Submit your Article

More than 1,400 employees are to be deployed in Baitadi for the House of Representatives elections scheduled for March 5. 

According to the District Election Office, 1,442 employees will be deployed in 214 polling stations.

Election Office Chief Khagendra Bharati shared that details have been requested from government offices here for the mobilization of employees for the elections. He said that the work of collecting details of employees to be deployed in the elections and mobilizing them will be taken forward within a few days.

There are 11 candidates in Baitadi standing for a lone constituency in the district with 156,372 voters. 

Out of them, 78,987 are men, 77,383 are women and two fall under the 'other' category. 

Eight employees will be deployed in polling stations with more than 500 voters and seven in centers with less than that, shared Information Officer Naresh Dayal.

From a security perspective, 33 polling stations in the district have been placed on the highly sensitive list. According to the District Security Committee, out of 129 polling stations, 33 have been classified as highly sensitive, 28 as sensitive and 68 as general.

The Election Commission has appointed monitoring officers to oversee the election expenditure of the political parties and candidates during the March 5 elections.The Election Commission is collecting information on whether political parties and their candidates have received financial assistance during the election campaign.

The Election Commission has designated the Chief Treasury Controller of the Financial Comptroller General Office as the Election Code of Conduct Monitoring Officer, with specific terms and conditions to monitor political finance and election expenses. The monitoring of expenditure of the candidates has become a difficult task as candidates are spending money bypassing the official channel.

The terms require the preparation of verified details, in accordance with Section 26 of the Election (Offences and Punishment) Act, 2017, on whether any political party, candidate, election representative, public office holder, or other person has used or misused government employees or public property. They also mandate the collection of necessary information under Section 27 of the same Act to determine whether political parties, candidates, or election representatives have received any kind of financial assistance from government or public bodies or non-governmental organizations for election campaigning in violation of prevailing election laws. 

Similarly, information must be collected pursuant to Section 29 to verify whether political parties or candidates have kept their election campaign expenses within the limits prescribed by the Commission, and under Section 30 to ascertain whether any financial assistance has been received for prohibited activities during election campaigns. The terms further require periodic inspection and verification of expenses incurred by candidates for stage preparation while organizing corner meetings or mass meetings for election campaigning, in line with Section 13 of the Election Code of Conduct, 2025. 

In addition, verified details must be prepared under Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Election Code of Conduct, 2025, to check whether political parties have opened a separate bank or financial institution account for election-related expenses and whether such expenses have been made from that account by an authorized official designated by the party. 

Likewise, under Clause (b) of the same section, it must be verified whether candidates within the district have opened a separate bank or financial institution account and conducted election expenses through that account, and under Clause (c), whether candidates have appointed a responsible official to incur election-related expenses on their behalf. If immediate action is required in relation to any of these matters, necessary steps must be taken in coordination with the Chairperson of the District Code of Conduct Monitoring Committee. 

Finally, district-wise fortnightly reports must be submitted to both the District and Central Code of Conduct Monitoring Committees on the accuracy of election expense statements of political parties or candidates, the legality of collected financial contributions, and the actions taken to implement the Election Code of Conduct.

In the first Constituent Assembly election held in 2008, Madhes-based parties emerged as a dominant political force in Nepal’s political landscape. In the years that followed, however, they gradually weakened due to repeated internal splits and leadership disputes. As a result, Madhes-based parties performed poorly in the 2013, 2017, and 2022 elections.

In the current electoral cycle, these parties are once again pursuing unification in an attempt to revive their declining political influence. This time, however, they face a serious challenge from the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). At the same time, major national parties, namely the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and Nepali Communist Party, are devoting significant time and resources to Madhes to strengthen their national political standing. Against this backdrop, there is growing concern about the electoral prospects of Madhes-based parties in the March 5 parliamentary elections.

Madhes-centric political parties, which have long prioritized identity and inclusiveness in their agendas, are making renewed efforts to reclaim lost strength and credibility. Yet, more than a decade after the implementation of federalism, they have failed to articulate fresh and concrete political agendas. They have also been unable to institutionalize proportional representation and inclusiveness within their own party structures. Long accused of ethnic politics and dynastic leadership, these parties have repeatedly aligned with major national parties—many of which they once labeled anti-federalist—largely for power-sharing arrangements. Such alliances have been poorly received in the Madhes, contributing to a steady erosion of public trust and support.

Meanwhile, Nepal’s major parties have increasingly adopted the language of identity and inclusiveness, further blurring the ideological distinctiveness of Madhes-based parties. As a result, these parties now face both political marginalization and the erosion of their core support base.

Unity bids amid declining trust

In an effort to remain relevant in national politics and ensure representation, Madhes-centric parties have once again moved toward unity. The Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP), led by Upendra Yadav, and the Loktantrik Samajbadi Party (LSP), led by Mahanta Thakur, have agreed to cooperate and jointly contest the elections. With Thakur serving as party patron and LSP chair, the JSP has fielded candidates in all 32 constituencies across the Madhes.

According to JSP General Secretary Ramkumar Sharma, unity was unavoidable. “Federalism is in crisis, and the issue of identity is on the verge of disappearing. We must protect the achievements of the Madhes movement,” he said. Sharma added that the alliance aims to counter threats to democracy, federalism, and political transformation, ensure the formation of a democratic and reform-oriented government, and prevent the misuse of voters’ mandates.

Despite these claims, internal dissent has intensified. Mahanta Thakur, who won the House of Representatives elections in 2017 and 2022 from Mahottari Constituency No. 3 with the support of the Nepali Congress and other parties, announced that he would not contest the March 5 election. Instead, he opted to become a member of the National Assembly.

Initially, this decision generated optimism within the party. However, controversy erupted when Thakur nominated his daughter, Dr Minakshi Thakur, as his replacement. Party leader and former minister Harinarayan Yadav rebelled, filing his own candidacy against her.

This decision split the JSP into two factions. Leaders Krishna Yadav and Shyam Yadav actively campaigned for Harinarayan Yadav, while Ramkumar Sharma and several others backed Minakshi Thakur. Critics within the party argue that Thakur secured a “safe seat” for his daughter while preparing to move to the National Assembly. Defending his decision, Thakur said, “I devoted my life to politics and public service. Why is it wrong to make my daughter my political successor in old age? Why should she be barred from contesting simply because she is my daughter?”

Before party unification, Thakur had been the sole LSP nominee from Mahottari–3, while the JSP had recommended Ramkumar Sharma and Harinarayan Yadav. After unification, control over ticket distribution shifted to Thakur. A senior party leader alleged that experienced grassroots leaders were sidelined in favor of dynastic considerations.

Defections and vote fragmentation

Further weakening the party, former minister Pradeep Yadav—who had led Madhesi politics in Parsa since the Madhes Movement—left the JSP just one day before nominations. He contested from Parsa–1 as a CPN-UML candidate after being denied a ticket by Upendra Yadav. UML chair KP Sharma Oli promptly granted him the nomination. Along with Pradeep Yadav, seven ward chairs, including Birgunj Metropolitan City Mayor Rajeshman Singh, also joined the UML.

Pradeep Yadav said he left the JSP to safeguard his political future after sensing betrayal and marginalization. He claimed the UML was the only party capable of protecting the constitution and democracy, citing KP Sharma Oli’s nationalist stance as a motivating factor.

The JSP has fielded Ramnaresh Prasad Yadav in Parsa–1 and nominated industrialist Ashok Temani in Parsa–2. Meanwhile, Sushil Kumar Kanu—a former ward chair and close ally of Pradeep Yadav—left the JSP to contest as a Rastriya Swatantra Party candidate, further increasing the likelihood of vote splitting. Similar concerns persist in Parsa–3 and Parsa–4, where JSP candidates lack strong grassroots support and senior leaders have been replaced by new entrants.

Broader fragmentation of Madhes politics

Veteran Madhes leader Anil Jha, once closely associated with Madhes-based politics, is now a Nepali Congress candidate from Rautahat–1. He argues that strengthening the federal democratic republic should take precedence over party affiliation. “Even leaders elected from Madhes-based parties fail to secure opportunities for Madhesis,” he said, advocating issue-based politics over power-driven alliances.

The Federal Democratic Front, formed to coordinate Madhes-centric parties, has also failed to maintain unity. Despite early agreements, member parties are contesting against one another in multiple constituencies. The JSP, Janamat Party, Rastriya Mukti Party, and Nagarik Unmukti Party are directly competing in Saptari and Sarlahi, underscoring the collapse of coordinated electoral strategy.

Historical context: Rise and repeated splits

Madhes gained strong political visibility after the 2006 People’s Movement, although organized Madhesi politics dates back to the 1950s BS with Vedananda Jha’s Nepal Tarai Congress. The Madhes Movement of 2007, which was triggered by the exclusion of Madhes issues from the Interim Constitution, forced the state to address demands such as federalism and inclusion. The Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF), led by Upendra Yadav, emerged from this movement as a major political force.

In the 2008 Constituent Assembly election, Madhes-based parties secured significant representation, with the MJF winning 54 seats. Internal divisions soon followed. The party split in 2010, and the years that followed were marked by repeated fragmentation, mergers, and realignments. Although the parties briefly reunited ahead of the 2017 election—securing 19 seats in Madhes Province—the unity proved short-lived.

In the 2022 election, Madhes-based parties collectively won only 10 seats. Although the JSP and LSP reunited in late 2025, the historical pattern of fragmentation continues to cast doubt on the durability of this alliance.

Once a powerful political force, Madhes-based parties have been weakened by internal divisions, opportunistic alliances, and dynastic practices. While renewed unity offers an opportunity for revival, persistent mistrust, leadership disputes, and ideological dilution continue to undermine their credibility. Whether this latest attempt at consolidation can reverse their decline remains an open question.

Additional reporting by  Manika Jha, Raj Karan Mahato and Kranti Sah

The printing of ballot papers for the House of Representatives elections scheduled for March 5 has been completed. 

According to the Election Commission, ballot papers for 18 constituencies in a total of 15 districts have been printed so far at Janak Education Materials Limited, Bhaktapur. 

Ballot papers for Dolpa, Mugu, Jumla, Kalikot, Humla, Salyan, Jajarkot have been printed.

 Similarly, ballot papers for Dailekh constituency 1 and 2, Surkhet constituency 1 and 2, Rukum Paschim, Bajura and Achham constituency 1 and 2, Kailali constituency 1, Jhapa constituency 5 and Sunsari constituency 1 has been printed.

Prior to this, 20.083 million ballot papers for the proportional representation (PR) system have been printed.