7 crores people whose mother tongue is Maithili”[34] Ramchandra Jha said. Language also acts as nationality building. Swaan (1997) argues that, “language as a component of group identity is subject to political manipulation in the same way as religion, caste or race. The regional or peripheral language are spoken by illiterate local populace in specific regions who are not conversant with metropolitan language, an advance enjoyed by the regional elite who are bilingual and speak the languages of center as well as periphery. The ability to use two languages makes them competent to assume a mandatory rule between the center and periphery”. Whereas, in Nepal, Maithili language is equally spoken by elite as well as non-elite and illiterate. However, to some extent, the administrative, political, business elites of Mithila at national level speak Hindi, Nepali and English. The political elites of Madhesh based parties try to show their eliteness by taking oaths and giving speeches in Hindi- a language of neighboring country. It is to be notable that almost all politicians are from Maithili speaking community.

Language can’t be regarded as only medium of communication; it has become political tool as well. Seth (1995) maintains that, “language served to define cultural identities in the fifties, but since reorganization of states (in India), it has gradually assumed to form of a political discourse in the political domain to control power”.

“The proposal of one madhesh and one pradesh is contested and so challenged by janajati madheshis. The political purpose of discontent against one madhesh by the Tharus is understood that it will not serve their interests. Since the plains castes constitute a majority of 59% (28% plain Janajati and 13% Muslim) among the non-hill origin people of the 20 tarai districts, it will be change of their master only, from hill high castes to plains high castes, if the idea of ‘one madhesh one pradesh’ is structured. Taking into consideration of diversity of the madhesh in terms of culture, language and religion, making one madhesh many pradesh is sensible while constructing federal units.”[35]

In India, Mitrhila State demand suffers from various allegations. “Noatbly, the Maithil movement has been Brahminical in nature. One of the reasons why this movement failed was due to its elitist Brahminical underpinnings that did not gather popular support from all castes and sections of these regions. …Clearly, the language based call for a separate Mithila state did not stand the test of the caste based pluralism that the region enjoys”.[36] But Mithila movement in Nepal is not seemed to be Brahminical in nature. Mithila movement is handled by Parmeshwar Kapadi, President, Mithila State Struggle Committee, and Kapadi is not a Brahmin. Mithila State Movement has got support of entire Maithils, there is no any caste smell, and is free from caste politics, and so, its failure cant’ be imagined.

Most of the scholars and Political Pandits of Madhesh based parties quarrel for One Madhesh and its significance, but are not serious of its feasibility and practicality. “Nepal can neither be “One Himal One Pradesh” nor “One Madhesh One Pradesh”. Rather the country needs etho-cultural regional states.”[37] On the contrary, political Pandits talk about following Europian models of fedralsim, but they care less about Europe’s less diversity in terms of culture, language, religion and social security, (ibid).

Indra Kumar Madheshanand, Political Analyst of Madhesh Politics, believes that “Nepal is multi-national country. There are many nations in Nepal, among them Madhesh is one. UN has also accepted the fact that Madhesh was an independent state. Madhesh movement happened for Madhesh, not for Mithila. Entire Madhesh, from Jhapa to Kanchanpur had revolted for Madhesh. So, to maintain the values and fruits of Madhesh movement, one Madhesh is must. Mithila state movement is driven by ‘Remote Control’ and its’ in some other’s hand. They don’t have any school of thought. Mithila movement is sponsored by others, whereas Madhesh movement is not. Mithila movement is an attempt to cook political bread.[38]”

It will be relevant to incorporate the voice of underground parties of Terai as well. Madhesh Rastra Janatantrik Party (Revolutionary) is now in open politics and was previously an underground party and its General Secretary, Rajeev Jha also favors one Madhesh. Jha observes that, “Nepal is multi-national country Madhesh is a nation under Nepal among many; and Mithila, Bhojpura are the subnations of Madhesh. To make Madhesh happy with decisive rights, one Madhesh is must” (Jha, J. 2012a), (Jha. J. 2012 b), (Jha, J. 2012 c).

“Media was criticized during Madhesh Movement, since national level media could not give appropriate coverage to the movement, though lakhs of people showed solidarity to the movement.”(Pokhrael, G & et al, BS 2064). Even BBC doubted over Madheshi’s nationality. Anurag Acahrya in Nepali Times writes “In the interview, when Jitendra Sonal refused to conform to Nepali nationalism devoid of his Madhesi identity, host Rabindra Mishra asked him: "Would you put Madhesi interest before that of Nepal?" The way this question was put reflected the thought process of Kathmandu's hill community and summed up their position: you cannot be working in the national interest if you are working in the interest of Madhes. Mishra refused to acknowledge a significant remark made by Sonal, "The existence of Madhes is tied to the existence of Nepal"”. “Madhesis are Nepalis, but they must be allowed to accept this on their own terms, not ones dictated by others” (ibid).

One Madhesh demand may be to some extent ethnic in nature. Haviland argues that “Federalism, of course, can be highly successful, especially in large countries where decentralization makes sense. Germany, the US, and Canada are successfully federal but not, largely, on an ethnic basis. But history suggests that ethnically-based federalism is a dubious idea. The former Yugoslavia was an ethnic federation and it collapsed. Apartheid South Africa drew up internal ethnic borders to keep the black population divided; with democracy, it redrew those borders on a non-ethnic basis. Belgium is federally divided between French-speakers and Dutch-speakers and barely functions as a single country (intriguingly, its monarchy is the one unifying factor)”. “Nepal's status quo is not, of course, fine. The Bahun-Chhetri domination of state affairs has alienated most Nepalis. The exclusion of dalits, janajatis and madhesis-and, of course, women-is shameful and has been to the extreme detriment of the country. Nepal must wage a social revolution to counteract that history: maybe measures like quotas are needed; may be non-ethnic federalism will help. But playing with ethnicity is dangerous and can turn neighbour against neighbor” (ibid).

The demand of one Madhesh can be questioned by looking population distribution. “Pahadi constitute the majority in seven Terai districts (Jhapa, Morang, Chitwan, Nawalparasi, Dang, Kailali, and Kanchanpur) and most of these are traditionally the homeland of plain Janjatis, not of plain caste groups.”[39]

Population Distribution in Madhesh:

S.No.	Districts	Madheshi
01	Dhanusha	84.2 %
02	Saptari	87.9%
03	Sarlahi	76.0%
04	Sirha	87.8%
05	Mahottary	86.6%
06	Rauthat	86.5%
07	Bara	81.0%
08	Parsha	83.7%
09	Bardiya	64.6%
10	Banke	63.1%
11	Rupandehi	56.4%
12	Kapilbastu	79.1%
13	sunsari	56.2%
14	Morang	46.9%
15	Kailali	47.9%
16	Nawalparashi	42.1%
17	Jhapa	28.4%
18	Dang	36.5%
19	Kanchanpur	29.8%
20	Chitwan	15.6%
21	Udaypur	13.9%
22	Sindhuli	6.7%

(Source: CBS 2001)

“Madheshi people are majority in number in only Central Development region, they are from 6-56%. In other development region, their presence is not satisfactory. Among 20 districts of Terai, only 8 districts have more than 40% populace of Madheshis; they are Saptari-64%, Siraha-57%, Dhanusha-60%, Mahottari-58%Sarlahi-54%Rauthat-43%, Bara-43% and Parsa-48%. Rest 12 districts contain lesser number of Madheshis or negligible.in Rupandehi & Kapilbastu, Madheshi are 30 & 35 % consecutively. In Jhapa, Chitwan, Dang, Kailali, Bardiya & Kanchanpur- Madheshis are negligible in number” (Nepal, BS 2069) . But the data is manipulated by Phaniraj Nepal[40]; and it is evident from the above mentioned population distribution in Madhesh. Pashupatinath Madheshi, an Activist of One Madhesh movement, observes that, “There may be some hidden interest of Phaniraj Nepal to manipulate the data of population in Madhesh, and one apparent interest could be against the notion of One Madhesh. It has been a general trend of ruling class people of Nepal to write baseless things just to weaken the Madhesh movement and these elites think that they would no more get chance to rule over Madhesh, if One Madhesh was carved”[41]. The Interviews of various leaders have been discussed in Appendix Section.

Some scholars believe that after secularism declaration, unity in Nepali people weakens. Adhikary (2010) argues that- “It was the Hindu identity of the state that was crucial in bringing Madheshi and Pahadi communities together, despite fundamental differences of language, caste, ethnicity, color and regional consciousness as well as power sharing. Since the 18-May-2006-Declaration removed that very binding force, identity crisis was unavoidable among various communities of Nepal. Various communities of Nepal are witnessing decisiveness of transformation wrought by the encounter with secularism and the Madheshi community is just an early example”. But, secularism and federalism would make the marginalized people feel happier, since they would get their representation under their own terms and condition in their state, and secondly non-Hindu people (Mushlims) would also feel ownness in Nepal. So, secularism has further strengthened the binding force between Pahadi and Madheshi[42].

So, it is clear from the above data that according population distribution, some of Madhesh districts has Pahadi population more than Madheshi. And, if we look from population perspective, one Madhesh is not acceptable by Western districts and other districts which have majority of Phahadi population. Time and again, western development region people are demanding “Akhanda Sudur Paschim”, Tharu people demanding “Tharuhat”, Bhojpuri speaking community demanding “Bhojpura Pradesh, Eastern development region people demanding “Birat Pradesh”, Kochila people demanding “Koch Pradesh” and so on. So, broadsheets forwards that in this mess, one Madhesh is only a talk of imagination. For entire Madheshi, ‘One Madhesh, One Province’ sounds better, but practically it is infeasible from many grounds. One Madhesh is a bit appealing to Madheshis, there is a Rhetoric behind it. If entire Madheshis are united, there would be easy to fight with Pahadi ruling class; who has ruled over Madhesh to the last 245 years. Here, ruling class Pahadi means, ‘Khash’, not entire Pahadi people. Federalism is a means to protect, preserve and develop their indigenious cultures. Moreover, “federalism and proportionality may help some groups to preserve and protect their cultures” (Lawoti 2005). Not only culture; language, indigeneous lifestytle, literature, art, & even local journalism flourish.

Conclusion:

TKP, THT and Kantipur believe that One Madhesh would disintegrate the nation, and hence they favor Mithila State. The broadsheets gave much space to Mithila movement than One Madhesh debate. Similarly, the newspapers doesnot analyze the debate of federalism in Madhesh from common people’s perspective. Common people had been quoted as news source in very minimal number; hence it can be argued that newspapers carried the voices of elites; however the matter is of concern to the common people. The broadsheets of Nepal are busy in quoting elite class as news source. Secondly, broadsheets give space to only elite class in op-ed page. They believe that it’s the elite class who can carry local voices. But, to what extent its true is a subject of debate. The newspapers paved the ways to look the issue of Mithila state and One Madhesh from five aspects:

1. Language

2. Religion

3. Geography

4. Culture

5. Life style

As discussed by three major political parties, state reorganization shall be based on all the above five details, they (NC, UML, & Maoist) believe that state should not be formed on only one base. When we look at Madhesh based parties, they are just focusing on geographical or regional aspect to claim ‘One Madhesh, One Province’. This fact itself is not accepted by the people of Mithila region. The demand of Mithila people is that the formation of state should be based on language, culture and historical significance; as people are multi-lingual. Mithila people are asking for their own state- Mithila, while the condition with Bhojpura people is that they are demanding the state of their own-Bhojpura. Media does not carry local voices.

Nepal is multi-lingual and multi-religious country and Madhesh is important part of it which has diversity as well. As multi-lingual people can’t be addressed by One Madhesh, Maithili speaking community people are demanding Mithila State while Bhojpuri community is in demand of Bhojpura state. The demand of ‘One madhesh’ can’t fulfill various demands of multi-lingual people of Madhesh, news stories have shown.

If Mithila people get a state of 11 districts that is from Parsa to Jhapa, then it would definitely benefit the Mithila, but if the dirty politics divide Mithila, then Mithila would be weaker, and she will get a bunch of districts with Janakpur. It is to be notable that from historical background, it has 11 districts thatare from Bara & Parsa to Jhapa. But, who know Nepal’s law & politics, it’s full of uncertainty, anything can happen anytime with immediate effect. There is a saying in Nepali, नेपालको कानुन दैवले जानुन (Nepalko kanun daible janun), which means that let the god know Nepal’s law. In nutshell, if Mithila gets divided, then the formation of Mithila would be just a lollypop.

To fulfill aspiration of various communities including Maithili speaking, the demand of Mithila state is justified. If ‘One Madhesh’ is formed, there is possibility of revolution from Mithila people, newspapers forecast such things. However, newspapers could not forecast about the revolutions which would come, if One Madhesh demand was not met. Nepali media[43] failed to understand the popular sentiment and report events that is sellable and liked by most of the elites. The elite and powerful people will always rule Nepali media: they are the ones who want to conquer every sector in short period of time with power of money and politics.

It is of meaningless to create scenes for the number of states. India when accepted federalism, it formed 14 states, and now it has reached to 28 states. USA adopted federalism with 13 states, and now it has 51. Similarly, at the beginning, Switzerland had 3 Cantonment, which now reached to 26. So, the state formation is a slow process, indeed. Time and politics play pivotal role in state restructuring. So, there should be minimal level of political fights for state formation, who knows; how many further states would be formed in Nepal followed by various protests in near future; and equally there could be chance of merger of two or more states in to one for a cause.

The newspapers took Tharu people as a major opponent of One Madhesh. One Madhesh may bring revolution from Mithila and Tharu people, so state should be formed on the basis of language, at least in Madhesh; this was the verdict & prediction of broadsheets. The federalism of USA, Canada, Switzerland, and India could be a role model of federalism for Nepal since these countries formed states on the basis of language & ethnicity.

References:

Acharya, A. (2011, August 5). Wounds that won't heal . Nepali Times.

Adhiakry, N.M. (2010). Post-2006 Tarai/Madhesh Unrest in Nepal: A Byproduct of Secularism. Shweta Shardul. Vol. 7.

Bistha, T & Manandhar, C. (BS 2066).Terai-Madhesh: Bibliography. Kathmandu: Martin Chautari.

Bistha, T. (20011). Sambidhansabhako sandarbha: Madheshka Sawalbare Chhapama Bahas. In Devraj Humagain & et al, Media Adhayan (pp. 165-198). Kathmandu: Martin Chautari

Cameron, D.R. (2005). Canada. In Ann L. Griffiths, Hand book of Federal Countries (pp. 107-120). London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Gaige, H.(1975). Regionalism and National Unity in Nepal. Delhi:Vikas Publication House Pvt.Ltd.

Gautam, B. (2008). Madhes Bidrohako Naleebelee. Kathmandu: Martin Chautari.

Gautam, S. (2010). Nepal Through Political Quagmire. Kathmandu: Three Star Printing Press.

Guneratne, A. (2011). The Terai: History, Society, Environment. Kathmandu: Himal Books.

Gupta, J & et al. (2006), Nepali Mandheshika Samsya: Char Vichar. Kathmandu: Center for Protection of Madheshi's Human Rights.

Gupta, J.P. (BS 2066). Madhesh Pradeshko Prastavana. Kathmandu: Madheshi Manava Adhikar Samrakshan Kendra.

Harcup, T. (2005). Journalism: Principles and Practices. New Delhi: Vistaar Publication.

Haviland, C. (2007, April 27). Let’s stay together. Nepali Times.

Jayashankar, K. (2008). Telangana Movement. A paper presented at Kakatiya University, Warangal.

Jha, J. (2012a, September 27). Ek Madhesh Ki Mithila Pradesh. Saptahik Bishwadeep, p.2.

Jha, J. (2012b, November 4). Ek Madhesh ki Mithila Pradesh.The Exclusive weekly, p.1.

Jha, J. (2012c, November 11). Bhashako Aadjarma Rajya ki Bhugolko Aadharma?.The Exclusive weekly, p.4.

Jha, S. (BS 2063). Constituent Assembly, Fedral System & Mithila State. Janakpurdham: Mithila Natya Kala Parishad.

Kharel, P. (2010). Udharan srotako parichaya ra prayog.In Devraj Humagain & et al, Media Adhayan (pp. 33-57). Kathmandu: Martin Chautari.

Lawoti, M. (2005). Towards Democratic Nepal. New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.

Lawoti, M. (2010). Federal State Building Challenges in Framing the Nepali Constitution. Kathmandu: Bhrikuti Academic Publications.

Mathema, K. B. (2011). Madheshi uprising: The resurgence of ethnicity. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point.

Mathew, G. (2005). India. In Ann L. Griffiths, Hand book of Federal Countries (pp. 165-182). London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Nepal, P. (BS 2069). Ek Madhesh: Pradeshko Adhar Ke?. Biratnagar: Arniko Chapakhana.

Paudel, S. (2064).Terai, Medhesh Pahichan Ko Sangharshama. Kathmandu: Manav Vikash Tatha Shanti-Abhiyan mareha.

Pokhrael, G & et al. (BS 2064).Madhesh Andolanma Media.Kathmandu: Freedom Forum.

Premarshi, D. (2006). Madhesko Tutulko Matra Dekhne Nepali Media. In Basant Thapa & Mohan Mainali, Madhesh: Samasya Ra Sambhawana. (pp. 127-154) . Lalitpur: Social Science Baha.

Rakesh, R.D. (2007) Murder of Madhesh. Kathmandu: Saphari Publication.

Raut, C.K. ((2012). Bairagdekhi Bachavsamma (From Denial to Defense). Lalitpur : Millennium Publications.

Rimal, G.N. (2009). Infused ethnicities: Nepal’s interlaced and indivisible social mosaic. Kathmandu: Institute for Social and Environmental Transition-Nepal.

Sheth, D.L. (1995). The great Language Debate: Politics of Metropolitan Versus Vernacular

India. In Upendra Baxi and Bhikh Parekh (ed). Crisis and Change in Contemporary India. New Delhi: Sage.

Sumner, D. & Miller, H.G. (2006). Feature and Magazine Writing. Delhi: Surjeet Publication.

Swan, A. (1997). Language Politics in India and Europe: A Comparison based on Model of conflict of language Interests. New Delhi: Sage

Thakur, U. (1956). History of Mithila. Darbhanga: Sudhakar Press.

Upadhyay, D. (1995). Report of High Level Citizenship Commision- 2051. Kathmandu: HMG Nepal.

Yadav, U. (2005). Conspiracy against Madhesh. Kathmandu: Madheshi People's Right Forum.

Yadav, R. (2011). On Being Madhesi. In Arjun Guneratne (ed). The Terai: History, Society, Environment. Kathmandu: Himal Books.

Yadav, R.R. (2008). Madhesha bidhrohama Siraha-Saptari, 75-102. In Bhaskhar Gautam (ed.). Madhesha bidrohako nalibeli. Kathmandu: Martin Chautari.

Appendix:

This section consists of Interviews which had been taken by me.

1. Ram Kumar Sharma, President, United Madheshi liberation front Nepal, Central member of Maoist, and Ex CA member