Submit your Article

Mahanta Thakur was a top Nepali Congress (NC) leader before he formed his own Tarai-Madhes Loktrantrik Party in 2007, immediately after the first Madhesi Movement. Had he not left the NC, Thakur was the most likely candidate for the country’s president from the party. Instead, the nomination and the post went to Ram Baran Yadav, another Congress stalwart. Thakur is a firm believer in parliamentary democracy. 

In 1996 Baburam Bhattarai was already the second-in-command and the party’s chief ideologue when the Maoists launched their insurgency. But he severed ties with the mother Maoist party in 2015, following the promulgation of the new national charter, and formed his own party, Naya Shakti Nepal. The new party embraced socialist and progressive agendas. 

Upendra Yadav was a school teacher before becoming a revolutionary Maoist and the champion of the Madhesi cause. His burning in 2007 of the interim constitution led to his arrest, catapulting him into national politics. In the first Constituent Assembly election, his new party, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, emerged as the largest Madhes-based outfit. Yadav is most comfortable working with left parties. 

Rajendra Mahato, a seasoned Madhesi leader, was once associated with the Nepal Sadbhawana Party. This party was active in Madhesi politics after the 1990 changes, but has since merged with Rastriya Janata Party Nepal. Ideologically, he is close to ‘democratic’, as opposed to ‘progressive’, forces. 

Mahendra Raya Yadav comes from the CPN-UML, and joined various Madhes-based parties after the 2006 political changes. Likewise, Ashok Rai was UML vice-chair before he formed his own Sanghiya Samajbadi Party. In 2015, he merged his party with Upendra Yadav’s Madhesi Janadhikar Forum. But the senior Janajati leader has failed to get much support from Janajati groups. 

All these leaders from diverse backgrounds are now collectively under the umbrella of the new Janata Samajbadi Party-Nepal (JSPN). In the federal lower house, it is the third largest party after the Nepal Communist Party and the NC, and projects itself as an alternative political force. 

The new party also includes leaders such as Sarad Singh Bhandari (from NC), and Anil Kumar Jha and Raj Kishor Yadav (various Madhes-based parties). There are also some junior leaders in the JSPN who started their politics during the party-less Panchayat system. The new party is thus a curious mixture of ethnicities, ideologies, and classes. 

Merger star aligns 

What prompted them to come together? According to Madhes watchers, the unification had been in the cards for a while. It got the final push on April 20, when Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli brought a new ordinance to make it easier to divide political parties; doing so with the express purpose of splitting Madhesi parties and strengthening his two-thirds lower house majority. 

Oli’s strategy was to split the big Madhes-based parties and use CK Raut—the leader of a secessionist movement in Madhes that Oli helped bring to national mainstream—to improve his position in Madhes. To forestall this, Samajbadi Party and Janata Party, with 17 and 16 seats in the federal lower house respectively, announced their merger on April 22. Otherwise a section of the Samajabadi Party was all set to join the Oli government after registering a separate party under new rules. 

The Madhesi forces faced an ‘existential crisis’. Mainly after the unification of the CPN-UML with the CPN (Maoist Center), the Madhesi outfits feared being permanently shut out of power. In the past, even fringe Madhesi parties had played kingmakers, making and breaking governments in Kathmandu. But with the consolidated communist party at the helm and changes in political party rules, that was no longer an option. 

According to new legal provisions, in a national election, a party has to cross the threshold of three percent overall valid votes under the Proportional Representation category and get at least one seat under the First-Past-the-Post category. Only then it is recognized as a national party. This explains why there were only four national parties after the 2017 elections, while eight national parties and over two-dozen others had emerged after the 2013 CA elections. The new provisions forced smaller parties to consolidate. 

The utter dominance of the NCP in national politics made these proponents of identity politics band together. With the local elections just two years away, they didn’t have much time to lose. 

Ideological muddle

Ideological differentiation is an important concern for political parties. What is the core ideology of the JSPN with its diverse cast of characters then? Party leaders say its ideology of ‘advanced democratic socialism’ sets the JSPN apart from other political outfits. 

“BP Koirala embraced democratic socialism, mainly focusing on economic equality and individual freedom. Our party professes ‘advanced democratic socialism’ by incorporating new issues such as the end of social, cultural and caste discriminations, and the consolidation of federal and republican orders,” says party leader Keshav Jha. He also states that the new party is in favor of inclusive and participatory democracy. 

But Madhes watchers reckon the new party’s ideology is still unclear. According to Rajesh Ahiraj, “The JSPN has leaders who served the NC, the CPN-UML, the Madhes-based parties as well as the Panchayat regime. Carving out a clear ideology is thus difficult for it”. But lack of clarity could also be to the party’s benefit, adds Ahiraj, as it could forestall a split along ideological lines. 

According to another analyst of Madhesi politics, Tula Narayan Shah, there are currently three major currents in national politics. Some parties focus on nationalism, some focus more on development, while still others focus on identity politics. “The new party’s major plank is identity-based politics,” Shah says.

Meanwhile, the JSPN’s Raj Kishore Yadav says that with the formation of a strong alternative force, Kathmandu will be under greater pressure to heed the Madhesi voices, including the crucial issue of the constitution amendment. “The NCP and NC are traditional forces. We are a new, alternative political force that stands for inclusive and participatory democracy,” says Yadav.  

Organizational headaches

Management of party leaders from center to grassroots is also problematic. Plus, the old personality clashes in Madhes-based parties could resurface. 

“Our primary focus now is settlement of internal organizational issues. We have to amalgamate the various organizations affiliated with separate parties pre-unification,” says Raj Kishor Yadav. 

When six Madhes-based parties united in 2017 to form the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal, there was a huge problem with managing all the new leaders. So the party adopted the presidium system, where six leaders served as presidents on a rotational basis. “In order to adjust all top leaders who now fall under the JSPN rubric, we will continue to follow the principle of collective leadership,” says Yadav.  

During the JSPN’s registration, Mahantha Thakur and Upendra Yadav were named party chairs, while Baburam Bhattarai, Ashok Rai and Rajendra Mahato were declared senior leaders. “In a top-heavy party like the JSPN, there are bound to be personality clashes. In fact, that would be JSPN’s biggest challenge going ahead,” says writer Pranab Kharel, a sociologist and a close follower of Madhesi politics. 

Another vital issue is the constituency of the new party. A combination of two largely Madhes-based parties, the JSPN’s base will continue to be Madhes. As it is, the new outfit commands over 50 percent local governments in Tarai-Madhes. But the party also incorporates many powerful leaders from the hills. 

The JSPN is projecting itself as a national party. But analysts say while there is a chance of it holding on to its Madhes base, it will have a tough time expanding in hill areas and in Kathmandu.  

“It will struggle to attract the hill’s Janajati constituency. Nor will the Khas-Arya folks support it easily,” says political analyst Shah. He fears that in due course hill leaders like Baburam Bhattarai and Ashok Rai could come to dominate the JSPN. In that case, the party could face an identity crisis. 

Yet the party has started consolidating the Janajati constituency and plans on a big alliance of identity-based political forces. According to leaders from the two merging parties, the next national movement will be launched under the banner of ‘Rastriya Mukti Andolan’, with the goal of accommodating Janajati and other forces that feel betrayed by the 2015 constitution. 

Can’t go national 

Analyst Ahiraj suggests the party will struggle even in Madhes. “The new party cannot win support in Madhes as it is no longer a Madhes-based party, nor does it carry Madhesi ideology,” he says. According to Ahiraj, the NC, whose traditional vote bank is Madhes, could gain from the ideological muddle in the JSPN.  

Political analyst and Madhesi intellectual Chandra Kishore echoes Ahiraj. He says there is a feeling among grassroots level Madhesi cadres that Madhesi leaders are gradually abandoning their base in the name of forming a national party. There are other problems too. “During its formation, the party has not been inclusive. There is no representation of Madhesi Dalits, and the Tharu community has been ignored,” says Kishore. 

Analyst Shah, however, believes the party will do well in Madhes even though he is not so sure about its prospects in the hills and in Kathmandu. Baburam Bhattarai, Ashok Rai and Rajendra Shrestha who represent the JSPN’s non-Madhesi faces all struggled in the 2017 national elections. For instance, Bhattarai won the election from Gorkha only because of his alliance with the Nepali Congress. The other two lost, as they struggled to get the Janajati support.

The Madhesi leaders will also struggle to increase their appeal in hilly and mountain regions as well as in Kathmandu Valley. According to experts, the 2007 Madhes movement created a gulf between Madhesi and Pahadi communities in Madhes—a gulf which is yet to be breached. According to Shah, Madhesi population more easily accepts Pahadi leaders rather than the other way around. For instance, Baburam Bhattarai and Ashok Rai are somehow accepted in Madhes but other Madhesi leaders are not as easily accepted in the hills. 

According to Shah, problems will crop up even within the party. “In intra-party elections, leaders and cadres from hill constituencies are unlikely to vote for Madhesi leaders,” he says. Sociologist Kharel adds, “Their tactical alliance to establish identity-based politics notwithstanding, there has never been cordial relations between Madhesi and Janajati constituencies.” 

Brief History of Madhes-based parties 

Bedananda Jha established the first Madhes-based party, the Tarai Congress, in 1951 after breaking away from the Nepali Congress. Nepal Sadbhawana Party, formed in 1985, represented Madhes in the post-1990 dispensation. Between 1990 and 2006, the NSP itself would repeatedly split and coalesce into new parties. But it was only in the aftermath of the 2006 political changes that the Madhesi parties started playing a decisive role in national politics. 

A group of Madhesi activists led by Upendra Yadav launched the first Madhesi movement following the promulgation of the interim constitution in 2007, after federalism had found no place in the interim charter. Yadav emerged as the undisputed Madhesi leader and registered the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum Nepal (MJF). 

Later, Nepali Congress leader Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar and Sarad Singh Bhandari joined the Upendra-Yadav led MJF just before the first Constituent Assembly elections in 2008. At the same time, senior NC leader Mahanta Thakur, Sadbhawana leader Hridayesh Tripathi, UML’s Mahendra Raya Yadav, and Ram Chandra Raya of Rastriya Prajatantra Party formed Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party.  

Gachhadar split from the MJF to join the Madhav Kumar Nepal-led government. After some time, Sarad Singh Bhandari and JP Gupta also formed separate parties. 

Just before the 2017 national elections, six Madhes-based parties announced their unification, all merging into the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal. Similarly, the Upendra Yadav-led party united with Ashok Rai-led Sanghiya Samajbadi to form Sanghiya Samajbadi Forum Nepal. Later there was unification between Samajbadi and Naya Shakti Nepal under Baburam Bhattarai. Now, the Janata Samajbadi Party Nepal has been formed after the merger of the Samajbadi Party and the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal. 

The head of a communist government claiming a religious figure from ancient mythology for his country was, admittedly, a touch strange. Yet Prime Minister KP Oli seemed to know what he was doing. Unlike in India, religion is proving to be a poor tool for political mobilization in Nepal. Yet when you dare claim the chief deity of the ruling party in India, the traditional hegemon, people at home are bound to notice. Is it possible that Lord Ram was born in Nepal, many of them questioned? As the historicity of Ram’s birth or his birthplace cannot be established, what is the harm in believing that Ram was a fellow Nepali from Thori near Birgunj?  

When the prime minister’s remark had the predictable effect, at least in India, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs set out to control the damage. Oli understands a complete rupture with India is also not in his interest. “The remarks made by the Prime Minister are not linked to any political subject and have no intention at all to hurt the feeling and sentiment of anyone,” read the MoFA statement. “As there have been several myths and references about Shri Ram and the places associated with him, the Prime Minister was simply highlighting the importance of further studies and research of the vast cultural geography the Ramayana represents...”

PM Oli’s Bhanu Jayanti speech was miles from ‘highlighting the importance of further studies and research’. Nonetheless, all the political analysts APEX talked to agreed that the prime minister was not taking a stab at religious politics. Shreekrishna Aniruddh Gautam says the use of religion as a political tool can never be ruled out. Yet he reckons its salience as a political tool is decreasing in Nepal. “Rather than backing for a particular religion, PM Oli’s remark represents a continuation of Mahendra-era nationalism. By raising an issue that was sure to pinch India he was trying to cement his hold in his own party,” Gautam says. 

Senior journalist Dev Prakash Tripathi, who is leading a campaign called ‘Matribhumi ka Lagi Nepali’ to restore the Hindu kingdom, says religion came to be politicized in Nepal mainly after the 2006 political changes. Yet the NC district-level leader in Dhading too disclaims the view that Oli’s motive was to drum up support from Nepali Hindus. He says existing political parties have lost people’s trust and they cannot be trusted to take up the sacred issue of Hinduism. 

It was the erstwhile Nepali monarchy that established Hinduism as a state religion. The monarchs wanted to propagate the myth of their holy Hindu lineage, with the reigning monarch projected as no less than an avatar of Lord Vishnu, and as such above the law. In republican Nepal, the country’s democratically elected rulers continue to use religion. The goal this time is to employ the fabled opium of the masses to puff up the rulers’ anti-India nationalist credentials. 

On July 13, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli made a controversial statement over the birthplace of Lord Ram. He accused India of creating an artificial Ayodhya in India, when Ram was actually born in Nepal, in Thori village west of Birgunj.

PM Oli’s statement invited fierce criticism in Nepal and India alike. Leaders of Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in particular were livid.  

After the opposition to PM Oli’s statement escalated in India, Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs tried to tone things down. “The remarks made by the Prime Minister are not linked to any political subject and have no intention at all to hurt the feeling and sentiment of anyone,” read the statement. “As there have been several myths and references about Shri Ram and the places associated with him, the Prime Minister was simply highlighting the importance of further studies and research of the vast cultural geography the Ramayana represents...”

But the prime minister’s claim also resonated with sections of Nepalis who would like to believe a revered deity like Ram was born in their country. Thus, some speculated, Oli really did want to gain the sympathies of the country’s Hindu population.

In India, the Hindu nationalist BJP had come to power for a second term on a strong Hindu nationalist plank. Some espy the emergence of a similar movement in Nepal to challenge its current secular status, perhaps with the help of some senior BJP leaders who have lent their voice in support of a Hindu Nepal.

Currently, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) is the only notable political force in Nepal supporting the restoration of monarchy and Hindu state. But the party has of late struggled as an electoral force, and failed to win a single directly contested seat in the 2017 federal and provincial elections.

There are voices in Nepali Congress, the main opposition, in favor of a Hindu state. In the upcoming general convention scheduled next February, Hinduism could become a prominent agenda. The ruling Nepal Communist Party too professes secularism, yet many of their leaders also have a soft spot for Hinduism. This is perhaps understandable as a sizable chunk of their electorate are devout Hindus. But how big is this support?  

Politically irrelevant

Political analyst Shreekrishna Aniruddh Gautam says the use of religion as a political tool can never be ruled out. Yet he reckons its salience as a political tool is decreasing in Nepal. “Rather than backing for a particular religion, PM Oli’s remark represents a continuation of Mahendra-era nationalism. By raising this issue that was sure to pinch India he was trying to consolidate his hold in his own party,” Gautam avers.

Another political analyst Hari Roka also does not believe the PM’s statement on Ram was intended to please Nepali Hindus but rather “to cover up his failure on both domestic and foreign fronts”. Roka says religion-based politics has already failed in Nepal.

Senior journalist Dev Prakash Tripathi, who is leading a campaign called ‘Matribhumi ka Lagi Nepali’ aimed at restoring the Hindu Kingdom, says the issue of religion was politicized in Nepal mainly after the 2006 political changes. Yet the NC district-level leader in Dhading too disclaims the view that Oli’s motive was to drum up support from Nepali Hindus.

“Secularism was not something people had asked for during the second Jana Andolan. Political parties inserted it in the new constitution at the behest of foreign forces,” Tripathi says. Matribhumi ka Lagi Nepali, which has brought together NC leaders and cadres who are in favor of Hindu state, has now launched a signature campaign for the restoration of the Hindu state. He says existing political parties have lost people’s trust and as such cannot take up the issue of Hinduism.

According to him, if a new force takes up revival of Hindu state as a key agenda it will win great support. “I am confident that a new Hindu nationalist party will emerge in Nepal as a large chunk of the Hindu population is unhappy with the country’s secular status,” Tripathi says.

Self-appointed gods

It was the erstwhile Nepali monarchy that established Hinduism as a state religion. This was done as the monarchs wanted to propagate the myth of their holy Hindu lineage, with the reigning monarch being no less than an avatar of Lord Vishnu, and as such above the law.

The democratic constitution of Nepal adopted in 1959 was silent on religion. Then the 1962 panchayat-era charter declared Nepal a Hindu kingdom. When a new constitution was promulgated in 1990 after the people’s movement, the new charter retained Nepal’s Hindu status despite protests from minority groups that wanted a secular state.

Between 1960 and 2006, the monarchy actively promoted Hinduism with the backing of Hindu organizations like the World Hindu Federation Nepal. In fact, the organization is still on its mission to promote Hinduism and monarchy. Yet the growing consensus among Nepali intellectuals and the political class is that Hinduism can no more be used as the primary tool of political mobilization in Nepal. The people of Nepal have still less appetite for a return of monarchy. 

Having joined underground communist politics in 1969, Madhav Kumar Nepal, now 67, has occupied nearly every important political position he could have aspired for. Starting in 1993, he headed the CPN-UML as its general secretary, the party’s top post back then, for 15 consecutive years. He became the country’s prime minister in May 2009, a job he held for 21 months. Still healthy and politically active, Nepal’s political aspirations remain high.  

Since the unification between CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) in 2018, there has been a constant tussle between KP Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the two co-chairmen of the new Nepal Communist Party (NCP). The tussle is largely centered on the question of whether (and when) Oli should step down as prime minister and clear the way for Dahal. Alternately, Oli could have assuaged Dahal’s ego by making him the party’s sole chairman.

All this while, senior leader Nepal was himself engaged in hectic negotiations with both Oli and Dahal to carve out a greater role for himself in the party. Of late, Nepal had been allying with Dahal to fight against PM Oli’s ‘monopoly’.  

PM Oli in turn has now proposed to hold the ‘unity’ general convention this November in a bid to quell intra-party disputes. Before that, Nepal had clearly stated that he was ready to accept Dahal as prime minister in lieu of Oli.  What he does not want is for the two to once again arrive at a ‘secret agreement’ that leaves him out in the cold.

“Nepal is an obvious candidate for party chairman in the unity convention,” says Deepak Prakash Bhatta, an NCP leader who is close to Nepal. “Yet he is not a leader who is hungry for power. He rather wants the party to run according to certain norms and regulations.”

In the two and half years, Nepal has registered his note of dissident against several party decisions. His relation with PM Oli has been sour and there has been a breakdown of communication between the two. Nepal feels Oli reaches out to him only when Dahal tightens the screws on the prime minister to step down.

In August 2019, senior leader Nepal registered a seven-point note of dissent with the party, expressing his displeasure over work division of party leaders and order of precedence in party ranking. 

Broken order

Before the unification, say those close to him, Nepal’s position in the party was at par with Oli.  After it, Oli has systematically weakened his hold on party organizations. Before, 40 out of 75 UML district chiefs were from Nepal camp, which was his biggest strength. The votes secured by Oli and Nepal in the last general convention also suggest the two leaders had near equal strength in the party: Oli was elected from the convention with 1,047 votes, while his rival Nepal secured 1,003 votes.

When talks of unification with the Maoist party started, Nepal had expressed doubts about his position in the new party. Oli had apparently assured that Nepal would be elected party chairman in the next general convention. “Yes, there was a gentleman’s agreement to this effect,” says another leader close to Nepal requesting anonymity.

However, after the unification, “Oli started to take the side of Prachanda and launched a systematic campaign to weaken Nepal’s position in the party. While picking standing committee and central committee members, those from our sides were sidelined,” says the leader. Of the 174 NCP lawmakers now in the House of Representative, 78 are close to Oli, 53 to Dahal, and 43 to Nepal.  Similarly, in the 45-member standing committee, 18 are close to Dahal, 15 to Oli, and 12 to Nepal.

Nepal faction believes PM Oli is trying to drag him into the Baluwatar Lalita Niwas land-grab scam and using the scam as a bargaining tool. Over many years, various individuals had captured around 114 ropanis of public land at Lalita Niwas, during the tenures of successive post-2006 prime ministers.

Nepal’s current priority is to be elected chairman from the general convention, and reckons Dahal is his main rival, especially as Oli has announced he won’t be standing for chairman again. If Oli does opt out, Nepal wants to be the new chairman, with Dahal serving as the prime minister.

Checkered history

Since 1990, leader Nepal has been continuously holding vital state positions. He was a member of the Constitution Recommendation Committee formed in 1990 to draft a new constitution of Nepal. The Krishna Prasad Bhattarai government accepted the draft and promulgated the constitution. After that he was the main opposition leader of the lower house for nearly eight years. Similarly, he became the deputy prime minister in the 1993 Bharat Mohan Adhikari UML-led government.

After his 2001 royal coup, King Gyanendra had invited applications for the post of prime minister from political parties. Nepal was the only senior leader from the Big Two (Nepali Congress and CPN-UML) to apply, a taint Nepal has not been able to wash away to this day.

Nepal finally came to occupy the highest political office in the land in 2009 after the removal of Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government. Nepal was elevated to the post even though he had lost the 2008 CA elections.

Inside the party, Nepal is regarded as a pragmatic leader with high moral values. Notably, Nepal had resigned as the general secretary on moral grounds after the 2008 CA elections debacle. He later accepted the nomination as a CA member and took leadership of the Constitutional Committee that was responsible for the settlement of key disputed issues of the new constitution. If Nepal is seen as the kingmaker in the current dispute in the NCP, the senior leader has earned the position, say those close to him, adding that unlike Oli, Nepal does not want to see the NCP disintegrate at any cost.  

But Karna Bahadur Thapa, a close confidant of PM Oli, questions Nepal’s ‘clean image’ and moral integrity. “The main reason behind the current NCP deadlock is Madhav Kumar Nepal. He is preventing a possible deal between PM Oli and Dahal. He neither allows the government to function well nor is he helping complete the task of party unification,” Thapa says. Nepal, he adds, is ever ready to compromise on his ideals for political benefits.

CPN-UML had suffered a split in 1998 under Nepal’s leadership. “He was not flexible enough to accommodate Bam Dev Gautam [the leader of the breakaway faction],” says Thapa. To his critics, Nepal’s role in the 1998 party split, his petitioning to become prime minister in 2001, his agreement to be inducted into the CA despite losing the 2008 elections from two constituencies, and his current role in undermining the Oli government—all disprove that he is someone with a high moral character.