March 10

INAUGURATION (9:00 to 10: 30 am)

Welcome address: Dr. Sudhindra Sharma, Conference Co-ordinator

Key-note address: Prof. Ramawatar Yadav

Vote of thanks: Dr. Rajendra Pradhan, Chairman, Social Science Baha

DISCUSSIONS

Session One: (11:15 am to 1:15 pm)

TARAI AS A POLITICAL CONSTRUCT

Prof. Arjun Guneratne "The Tharus and the State: Reflections on Democracy, State Building
and the Shaping of Ethnic Identity in Nepal and India "
Dr. Bernardo A. Michael "The Tarai: A Part of Moghlan or Gorkha? Perspectives from
the Time of the Anglo-Gorkha War (1814-1816)"
Dr. Harald Olav Skar "The Tarai as the Gatekeeper of the Kingdom"
Khreizodilhou Yhome "Constructing Identity: The Case of the Madhesis of Nepal Tarai"
Chair: Prof. Lok Raj Baral

Papers were presented by Prof. Arjun Guneratne and Khreizodilhou Yhome. Dr. Bernardo A. Michael's paper was presented by George Verghese. Dr. Harald Olav Skar was absent and his abstract was read by Sudhindra Sharma.

Prof. Guneratne's paper was much admired and the majority of questions were directed to him. Prof. S.M. Habibullah mentioned that there was a large number of Muslims living within the Tharu community but that they have always been ignored. Prof. Yogendra P. Yadav asked why Prof. Guneratne had chosen the Tharus for study. Guneratne replied that when he became interested in Nepal in 1988, there were very few studies of ethnic groups of the Tarai and that was the reason he chose the Tharus as the focus of his research.

Dr. Dambar Narayan Yadav commented that Guneratne's research was about the historical evolution of the Tharus and he asked what Guneratne thought should be the path the Tharus should follow in the future. "How do you guarantee the representation of Tharus' in the decision-making process?" he asked. "How do you ensure that they gain access to the fruits of the nation? Do you agree that a special reservation policy is needed for their upliftment"? Guneratne replied that he wasn't qualified to speak on such issues as he wasn't a Nepali, but when pressed, he spoke of the need to create a common identity inclusive of all ethnicities.

Dr. Ram Bahadur Chhetri asked Prof. Guneratne what he thought were the dynamics - social, political and economic - between the Nepalese and Indian Tharu communities and whether the creation of Tharu identity in India was as recent as it is in Nepal. Guneratne replied that there is no pan-Tharu movement in India like in Nepal, for example, the Tharus from Bihar consider themselves to be quite distinct from the Tharus of Nainital.

Dr. Sara Shneiderman asked what spillover effects the reservation system for Tharus in India has had across the border in Nepal. Guneratne answered that the Nepali Tharus have gained inspiration from their Indian counterparts and have demanded reservations from the government, which has however rejected. Schniderman also asked whether Tharus differentiate Janjati from Bahun-Chhetri or view them all as oppressors from the hills. Guneratne replied that when Tharus refer to Pahadis they generally mean Bahun-Chhetris and not Janjatis.

Bijay Karna asked how many Tharus got evicted and ended up migrating to India after 1950 when the government began to redistribute their land to the hill people. He also asked to what extent had the Panchayat policy of "pahadization" of Nepal's inhabitants contributed to the destruction of the Tharu language and culture. Guneratne replied that eradication of malaria and the policies of the state had indeed forced migration, but most of it was internal rather than external. He also mentioned that many other groups besides the Tharus were forced to migrate.

Raja Ram Subedi mentioned that Tharus were nomadic in lifestyle and rather than having lost their land to state appropriation, they had themselves sold it to the Bahuns from the hills.

Shree Govinda Shah asked Mr. Yhome whether he had looked at the relationship between language and location and mentioned that culture was a product of location. He also said that other factors besides politics, like education, played a major role in identity.

Mrinmoy Majumder commented that Mr. Yhome's was more theoretical and lacked an empirical basis. He also asked for the definition of "Indo-Nepalis", a term Yhome has used in his paper. Yhome defined Indo-Nepalis as people who had migrated from India to Nepal in the last 200 years.

Ganga Akela, while commenting on Mr. Yhome's paper, said that there should be two kinds of national identities for which there is a necessity for two kinds of national dresses and two categories of dalits and Janajatis: those of the tarai and those from the hills.

Session Two: (2:15 to 4:00 pm)
OF LAND AND LANGUAGES
Ekraj Chaudhari and Shree Ram Chaudhari "Tarai-ka Tharu-haru"
Scott E. Justice, Ashok Choudhury and Ajaya Choudhury
"The Decline of Zamindars of Rupandehi District"
Prof. Yogendra P. Yadava "The Politics of Language Planning in Nepal's Multilingual
Contexts: Its Implications for the Terai"

Chair: Prof. Kailash Nath Pyakurel
Papers were presented by Ekraj Chaudhari and Shree Ram Chaudhari, and Prof. Yogendra P. Yadav. Scott E. Justice was absent and the abstract of his paper was read out. Kailash Nath Pyakurel, the chair, in response to the Chaudharis paper, said that he had himself conducted research on Tharus in 1989 and had differentiated between Nepali Tharus and those who migrated from India. The Chaudharis' claim that all Tharus originated in Dang is therefore controversial, he said. He also questioned the claim of Chaudharis that Siddhartha Gautama and Ne-Muni were Tharus.

Mrinmoy Majumder asked the Chaudharis how the Tharus planned to re-structure the state and solve the many problems that Tharus face today.

Basant Biswokarma said that the Chaudharis paper should have been titled "Dang's Tharus" and that they should not have generalized their findings to Tharus all over Nepal. He explained the etymology of the word Tharu by saying that "Tha" meant 'plain' and "Ru" meant 'resident'. So "Tharu" was a word used to refer to people living in the plains. He also mentioned that the Tharu language is only spoken and not written and is thus not a bhasha but only a boli. Commenting on Prof. Yadav's paper, he said that Hindi should be the medium of instruction in Tarai schools.

A participant asked about the relationship between the Tharu language of Dang and the Awadhi language. He also mentioned that Danwar, Majhi, Kumal are some languages that are similar to the language of the Tharus.

Lal Babu Yadav asked Prof. Yadav what the population increase of the Tarai has been like and why the representation of Madhesis in the civil service is declining. Prof. Yogendra Yadav replied that language was one factor for inadequate representation of Madhesis in the civil service but that it wasn't the major reason.

Raja Ram Subedi asked the Chaudharis for proof that all Tharus originated in Dang. He also asked whether the institution of bonded labor (kamaiyas) was introduced by Bahuns or if it was indigenous to the Tharu community.

Mr. Subedi also asked Prof. Yadav what Madhesis were doing to promote their languages. "What are the activities of Maithili speaking people across the border? What are the facilities or opportunities this language has in India? And what can Nepal learn from India in this respect?" Prof. Yadav replied that in India, Maithili is a scheduled language and is given protection. As for Bhojpuri, the situation is even better as it is taught up to the PhD level.

Dr. D.N. Yadav commented that there were many differences between Tharus living in different places and asked how they should be assimilated and brought into the Nepali mainstream.

Dr. D.N. Yadav also asked Prof. Yadav about the latter's comment to his paper that "language is the key to a good life". Dr. Yadav wondered whether Prof. Yogendra Yadav really agreed with that, considering the lowly place that the Nepali establishment accorded to Madhesi languages.

The Chaudharis responded to the questions put to them by saying that history was written by those in power and that there is no documented history of a losing tribe like the Tharus. They also said that Tharu is not a jati, but is a community that includes 63 jatis. As for the problems of the Tharu community, they said that the solution can only be political and that the state should guarantee them adequate participation.

Prof. Yogendra Yadav said that Nepali was a second language for over half the Nepali population and therefore there should be different educational syllabi for different language groups.

Bijay Karna spoke emphatically about the oppression Madhesis have had to face from Pahadis historically.

C.K. Lal said that there was no need to prove that Tharus were actually Nepali, as their origins have been traced to a period prior to the Nepali-Indian distinction. He said that the Tharus should be studied as a community by themselves. There should not be a need to show that one group of Tharus was related to another group residing in another place. "After all," he said, "I have never heard of brahmins from Kathmandu claiming that they share origins with brahmins from Kerala."

Panel Discussion: (4:30 to 6:00 pm)

THE PROCESS OF SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION IN NEPAL TARAI

Prof. Chaitanya Mishra
C.K. Lal
Prof. Dilli Ram Dahal
Hamid Ansari
Prof. S.M. Habibullah
Prof. Usha Jha

Moderator: Prof. Arjun Guneratne

Prof. Chaitanya Mishra:
Prof. Mishra mentioned the important works of researchers like M.C. Regmi and Richard Burghart and commented that other than these, there was a general paucity of scholarly literature on the region. He stressed the need to focus on regionalism and nationalism when studying the Tarai and claimed migration occurs due to economic factors and not by itself as others have suggested. He pointed to the emerging market along the east-west highway and said that future research should focus on such social transformations.

C.K. Lal
C.K. Lal asserted that the term 'Madhesh' refers to the cultural space where Madhesis reside. He said he preferred the term 'Madhesi' to 'Tarai-Basi' because the word 'Tarai' carries the connotation of internal colonization. He also said that the Nepalization process in the Panchayat period had worsened the situation. He asserted that Maithili culture had been raped when Bibwaha Mandap was built beside the Janki Mandir in Janakpur in the Panchayat period. Mr. Lal suggested the concept of 'Nepalipan' be replaced by 'Nepaliyata', a concept more inclusive of the country's various ethnic groups.

Prof. Dilli Ram Dahal:
Prof. Dahal stated that the least developed Tarai districts were those where there were no immigrants from the hills, implying that it was Madhesi culture itself that was responsible for the Tarai's ills. He presented the figures from the census to prove his point. He also pointed to the high stratification of Madhesi society, and said that, considering the vast diversity of ethnic groups in the Tarai, the question "who is a Madhesi?" has to be answered adequately to progress on issues concerning the Tarai.

Usha Jha:
She shared her own experiences as a Madhesi who had moved to Kathmandu during her college years. She said that Madhesis had to face two kinds of discrimination: intentional and unintentional. She believed it was not the Pahadi people, but the system that was responsible for such discrimination.

After the floor was opened, a participant commented that the important positions in Nepali society were all held by Bahuns, Chhetris and Newars and that the Tarai, despite all its resources, remained backward. He said the state needed to adopt a policy of affirmative action towards Madhesis.

Tula Narayan Shah asked Prof. Dahal what percentage of people in the Tarai migrated from India and for how many years did a family need to live in Nepali territory to be considered Nepali. Following his question, there were responses from many people expressing serious indignation at Prof. Dahal's suggestion that Madhesi culture itself was responsible for the Tarai's backwardness. A participant from Janakpur requested Dahal to use the word 'Madhesi' instead of the derogatory 'Madise'. However, Prof. Dahal persisted in his use of 'Madise'.

Prof. Dahal responded that further research was important to understand the reasons why it was the Pahadi-dominated districts that were better off. He noted that here exists much vertical discrimination within Madhesi culture and this could be the reason for its continuing backwardness. The Sadbhavana Party only represents high-caste Madhesis, he said, before reiterating the necessity of answering the question: "who is a Madhesi?"

Amresh Narayan Jha, an ethnic and language activist, bitterly criticized the approach of the paper presenters. He stated that Pahadi intellectuals had a specially biased views on the Tarai. He questioned the method the organizers had used for the selection of papers.

Dr. Sudhindra Sharma, coordinator of the conference, answered there was no need for the organizers to be apologetic as all papers had been selected on the basis of academic merit. Chairperson of the session Prof. Guneratne added that if the conference was to be successful, arguments had to be based on reason and that political passions had to be left at the door.