M.S. Thapa Magar’s role in current politics

‘Rashtriya Janamukti Party’ had proposed a ‘proportional representative federal system’ for Nepal in 1992, likening the country to Switzerland ( please check the Swiss Constitution) while registering the party with Election Commission of Nepal. ( Please see the party manifesto also.)

It was not the Maoists who first proposed (ethnic) federalism for Nepal. The Maoist 40 point demand is understandably silent about it. Please check (A LOOK BACK:THE 40 POINT MAOIST DEMAND BEFORE WAGING PEOPLE’S WAR IN NEPAL).Portraying the Maoists as ‘heroes of the hour’ on this issue by any chance may be a self-exultation.

B.K. Rana

Dear All,
President M. S. Thapa Magar led ‘Rashtriya Janamukti Morcha’, now ‘Rashtriya Janamukti Party’ had proposed a ‘proportional representative federal system’ for Nepal in 1992, likening the country to Switzerland ( please check the Swiss Constitution) while registering the party with Election Commission of Nepal. ( Please see the party manifesto also.)
It was not the Maoists who first proposed (ethnic) federalism for Nepal. The Maoist 40 point demand is understandably silent about it. Please check (A LOOK BACK:THE 40 POINT MAOIST DEMAND BEFORE WAGING PEOPLE’S WAR IN NEPAL).Portraying the Maoists as ‘heroes of the hour’ on this issue by any chance may be a self-exultation.

It is of course, the Maoists could politicize the issue at the national level, there is no denying frankly. But is it also another stark reality that the Maoists overtime burrowed Nepalese indigenous people’s several burning issues including federalism, right to self-determination etc. undeniably from leaders like M. S. Thapa, then social activists and now Tamsaling-Nepal National Party President Parshu Ram Tamang, academics of international standing like Krishna Bhattachan, Bal Krishna Mabuhang and others.

After 1990 and inspired by several UN declarations, national and international covenants etc. these leaders / activists/ academics began talking loud and clear of ‘ethnic issues, linguistic right, cultural rights, right to self-determination etc. for Janajatis and Dalits of Nepal. Therefore, the Maoists also had no choice left keeping quiet on the issue. Down the road, the Maoists had some immediate but fundamental reasons to politicize the issue needing no elaboration here as lots have come out already in the media. It seems Suresh Ale, Padma Ratna Tuladhar and few others might have influenced the Maoist high command to take the issue very seriously. So, we can find some indirect inference to Dalits and Janajatis in their 40 point demand of 1996. But no Maoists ink has been ‘wasted’ in writing a single word as ‘Dalits’ or ‘Janajatis’ there. Inked only so far there in the 40 point demand is ‘downtrodden’ possibly to refer to those groups of peoples.
Discussing Swiss or US or Canadian federalism in Nepal’s context may not be a good topic here surely. But as concerns naming of proposed federal states of Nepal only ‘Massachusetts’ of the United States can offer a glaring example. ‘Massachusetts comes from the language of the Algonquian Indians ( Algonquian Indigenous people) of the Massachusetts Bay area – translated roughly as: at or about the great hill. Possible interpretations of the exact origin of the word Massachusetts’. If it is objectionable for some peoples in naming the proposed federal states the basis of historical linguistics; another option would be “keeping the geographical as already proposed and naming like Massachusetts” of the United States. Would such effort dishearten anyone ?
The table below it is not clear as to what for does ‘Chhetri’ stand here ? Does this mean Chettris are in majority in Nepal ? What is the historicity’ of the ethnic Chhetris of Nepal ? How many indigenous groups of peoples may have been “baptized” Chhetris in the country over the passage of Nepalese history ? Is any group of people in absolute majority in the country ? No one is in absolute majority in Nepal. Everyone is in minority. To become in majority one entity or group must have over 50 % in aggregate. So here is a table from a paper.

S. No	Group	Population Percentage
1	Janajati [so called lower caste]	37.38%
2	Brahman, Chhetri and Others [so called upper-caste]	36.56%
3	Dalit [so called water-untouchable]	21.79%
4	Muslim	4.27%
	Total	100%