Nepali politics is at an inflexion point. The king and his RNA henchmen are isolated domestically and losing support internationally. Foreigners are curtailing not just their financial help but also their diplomatic support. Just today, the World Bank led by neocon, Iraq-war architect Wolfowitz hinted about curtailing their financial commitment to Nepal. Other major donors have already done that. Even communist China seems to be hedging its bets by not saying whether or not it supported the 12-point plan. Negotiation on Indo-Nepal transit treaty is going nowhere. Is this a 1990 redux? I don’t think so. Unlike 1990, the current fascist regime in Kathmandu, like a scared cat entrapped in an enclosed room, will probably not give up without a fight. Last week's attack on UML office by right-wing vandals is a sign of that happening. If such unfortunate events were to happen at a larger scale, then 11,000 death during the Maoist insurgency will be a footnote in history. We must all be very vigilant about the RNA unleashing its weapons against Nepali people to save the feudal king's a*s*s.
While the king and his RNA henchmen in Nepal try to figure out proper course of actions in light of new political realignment, their Mandale friends in the west, especially in the US are trying to garner support through op-ed pieces. Some of those articles are,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0502/S00090.htm
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2005/others/guestcolumn/nov/guest_columns_nov05_19.php
http://newsblaze.com/story/20051119230531nnnn.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0504/S00146.htm
Going through their arguments, I come with followings (in order of importance).
1) The King is the guardian of Nepali nation
Nationalism is the pet-issue of right-wing movements in every country throughout history. It is a cheap slogan that warms hearts but does not do much else. You can't eat nationalism, drink nationalism, or sleep on nationalism. To paraphrase Marx's dictum "nationalism is the opium of the masses." It is the way for the ruling elites to distract the attention of the masses from their own shortcomings. Mandales in Nepal are trying to do just that. Ironically, nationalism has become even more hallow idea in the era of globalized, inter-dependent world. With the WTO taking the lead, it seems that every nation is becoming dependent on every other nation - sure some depend more than others - but everyone seems to benefit, a pareto-optimal outcome in an econ-speak.
Nationalism in Nepal's context takes the form of being anti-India. But that’s being very disingenuous or hypocrite for several reasons. First, many of them probably enjoy (surreptitiously perhaps) Sushmita Sen swing her hips in "Maine Pyar Kyun Kiya?" or listen to Gulam Ali or Kishor Kumar or dance to Bombay Rock. Even if they don't fancy Bollywood exports, they certainly prefer Hollywood exports to anything that comes out of Kallywood - so much for the nationalism. Second, they don't mind when India does their bidding - such as King Tribubhan's flight to the Indian Embassy in 1951. Third, they seem to think of China as an altruist neighbor and give it a free pass. Of course, that's far from truth. China wants to be a hegemonic power in Asia and under the guise of "non-interference" it actually interferes in other country's affairs - providing arms to the RNA is interference in my vocabulary. To say China is a benevolent power smack of hypocrisy given its aggressive behavior in the South China Sea and its recent spat with tiny Bhutan. Fourth, lets not forget that the Shah-bansa are actually Indians from Rajasthan, driven to the hills of Nepal by Muslim (Moguls) invaders around fifteenth century. There are more people named Shah in India than in Nepal.
I agree that India wants to exert influence on Nepal. But which country's doesn't want to do that? Even tiny but rich states like Switzerland and Norway do it through foreign aid. If Nepal had the wherewithal, it would do so as well. Actually it just did it, by proposing China as an observer at the 13th SAARC summit. Sure India's influence on Nepal is disproportionate because of geographical and cultural proximity. But that's not India's fault, or is it? Even if Sikkim were not annexed into India in 1975, Nepal would still need access to Indian territory to reach a third country. The whole debate about becoming less dependent on India by relying more on China is a futile dream. Those who advocate such positions have not been to the harsh northern borders of Nepal. Try going to Mustang or Solu Khumbu in winter and you'll know what I am talking about. Even if Nepal were to find transit through China, the nearest port is like 3000 miles away through harsh Tibetan plateau and Sichuan mountain.
There is a saying, "we can chose our friends but we can't chose our neighbors." Nepal didn't opt to be next to India, let alone Bihar, but it has to live with that fact whether or not it likes it. Given Nepal's circumstances, it must play the limited cards it has wisely in order to advance its national interests. Just screaming "Doti" won't do it.
And going back to the argument that losing sovereignty if there is no king, that's a baloney. In the 21st century no country is going to lose sovereignty against its will but it can voluntarily - EU being the best example. Moreover, if India wanted to annex Nepal, it would have been easier to do so in 1947 when Vallabhbhai Patel incorporated large swath of British Raj into modern day India. So whether Gyane, Girija, Nepal, Deupa, Thapa or Prachanda rule Nepal, she'll keep her sovereignty - I have no doubt about it.
2) Political parties don't represent Nepali people's aspiration, the King does
The Mandale crowds are pushing forward the notion that political parties do not represent Nepali people's aspirations. That's another baloney. If free and fair election is the gauge of popularity, then in the last election, the pro-monarchy party (RPPs) got less than 15% of the vote. KN Bista, the current co-vice-chairman got only couple of hundred votes when ran for a parliamentary seat. If the king really wants to test his popularity, he can form a political party and run in a free and fair election like Bulgaria's ex-King (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1394018.stm).
The feudal king of Nepal can soar up his "popularity" or rather name-recognition only through personality cult. The accolade given on state-run Gorkhapatra on the king's recent foreign sojourn (http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/pageloader.php?file=2005/12/05/topstories/main7) reads ominously like North Korean papers lauding Kim Jong-il. Given that state machinery had to be exploited to "welcome the king" from foreign trip while on the same day, UML was amassing people spontaneously, shows the extent of the popularity of the monarchy.
I don’t' accept that Shah-Rana-Thapa clans, still the political-military elites of Nepal represent or understand the aspirations of the Nepali people. How could they? They are born in privileged families whose hereditary wealth was not gotten from entrepreneurial drives but through plain exploitation, corruption and trafficking. I doubt many of them have ventured outside Kathmandu valley let alone remote villages of Nepal. Harley Davidson riding, pot-smoking, drunk driving Paras Shah is probably a better representation of a Nepali mobster than someone who understands the plight of ordinary Nepalese.
3) Political parties are corrupt, the King is not
Political power and corruption are two sides of the same coin. When a person suddenly finds himself or herself with nation's resources at his/her disposal there are temptations. Corruption transcends geography, culture, ethnicity, history, form of government, size of country or maturity of democracy. The ongoing corruption scandal in the US is the case in point. Just last week, the Martin government in Canada fell because of corruption scandal.
In Nepal, corruption is NOT the monopoly of mainstream party leaders. Pachayat era bigwigs like Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Surya Bahadur Thapa surely amassed their wealth through corruption. How can one explain Lokendra Bahadur Chand paying $400,000 to the Maoists for his son's release or Surya Bahadur Thapa owning couple of high-end condos in New York City? And remember the fertilizer scandal involving Padma Sundar Lawati. In the post-Feb 1 era, a couple of ministers were accused of trying to import fertilizers from India duty-free and split the difference. And let's not even get into the Royal Palace. They just increased their allowances by 300%. They own hotels and casinos but do they pay any taxes? With no parliament and sycophantic cabinet, they have free reign over $1 billion national budget. And what about corrupt criminals like Jagath Gauchan, Sharad Chardra Shah and Tulsi Giri that hover around the palace. What about the RNA - I don't know who audits their accounts, and what about Ger-sahabs employing dozens of cost-free sipais to mind their household chores? What about off-springs of Ger-sahabs who study in the US paying full tuition – where the hell did that money come from.
More recently, Gyane took one of two RNAC Boeing-757 for a 20-days foreign trip to nowhere. RNAC had to cancel 30% of its foreign flights. In my vocabulary, that's abuse of power aka corruption.
4) Political parties should take the blame for the rise of the Maoists
The rise of Maoists has many causes. Political parties have to take some blame but there is plenty more to go around. Moreover, such movement does not start from nowhere and reach such vast scale in 10 years without favorable pre-conditions. The 200-year Shah-Rana-Thapa's feudal autocracy certainly created fertile environment for such movement to flourish like a wild fire.
Feudal monarchy is a 12th century concept, Maoism is a 19th century concept, so “at least there is some progress there." When we have a functioning democracy, then we'll have reached the 20th century. Only then we can dream about reaching the 21st century.
Jai Nepal, Lal Salam, Whatever!
.png)
