Nepal has seen an increase in identity mobilization, including violent activities. Activities that often began as cultural promotion undertakings in the 1980s became more assertive after 1990, with ethnic organizations demanding socio-political rights, autonomy and even secession after the turn of the century. At the time of writing this chapter in early 2011, many organizations are engaged in peaceful protest activities while others are active in armed conflict. A Limbu outfit declared independence in 2008 while some armed Madhesi organizations demand secession. A major reason for the mobilization of the traditionally excluded groups

like the Dalit, indigenous nationalities and Madhesi is their perception that without mobilization their problems would not be addressed by the state under the control of the dominant group, caste hill Hindu elite (CHHE). The events in the past two decades and Nepali history in general are the basis of their largely correct perception. The state began to address the marginalized groups major problems and grievances only when the groups began to mobilize. Prior to their mobilization, the state controlled by the CHHE had in fact adopted laws and policies that discriminated against them (Hofer 2004; Lawoti 2010b; Levine 1987). The Nepali experience is not much different than the history of empower-

ment of marginalized groups around the world. Groups that mobilized have been able to receive some concessions, especially in open electoral democracies. However, mobilization is not easy, as the collective action problem attests. Mobilization takes time and resources, and there are risks of sanctions and threats. For a rational human being, it is more beneficial if others engage in the costly collective actions because they can generally access the benefits when public concessions are obtained. Hence many people are unwilling to participate in collective actions and as a result collective actions are difficult to launch and sustain (Olson 1971). How have the Dalit, indigenous nationalities and Madhesi overcome the col-

lective action challenges? What factors contributed in overcoming the mobilization challenges? Why have these different groups mobilized in different ways

and to different extents? What have been the outcomes of the varied forms of mobilization and why have the outcomes been different? These are the questions this chapter attempts to answer.