Talk:Madheshi people/Archive 2

Madhesi people
Why are you removing the verified indian reference on Madhesi page and claiming them as Indians. Cant you see Indian embassy statement whether they are Nepali origin or not? (27.34.19.43 (talk))
 * I do NOT state that they are Indians! I only state that they are of INDIAN ORIGIN, with reference to reliable sources. Read what a reliable source is!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

They are even not the people of Indian origin. The statements issued by Indian embassay in Nepal and Nepalese ambassador in Nepal are the most reliable sources upto date. The Madhesi marries people of Indian origin across the border that does not mean they are Indian origin one. If they are not Indians, why you even deleted the line "Madhesi are the Nepali people of Indian origin". Those Madhesi people are already suppressed in Nepal and challenged on their Nepali nationality and loyalty by hill elites. Most of the madhesi people are natives of Madhesh and while only 3 million Indian origin people that have maritial relations with native madhesis became Nepali citizen by naturalization. While some madhesis have Indian origin due to mass immigrationin 2007 had Indian origin, not all the madhesis are of Indian origin. The ruling hill elites Bahun and Chhetri are even the migrants from India and not older than the native Madhesis. But they are also not the people of Indian origin. (27.34.50.168 (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC))

Your statements lead to more question:
 * What is your understanding of origin?
 * Where is this country 'Madhesh' supposed to be? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Maithils are living in the present-day eastern Nepal Terai as well as the present-day Bihar, India, at least since the establishment of Videha Kingdom. Some Bhojpuris are also said to be residing in the same region (i.e. present - day Nepal Terai and present-day Bihar, India) from around the same time just like the Maithils. While some of the Maithils (and probably Bhojpuris also along with many other ethnic groups) are living in the present-day Nepal Terai, at least since the later vedic period, a few Maithils and Bhojpuris, who are originally from present-day India, also settled foremost in the eastern Nepal Terai since the early 19th century, when the rulers of Nepal encouraged deforestation and agricultural development of the region. Now, those Maithils and Bhojpuris who are the citizens of Nepal (irrespective of whether they are originally from Present-day India or Present-day Nepal), along with people of some other ethnic groups, are called Madhesi people. On the other hand, those Maithils and Bhojpuris who are citizens of India are not referred to as Madhesis. Ind akash (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ind akash! According to the many sources that I read, not ONLY the Maithils and Bhojpuris are called Madhesi people, but also some other caste and ethnic groups who once migrated to the Nepal Terai, such as Bajjika speaking people and muslims. Some sources also include Rajbansi people, but many sources do not specify ethnicity or caste membership of the immigrants. With today more than 100 different cultural groups living in the Terai (as per 2011 population census), I bet this is pretty difficult anyway. Mahesh Chandra Regmi found old lists dating to the 19th century about no. of immigrants from India, but their ethnicity had not been specified at the time. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Since the late 1940s, the term 'Madhes' was used by politicians in the Nepal Terai to differentiate between interests of the people of the Terai and of the hills. From there came the world "Madhesi". I may be wrong but, it looks like that in recent times, Nepalese citizens residing in the Nepal Terai, of almost all the ethnic groups, except some like Tharu people and the people who are originally from the hills, are being called Madhesis. This seems to have become a political term. But certainly, to the best of my knowledge, all of the Madhesi people are not originally from present-day India (only a few of them are). By the way, Bajjika a dialect of Maithili language. Hence, Bajjika speaking people are also Maithils. And majority of Muslims of Nepal terai also speak languages like Maithili, Bhojpuri and Awadhi as their native language (Urdu is spoken by some of them), so they can also be called Maithils, Bhojpuris and Awadhis respectively. And more thing, there is caste system in various ethnic groups like Maithils and Bhojpuris, so a person may belong to an ethnic group and at the same time to a caste also (For example, see Maithil Brahmin). Ind akash (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I added this ref to Miklian (2008) about use of the term, but could not find a ref for it being used before the 1940s. Note that in those years, the ancestors of by far most of the people living in the eastern Nepal Terai had arrived from the south, whereas migrants from the north, the so-called Pahadis from the hills in Nepal, moved to the Terai only AFTER malaria was eradicated in the mid-1950s. But the point is : Madhesis are not ONLY Maithils but include also people from other ethnic, i.e. NON-Maithil groups. True is that Maithil Brahmins were the ones who took the lead in demanding autonomy for the whole Nepal Terai, founded parties and organisations, some of them violent, to enforce their agenda; irrespective of whether or not other peoples living in the Terai shared this view. So yes, that is why the term has been politicised since the end of the civil war in Nepal. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I never said the term was in use before 1940s, neither do I know. All that I am saying is that some Maithils are living in the present-day Nepal Terai at least since the establishment of Videha Kingdom (I am giving a reliable source, Witzel), while some Maithils came from present-day India. So, all the Maithils are not originally from present-day India (only some are). I never said all Madhesis are of Maithil ethnic group. Can we please take this issue to dispute resolution. Admins can help us. Thank you. Ind akash (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please help us in resolving this content dispute. Thank you. Ind akash (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute; as I'm the admin who protected the page I am prohibited from being involved in the dispute.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I meanwhile read the text by Witzel (1989) -- see for download at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/dialects.pdf: neither the word Maithil nor Maithali is mentioned therein, NOT ONCE, and where they lived in India in ancient times. This text is SOLELY about old vedic texts and dialects, their syntax and style and relation to Middle Indian languages. Hence not helpful in the context of this article about Madhesi people.-- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Although, it mentions the term "Videha", Videha was established by the Maithils and many historians identify it's capital to be in Janakpur, a town in present-day Nepal. I regret for quoting Witzel, actually I quoted it since it is quoted in reference to territorial extent of Videha expanding from modern day Bihar, India to present-day eastern Nepal Terai on Videha page. By the way, new source, Raychaudhuri 1972, is also copied from Videha page. I would like to take myself out of this discussion at this moment. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Thank you. - Ind akash (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two books published in the late 18th and early 19th century by Englishmen who travelled from India to the Kathmandu Valley and back. Both account that the Terai was densely forested at the time with only very few settlements. But they did not refer to ethnicity of the people in those settlements. See Kirkpatrick 1811 about his travels in 1793 and Hamilton (1819) about his travels in 1811. Burghart (1978) in his article "The disappearance and reappearance of Janakpur. Kailash: A Journal of Himalayan Studies 6 (4): 257–284" stated that Janakpur indeed was the capital of ancient Videha kingdom, but also that this area has NOT been settled CONTINUOUSLY from ancient to present times, but had been abandoned for centuries; ancient Janakpur and modern-day Janakpur are not the same cities, and today's Janakpur was founded in the early 18th century and was a village until the early 1950s. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Bajjika
Bajjika is a dialect of Maithili language. See http://multitree.org/codes/mai-baj and the wiki page is also on Bajjika dialect and not on "Bajjika language" ! Even it's code is "mai-baj", "mai" is the code for Maithili. So, Bajjika speaking people are also Maithils, isn't it? Ind akash (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know that some consider it a dialect. But some consider it a language of its own, see Kashyap 2014 -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That's why, I have given better wording to avoid content dispute. Please see this. Thank you. Ind akash (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read Hachhethu (2007): he does not mention 'other languages', but only Maithili, Bhojpuri and Bajjika speaking people. 'Other languages' could potentially include French, Russian and thousands of other (sic!) languages. Hence 'other languages' is meaningless. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at this edit. Ind akash (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I do not understand your resistance to referring to Bajjika speaking people. Is this sth. personal between you and these people? Or why do you not consider them worthy to be mentioned, or only with a leeeengthy explanation that is out of context in the lead? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't have any personal problem with them. I was just trying to avoid potential content dispute. Thank you. Ind akash (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I'm happy that we clarified and sorted this out, and hope you are too! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

hurt sentiments
The Maithils of Nepal side are the indigenous origin people since they inhabits Mithila, Nepal since the establishment of Videha Kingdom and trace their origin to Mithila, Nepal. Their sentiments are widely hurt when Madhesis are referred to as people of Indian origin. Madhesi people not only consist of people of Indian origin, but they also constitute of Pakistani, Turkish and Indigenous origin people. Just because Madhesh is said to be part of Ancient India, they should not have been depecited as people of Indian origin.. Madhesh is now a part of Nepal and Madhesis are simply Nepalis. The sentiments of native madhesis are hurt and their nationality and origin are widely challenged. For examples, Bengalis of Bangladesh cannot be referred as people of Indian origin because Bangladesh was a part of India before Partition. Also, Pakistani people cannot be called Indian origin people because Pakistan was once a part of India. Also, see references on Statements issued by Indian Embassay in Nepal and Press briefing by Nepalese ambassador to India. Both Urge not to refer Madhesi as people of Indian origin or One core Indians since even the ruling elites Bahun (Nepali language speaking Vedic Brahmins) are also the migrants from India in ancient time but not referred to as Indian origin people. The references are provided above in Origin Category at last paragraph. Madhesh is now a part of Nepal and Madhesis are simply Nepalis (citizen of Nepal) who inhabits Madhesh of Nepal. Please consider to give definition of Madhesis in such a way that covers sentiments of both Indian origin and Nepali / indigenous origin Madhesis. (27.34.19.71 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC))

NOBODY intends to hurt anybody else's sentiments. And I'm sorry if you feel hurt or offended! This article is not about sentiments and opinions. It is an attempt to get the facts right. And to achieve this, at least two principles are important, namely a neutral point of view and the reliability of sources. There is no historical evidence for the continuity of Videha Kingdom in Nepal from ancient to present times, it's a myth. But there is historical evidence for the immigration of people from India to the Nepal Terai starting from the late 18th century. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It would have been btter to describe madhesi people as people of Indian origib and Indigenous origin. Both the Indian origin and non-indian origin would have fit in the article covering sentiments of Indigenous people of Terai also except Tharus. Thre is no historical evidence for continuity of videha kingdom but there are many reference from independent journal that says Indigenous madhesis are not migrants from India but native to Terai. While Madals, dhanuks, chaudharus are indigenous origin madhesis and tharus is not. (27.34.19.186 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC))
 * The Terai was densely forested and sparsely populated when the first settlers from Bihar arrived in the 1770s. Hence, they are not indigenous, whereas Tharus had lived in the Nepal Terai forests long before these settlers arrived. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Maithils were also the early inhabitants of Terai since the time of Videha kingdom and their castes such as Jha and Mishra are densly populated among Madhesis. they are natives and not the migrants. THE Dhanuks, chudharies, Rajbanshis, Satar are already identified as indigenous people by Nepal government and they are Madhesis. also the eastern tharus who inhabits Madhesh considers themeselves to be Madhesis. Only Tharus of Tharuhat denies of being madhesis. (27.34.19.186 (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC))

Etymology
The Apte source which you are referring to doesn't even mention the word "Madhes", at least apparently. Please see here. Thanks.— Jakichandan (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two references, the first for "Madhes" being derived from madhya desh, and the 2nd, namely Apte, for the meaning of madhya. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, those sources convey that "Madhes" refers to central region of the Indian subcontinent lying between the himalayas and the vindhya mountains. Isn't it? Jakichandan (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is what I just wrote, didn't I? And wonder why you add words between the "" that are not part of the source text. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you please tell me on which page of the cited source does the exact words which you are using between and after "" exist. Thanks —Jakichandan (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The cited source in "" is linked to Apte (1957-1959). See in the middle of this paragraph under -5. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there two different sources named Apte as I am not able to find the word "Madhes" In one Apte source here?


 * Are you okay with The word madhesh is thought to be derived from the Sanskrit मध्य देश "madhya desh" meaning "middle country", which refers to "the central region, the country lying between the Himalayas and the Vindhya mountains" in the Indian subcontinent. as the himalayas reffered here is not only in present-day India so using Indian subcontinent may be better. Jakichandan (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If you would just care to have a look at the link in the ref to Apte (1957-1959) you would also find the cited text in "". I don't see the purpose of linking to Indian subcontinent, as it is unmistakable that Apte refers to Himalayas and Vindhya mountains in India. And India is already linked in lead. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the text in "" but How can we be sure that the himalayas mentioned here refers to only that portion of the himalayas which is part of modern-day India? Jakichandan (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It might be better to use exactly what is in "" and remove "in India" as the cited source doesn't mention "in India". Jakichandan (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC) As per the wiki policy Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated in the published sources. Please see WP:OR. Jakichandan (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you also saw that there are 2 refs at end of sentence? The 1st to Kabir (2013) does mention India in the context with Madhes. But is not necessary, as there are certainly not several Vindhya mountains in this region. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you okay with the current version? Jakichandan (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This is as good as the one before you started editing! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

All is well that ends well! Sorry for any of my mistake. Thanks Jakichandan (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2017
Madhesh is a Province No.2 of Nepal including all Terai districts. 27.34.48.128 (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  JTP (talk • contribs) 05:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018
"Indian immigrants settled foremost in present-day eastern Nepal Terai since the late 18th century, when the rulers of Nepal encouraged deforestation and agricultural development of this region" this sentence is not satisfactory. There is history of Janakapur in Ramayan grantha which denotes the age of before christ. So the sentence is not satisfactory. Raushan1986 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2018
Madhesh have the history before buddha born & before the Sita born — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.32.53.175 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019
The edits are related to the facts regarding Terai and its people, it doesn't have a flag and it is an integral part of sovereign Nepal Bigyan Pokhrel (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please specify what exactly you want to include in the page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Too broad a scope.
This article is all over the place (and not in a good way). It says "Madhesi people can refer to Indian Madhesis" and then talks only about Nepali Madhesis. It says "Tharu people don't consider themselves Madhesis" and then proceeds to provide a whole section about the Tharu people. Also, the article seems to be biased toward the Alliance for independent Madhesh Which hardly meets the notability criteria. Specifically, the non-chalant presence of the flag of the organisation in the history section. There are many important madhesi movements that are historically significant. AIM is not one, not by a long shot. I have encountered another article Madhesi conflict in Nepal. Barring a good amount of activity on this talk within a week's time, I intend to merge that article and this into a new article titled "Madhesi People in Nepal" with that article making the history and this one making the overview and socio-cultural information for the new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usedtobecool (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Madheshis of Indian ancestry ?
Given that archaeological remains in Madheshi areas predate any hilly settlements, How can Madheshis be called people of Indian ancestry ? Cross border relations do not prove Indian ancestry. Scyfie (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , it is all very stupid, since every one of us ultimately traces back to Africa. But, that's how Madhesis are referred to in our time. So, that's what Wikipedia reflects. This came about because virtually all of the southern plains of Nepal was reclaimed by the forest between the ancient and modern times. Only after the formation of modern Nepal, well after the hills and mountains had been widely settled, the forests were pushed back by humans, and the subsequent settlement of these plains was also done by people from what would later become modern India. So, Indian ancestry, in this context, distinguishes people (meaning ethnicities) who settled in Nepal after the formation of the modern state, as opposed to people who were already in Nepal when it was formed. Also, the common stereotype that Nepal is a mountainous country and India is a plains country, means that people hailing from plains would get the label "Indian ancestry" while Pahari Indian people, like those in north-east India, are usually considered to be ethnic Nepalis. I don't know what you mean by your last statement. Nepal is separate from India only due to the fact that Nepal wasn't under British India. So, in contexts, except those related to British India and the Modern state of India, the term "India" includes Nepal as well.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 18:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , So, Shouldn't we rather abstain from typecasting Madheshis as people of Indian ancestry ? And your view that, "well after the hills and mountains had been widely settled, the forests were pushed back by humans, and the subsequent settlement of these plains was also done by people from what would later become modern India", is baseless. Infact, earliest human remains (Pre-historic remains) have been found in Shivalik foothills. And civilizations of various sorts have continued ever since hunting gatherers dwelled along the foothills of the Shivaliks, which is basically Terai.

Calling Carribean Indians "people of Indian ancestry" is one thing, but calling Madheshis the same is a whole lot different. In Carribean you have strong evidence that apart of people of Indian origins, you don't have others whose ancestors were in India. But in Nepal's case, except Mongoloid people, all can be traced back to India in some way. So, why not remove that stereotyping ? Are we here to politicize the Wiki articles ?Scyfie (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , My previous reply was based on the assumption that you were curious. If you are proposing a particular change to the article, as it now appears you are, you can do so provided they meet wikipedia policies and guidelines. Note that Wikipedia values verifiability over truth. So, if sources promote ideas that I consider stereotyping, there's nothing I can do about it. When I first started editing, this article had caught my eye as a particularly poor one, I just never got around to actually improving it, before my priorities changed. As such, I am quite sure some of the notions I have may be wrong, since I haven't explored the literature on this topic in inordinate detail. So, yeah, if you want a change, bring sourced arguments or make BOLD edits, and we can examine them. A couple other editors who maintain an interest on this topic might also show up to give their input when it becomes clear, the discussion is actually headed towards changing the article in a significant way.
 * As for our unsourced discussion here, Madhesis are people who immigrated to modern Nepal from what would become modern India in the last 200 years. The fact that these same ethnicities were historically present, for example during the Videha rule or Shakya rule, etc., or that there are fossils from even earlier (whoever those belong to), are things conveniently ignored by all parties.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 13:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed "Indian ancestry" thing, and it was reverted by . Where can I give source for something that needs to be removed ? And what should be done when you have sources for both against and for this claim ?

And there are almost a dozen written sources older than 200 years that attest to the fact that Madheshi were present in the territories they are in. Kirkpatrick's 1793 travelogue has it, Segowlee treaty mentions about "people of the plains", plenty of maps of 18th century mention villages in terai, Varna Ratnakar of 14th century written from Simroungarh gives exhaustive details of castes living in Simroungarh, 13th century Tibetan traveller Dharmaswami mentions about the people there...and still many cannot get over their pre-conceived opinions that terai was all forest 200 years ago !!! The Forest was long called "4 kose jhaadi" which meant 12 kilometres of forest. I hope everyone appreciates that terai is not just 12 kilometres wide !! Scyfie (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , when a topic is controversial, Wikipedia gives both sides (or however many there are) the weight that they deserve. So, you'd have to bring sources in favor of your argument, and at the same time argue that current wording isn't ideal and current sources represent either a minority or are not reliable/respectable at all. For example, see Jesus. For Jesus, there are: "Jesus was", "Jesus is", "For Christians, he is", "Virtually all scholars agree that he is", etc. If you can show that, alternative definitions of Madhesis exist in scholarship, it can be changed/updated. You can't remove sourced claims unless you can show the sources themselves are unacceptable.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 15:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Would it be fine if I put another definition before the current one, without removing it ? Would it be good to have multiple definitions of who Madheshis are in just one article ?Scyfie (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * just read the references at the end of the sentence defining who Madhesi people are. I doubt that human bones excavated in the Terai carried a label with 'Madhesi' written on them. In case, they did: reference this! Nor did early settlers during the Videha Kingdom or in the 14th century call themselves Madhesi. In case, they did: reference this! Acc. to sources referenced currently, this term has been used since the mid 20th century. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

So you mean Indians are the only ones born after "Indian" word was coined for them ? Which means none before 16th century were Indians ? And have you found "Nepali/Nepalese" used for people before 18th century ? Scyfie (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood! THIS discussion is NOT about Indian people. But about MADHESI, a term that had not been coined in the 16th century, obviously not even in the 19th century. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the other editor that's joined the conversation is not me. Ping them to get an answer on their position. As to the question you asked me, yes it would, if there are sources. Knowing that there were people there isn't enough, they'd have to be called Madhesi people by the sources that talk of them.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 17:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is already an alternative definition present: In recent times, it's argued by some to be suitable for all Nepali citizens of plains origin.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 17:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it fair to provide an alternative definition  somewhere  else rather than in the beginning itself ? I think the article needs a complete makeover. It has gross POV problems, where all editors are trying to impose their POVs over others. The article needs to mention about multiple definitions right in the beginning. Otherwise this presents a problem for new readers who skim through articles by going through  just the introductory parts.Scyfie (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the alternative definition I quoted is the third sentence. Yes there are problems. And you can help solve them, by updating it with content referenced to reliable independent sources, removing content that's unsourced, or sourced to dodgy, partisan, unreliable sources, and having an earnest discussion and forming consensus with any other editor who reverts or contests your changes. Since BhagyaMani reverted you, discuss it with them if you want to reinstate it, but make sure you aren't arguing with what you know for a fact but rather what you can show is the case as covered by independent reliable sources. All our discussion discussing positions not backed by reliable sources is just talk. Regards!  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 17:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with . I think there is a whole bunch of revisionist pseudo-history being propagated. The "Nepali" identity didn't start evolving until around 1930. Prior to that people of various regions had their own identities. So did the Madhesis. Moreover, since they were part of the Mughal empire or Mughal splinter states prior to 1775, and became part of British India in 1816, again got handed back to Nepal some 44 years later, they never stopped thinking of themselves as "Indians". To call them "Indian origin" for that reason is a travesty. As Kanak Mani Dixit says, "Anyone who defines Madhesis as ‘Nepalis of Indian origin’ must consider attending re-education camp." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When searching for sources, I did NOT come across a single one referring to the term 'Madhesi' being used PRIOR to 1940. Neither across one using the term for peoples living south of today's international Nepal-India border. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Big revert
I reverted the page back to the version of sometime in September 2017.l I notice that the lead was changed significantly without any new sources, and plenty of unsourced content was added in the body. Please discuss the new content here and obtain WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree to the revert, in particular to the definition in the lead. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have reverted it back further to 29 May 2019, because the citations were clobbered. Please check. And, also please see if you can find the quotations as requested. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is VERY important to give the various definitions in the lead, i.e. the one used by scientists versus the one used by journalists + politicians, so to show that the term is NOT distinct and unequivocal. Perhaps you remember that the lead in particular was an unsourced battlefield for a long time. It took me quite some time to find these sources for the anthropologists's definition a few years ago. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I am just trying to figure out where the content is coming from. The first citation doesn't have the word "Madhesi" and neither can it be characterised as an "anthropology" source. The second source, Whelpton, is a historian. The third source, Dahal, has been removed for some reason, and all his content attributed to the other two. Please provide precise page numbers and/or quotations. At the moment the content lacks WP:INTEGRITY.
 * I am also not sure whether there is anything "scientific" about the phenomenon. Who invented the term "Madhesi"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding your : There are TWO different concepts as to who is Madheshi. As stated in the lead already and explained this morning : anthropologists defined a Madheshi as a 'person with ancestors in India', whereas journalist and politicians defined it as 'ALL people in Terai'; some include the Tharus, but the Tharus don't include themselves. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. But you cannot say it is "ambiguous" unless a source says so. If different sources use the term differently, we have to just state them, without adding our own commentary. Neither do I see grounds for generalising Dixit to "journalists" unless there is evidence that all journalists have taken to using his terminology. Basically, there is far too much WP:OR here.
 * Can you get to the other questions? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The second ref'ed source is a chapter in a book edited by: 1) David Gellner is prof at Oxford University, 2) Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka a prof for social anthropology at a German uni, 3) John Whelpton: true historian, specialised in history of Nepal. Then lets change 'anthropologist' to 'social scientists', if you think this fits better and encompasses also other scientific authors referenced on the page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't say anything until you tell me what part of the source is talking about this, and what it says. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As to your question : Who invented the term "Madhesi"? According to Miklian (2009), it was 'invented' in the 1940s by politicians from the Nepal Terai. Please note that the term is NOT mentioned in any of the publications by Mahesh Chandra Regmi, and Regmi collected and archived foremost 19th century and earlier papers. But of course, if YOU know of any earlier than 1940s use of the term, please do share!!-- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please always provide precise page numbers so that we know what you are talking about. It is apparent that this is highly contested topic. So it is necessary to be as precise as possible. The statement I am looking at says:
 * This does not imply that they invented the term, just that they started using it a self-ascription. It is far more likely that the Nepali parbatiyas coined the term, because they needed it to distinguish them from their own kind. There was clear discrimination prior to 1947, and you can't discriminate people without identifying them as a group.
 * It seems that all people agree that Madhesi means the people of Madhesh. But they differ on what is meant by Madhesh. Madhesis themselves identify it as the terai. But Dahal says:
 * So Dahal is pin-pointing the "othering" involved in the term, but the Madhesis ignore it by identifying Madhes with their land. Kalpana Jha quotes a Madhesi activist saying this:
 * Note: I would also like to remind you that you have still not provided the requested quotation from Whelpton, despite having removed the request-quotation tag several hours ago. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the page itself, it is not stated that a certain group of people and which 'invented' the term. Why do you think it necessary to speculate (e.g. 'far more likely that ...') on this in the page?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Several pages in which Whelpton (1997) used the term are not shown online at the moment. See e.g. page 68 and  -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first point, who came up with the term is a very important piece of information. You have added (and reinstated) the phrasing that "Anthropologists" came up with the term, whereas it is clear that they did not. They are merely trying to explain a term that is in common use. You have also said that all the "meanings" must be explained. If so, the meaning attached to it by the parbatiyas and that attached by the Madhesis need to be stated and distinguished from each other.
 * I have noticed the phrases from Whelpton that you have mentioned. But they are not enough. We don't know what is meant by "Indian-origin" in this passing reference. A more thorough explanation is needed. I guess I will have to make a trip to the library. In future, please provide precise page numbers and/or quotations to avoid such problems. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did NOT state that anthropologists or other academics came up with or coined the term, but only that they used it!! Do you understand the difference? What in your opinion is ambiguous about 'Indian origin', other than 'originating from India'? I.e. neither from Pakistan nor from any other country. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the anthropologists are explaining the social usage of the term, then it should not be attributed to them. If they use it in a different sense then it should be attributed. For example, "Aryan" means noble in the present-day Sanskrit and its imports into various Indian languages. But for scholars "Aryan" (or rather "Indo-Aryan") means a language family. In 19th century sociology, it meant a race of immigrants/invaders. Here, we have multiple meanings and we attribute each of them. That is not the case with "Madheshi".
 * 'Originating from India' is not enough because it is not clear what 'India' means or when they are supposed to have 'originated'. Is Madhesh 'India'? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * More details about their origin in India is given in the 2nd paragraph of the lead : namely comprising ethnic groups from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Is that not clear enough for you? If you want to have distinct locations provided, then search for them. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We were talking about Whelpton, covered in the first paragraph, not Dahal. Is there any evidence that Whelpton accepts Dahal's theories?
 * Dahal is not a WP:HISTRS. I regard his writings on the subject as revisionist pseud-history. If it has been validated by real historians we can talk about it, not otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you did not yet see that I referenced an article by Gellner (2007) who also refers to 'Madheshis' as non-tribal "plain dwellers of Indian, Hindu origin" "with cultural, kin, educational and political links to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar". -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Another passing reference, which doesn't really explain what it means. The Tarai has been part of plains kingdoms, Hindu as well as Muslim, for centuries. Obviously those people would have kinship to the communities in the plains as well as mixture and migration. But the whole slant of the page at the moment is that these people migrated into modern day Nepal. So, in the context of this page, you have completed distorted whatever those authors might have meant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dahal is not a WP:HISTRS. I regard his writings on the subject as revisionist pseud-history. If it has been validated by real historians we can talk about it, not otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you did not yet see that I referenced an article by Gellner (2007) who also refers to 'Madheshis' as non-tribal "plain dwellers of Indian, Hindu origin" "with cultural, kin, educational and political links to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar". -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Another passing reference, which doesn't really explain what it means. The Tarai has been part of plains kingdoms, Hindu as well as Muslim, for centuries. Obviously those people would have kinship to the communities in the plains as well as mixture and migration. But the whole slant of the page at the moment is that these people migrated into modern day Nepal. So, in the context of this page, you have completed distorted whatever those authors might have meant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is a passage from Whelpton's History of Nepal. This should put to rest this pointless controversy:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * And, here is another authentic historian:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2019
Terai is gifted by East Indian Company in two parts western terai and eastern terai since 1816 and 1860. Before that there is mugal empire. Terai is never a part of Nepal before found on British east India Company history. Search UNPO Madesh you will get a lot of information. Madeshi people need visa to travel Kathmandu until 1958. Don’t write fake things in your article. Even Harvard university has released one article about Terai where the research is done by sagar chettri. Prem1999 (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Prem1999 and thanks for your thank you notice. What exactly do you want added to this page? Please specify author, date and publication. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Citation style change
, is there a good reason why you are changing citation style so that the page numbers come on the main page instead of footnotes? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As you surely noticed, this also works. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In the almost 3 years that I have been contributing to this page, and in the hundreds of other pages that I contribute to, you are the first and only one who repeatedly undid my edits and carps about citation styles used on thousands of pages. I find this rather irritating! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I am sure we will become friends sooner or later :-)
 * Coming back to the issue, the "rp" template is undesirable because it takes up space in the middle of paragraphs and affects the readability of the text. A couple of rp's here and ther are ok, but if the whole page is full of rp's, it is not a good idea. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Flag : Multiple issues
Kautilya3 or whoever added the template on top of the main page : please check, whether any of the issues you had mind has been addressed. If so, please remove it. Or lets discuss whatever you think still needs to be addressed. IMO, as every statement is referenced by a WP:RS, at least the OR flag can be removed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I added the templates. At that time, I wasn't able to verify most of the claims because of the lack of page numbers in citations. Now that you have added page numbers, I will make another effort.
 * I am also not sure of the extensive treatment of migration sourced to Dahal. His treatment is mostly speculative since data isn't available. It is not proper to make distinctions like Nepali vs Indian when you deal with Tarai because it is the in-between land. There is a tendency to think of an age-old Nepal, without remembering that "Nepal" meant only Kathmandu valley until Prithi Narayan Shah's time. We will need to cross check this narrative with other sources.
 * You have added a yet another mention of "Indian origin" today, which is not supported by the source that you cited. "Indian linguistic, cultural, ethnic origin" does not mean "Indian origin". It means Indian heritage. We need to balance the "Nepali" viewpoint with the "Madhesi" viewpoint. As long as only one side is being represented, the "too few viewpoints" template remains. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Re "Indian origin" : reformulated this. Re Dahal: I cannot understand your mistrust in Dahal's publications. After all, he is emeritus professor of anthropology. In the past 2+ years, I collated whatever I could find about Madhesh and Madheshi / Madhesi, but did not find any RS objecting this narrative of migrants from India. In case you find one, please add it. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020
bracket Actually madhesh is a political name and it doesn't represent a particular ethnic groups.It represents the territory and the people living there from the ancient ages are called madhesis. 120.89.104.229 (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2020
Edit 1: In the "See also" section, add the following: Madhes Movement.

Edit 2: Inside the "See also" section, add the following on the top:

Edit 3: Rename "Politics" section to "Geopolitics" since the existing talks about both Nepal and India.

Edit 4: Insde the "Politics" / "Geopolitics" section, the existing "Indian influence in Nepal Terai" exists as it is here as well as in Terai article with no corresponding discussions of terai/madeshi sucessionist movement. To address the existing WP:BIAS, please include the following in the "Politics" section, once done then edit1 can be ignored.

Demand for autonomy and independence
Since the early 1950s, several political parties advocated for autonomy and independence of the Nepal Terai, such as the Nepal Terai Congress and Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha. Several armed groups were formed, which pursued this aim using violent means.

Madhes Movement, was launched by various political parties based in Madhes, for equal rights, dignity and identity of Madhesis and Tharus, others minor tribal and marginalised groups in Nepal. Three waves of Madhes Movements, first in 2007, second in 2008 and third in 2015 errupted in southern plains of Nepal. It started as a mass ethno nationalism movement against the 2007 Interim Constitution promulgated by CPN-Maoist led alliance of seven-parties, because the consitution totally ignored the concept of federalism and equal representation of these ethnic communities, the most desired political agenda of Madhesis and other marginalised communities. Second Madeshi movement, wich saw violent protests, had political objectives: federalism, proportional representation, and election constituency based on population.

Since 2008 and 2015 Constitution of Nepal failed to address those issues, Madhesis continued to be treated unfairly and denied equal rights, mainstream parties passed the new constitution without determining the number and boundaries of provinces, seven federal provinces were formed in an unfair and discriminatory manner, only eight districts in more populated Terai were given the status of a state while the remaining fourteen districts were from the less densly populated Hilly region, consequently more than 50 people were killed in violent clashes in the third Madheshi momvement throughout the southern plains of Nepal. This triggered the third Madhes Movement by Madhesis  Madhesi parties demanded for proportional representation in state organs, and guarantee constituencies based  on population because 20 out of 75 districts in Terai region house 50% of the population.

The new constitution is gender discriminatory as it denies single woman to pass on citizenship to their children, thus disadvantages Madheshi women and their children.

PS: Edit4 is a quick summary of Madhes Movement, feel free to rephrase, cleanup, as you deem fit. Thanks.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Not done because of the multiple issues tag on that page on Madhes Movement and several refs that do not meet the criteria of WP:RS. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

people of indian ancestry in Nepal?
Who are they? Thevideha (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2022
Madheshis are the Nepalis living in the Madhesh Province and the the southern Nepal in the Terai belt. 2400:1A00:BD20:80DD:A8CF:8D6C:2680:2A63 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Madhesh Province Donotreplystation (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Request is not clear. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Indian origin
All Madhesis are not Indian Immigrants...For Example, Maithils are the largest ethnolinguistic group and trace their origin to Mithila capital Janakpurdhama and these indigenous communities resided here since 14th century. This majority group represent Maithili language, largest population speaks it and majority of Madhesis (Maithils) were never an immigrants or had any Indian cultural background. The Madhesis should be clearly defined as "Nepalis who trace their origin from Madhesh Province and including indigenous peoples, majority native inhabitants and descendents of minority Indian Immigrants from 17th Century. 27.34.100.24 (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)