Talk:Madhesi conflict

Not a suitable Title topic.

The scope of the article is almost the same as that of potentially"Madhesi people of Nepal." So, in that sense, these articles had better be merged. I propose a new article "Madhesi people in Nepal"(I take inspiration from the page African Americans. A long long history, social and political issues, as well as culture are anchored on said article, and all of the issues meriting a separate article all stem from them in an organised manner.). Various sections of this article would better fit under "History of Madhesi people in Nepal" under the proposed article. Some of the issues that might not fit on the proposed article already have their separate, scattered articles. I propose organising them as full articles, as required, as further reading on the summaries given by the sections about Madhesi History and Politics under the proposed article. The very idea of "Conflict between an ethnic community and the state" doesn't make sense in this context. If the idea is to highlight the systemic issues faced by the Madhesi people, "Discrimination against Madhesi people in Nepal" would be more suitable, or even "Persecution of Nepali Madhesis" if the evidence is sufficiently damning. Also note that there isn't a coherent united Madhesi voice against the Nepali government. There is sufficient evidence to merit a counter position that only certain sections, or political forces are at odds with the Nepali mainstream. So, that view needs to be added, for the sake of neutrality. An article principally created by a single contributor on a potentially contentious issue and a highly sensitive topic, is also not a very strong position to start from. Usedtobecool (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, this seems to me like it would be an improvement to the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I've tagged the page with a link to this proposal to hopefully give it a little more visibility. If there isn't any opposition it could be done whenever anyone has the time.​ Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Alpha3031 for the hint that this page exists. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Usedtobecool that this page's title is not suitable. Large parts are not even relevant to the topic 'Madhesi', e.g. the section 'Brief Outline of some major events'. The page 'Madhesi people' has been semi-protected for quite some time now, as several anonymous editors tried to change content and insert biased views. Perhaps this is the reason why this page 'Madhesi conflict' was created. However, I disagree to a new page title 'Madhesi people in Nepal' because the addition 'in Nepal' is redundant; the term 'Madhesi people' is not used 'in India' nor in any neighbouring country. Madhesi people is not a homogeneous ethnic group, but refers to people from several ethnic groups who settled in the Nepal Terai since the late 18th century coming mainly from India, see Madheshi_people#History. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, I suggested "Madhesi People in Nepal" in view of the fact that Madhesh comes from Madhyadesh which was historically defined more broadly. Such as: in Manusmriti 2.21.
That (country) which (lies) between the Himavat and the Vindhya (mountains) to the east of Prayaga and to the west of Vinasana (the place where the river Sarasvati disappears) is called Madhyadesa (the central  region).' ---- a history that the article Madhesi people acknowledges. I am hesitant to make a stand on whether there are any non-Nepali Madhesis in contemporary usages, socio-political or academic. To me, it makes logical sense that a person of north-indian origin (of Bihar and UP) would be Madhesi as well, since no Indian migrant converts to Madhesism when they cross the border. If they are Madhesis, north of the border, they'd have to have been Madhesi all along. The only way that would not be the case is if only those ethnic north Indians/ south-Nepalis who have a Nepali citizenship would be considered Madhesis. There seems to be no evidence for such a distinction. So, it stands to reason that the people of same ethnicities as Nepali madhesis (Maithils, bhojpuri people, etc.) who live in India would be Madhesi as well, at least in the sense that it is used by Pahari communities of Nepal. Usedtobecool (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems I need to clarify my point : the name 'Madhesi' is only used in Nepal; I haven't come across a publication about 'Madhesi in India' or 'Madhesi in Bangladesh', but in those countries, the people are called by their ethnic relation, e.g. Maithils or Bhojpuri people. But lets ask User:Jakichandan, whether they would call themselves Madhesi as well. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I would be very interested to hear opinions/facts from others as well. Especially, now that Madhes is waking up and self-identifying as such, I would be interested to hear how they view the tag of a Madhesi. I still am not sure, whether, its a political term for unity, or a cultural identity that Madhesis would happily embrace. But, can we agree that, when Nepali Pahari refer to Madhesi people (in derogatory manner or otherwise), they don't care for the nationality or residence of the person, but only apparent ethnicity, culture, language, or even skin colour, etc.? (Never mind whether it can be established with secondary sources)Usedtobecool (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not the issue here, in which manner Nepali pahadis or other Nepalis refer to Madhesi people. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it relevant to establishing what "Madhesi" is. If Madhesi only exist in Nepal, and they are not an ethnicity or a closely tied community of people referred to by a common term by another group, and if it's not a term reserved for people who live in a certain geographic region, then what exactly is a Madhesi? The way I see it, either Madhesis are people originally from or considered to be originally from Madhyadesh, irrespective of which country they happen to be in, or they are part of a Pahari-Madhesi dichotomy in Nepal. If what the dominant half, ie. Paharis, thought was not relevant, there wouldn't be a "madhesi conflict". And I was not asking in which manner, do the Paharis refer to Madhesi people. I was asking what the Pahari people mean/imply when they refer to someone as Madhesi? Afterall, the whole business of segregating a portion of Nepali citizenry for discrimination as Madhesis (often mentioned in contrast to Nepali, as Nepali vs. Madhesi) was started by the Pahari elite.Usedtobecool (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The term 'Madheshi' IS defined, with references, just see right in the beginning of the Madhesi people page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani and Usedtobecool: I have never come across a source referring to the Indian Maithils or Indian Bhojpuris as "Madhesis", neither have I heard of themselves identifying as such. We can't do WP:OR. We need WP :RS to claim anything. It would be better just to merge this page with Madhesi people. Adding "in Nepal" will be redundant. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jakichandan! I also checked again, but all publications I found about Madheshi people refer exclusively to Nepal. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jakichandan and BhagyaMani both. I wasn't really going to advocate for "... in Nepal". I was clarifying myself on why originally I proposed it as such, as evident from "I suggested... in view of..." and things went on from there (just out of curiosity, not as a matter of contention). I acknowledged/hinted that BhagyaMani has the higher ground on WP:RS at the beginning of the ensuing discourse. Of course, as far as a wikipedia article is concerned, I support the definition on the Madhesi people page and I am also convinced merging this article to that one, and improving that article in the manner I outlined at the outset, is the best thing to do. Usedtobecool (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)