Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

Is India Democratic and Spiritual in Nepal?

Lok Nath Bhusal, Ph.D. candidate - 1/21/2010

Amidst the ongoing strong and strategic protests of the ballot-proof and bullet-proof Maoists on the one hand, and the hallucinated pro-rightist mainstream media supported strategically by Indian and domestic elites, on the other, it would be premature to conclude what is going to happen in Nepal. But a distinctive class-face has featured in Nepal’s political landscape – the Maoists and the anti-Maoists. This divide is not going to give a way out for consensus for ending feudalism what many developed countries gave a huge goodbye long-ago. Then, there would be more acrimony than harmony in Nepal’s politics if the historical necessity of overthrowing feudalism has to be completed. The latest development suggests that India appears to hinder than help this process. However, India must have to be constructively engaged with the Maoists if it has to wash off its undemocratic and unspiritual face in Nepal.

Indeed, following the fall of Maoist government and the formation of India-supported 22-party coalition government, an India-based scholarly publication commented the following in its editorial: ‘the feudal monarchy at the centre of that order is gone, but the rest of the structure of the state and the economic base remains – Nepali capital continues to play second fiddle to Indian capital; the semi-feudal satraps retain their power and privileges, while social discrimination and economic deprivation continue to be rife’ (EPW, 2009, p. 6). In the same line, Nepal’s prominent civil society leader and development scholar Devendra Raj Pandey (2009) has observed the recent political development as thus: ‘the real polarisation today is, therefore, between the social forces that seek change, and those who would shamelessly do anything to prevent it. These two forces have their distinct class character and a caste, ethnic and regional face; but they cut across the simplistic Maoist--non-Maoist dichotomy’. Apparently, the Maoist party is not only a party of Mao’s fans, it is also a social formation of the poor and the oppressed which account for more than 75 percent of Nepal’s population.

Where would this divide going to take Nepal? Starting with the formation of the Delhi-designed DA government, such divide has already institutionalised on the right side. On the left, Maoists are so far alone, but it is understandably clear that quite a number of UML people implicitly agree with the broader political agenda of the Maoists, and particularly that of the recent issue of civilian supremacy. Obviously, this is the precise reason why the Maoists have not been allowed to discuss and hold a voting on the later issue in the CA. Hence, political instability and struggle are inevitable until this divide further institutionalises on the left. This would only happen when some UML people would follow Dharmadatta Devkota, and this would certainly occur as a basic principle of politics and the law of the nature. And I have always argued that having only two strong political forces (one rightist and another leftist) is the only way out not only from political stability point of view, but also from not have to suffer frequently from Indian intervention. Definitely, this would occur, but it would have to go through tacit Indian scrutiny. For the undemocratic and unspiritual Indian face in Nepal, that is going to be another surprise like that of the CA election results.

This emerging class politics, may lead another people’s uprising what some of the revolutionaries term as ‘a component of the final insurrection’ (Rosin, 2009) that has been believed to be a remedy for Nepal’s geo-strategically contained development. The Maoists are already out in the streets demanding for ‘civilian supremacy’ against the disobedience of the army chief and the over ruling of the symbolic president. They blocked the legislative parliament for a long-time, but very responsibly allowed the budget passage and opened up the parliament although their protests continue. In the second phase of their protest, they declared thirteen federal states although some leftist scholars have opposed this idea as being fatal for the geographically tiny but strategically vulnerable Nepal (David Seddon, 2009). However, this is the only way of uprooting the multiple dimensions of feudalism in Nepal.

Are Maoists going back to wage a war again? While Nepal’s persistent underdevelopment and continuous isolation of the Maoists may easily lead to such a revolution, sustaining the outcomes of the revolution would be an extremely difficult political undertaking in the presence of an ever-stronger global capitalism and imperialism of which the security-concerned Indian establishment has continued to be an active member. It is this membership which carries the undemocratic and unspiritual Indian face in Nepal. Perhaps, recognising this reality, the Maoists have reassured that they are not going to tilt towards the economically, politically, socio-culturally and linguistically different China and undermine Nepal’s unavoidable dependency upon India.

Quite pragmatically, Dr. Bhattarai in his recent The Telegraph-Calkatta interview has reaffirmed that ‘if India stops supplying us salt for one week, we will begin to suffer as a nation, that is how dependent we are, and that is the stark truth of this relationship. It is foolish to say or believe we can take Nepal away from India or act against Indian interests. Look at how deeply dependent we are on India as a people and as a nation. It is the rightwing vested interests in Nepal who have always used anti-India feelings in Nepal to secure themselves politically, not us. We have been courageous enough to recognise the reality that we cannot wish India away, we have to work with it, all we want is a few democratic corrections, a more equal relationship, and none of that to favour China’. In the face of such Maoists assurance, is it not stupid on the part of India to continue showing an undemocratic and unspiritual face in Nepal by suggesting not to integrate the armies? And, equally is it not the Maoists’ weakness to fail to take India into confidence despite their strong position in Nepal? How beautiful and promising would that be if the Nepali people-beloved Maoists also secure love from Delhi without compromising national interests as in the past? Truly, that dynamism would be a defining and an all-embracing manifestation towards creating a harmonious environment. What a terrible situation is this for the Maoists: they can not form a government even if you have the mandate to do. Is this a curse of land-lockedness or having a badly incompatible neighbour!

However, on the both side, some beyond dogmatic stances are crucial for such dynamism to occur. Then, instead of wasting time on engaging into responding the yellow journalism and making India angry, the best strategy for the Maoists now is to strive to take the Indian establishment into confidence that they are the most trusted political actor in Nepal. As a matter of fact, they have to show that they truly defend Indian interests in Nepal. Ultimately, the enlightened Indian establishment must have to be comfortable with the Maoists, given the fact that Maoists would have to ensure that they nicely save Indian face in Nepal by offsetting some of the anti-India feelings and growing Chinese influence syndrome in Delhi. This is both the divine and democratic work India must have to accomplish if it has to comply with its destiny; the divine work undone is punishable. Indeed, it should be understood that neither China needs to have Maoists’ shoulder to get into India nor China has the vitality even to touch India’s democratic and spiritual affluences. Invader Alexander had realised that India was very powerful spiritually. Recognising this fact, the best strategy for India would be to wash-off its undemocratic and unspiritual face by complying with the Maoist demand for a proportionally represented national government in Nepal under the leadership of the largest party in the CA. This is the best opportunity India has to make a genetic upgrade in its RAJ policy towards Nepal. Indeed, the RAJ policy was a deceptive trick of British mind. The time has come to think beyond the mind.