Nepal Monitor: The National Online Journal: <br /> Print This
Nepal Monitor: The National Online Journal

India's Neighbourhood Intervention in Madhesh

Positive Indian intervention is necessary in Madhesh, writes KRISHNA HARI PUSHKAR, it happened with the Maoist crisis, too.


International Intervention (II) in resolving conflicts in a given country in not uncommon. Nepal is also not entirely unfamiliar with II, because of the direct or indirect involvement of foreign nations and particularly the UN. In this paper I try to illustrate some indispensable need of Neighbourhood Intervention (NI), meaning Indian intervention (in our case), in the management of conflict in Nepal's Madhesh.

First, I explain the context of Madhesh. Second, I offer eclectic examples of Private Violence (PI) in Madhes. Third, I present some past cases of positive NI in the internal affairs of Nepal, and their indispensability to resolve the peace crisis of Nepal. Finally, I argue on behalf of NI, an diplomatic approach that is gaining some ground in recent years.

Who is a Madhesi?
“Madheshi” is one of the most controversial and mooted terminology in Nepal. It is neither defined by the government nor legitimated by any official research. It is only recently that the term has been used in legal documents. (See note 1) Some believe the word is derived from “Madhyadesh” (mid country), or “Matsyadesh” (fish country). The holy Hindu epic Mahabharata and Ramayana in some forms allude to Madhes (Madhyadesh, Matsyadesh, Biratdesh etc). In that sense, the concept of Madhes or Madhesi predate modern India or Nepal.

According to the 2001 census, the total population of Nepali and Madhesi community in Nepal was estimated to be about 68 percent and 32 percent respectively. This skewed ratio has been questioned by many Madhesi scholars and politicians and they have very often raised voices for a fresh census before the Constituent Assembly election (April 10, 2008). In 2001, 48.4 percent of the country’s total population of 23.2 million lived in 20 Tarai districts. Just over 95 percent of the Madhesi population live in Tarai districts whereas hill people (Pahades) live in all the 75 districts of the country. Currently, about 36 percent of the population living in Tarai districts are Pahades. They migrated there in 1960s and 1970s. The 1963 restructuring of restructuring of Tarai districts also included large areas of mid mountains and Siwaliks. That also changed the demography of Madhesh. However, these areas are sparsely populated, and about 96 percent of the Muslim population lives in Tarai. (See note 2)

Madheshi is defined on several terms-- geographical, social, historical, cultural, languages, religious, and cast-based analytical ground. Madhesi is a non-hill origin people and antediluvian inhabitant of Madhes/Tarai/plane region of existing Nepal. Most Madhesis are identical to North Indians (Bihari, UP, Bengali etc) as well as some other Nepalis in their own country in face and physical features. They have their own languages in various dialects such as Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Hindi, Bengali, Marwari, Punjabi, Urdu, Tharu, Magahi etc. They have their own cast system which is different from the non-Madhesi community. (See note 3) Some tribal and unidentified groups are also considered as ancient inhabitants of Madhes. Moreover, Madhesis casts based family names are also different from other non-Madhesis, though there are some exceptions.

Madhesis are distinct in terms of culture, too. They celebrate various traditional festivals unique to their communities. (See note 4) Their rituals are also distinct. (See note 5) For example, in a Hindu Madhesi marriage the female's family approach the male family. The Madhesis extend Pranam (greetings) by bowing down to earth and touching the feet by hands of their father-in-law and other seniors, in a contrast to non-Madhesis. There are differences in funeral processions also. For example, mourners in a Hindu Madhesi funeral should take a different path to return home from the cremation site, besides observing an elaborate sequence of others rituals.

Politically speaking, “Madhesis” comprise many different ethnic, linguistic and religious groups that inhabit the Madhes (the plains), in southern Nepal. Geographically, "Madhesh" refers to the Tarai region specific to Nepal, approximately 25 to 35 km wide broad belt of alluvial and fertile land stretching from Mahakali river in the west to Mechi river in the east between Indian border in the south and Sivalik/Chure Range in the north. This belt accommodates almost half of Nepal's population.

Private violence in Madhes
The focus on the Maoists in the peace process has led to the neglect of other peoples and regions of Nepal. Some Madhesis estimate they comprise 50 percent of the total population of the country, and even official statistics indicate that 30 to 40 percent of the population lives in the Madhes region. But the people from the region lack proportional representation in government and experience political, social, cultural, linguistic, judicial, behavioral discrimination from the government and from the other self-proclaimed indigenous Nepali people. This has led Madhesis to violence and armed civil Insurgency. (See note 6)

Madhesis have only 5 percent representation in overall state affairs and are underrepresented in the diplomatic organs, police, army, judiciary, intelligence, administration and government commissions. They now demand proportional and inclusive representation based on the size of their population. (See note 7) Proportional representation in a country with 104 different castes and various ethnic-religious communities, in deed, is a huge challenge. Madhesis have been victims of traditional structures of the Nepali State which provided access and opportunities only to the high-caste hill Hindus and paid little attention to the problems and aspirations of the Madhesi people. A large number of Madhesis, for example, were deprived of their right to acquire citizenship certificate until recently. (See note 8) The State paid little attention to providing resources for the development of the Tarai. They lived as second-class citizens in their own homeland.

Some people in Nepal believe that the private violence in Madhes is caused by communal sentiment among the Madhesis and that many violent activities have communal character because the major target of the private rebellious groups is to attack non-Madhesi people (the hill-migrants) and those working on behalf of Nepal government in the Tarai region. It is not unnatural for the Madhesi private insurgents to speak against the historical domination by the non-Madhesi people. Social exclusion, then, is the major cause of private violence in Madhes.

Today, in Madhesh, more than two dozens of armed and unarmed warrior groups and parties active in Madhes. However, all parties/ groups and their demands are yet to be clearly identified. The major identified armed insurgents are include Tarai Janatantric Tarai Mukti Morcha(JTMM: Goit), JTMM (Jwala Singh), JTMM (Bishfot Singh), Madhesi Mukti Morcha, Madhesi Tiger, Tarai Cobra Group, Madhes Mukti Force, Tarai Tiger, Madhes Army, AASK Group, TM Don group, Virus Clean Groups, Anti Terrorist group, Madhesi defence brigade etc. Some unarmed hardcore groups include Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MPRF), MPRF (Gupta/Biswas Group), Nepal Sadbhawana Party (Mahto group), Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party (TMLP), etc. and their various paramilitary sister organizations. Some Madhes-based NGOS, Communities, and CBOs are also acting as warrior groups. (See note 9)

Particularly noteworthy are two major private violent groups that are also included in the US Department of State's list of international terrorist groups (See note 10): Janatantrik Madhes Mukti Morcha (JTMM-Singh faction) led by Nagendra Paswan alias Jwala Singh is one such group. JTMM-Singh group is a splinter group of JTMM Goit of Madhes. It is considered as a very hardcore in violence. The group spilt from JTMM led by Jaya Krishna Goit in mid-2006. The major demands of the factions include autonomy and separate independent state of Madhes as well as equal participation of Madhesis in government security forces. In fact, on March 30, 2007, the group declared the Madhes region a “Republican Free Madhes State.” (See note 11) The group has been accused of fuelling communal feelings between “people of hill origin” and “people of Madhes region”, however, Singh reportedly claimed that his group is against the “system of unitary communal hill State power” and not people of hill origin. (See note 12)

The other is Janatantrik Madhes Mukti Morcha (JTMM-Goit faction) led by Jaya Krishna Goit. It is fighting to declare Madhes an independent State, fresh delimitation of electoral constituencies based on populations, eviction of non-Madhesi officials and administrators from Madhes region, among others.

Both JTMM groups want UN mediation in meeting their demands. It is reported that the groups have launched a “divisive” campaign by demanding businesses to remove “people of hill origin” from their rosters and replace them with Madhesis or “people of plain origin” in Madhes region.

Some other new groups, such as Madhesi Tigers, Madhes Cobra, Bisfot Singh, Madhes Army Dal, are also increasingly active, (See note 13), The Madhesi Jandhikar Forum (MPRF), Nepal Sadbhavana Party (NSP Mahoto)’s wing Madhes Raksha Bahini (Madhes Security Brigade) also emerged in very similar manner and reported their aggressive affiliation in Madhesi movement. (See note 14) Besides Madhesi wings of Maoist youths, Chure Bhawar Samaj’s military groups are also active in the region.

The major activities of the above mentioned private violent groups are to conduct militant and semi -militant activities, counter attacks on the State mechanism, abduction, bomb blasts, murders, bandhs (shut-downs), hijacks, abductions, blockades, etc. Very frequently journalists, professionals and government employees are killed, deadly communal riots break out resulting in innocent deaths. (See note 15)

International Intervention
Dictionary defines "international" as “concerning or belonging to all or at least two or more nations” or "connected with or involving two or more." "International" or "internationally" most often describes interaction between nations, relating to, or affecting two or more nations or encompassing two or more nations, constituting a group or association having members in two or more nations, or generally reaching beyond national boundaries. Simply put, it's a kind of transaction and involvement between two or more nations.

Nations or members of the international community have often intervened on behalf of other nations. Normally, the UN Security Council may decide to intervene in a given circumstance, irrespective of its government’s consent, to maintain or restore international peace and security, in application of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Some other circumstances could be threats to peace and security (civil strife, humanitarian crises, attack to protected zones, the political situation, etc.).

In some exceptional cases, individual States can also intervene militarily, even without the authorisation of the UN Security Council, but only under defined conditions, some of which include:
1. Situation of humanitarian catastrophes: The neighbourhood military intervention in other States may be undertaken when forceful action can prevent or stop a humanitarian catastrophe. A Danish Report on humanitarian intervention explains this scenario. (See note 16)
2. If diplomatic efforts and other peaceful means must have been worn out, individual states can intervene
3. In cases of particularly serious humanitarian situations, there is an obligation to intervene (e.g. Nazi Germany, in Cambodia and more recently in Rwanda). (See note 17)
4. Intervention to rescue nationals of a country living in a troubled country is permissible e.g. (French in Shaba, Israeli in Entebbe, Uganda, Belgian and French in Kinshasa; British in Sierra Leone)

Intervention in Madhes
There several sources of international intervention in Madhesh-- the UN, the Western powers, and most importantly, India.

In principal, the UN political mission in Nepal (UNMIN) is a part of positive intervention, which reflects some of the conditions mentioned above. The UN Security Council’s resolution 1740 provides for coordinative, supervisory, monitory and facilitative rights to UMIN, including a responsibility to build a conducive environment for the Constituent Assembly elections, i.e. a role for a positive intervention. In an effort at positive intervention, the chief of the mission Ian Martin, tried unofficially to meet and converse recently with an armed insurgent group in a Indian city. His effort was highly criticised by both the Nepal and Indian government. His meeting was seen as going beyond the UN mandate. It was completely a misinterpretation.

In addition, the UK US, EU and others have used political and diplomatic interventions to resolve the Madhes issue. However, details and nature of such interventions are kept secret for fear of controversies and public criticism. What is apparent is that the EU and other members of the international community are frequently sending their special parliamentarians and diplomatic delegations to put direct pressures on government and ethnic leaders for a peaceful agreement. The US and UK have assigned their envoys for direct observation of the ground realities in Madhesh. Such delegations have directly warned of grave consequences if the problem is not resolved amicably and before it is too late. Some INGOs are also working for positive intervention, spending millions of dollars in various activities aimed at solving the problem. But, so far, none of such efforts appear effective. For instance, the former US president Jimmy Carter is involved (along with his Cater Center) in Nepal for a positive intervention through public diplomacy. But he and his team have no real access within the armed and civil Madhesi insurgents groups.

More direct international intervention on Madhesh is likely from India. Officially, Indian foreign policy does not permit any interference in Nepal’s internal political affairs. However, there is a suspicion that actually the Madhesh crisis is provoked by India or some political elements based over there. However, the major blame for the mess should go to the national leadership and diabetic Nepali diplomacy.

Indian intervention is manifested in several forms:
1. The formal discussion about the Indian intervention in the Madhesi issues is being discussed since the Prime Minister of Nepal Girija Prasad Koirla told a BBC program (listen to the program here, last heard on 18 December 2007) in his hometown of Biratnagar that only an Indian and Nepali joint effort can solve the Madhes problem in one minute. This was Nepal's official call for a positive Indian Intervention.

2. The UNMIN chief's meeting with an armed group was highly criticised by Indian and Nepali government, almost in unison.

3. The UN, United States, UK, and other EU bodies are also coordinating directly with Indian Government to resolve the Madhes as well other issues about Nepal. As they also realised that India can only effectively and efficiently pressurise the Nepali decision making channels. Most Nepali political actors are trained in India and scholar frequently refer to India's big brother posture. (See note 18)

4. The Nepal Government has officially approached Indian government for military and other security/supportive intervention in the bordering districts for despotic control of ongoing Madhes insurgency.

5. The Indian security personnel often enter in border areas of Nepal side to check and control the Madhes insurgency.

6. The Indian Security Forces or Sasatra Surchha Ball (SSB) and their intelligence agents enter Madhes region in the name of internal security control defying international security coordination rules.

7. Some analysts observe that some senior officials of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India's intelligence agency, are active in Nepal in an effort to build pro-Indian support in Madhesh. News media reports that Nepal is going to be another Sikkim, Bhutan or Kashmir because of Indian Intervention are not infrequent (see a video report on Nepalnews, last viewed on 2 January 2008).

8. Most of the underground Madhesi rebel leaders and their senior activists have been living in India and operating (without any Indian hindrance) from the bordering towns of northern India, such as Darbhanga, Sitamadhi, Madhuwani, Muzaffarpur, Gorkhapur, Farbishganj, Raksoul, Silligudi, Patna, Hajipur, Rupaidiha, Jogabani, Jaynagar, Sursand, and Sonbarsha. Indian authorities, Nepali and Indian journalists have met many Madhesi rebels often in those cities. They would not be able to (just like the Maoists in the past) operate their without India's blessings.

9. Some analysts have claimed that some Indian elements, if not the Indian government, is provoking criminal activities, such as looting and robbery, to terrorize the people in Madhesh. It is hard to prove this as fact there are hundreds of cases where Madhesi people have been killed by Indian dacoits.

But India's positive interventions are obvious. During the recent clashes among Pahadi–Madhesi/Hindu-Muslim ethnic/religious in various part of Nepal (Nepalgunj, Kapilvastu, Gaur, Lahan, Mahottari, Dhanusha, Sarlahi, Bara, Parsa etc), India unofficially offered and provided enough shelter for the victims. In addition, India has officially provided security support to control cross-boarder terrorism and criminal activities. Nepalis have also been able to use Indian market and resources during the Madhes bandh, blockades etc.

The fact is, we may argue on the nature of Indian intervention, but we cannot rule out Indian intervention in Tarai. The 1950 Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship and it's extensions have not only made Nepal an inseparable part of India’s security nexus, they also have established a framework for the unique cultural, religious, military, economic, and political ties between the two countries. Therefore, the Madhes issue is seen as a problem of both countries, specially since the region borders northern India. (See note 19)

The open border between the two countries, a shared cultural heritage, family ties across the border are deep rooted and they influence politics of the region. Many Nepali leaders on the national level have been groomed in India, which has already assumed an important role in resolving the Maoist crisis. Hence, Nepali government would hope that India could help to resolve the Madhes issues too. Other members of the world community have asked India to lend a hand to resolving the Madhes crisis. Most Madhesi rebel leaders are based in India and without India's positive intervention, it is unlikely that Nepal will make much headway in resolving the problem.

Of course, critics see in Tarai an imposition of a neo-colonial version of Indian intervention. Even the Madhesi political and rebel leaders are not happy with Indian intervention because such intervention can hurt their own political future in their constituencies. Some consider Madhes issue as a solely internal issue/conflict of Nepal because there is nothing to do with bilateral matter (See note 20). Any kind of imposed or invited Indian intervention could be dangerous for both nations. Some Madhesi leaders consider it as a conspiracy of State against Madhesi rights. They also have said that the Nepali government wants to ignore the issue by framing it as a bilateral problem (See note 21). Madhesis are in fact victimized by both sides-- the self-proclaimed native Many Nepalis look down upon them as migrant Indians and many Indians view them as Bahadurs, an Indian stereotype for working class Nepalis.

The question is, amid such perceptions, what is the ideal role of India in Madhesh? Because of the lack of a common agenda among rebel groups, it is not easy to issue a prescription. There is also lack of ideological clarity among rebel parties. Some demand independent state and others call for federalism or self-determination. Without a positive intervention, a consensus cannot develop among these factions. Some experts have noted that positive intervention in restructuring the State and reengineering its operation can help end political violence. (See note 22) International community and specially India can offer a result oriented, tangible, facilitative and promotional support in order to improve governance on ground and the delivery of services. This will require their input in promoting inclusion, equality and justice, community governance, transparency, institutional development, participation and representation, power sharing, and security, among others. These and other ingredients of "good governance" as defined by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD/DAC) could come handy. (See note 23)

Günter Bächler, a German conflict resolution expert, writes that mere dialogue is not enough to resolve a conflict. It requires a government to establish and strengthen community-based administrative governance, adequate people participation and democratisation, federalisation and decentralization, constitution and justice reform, security sector reform, and dialogue-oriented intermediary institutions within a community victimized by a conflict. (See note 24) India could do more in assisting Nepal in this task since this requires technical as well as human and economic resources. This neighbourhood positive intervention approach should approved by the government. India can pro-actively advise Nepal and help monitor the crisis and facilitate the dialogue.

There is some movement on India's part in recent months. Indian government recently began to consult directly with Nepal government, Madhesi leaders and Madhesi journalists Media reports say New Delhi also have asked Nepal-based representatives of the international community to contribute in resolving the Madhes crisis. India's worry appears to be the perceived criminalization of politics. During his recent trip to India, Ramchandra Poudel, Nepal's minister of peace and reconstruction was advised by New Delhi: "Do not mix the criminal issues and Madhesh issues together.” Apparently, India has how recognised the Madhes issues as a legitimate political issue, at least informally. New Delhi is also studying media perspectives. Recently it invited a group of visiting Madhesi journalists to New Delhi. Later, some senior Indian diplomats and politicians also visited Nepal and expressed concerns about the Madhesh issue. India has also mobilised security forces near the border areas to curb criminal activities and for counter-terrorism purposes. As mentioned earlier, other members of the international community are also increasingly involved in resolution of the Madhesh crisis.

There are major hurdles. The Madhesh issue is overshadowed because of the need of peaceful settlement of the Maoist insurgency has consumed much of Nepal's focus and resources. The lack of a common Madhesh agenda, reliable information on demography and the nature or scope of Madhesh conflict, pervasiveness of criminal activities, an open border with India, and above all a weak and transitional government in Kathmandu also compound the problem. Because national leadership is divided over the ways to resolve the problem, there is not much progress in dialogues with Madhesi groups and the international community do not have easy or regular access to Madhesh. Most important is the lack of honesty among the politicians.

Increased positive neighbourhood intervention by India, through advisory, facilitative and supportive role, should be fruitful. This happened with the Maoist crisis, although Nepalis were initially not ready to see India in that role.

Krishna Hari Pushkar, based in Germany, is a peace and conflict management expert and maintains keen interest in Nepal's peace process.


Previous articles by the author:
Dec 20, 2007 : Seeds of Ethno-Civil War in Tarai
Oct 31, 2007 : What UNMIN Should Do to Manage Nepal Peace Process


Notes


1. See the fundamentals rights section of Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063(2007)
2. See Statistical Pocket Book Nepal (2002), Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu, Nepal. Central Buero of statistics
3. Examples include e.g. Musahar, Bramahana, Dhobi, Jolha, Dhuniya, Kayastha, Bhumihar, Keut, Nuniya, Baniya, Bheriyar, Darji, Guwar, Bhaat, Bherihar, Kaithabaniya, Tatma, Barhi, Marbadi, Kumhaar, Kurmi, Sonar, Kabadi, Maali, Dhuniya, Laheri, Hajam, Teli, Sudi, Karori, Dhanuk, Kurmi, Kalbar, Kanu, Sudhi, Nuniya, Badhai, Lodh, Raajbhar, Binda, Dom, Dusad, Halkhor, Chamar, Paasi, Lohar, Rajpoot, Tatma, Tharu, Danubar, Rajbansi, Mali, Gaderi, etc.
4. Examples are Sama-Chakeba, Jhijhiya, Chhaitha, Sukarati, Chourchan, Bhardutiya, Faguwa, Jura-Sital, Maghi, Dashain, Kojagra, Bhardutiya, Kalam-Duwait pooja, Dihbar Pooja, Bar pooja, ,Ghadi, Pooja, Barahm Pooja, Gosai pooja, daha, Eid, Bakrid, Roja, Milad etc.
5. For example, Bartohai, Chuman, Aptan, Faldaan-Sidhant, Dahej, Traditional Barati, Neuta, Bar Parichhan, Gorlgaia, Bidai, Muhdekhai, Sindurdan, Kumaran, Samdhi Milan, Chaturthi, Donga, Sneh, Lahchhu, Marba- Pairkouni, Bidai, etc.
6. Shree Govind Shah, "Social Inclusion of Madheshi Community in Nation Building," Research Programme on Social Inclusion and National Building in Nepal, organized by Social Inclusion Research fund, 2007.
7. See the provision for election in Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063(2007), and also see the recent elections laws and regulations of Nepal http://www.election-commission.org.np/act.php (accessed on 11 January, 2008).
8. See the new citizenship act of Nepal 2006 and it’s related report that was submitted by a commission for act and regulation reform and also see the detail report of Nepal troubled Tarai region, Asia report number 136, published on 9 July 2007, Kathmandu/Brussels
9. See a conference paper presented on Madhes where she collected few list of Madhes insurgents and its violent nature with the problem and perspective of Nepal: Constituent Assembly Election and Madhesh Turmoil at the Nepalese Association in Southeast America (NASeA) and Association of Nepalese in Midwest America (ANMA) Joint Convention, September 1 to 3, 2007, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. By Bindu Chaudhary
10. See the list of US Department of State and global terrorist list incidents and organizations list http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=4728 accessed on 21st of December 2007.
11. See the press release of 30 march 2007 by JTMM( Jwala Singh) group about the declaration of Madhes as an independent republic State
12. See the recorded profile of JTMM(Jwala Singh Profile) and its activities on MIPT terrorism database which is updates and records their majorities violet and terror activities around the world and south Asia
13. See an analytical analysis of Nepalese ongoing Madhes unrest in an article on “Madheshis of Nepal” by K Yhome on Indian Defence Review Vol 22.3 dated 14th December 2007. He critically explains about the anatomy of Madhesh crisis
14. See the press release and Statement of Rajendra Mahoto led Nepal Sadbhawana party December 4, 2007 where he talked about the Madhesh Raksha Bahini (Madhesh Security Brigade) at Birgunj in the Parsa District. The party’s district secretary, Shiva Patel, said the cadres were trained in self-defence tactics such as using lathis (batons), judo and karate and claimed that there were 23,000 such members across the country Nepal.
15. See an article with linked reports on “What UNMIN Should Do to Manage Nepal Peace Process by Pushkar, Krishna Hari, he explain and assess the role, responsibility, performance, challenges and recommendation to the UN mission for better productivity, on national online journal “Nepal Monitor” dated October 32 2007.” http://www.nepalmonitor.com/2007/10/what_unmin_should_do_to_manage_nepal_peace_process.html accessed on December 21 2007.
16. See Danish Institute of International Affairs 1999, Humanitarian Intervention: Legal and Political Aspects, Submitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, December 7 (called the "Danish Institute Report").
17. See detail about Ruwanda O’Halloran, Patrick 1995, "Humanitarian Intervention and the Genocide in Rwanda," Conflict Studies 277, 1-32
18. See an exclusive interview with Devi Prasad Tripathi, general secretary, Nationalist Congress Party,India on 10th July of 2006 on Radif news and also see the The Ethics of Excess and Indian Intervention in South Asia thics International Affairs Vol. 3 Issue 1 Page 73 March 1989 Ralph Buultjens
19. See the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship has not only made Nepal an inseparable part of India’s security nexus, for details see, Baral L.S. in Bimal Prasad (ed), India’s Foreign Policy: Studies in Continuity and Change (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Limited, 1979), pp.199-200 and Shastra Dutta Pant, Nepal-India Border Problems (Kathmandu: Lumbining Printing and Publication Pvt. Ltd, 2006), p.18.
20. See K. Yhome, “Madhesis: A Political Force in the Making?,” Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi, Article no. 2058, 5 July 2006
21. See the Interview of Prof. SD Muni, an India based Nepal expert about the trend and accusation culture of Nepalese concerning their all problems and perspective on BBC sajha sawala program dated 13 January 2008, www.bbcnepali.com accessed on 13th of January 2008
22. See the Soerensen, Georg (1998) about the decentralization, State restructure perspective on “Democratization in the Third World: The Role of Western Politics and Research, Paper presented at the Conference „Failed States and International Security: Causes, Prospecs, and Consequences, “Purdue University, West Lafayette, February 25-27.
23. See the OECD Development Assistance Committee 1998. Conflict, Peace and Development Cooperation on the Threshold of the 21st Century, Paris: OECD Publications.
24. Bächler, Günter, conflict transformation through State reform, Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management - Edited version Aug 2004 (First launch Apr 2001)

####


Posted by Editor on February 14, 2008 3:08 PM