KATHMANDU: Seven political parties from the Tarai-Madhes region have come together to form the Federal Democratic Front. This new alliance was publicly declared during a program held on April 3, 2025, aiming to ‘advocate for constitutional amendments, safeguard the federal democratic republic, and promote effective governance.’

The front is composed of several key parties: the Janata Samajwadi Party (JSP) Nepal led by Upendra Yadav, the Loktantrik Samajwadi Party Nepal under Mahantha Thakur, the Janamat Party headed by CK Raut, the Nagarik Unmukti Party led by Ranjita Chaudhary, the Rastriya Mukti Party Nepal chaired by Rajendra Mahato, the Janata Pragatisheel Party with Hridayesh Tripathi at the helm, and the Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party headed by Brishesh Chandra Lal.

The alliance has outlined its objectives through a comprehensive 26-point agenda, focusing on key issues such as defining the demarcation, naming, and structuring of provinces based on both capacity and identity. It aims to ensure a fair and balanced distribution of revenue and resources, as well as enable provinces to effectively deliver state-provided services to their citizens.

Additionally, the front seeks to strengthen the federal democratic republic system by keeping local governance under the purview of the provinces and ensuring clear delineation of jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments. Here’s everything you need to know about the Federal Democratic Front and its impact in national politics:

What is the Federal Democratic Front and who are its constituent parties?

The Federal Democratic Front (FDF) is a newly formed political alliance comprising seven prominent parties, most of which have roots in the Madhes movement or represent historically marginalized communities in Nepal.

Announced in April 2025 in Kathmandu, this alliance is a significant attempt by these parties to consolidate their declining political influence, particularly in the southern plains of Nepal known as the Madhes.

The FDF also emphasizes the need for citizenship reforms to ensure gender equity and non-discrimination, ensuring that all citizens, particularly women, have equal access to rights and opportunities. This is coupled with a call for language rights, demanding the recognition and use of local languages in public administration and education systems to ensure the linguistic rights of marginalized communities.

The seven parties forming the alliance are the Janamat Party, led by Dr. CK Raut; Janata Samajwadi Party (JSP) Nepal, led by Upendra Yadav; Loktantrik Samajwadi Party (LSP) Nepal, led by Mahantha Thakur; Nagarik Unmukti Party (NUP), led by Ranjita Shrestha; Rastriya Mukti Party, led by Rajendra Mahato; Janata Pragatisheel Party, led by Hridayesh Tripathi; and Terai Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP), led by Brisesh Chandra Lal.

These parties have varied histories but share a common background of advocating for identity-based federalism, constitutional amendment, and the inclusion of marginalized groups—particularly Madhesis, Tharus, and other indigenous populations. Some, like the Janamat Party and NUP, have emerged more recently, while others have a legacy stretching back to the early Madhes uprisings of the mid-2000s.

The Federal Democratic Front has outlined a broad agenda with 26 key objectives, including constitutional reform, equitable budget distribution based on population and development indicators, completion of delayed infrastructure projects such as the Hulaki Highway, and the release of the Lal Commission report on human rights abuses.

Despite this comprehensive agenda, skepticism remains high due to the fragmented history of Madhes-based parties. Several of the Front’s members were previously part of coalitions or even the same party, only to splinter apart due to personal rivalries or power-sharing disagreements. Nevertheless, leaders like Hridayesh Tripathi have expressed optimism that this “loose alliance” can serve as a platform for long-term cooperation.

Why was the Federal Democratic Front formed now, and what political circumstances triggered its creation?

The formation of the Federal Democratic Front (FDF) is a response to a confluence of political pressures, both internal and external. Internally, Madhes-based parties have witnessed a steep decline in influence due to frequent splits, loss of voter trust, and their inability to form a consistent front in recent elections.

Externally, developments in national politics—especially moves toward constitutional amendment and fears of a two-party system—have catalyzed their renewed cooperation.

The emergence of the Federal Democratic Front (FDF) has sparked mixed reactions across Nepal’s political and civil society landscape. On the positive side, marginalized communities and activists have welcomed the formation of the Front as a necessary consolidation of regional voices.

After the 2022 general election, many of these parties found themselves marginalized. Four of the seven parties in the alliance currently have no representation in the federal parliament, and even those with seats—like JSP Nepal and the Janamat Party—have seen their influence diminish.

For example, Upendra Yadav’s JSP Nepal, once a major force in Madhesi politics, lost key constituencies in the last election.

Amid this political weakening, several new pressures emerged. The Congress-UML alliance started mulling constitutional amendments that could raise the electoral threshold and diminish the proportional representation system—moves that could threaten the survival of smaller regional and identity-based parties.

Additionally, there is a growing perception that federalism is under attack, especially with delays in infrastructure development and the centralization of power in Kathmandu. The persistent failure to implement past agreements, such as constitutional amendments and the release of the Lal Commission report, has fueled disillusionment among Madhesi leaders and their constituencies.

Initiated by Hridayesh Tripathi, the FDF is an attempt to unite these parties under one umbrella before the next electoral cycle. Tripathi formed a task force last year to hold discussions with major Madhesi leaders, leading to this alliance.

The hope is that a joint platform will give them leverage to influence policy, bargain during constitutional negotiations, and appeal to a shared base of voters who feel increasingly alienated. While past alliances like the United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) failed to remain cohesive, the Federal Democratic Front is being positioned as a more flexible and issues-oriented front, at least for now.

What are the main demands of the Federal Democratic Front?

The Federal Democratic Front has put forward an ambitious set of 26 demands, which reflect long-standing grievances from the Madhesi movement as well as new concerns arising from the current political and economic environment in Nepal.

At the heart of the Front’s agenda is the belief that the current constitution is flawed, discriminatory, and incomplete—particularly in how it deals with federalism, inclusion, and proportional representation. Key demands and objectives include constitutional amendment, proportional representation, federalism and budget allocation, infrastructure development, administrative reform and anti-corruption measures, and human rights and justice.

The Front categorically rejects the 2015 constitution in its current form and calls for revisions to address issues of identity-based federalism, inclusive governance, and minority rights. They argue that the existing document does not fully capture the aspirations of marginalized communities, especially those in the Madhes region.

Regarding proportional representation, the Front opposes any attempts to eliminate it or increase the threshold that could exclude smaller parties from parliament. They demand the retention and strengthening of proportional and inclusive systems, particularly for Madhesis, Dalits, Tharus, Muslims, Janajatis, and women.

In terms of federalism and budget allocation, the alliance advocates for federal budget distribution based on population and human development indicators. They argue that the current system favors centralization and discriminates against Madhes and other peripheral regions of the country.

Initially, Madhes-based parties were united under the United Democratic Madhesi Front, a powerful coalition that had the ability to shape government formation. But after entering various coalition governments, ideological unity gave way to competition over ministries and electoral prospects, leading to internal fragmentation.

They also prioritize the completion of vital national infrastructure projects, such as the Hulaki Highway, which is essential for improving connectivity in the Madhes. Additionally, they are pushing for the implementation of the Tarai Madhesh Infrastructure Development Programme, which has faced years of delays.

The Front also proposes administrative reforms to tackle the rising influence of middlemen in governance. They demand greater transparency and accountability in federal administration, aiming to curb corruption and improve public service delivery.

Another significant demand is the public release of the Lal Commission report, which investigated human rights violations during the Madhes and Tharu movements. This demand holds symbolic significance for the Madhesi population, who feel that their struggles and sacrifices have been largely ignored by Kathmandu.

Overall, the Federal Democratic Front is attempting to regain the trust of a disillusioned voter base by revisiting core issues that have long driven identity-based politics in Nepal.

Whether these demands can be turned into effective political action remains to be seen, but the alliance’s agenda underscores the deep-seated frustrations of marginalized communities and their ongoing fight for justice, representation, and equality.

How did Madhesi parties rise to prominence during the Madhes Movement?

The rise of Madhesi parties is closely tied to the Madhes Movement, a series of uprisings that began in 2007 (2063/64 BS) and significantly transformed Nepal’s political landscape. Madhesi people—residents of the southern plains bordering India—have long felt excluded from Nepal’s centralized, hill-centric state.

They have faced underrepresentation in government, discrimination in citizenship laws, and a lack of infrastructure and services in their regions. The grievances of the Madhesi community became increasingly apparent, culminating in a series of protests that would later shape the course of Nepalese politics.

The first Madhes uprising, led by the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (led by Upendra Yadav), followed the People’s Movement II (Jana Andolan II) and the end of the monarchy. Madhesi parties launched mass protests demanding federalism, proportional inclusion, and recognition of Madhesi identity.

These protests turned violent in some areas and gained significant traction in the Tarai, as the Madhesi population voiced their frustration with the marginalization they faced. The United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) was formed during this time, bringing together key leaders like Mahantha Thakur (Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party), Rajendra Mahato (Sadbhawana Party), and Upendra Yadav.

Their combined pressure led to the 8-point agreement with the government in February 2008, which acknowledged the demands for an autonomous Madhes province and proportional inclusion of Madhesi people in government structures.

In the 2008 Constituent Assembly election, Madhesi parties performed strongly, marking a significant milestone. The three main Madhesi parties—Forum Nepal, TMLP, and Sadbhawana—together won around 80 seats out of 601, a remarkable achievement for newly formed political groups.

This success allowed them to enter coalition governments and influence the constitution-making process. However, despite their initial success, personal rivalries, lack of internal democracy, and a tendency to prioritize power over policy led to splits within the Madhesi parties. The unity they once enjoyed gradually fractured, and they struggled to maintain a consistent connection with their voter base beyond slogans of identity and inclusion.

Nevertheless, the influence of Madhesi parties reshaped Nepal’s political dialogue around federalism, identity, and minority rights. The Madhesi movement has ensured that the voices of marginalized groups, particularly those from the southern plains, are no longer entirely sidelined.

While the Madhesi parties have faced challenges in maintaining unity and political coherence over time, their role in shaping the political discourse in Nepal remains significant. The current Federal Democratic Front can be seen as a continuation of that legacy, though tempered by years of fragmentation and setbacks.

This alliance seeks to revive the momentum of the Madhes movement, hoping to overcome the internal divisions that have hindered past efforts and advance the causes of federalism and inclusion in Nepal’s future political landscape.

How did splits and mergers affect the strength of Madhesi parties after the first Constituent Assembly?

The first Constituent Assembly (CA), elected in 2008, was a high point for Madhesi parties. However, the years that followed were marked by repeated splits, mergers, and political opportunism, which significantly eroded their influence.

Initially, Madhesi parties were united under the United Democratic Madhesi Front, a powerful coalition that had the ability to shape government formation. But after entering various coalition governments, ideological unity gave way to competition over ministries and electoral prospects, leading to internal fragmentation.

Some of the major shifts that weakened the Madhesi parties include the fragmentation of Upendra Yadav’s Forum Nepal, which splintered into multiple groups, including Forum Democratic (led by Vijay Gachhadar), and Forum Republican (led by JP Gupta). Similarly, TMLP under Mahantha Thakur broke into several factions, some of which later merged to form the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal (RJPN) in 2017. The Sadbhawana Party, once a unified voice for Madhes, also experienced repeated splits, with key figures like Rajendra Mahato, Anil Jha, and others leading separate factions.

After the failure of the first Constituent Assembly to deliver a constitution, the Madhesi movement lost much of its momentum. The second CA election in 2013 dealt a significant blow to Madhesi parties, who failed to replicate their 2008 performance.

In contrast, the UML and NC gained strength, pushing Madhesi parties to the periphery of national politics. Even after the promulgation of the 2015 constitution, which sparked another round of protests and the infamous blockade, Madhesi parties were unable to form a lasting united front. Some joined provincial governments, others focused on ethnic alliances, while some sought to become broader national parties by dropping the “Madhes” from their names.

This fragmentation cost the Madhesi parties dearly in the 2017 and 2022 elections, with their parliamentary presence shrinking drastically. The Federal Democratic Front now attempts to reverse this trend by reuniting once-divided leaders under a common platform.

The goal is to recapture the influence that Madhesi parties once held and push for their core demands, including identity-based federalism, proportional inclusion, and greater political representation. Whether this alliance can overcome the historical divisions and forge a more unified political force remains uncertain, but the Federal Democratic Front represents the latest effort to reclaim the Madhesi movement’s momentum.

What was the Lal Commission and why is the Federal Democratic Front demanding its report be made public?

The Lal Commission refers to the High-Level Inquiry Commission on Human Rights Violations during the Madhes and Tharu Movements, which was formed in 2016 under the leadership of former Supreme Court Justice Girish Chandra Lal.

The commission was established by the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led government in response to widespread protests and violence that erupted following the promulgation of the 2015 constitution, particularly in the Madhes and Tharuhat regions. The 2015 constitution sparked fierce opposition from Madhesi and Tharu groups, who felt it marginalized their identities and undermined promises of inclusive federalism.

The protests that followed, especially in districts like Saptari, Rautahat, Kailali, and Bara, resulted in more than 60 deaths, most of which were caused by police action. The most infamous incident was the Tikapur massacre, in which eight police officers and a two-year-old child were killed during violent clashes with protesters.

The Lal Commission was tasked with investigating several key issues: the causes and context of the protests, allegations of human rights violations by state security forces, incidents of violence by protestors, and providing recommendations for reconciliation and justice.

The commission reportedly submitted its final report to the government in December 2017. However, no administration since then—whether led by the Nepali Congress (NC), Communist Party of Nepal (UML), or Maoist Centre—has made the report public. This secrecy has fueled suspicions that the report contains evidence of state excesses, extrajudicial killings, and politically sensitive findings that may implicate powerful figures in government.

The Federal Democratic Front has made the public release of the Lal Commission report a central demand, framing it as a necessary step toward justice for the families of those killed and injured during the protests. For Madhesi and Tharu communities, the report holds symbolic value, representing long-denied recognition of their suffering and serving as a litmus test for the state’s commitment to transitional justice.

More broadly, the suppression of the report feeds into a narrative of Kathmandu-centric governance that disregards the voices of peripheral communities. The Front argues that Nepal cannot build a truly federal and inclusive democracy without first acknowledging the human rights abuses of the past and holding those responsible accountable.

By raising the issue of the Lal Commission, the Federal Democratic Front not only seeks justice for the victims but also aims to rebuild political legitimacy among communities who feel that their past sacrifices have been ignored or deliberately erased from national memory. The demand for the report’s release highlights the ongoing struggle for recognition and justice for marginalized groups in Nepal, emphasizing the need for accountability in the country’s efforts toward federalism and inclusivity.

What is the alliance’s position on proportional representation and electoral reform?

A major rallying cry of the Federal Democratic Front is the defense and expansion of proportional representation (PR) in Nepal’s electoral system. The alliance is deeply concerned by recent discussions—primarily led by major parties like the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML—about amending the constitution to raise the electoral threshold for proportional representation and possibly even curtail the PR system itself.

Currently, Nepal uses a mixed electoral system: 60% of members in the federal parliament are elected through first-past-the-post (FPTP), and 40% through proportional representation. PR is based on party lists and is designed to ensure the representation of marginalized groups, including women, Madhesis, Dalits, Janajatis, Muslims, and other historically underrepresented populations.

The Front strongly opposes any reduction in the PR system. Their position is that the PR mechanism is not a luxury but a necessity in a diverse and multi-ethnic society like Nepal. Any move to diminish it would not only erode democratic inclusion but also directly harm the political survival of smaller and regional parties, most of which rely on the PR system to gain representation.

In particular, the alliance rejects proposals to raise the threshold (the minimum percentage of votes a party must obtain to be eligible for PR seats), currently set at 3% for federal elections. Raising this to 5% or more, as suggested by some UML leaders, would eliminate many small parties from parliament. The Front demands that the inclusion quotas under the PR system be strengthened, ensuring adequate representation of marginalized communities—not just symbolic seats.

The alliance also advocates for reform of the FPTP system, which they claim is structurally biased against parties that don’t have wide national coverage, even if they have deep regional support. This issue gained urgency after the 2022 general election, in which many of the Front’s constituent parties failed to win in FPTP races but secured PR seats.

For instance, CK Raut’s Janamat Party gained entry into parliament primarily through proportional representation, as Raut was the only candidate from his party to secure a victory under the FPTP system. Without PR, these parties could be effectively shut out of the federal process.

Thus, defending PR is not just ideological—it’s existential for the Federal Democratic Front. They view it as a safeguard for identity-based politics, regional voices, and inclusion in governance.

The Front argues that any tampering with the PR system would further centralize power among the big three parties and push Nepal toward a majoritarian, exclusionary democracy. For the Front, the continued existence of the PR system is vital for ensuring that marginalized groups and regional interests are adequately represented in the national political arena.

How do the leaders of the Front differ in ideology and background, and what unites them?

The seven leaders behind the Federal Democratic Front (FDF) come from diverse political backgrounds, with their parties often being fierce rivals in past elections. However, despite these historical differences, they are united by a shared commitment to identity-based federalism, constitutional reform, and inclusion—at least rhetorically. What has brought these leaders together is not ideological alignment but political necessity and strategic interests, as each party has faced its own set of challenges in maintaining relevance in Nepal’s ever-evolving political landscape.

Dr. CK Raut, leader of the Janamat Party, exemplifies a dramatic shift in political stance. Once a secessionist advocating for an independent Madhes, Raut renounced separatism in 2019 and re-entered the mainstream political fold. His party, which appeals to young, disillusioned Madhesis, performed surprisingly well in the 2022 elections. Raut’s shift from advocating independence to seeking change within the framework of Nepal’s constitution demonstrates his ability to adapt to the changing political dynamics of the Madhes region.

Upendra Yadav, leader of the Janata Samajwadi Party-Nepal (JSP-N), is a seasoned politician with a long history in Madhesi politics. Once the face of the Madhes Movement and a former deputy prime minister, Yadav’s party has seen a decline in recent years, but still retains influence, particularly in the eastern Tarai. His experience and clout in shaping Madhesi politics make him a significant figure in the alliance, even as his party seeks cooperation with others to regain lost ground.

Mahantha Thakur, leader of the Loktantrik Samajwadi Party, is another veteran of the Madhesi political scene. Having previously led the Tarai Madhesh Loktantrik Party and the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal (RJPN), Thakur is known for his calm, legalistic approach to politics. He is seen as a patriarch of the Madhesi political movement, with his respected negotiation skills and experience in navigating the complexities of Madhesi politics making him a valued leader within the FDF.

Ranjita Shrestha, leader of the Nagarik Unmukti Party, represents the growing political importance of the Tharu community in Nepal. Emerging from the Tharu rights movement, Shrestha advocates for Tharu identity, land rights, and transitional justice. Her leadership reflects the increasing influence of the Tharu community in the Tarai and national politics, a group that has long been marginalized.

Rajendra Mahato, leader of the Rastriya Mukti Party, is a firebrand speaker and longtime Madhesi nationalist. Known for his aggressive rhetoric and history of forming new political outfits, Mahato’s unrelenting stance on Madhesi rights and his ability to mobilize support through passionate speeches have made him a key figure in Madhesi politics.

Hridayesh Tripathi, leader of the Janata Pragatisheel Party, is a former Maoist and federalist who plays the role of a mediator among the various Madhesi factions. Tripathi was instrumental in initiating the talks that led to the formation of the FDF. His ability to bridge divisions within the Madhesi community and unite different factions is one of his key strengths, making him a vital leader in the alliance.

Brisesh Chandra Lal, leader of the Terai Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP), is a lesser-known figure on the national stage, representing old-school Madhesi conservatism. While his party’s influence is more limited, particularly in certain areas of the Madhes, his support base continues to play a crucial role in the FDF’s efforts to consolidate regional power.

Despite their ideological differences, what binds these leaders together is a sense of political urgency. The fear of being sidelined in future parliaments due to electoral reforms, the common grievance over the imposition of the 2015 constitution without adequate consultation, and the shared belief that collective bargaining is the only way to restore their political relevance are the key factors uniting them. Although each leader’s party has a narrow support base, together they form a critical mass, particularly in Madhes Province and parts of Lumbini and Koshi. This convergence of political expediency, shared historical grievances, and the pursuit of political leverage is what has made the formation of the Federal Democratic Front possible, even if it is more a tactical alliance than a purely ideological one.

What role has Hridayesh Tripathi played in forming the Federal Democratic Front?

Hridayesh Tripathi, leader of the Janata Pragatisheel Party, is widely credited as the architect of the Federal Democratic Front. Known for his pragmatism and negotiation skills, Tripathi has long served as a bridge between different factions of Nepal’s federalist and Madhes-based political actors.

His involvement in the formation of the alliance began in earnest in 2024, when he recognized the collective decline of Madhes-based and regional parties after the 2022 elections and the growing influence of larger national parties. Realizing the urgent need for unity, Tripathi began advocating for a “loose alliance” as a strategic step to ensure the survival and relevance of smaller, regionally focused parties.

Key moves Tripathi made include forming a three-member task force within his party to explore the viability of a united front, and personally engaging with leaders like Upendra Yadav, CK Raut, and Mahantha Thakur. He encouraged them to set aside past rivalries and work toward common goals. One of Tripathi’s key strategies was to frame the alliance not as a rigid electoral merger, but as a coordinating platform that would focus on shared demands such as constitutional amendment, justice, and development in the Madhes region. This approach allowed for a more flexible and pragmatic cooperation, making the alliance more appealing to parties that might have been hesitant about a formal merger.

Tripathi’s role is especially important because he has a reputation for moderation and inclusivity. Unlike some other leaders whose parties are heavily identity-based, Tripathi appeals to a broader federalist constituency, which includes Tharus, Muslims, and even Pahadi migrants living in the Madhes. His ability to reach across these diverse groups has made him a key figure in bridging gaps between communities that have historically been divided by ethnicity, identity, and regionalism.

Although his own party is relatively small, Tripathi’s stature and credibility have helped stabilize the fragile coalition. His leadership is seen as a stabilizing force, particularly in guiding the alliance through difficult processes such as seat-sharing negotiations and joint public mobilizations. His efforts have been central to preventing further fragmentation and ensuring that the Front can present a united front in future elections.

In short, Tripathi has become the glue holding together a fragmented movement. His ability to negotiate, mediate, and appeal to a wide range of constituencies has allowed him to play a pivotal role in the formation and survival of the Federal Democratic Front. Whether he can sustain this role over the long term remains to be seen, but for now, his efforts have revived hopes of a more unified regional political force in Nepal.

How does the Federal Democratic Front interpret the 2015 Constitution, and what amendments are they proposing?

The Federal Democratic Front (FDF) has several key criticisms of the 2015 Constitution of Nepal, which they view as a compromise that fell short of achieving true inclusion and justice for marginalized communities, especially Madhesis, Tharus, Janajatis, and other regional groups. One of the main criticisms revolves around the discriminatory federal boundaries.

The FDF argues that the provincial demarcation process was politically manipulated to weaken the demographic and political power of Madhesi and Tharu populations. They demand a restructuring of provincial boundaries, particularly in Koshi Province, Madhes) Province, and Lumbini) Province, to better reflect the identity and political strength of these communities.

Another significant issue raised by the FDF is the citizenship provisions in the constitution, which they view as discriminatory, especially against women. Madhesi communities, who often have cross-border marriages, face lengthy and unequal processes for women to confer citizenship to their children and spouses. The FDF calls for reforms to ensure gender equality in the citizenship process, making it more inclusive and equitable for all Nepali citizens.

Additionally, the FDF highlights the issue of underrepresentation in state institutions, noting that despite constitutional provisions for inclusion, key institutions such as the civil service, judiciary, police, and military are still predominantly controlled by hill upper-caste groups. This imbalance, according to the FDF, prevents true social and political equity.

They advocate for full implementation of inclusive representation across all state organs, not just in the legislature, to ensure fair participation of marginalized groups in governance.

The FDF also critiques the constitution for its failure to promote language and cultural rights. While Nepali is recognized as the official language, the constitution does not adequately support Madhesi and indigenous languages in governance, education, and public life. The FDF calls for official recognition of regional languages and their promotion in all areas of governance, education, and public life to preserve Nepal’s diverse cultural heritage.

In response to these criticisms, the FDF has proposed several key constitutional amendments. First, they demand a re-demarcation of federal provinces based on identity, historical context, and demographic realities to ensure that marginalized communities are not excluded from the governance process. They also call for the full implementation of proportional representation in all state organs, not just the legislature, to ensure that historically underrepresented groups have a voice in all spheres of governance.

The FDF further calls for citizenship reforms that guarantee gender equality and allow women to confer citizenship to their children and spouses on an equal basis with men. They also demand official recognition and promotion of regional languages in governance and education, which they see as essential for the cultural preservation of Nepal’s diverse communities.

Lastly, the FDF advocates for the decentralization of power and resources to provincial and local levels, ensuring that these regions have more control over their own development and governance, which would provide more meaningful federal autonomy.

What is the strategic importance of the Tarai-Madhes region in Nepali politics, and how does the Front aim to leverage it?

The Tarai-Madhes region, stretching along Nepal’s southern plains, is not only geographically significant but also politically and economically vital. It is home to more than 50% of the country’s population and holds enormous strategic importance. Historically underrepresented and marginalized in Kathmandu-centric governance, the Madhes has long been a hotbed of political activism and a key player in shaping Nepal’s political landscape.

One of the region’s primary strategic attributes is its electoral weight. The Madhes contributes a significant share of the 165 FPTP seats in Nepal’s federal parliament, particularly in Koshi, Madhes, and Lumbini Provinces. Districts like Dhanusha, Saptari, Rautahat, Bara, and Parsa are considered bellwethers in national elections, making them crucial for any political alliance or party aiming to achieve electoral success. This representation is vital, as it determines much of the political influence in federal decision-making.

Another key factor is the region’s proximity to India. Sharing a long open border with India, the Madhes has deep cultural, familial, and economic ties across the border. This geographical and cultural connection gives Madhesi parties significant geopolitical relevance, especially in the context of Nepal-India relations. The Madhes is not only crucial for trade but also for Nepal’s diplomatic positioning in the region.

Economically, the Madhes serves as the country’s agricultural backbone. The region is home to vast agricultural lands, and it hosts essential trade routes, including major customs points like Birgunj, Bhairahawa, and Biratnagar. These points are critical for Nepal’s import-driven economy, making the Madhes an economic lifeline. Despite its vital role, Madhesi leaders argue that development in the region has lagged behind, with the area being treated more as a resource extraction zone than as a political equal. This economic disparity has fueled the demands for greater representation and equitable development.

To address these issues, the Federal Democratic Front (FDF) is leveraging the region’s strategic weight to pressure Kathmandu-based parties for reforms. The alliance’s strategies include coordinated political campaigns across Madhes districts, focusing on key electoral constituencies. The FDF is also pushing for joint demands for infrastructure projects, such as the Hulaki Highway, the Tarai-Madhes Infrastructure Development Programme, and various irrigation schemes to boost the region’s agricultural potential.

Additionally, the FDF is mobilizing identity politics based on the region’s linguistic, cultural, and historical narratives. By framing these issues in a way that challenges the national elites, the FDF aims to create a strong sense of regional unity and empowerment. Furthermore, the alliance is working towards negotiating power-sharing deals in future coalition governments, positioning themselves as a unified regional bloc that can bargain effectively for political concessions.

Ultimately, the FDF hopes to transform the Madhes’s demographic and economic strength into tangible political power. Instead of remaining fragmented, the alliance seeks to present the region as a cohesive federalist force, advocating for its rights and ensuring that Madhesi voices are heard and represented at the highest levels of government.

What are the 26 demands or objectives put forward by the Federal Democratic Front?

Upon its announcement on April 3, 2025, the Federal Democratic Front (FDF) issued a comprehensive 26-point declaration outlining its broad political, economic, and social objectives. These demands reflect the alliance’s focus on achieving deep structural reforms aimed at addressing historical grievances and ensuring the inclusion of marginalized communities in Nepal’s political and governance systems. Though the full details of each demand have not been publicly disclosed, several key points have emerged from their statements and media reports.

A central demand of the FDF is the amendment of the Constitution to make it more inclusive and identity-sensitive. This includes addressing provisions that, according to the Front, marginalize communities like Madhesis, Tharus, and other ethnic minorities. The FDF insists on the implementation of federalism in both spirit and practice, going beyond symbolic decentralization to ensure that federal structures genuinely empower local communities and regions.

Another core demand is the re-demarcation of provincial boundaries to better reflect the identity and demographic realities of the population, ensuring that the regions are politically and administratively more aligned with the lived realities of local communities. Similarly, the FDF advocates for full proportional representation in all state organs, including the legislature, judiciary, and bureaucracy, to guarantee equitable participation of all groups in decision-making processes.

The release of the Lal Commission report, which investigates human rights violations during the Madhes and Tharuhat movements, is a crucial demand. The FDF insists on the immediate release of this report to ensure justice for those who suffered during the 2015-2016 protests, which saw violent police crackdowns and the deaths of many protesters. The alliance also calls for a thorough investigation and accountability for the human rights violations committed during this period.

Further, the FDF calls for the completion of national infrastructure projects, such as the Hulaki Highway, which is crucial for improving connectivity and economic development in the plains. They also demand the full implementation of the Tarai-Madhes Infrastructure Development Programme to address the region’s infrastructural and developmental needs, as well as population-based budget allocations that use human development indicators to ensure more equitable distribution of state resources.

Third, Raut is building alliances to gain leverage in policymaking. In the 2022 elections, Janamat managed to win several proportional representations (PR) and provincial seats but lacked the numbers to push through its agenda effectively. By joining the FDF, Raut gains a platform for collective bargaining, where his party can influence policy and gain support for its causes through coalition politics.

The FDF also emphasizes the need for citizenship reforms to ensure gender equity and non-discrimination, ensuring that all citizens, particularly women, have equal access to rights and opportunities. This is coupled with a call for language rights, demanding the recognition and use of local languages in public administration and education systems to ensure the linguistic rights of marginalized communities.

On the economic front, the FDF advocates for land reforms to protect the rights of landless Madhesis, Tharus, and Dalits, as well as protection of farmers’ rights, particularly in securing fair prices for agricultural produce. They also call for employment generation through regional industries and an emphasis on agro-economy, aiming to boost local economies and provide sustainable livelihoods in the Tarai.

Addressing social issues, the FDF seeks reform in public education and health systems, particularly in the plains, to bridge the disparities that have long existed between the regions. They also demand special development packages for backward areas, such as the far-western Tarai, to bring them up to speed with the rest of the country.

In terms of governance, the FDF emphasizes the need to end corruption, reduce the influence of middlemen, and strengthen law enforcement, particularly in provinces where security challenges exist. They also call for autonomous governance at the local level to reduce central interference and empower local units to address their unique challenges.

Finally, the FDF highlights the recognition and protection of local cultures and traditions, with particular focus on the Tharu and Madhesi identities in national symbols and narratives. They also seek to bolster disaster response mechanisms, particularly in flood and drought-prone areas, and advocate for empowerment of women and minorities through legal reforms that guarantee their participation and rights.

How are the Janamat Party and CK Raut repositioning their politics through the alliance?

Dr. CK Raut, once known as a controversial separatist who advocated for an independent Madhes, has experienced a significant political transformation. Since reaching a deal with the government in 2019 and establishing the Janamat Party, Raut has repositioned himself as a reformist democrat. His new focus is on inclusion, good governance, and identity-based rights within the context of Nepal’s federal structure. By joining the Federal Democratic Front (FDF), the Janamat Party is signaling several key strategic shifts.

First, Raut’s shift from outsider to insider within the political system is notable. His participation in the multi-party coalition is a clear signal that he now accepts Nepal’s territorial integrity and constitutional framework, even as he continues to push for substantial reforms. This move marks a departure from his earlier stance and suggests a more pragmatic approach to achieving his goals within the existing political structure.

This intersection of federalism and identity forms the ideological glue that binds the Front, positioning federalism not just as administrative restructuring but as a vehicle for justice, representation, and dignity for historically excluded communities.

Second, Raut’s political agenda has expanded significantly. While Janamat once focused primarily on the identity and rights of the Madhesi community, it now speaks to a broader set of issues, including education reform, economic justice, corruption, and transitional justice. This broader agenda reflects a shift towards a more inclusive approach, targeting a wider range of social, economic, and political concerns.

Third, Raut is building alliances to gain leverage in policymaking. In the 2022 elections, Janamat managed to win several proportional representations (PR) and provincial seats but lacked the numbers to push through its agenda effectively. By joining the FDF, Raut gains a platform for collective bargaining, where his party can influence policy and gain support for its causes through coalition politics.

Another key strategic move is Janamat’s focus on targeting the youth vote. The party has found strong appeal among young Madhesis, especially first-time voters who are disillusioned with traditional leadership. The alliance, if framed as a fresh and dynamic alternative to the status quo, could help consolidate this demographic, which is crucial for the future of regional politics in Nepal.

Raut is also working on rehabilitating his image through collaboration. His participation in the Front helps to distance him from his past separatist ideology and reframe him as a more mainstream politician. By sharing platforms with leaders like Upendra Yadav and Hridayesh Tripathi, Raut gains legitimacy and credibility, shedding the doubts surrounding his previous political stance.

Finally, the alliance strengthens Janamat’s provincial presence, particularly in Madhes Province, where the party has emerged as a rising force. Through alliance politics, Janamat is likely to enhance its electoral base across key districts such as Saptari, Siraha, and Dhanusha, positioning itself as a major political player in the region.

For CK Raut, the Federal Democratic Front is more than just a political coalition—it is a transformative vehicle. It allows him to rebrand himself as a statesman and political leader, while still championing the causes of his original movement within a broader, more inclusive political framework.

What challenges does the Federal Democratic Front face internally?

While the formation of the Federal Democratic Front (FDF) represents a significant political development, the alliance faces several internal challenges that could jeopardize its longevity. These issues include leadership rivalries, electoral competition, ideological inconsistencies, and external pressures.

One of the primary obstacles within the FDF is leadership rivalries. The alliance is composed of multiple seasoned politicians, including Upendra Yadav, Mahantha Thakur, Rajendra Mahato, and CK Raut, each with their own strong personalities and historical conflicts. The competition for power-sharing, decision-making authority, and the leadership role within the alliance could lead to significant internal rifts, weakening the unity of the Front.

Another challenge stems from the overlap in electoral bases. Several parties in the alliance, such as the Janata Samajwadi Party Nepal (JSP Nepal), Loktantrik Samajwadi Party (LSP), Janamat Party, and the Terai Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP), compete for votes in the same districts. For instance, CK Raut and Upendra Yadav ran against each other in the 2022 general elections from the Saptari-2 constituency.

Without a clear seat-sharing arrangement, there is a real risk of vote cannibalization, which could split the regional vote and inadvertently benefit larger national parties.

Ideologically, the FDF faces significant challenges in creating a coherent platform. The alliance includes a mix of former royalists, ex-Maoists, social conservatives, federalists, and former separatists, making it difficult to harmonize their diverse political ideologies. Crafting a unified ideological stance will be a complex task, as the coalition must reconcile often opposing views on issues like governance, federalism, and identity politics.

Resource imbalances within the alliance also present a potential source of tension. Some parties in the FDF have more financial and organizational resources than others, which could breed resentment and exacerbate internal divisions. Smaller parties may feel marginalized or left behind, leading to dissatisfaction and weakening the cohesion of the alliance.

External co-optation by larger national parties is another potential risk for the FDF. The Nepali Congress (NC), Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), and the Maoist Centre may attempt to woo individual leaders within the alliance by offering ministerial positions or other political perks, undermining the collective discipline of the FDF and causing fragmentation within the alliance.

Public skepticism also poses a significant challenge. Many voters may view the FDF as a tactical coalition formed for electoral advantage rather than a genuine movement for meaningful political change. The disintegration of previous regional alliances, such as the Rashtriya Janata Party Nepal (RJPN), fuels this doubt, as past alliances have failed to maintain unity and achieve long-term goals.

Furthermore, the Kathmandu media establishment has often been dismissive of regional alliances, and the FDF may struggle to control the national narrative. The media’s portrayal of the alliance could affect its credibility and influence, especially if it is seen as a fragmented, opportunistic grouping rather than a legitimate force for change.

Despite these significant hurdles, the FDF remains optimistic that its shared grievances and urgent stakes—particularly constitutional reform and electoral survival—can serve as a binding force that will hold the alliance together, at least through the next election cycle. The ability to overcome these internal challenges and present a united front could determine the Front’s success in the political landscape of Nepal.

How does the Federal Democratic Front plan to influence upcoming elections?

The Federal Democratic Front (FDF) sees elections—whether local, provincial, or federal—as crucial battlegrounds for legitimizing its agenda, gaining political leverage, and challenging the dominance of Kathmandu-centric politics. With Nepal’s next election cycle expected in the near future (2027), the FDF’s leaders are already strategizing to make a strong impact.

A central challenge is crafting a coordinated seat-sharing arrangement to avoid vote-splitting among the alliance partners, particularly in the First Past the Post (FPTP) system, where fragmented Madhesi votes have historically benefited larger national parties. To address this, the FDF is currently working on constituency mapping and creating negotiation mechanisms to streamline their electoral strategy.

The Front also aims to present a unified front through the development of a common manifesto, which will focus on regional development, identity recognition, constitutional amendments, citizenship reforms, and better governance. This manifesto will serve as a clear public statement of unity and purpose. Additionally, the FDF is rebranding identity politics, shifting from a grievance-based narrative to one focused on constructive federalism. This approach promises tangible improvements in infrastructure, employment, and social inclusion for marginalized communities.

Strategically, the FDF is targeting swing constituencies, particularly in Madhes Province and eastern Lumbini, where electoral margins have historically been tight. By concentrating their campaign efforts in these areas, the Front hopes to unify their candidacies and secure critical votes. They are also placing a strong emphasis on mobilizing young and first-time voters, particularly through digital campaigns, student wings, and grassroots networks, leveraging the appeal of parties like Janamat and NUP among this demographic.

In the event of a hung parliament, the FDF aims to increase its bargaining power, positioning itself as a potential kingmaker in the formation of coalition governments. This would allow the alliance to extract policy concessions and secure ministerial positions. Finally, the FDF sees provincial governments, especially those in Madhes and Lumbini, as essential arenas for defending and expanding federalism. Gaining control in these provinces would not only allow the Front to showcase its governance abilities but also provide a platform for implementing development models based on its core principles. Through these strategies, the FDF is positioning itself as a decisive force in Nepal’s evolving political landscape.

How do federalism and identity politics intersect in the Front’s platform?

The Federal Democratic Front is built upon the ideological intersection of federalism and identity politics, particularly concerning historically marginalized communities in the Tarai-Madhes, Tharuhat, and eastern hill regions. For the Front, federalism is not merely a form of governance; it is a tool for correcting historical exclusions based on caste, ethnicity, region, and language.

The Front’s interpretation of federalism emphasizes decentralization of power, advocating for real, meaningful devolution rather than symbolic provincial legislatures. They call for strong provincial governments with full fiscal, legislative, and administrative authority.

The FDF also supports resource-based justice, arguing for budget allocations that reflect population size, development needs, and human development indices. They oppose the current system, where underpopulated hill districts receive disproportionate resources. Furthermore, the alliance insists that federalism must recognize distinct cultural, historical, and linguistic identities. This includes the official use of local languages in provincial governance and education.

Regarding identity politics, the Front views it not as a divisive force but as an emancipatory one—aimed at reclaiming dignity, access, and power for groups historically sidelined by Nepal’s unitary, hill-centric state. While Madhesi identity, encompassing linguistic, cultural, and political distinctions, is central to the Front’s agenda, other identities—such as those of the Tharu, Muslim, Tamang, Dalit, and Janajati communities—are also prioritized. The alliance seeks to protect community-specific customs and institutions, such as land tenure systems among the Tharus and religious practices of the Muslim minority, from homogenizing national policies.

If successful, the Front could become a pillar of democratic progress. But if it falters, it risks exacerbating voter cynicism about identity politics and further fragmenting the political environment. Ultimately, the Federal Democratic Front is not just a political coalition; it represents a test of Nepal’s commitment to pluralism, inclusion, and the true promise of federal democracy.

This intersection of federalism and identity forms the ideological glue that binds the Front, positioning federalism not just as administrative restructuring but as a vehicle for justice, representation, and dignity for historically excluded communities.

What role does the Lal Commission report play in the Front’s demands?

The Lal Commission report has become a key flashpoint in the Federal Democratic Front’s (FDF) platform. Established in 2016, the Commission was tasked with investigating the human rights violations that occurred during the Madhes Movement and the broader protests surrounding the promulgation of Nepal’s 2015 Constitution. Despite the significance of the report, it remains unreleased to the public, fueling ongoing frustration among Madhesi and Tharu activists.

The protests of 2015–16 resulted in the deaths of dozens of protesters, many of whom were young Madhesi and Tharu individuals, killed in violent police crackdowns across districts such as Saptari, Rautahat, and Tikapur. The Lal Commission, headed by Girish Chandra Lal, a former Supreme Court justice, was expected to bring justice and closure to the victims’ families and affected communities. However, successive governments have suppressed the findings of the report, leaving many to question the state’s commitment to accountability.

For the FDF, the demand for the immediate public release of the Lal Commission report is not only a call for justice but also a fundamental step toward reconciliation. The alliance frames the suppression of the report as emblematic of the ongoing state impunity and the marginalization of Madhesi and Tharu grievances, reflecting broader issues within Nepal’s political system. The FDF also calls for the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations, which are reported to include prosecutions of those responsible for the violence, reparations for the victims, and comprehensive reform within the police force.

For the Front, the Lal Commission report symbolizes a deeper constitutional betrayal—a promise of justice made but never delivered. The public release of the report would not only serve to honor the memory of the victims but also help restore public trust in Nepal’s transitional justice mechanisms, which are seen by many as compromised and ineffective. In this context, the FDF’s stance on the report is both a demand for truth and a symbol of its broader agenda for accountability and justice.

How has India responded to the formation of the Federal Democratic Front?

As of now, India has not issued an official statement on the formation of the Federal Democratic Front (FDF), but the emergence of the alliance is undoubtedly being closely observed in New Delhi, given the geopolitical, cultural, and economic ties between India and Nepal’s Madhes region.

India has traditionally maintained strong connections with Madhesi leaders, largely due to cross-border cultural affiliations and New Delhi’s past involvement during the 2015–16 blockade and constitutional crisis, when India expressed dissatisfaction over the exclusion of Madhesis and other marginalized groups in Nepal’s newly promulgated constitution.

Several leaders within the Front, including Upendra Yadav, Rajendra Mahato, and Mahantha Thakur have longstanding relationships with Indian political figures which further deepens the connection between India and the Madhesi political sphere.

India’s possible perspectives on the Federal Democratic Front range from cautious optimism to strategic concern. On the one hand, India may view the Front as a moderating force capable of pressuring Kathmandu to fulfill the constitutional promises made to marginalized communities, while working within Nepal’s democratic framework. Additionally, a unified Madhesi bloc could enhance India’s diplomatic leverage in Nepal, providing a political counterbalance to hill-majority parties that may be more inclined toward China or assertive nationalism.

However, India may also be wary of the Front’s potential fragmentation. Madhesi coalitions have historically struggled to maintain unity, and India may fear that this alliance could dissolve like its predecessors. Thus, India is likely to adopt a cautious, wait-and-see approach, quietly monitoring the alliance’s cohesion, electoral performance, and stance on foreign policy matters. This includes issues like border management, trade routes, and infrastructure development along the Tarai region, areas of direct concern to both Nepal and India.

What is the broader national reaction to the formation of the Front?

The emergence of the Federal Democratic Front (FDF) has sparked mixed reactions across Nepal’s political and civil society landscape. On the positive side, marginalized communities and activists have welcomed the formation of the Front as a necessary consolidation of regional voices.

For these groups, the alliance represents a renewed push for federalism that goes beyond symbolic decentralization, aiming to bring real change to governance structures. Some sections of the media and academia also see the Front as a potential corrective force, offering a challenge to the dominance of national parties that have failed to deliver on their promises of inclusion and development.

On the other hand, skepticism and criticism from the mainstream national parties, especially the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML, are palpable, though these parties have largely remained silent in public. However, party insiders have privately criticized the FDF, viewing it as a tactical grouping of self-interested leaders seeking to gain bargaining power rather than a genuine movement for change. Some political analysts caution that unless the Front can demonstrate internal discipline and coherence, it risks becoming just another fleeting Madhesi alliance, like the dissolved RJPN.

Additionally, nationalist commentators have raised concerns about potential “ethnic polarization” and foreign meddling, evoking fears similar to those that arose during the 2015 blockade period. Civil society organizations have cautiously engaged with the Front, endorsing its call for the release of the Lal Commission report and greater inclusion. However, they have also urged the alliance to adopt transparent internal democratic practices, ensuring that it remains accountable to its constituencies.

What is the potential long-term impact of the Federal Democratic Front on Nepali politics?

If sustained, the Federal Democratic Front (FDF) could significantly reshape Nepal’s political landscape in several ways. One of the key impacts could be the revival of inclusive federalism, with the Front bringing renewed attention to the unfinished business of federal restructuring.

This would challenge the complacency of national parties that treat federalism merely as a formality, pushing for a more genuine implementation. Additionally, the success of the Front could lead to an electoral realignment, consolidating the voices of marginalized communities such as the Madhesi and Tharu into a powerful third force within Nepali politics.

The FDF’s pressure could also bring about much-needed reforms in state institutions, particularly within the bureaucracy, judiciary, and police, with a focus on proportional inclusion and representation. Furthermore, the Front’s success could act as a catalyst for broader coalitions, potentially encouraging other regional and identity-based groups—such as those from Limbuwan, Magarat, and Tamuwan—to form similar alliances. This could lead to a more pluralistic power structure, reflecting a wider array of identities and interests.

On the international front, the FDF’s growth and stability could strengthen Nepal’s regional diplomacy, particularly by mitigating the volatility in Nepal–India relations often triggered by Madhesi discontent. However, the future of the FDF could also lead to either democratic deepening or further fragmentation, depending on its ability to maintain unity, internal democracy, and ideological coherence.

If successful, the Front could become a pillar of democratic progress. But if it falters, it risks exacerbating voter cynicism about identity politics and further fragmenting the political environment. Ultimately, the Federal Democratic Front is not just a political coalition; it represents a test of Nepal’s commitment to pluralism, inclusion, and the true promise of federal democracy.