Dr. Geeta Kochhar Jaiswal & Sipu Tiwari. In past few months, Nepal is fraught with innumerable issues that have forced people to rethink over their decision to elect a Communist regime. There is not only the global impact of Covid-19 pandemics that is affecting the lives of Nepali citizens, but more critical issues of peaceful sustenance that have been challenged by the present regime. The march away from Monarchy and the establishment of a Democratic Republic was the hope for many who struggled for years and gave their lives for the larger benefit of the masses. The dreams were to build an independent sovereign Nepal where prosperity and peace will design the way of living. The entire communist movement was also showing the path of a bright future where egalitarian notions will reign high. In fact, the support given to the NCP in 2017 for a majority victory was also to bring in long awaited transformation in the highly corrupt system.
However, the initial rhetoric of ‘Samriddha Nepal, Sukhi Nepali’ have gradually faded and are overshadowed by a new reality of division and destruction. PM Khadga Prasad Oli’s regime of late have been exposed of using money and muscle to break the Madhesi parties, indulge in corrupt practices to buy products at inflated rates, and also spearheading a nationalist narrative of anti-India to save their own position and power. In all this high drama, the ordinary citizens are left high and dry on roads to seek solace from the pandemics, left stranded outside borders, and are dying in foreign lands. Neither their is greater thinking on the returned labour migrants and job avenues, nor there is serious thought over the future of declining economy and bankrupt businesses. But the fervor of nationalism flies high. Is anyone complaining that the Madhesi people are suffering racism in Nepal? Is anyone raising their voice on pertinent issues of life and livelihood of the majority suffering due to crisis? Is anyone questioning the inflated prices of the basic medical kits/equipments and hospitals in Nepal? Is anyone looking at the plight of poor people multiplying at rapid pace? If so, then definitely, he/she is an ‘Indian agent’.
One wonders, why and how this narrative is so very prevalent without acknowledging the basic fact that Nepal was and is a stronger representative of Hinduism, more than what India represents. If there is any country on this earth that has preserved Hindu religion in its purest form, more than what India claims, it is Nepal. Yet, one who will support or advocate anything relating to Hindu religion or Hindu sentiments, is labelled an anti-Nepal and pro-India character. Who has promoted this narrative and why, is the larger issue for people to think and ponder.
Nepal’s Linkages With India
As the issue of Kalapani, Lipulek, Limpiyadhura gained ground for Oli’s nationalist propaganda, many hawkish voices of Nepal mushroomed to question India’s attack on Nepal’s sovereignty. These hard core propellers of division even went as far as to suggest that if British India traded Terai region with Nepal, they would suggest India to take back Terai and return the land of Kalapani. It is without an iota of doubt that one can easily derive the racist connotation in these statements and the centuries old discrimination and exclusion against people of Madhesh. It was also evident that even if Madhesh has been a part of Nepal for centuries, the real social amalgamation at many levels remain incomplete, needless to say that it has been further divided through a legal framework of 2015 New Constitution of Nepal.
However, it is worth reminding these souls the true essence and character of India-Nepal relationship that has been long forgotten or intentionally wiped out from the minds of many. Scholars of civilizational studies point to a kind of culture developed over a long period of time through migration and diffusion; rather than just as an internal evolution. Although, many in Nepal are aware and often relate this diffusion and evolution of Madhesi people with Indians, they tend to ignore or overlook the social groupings, not the biological race, of other parts of Nepal.
India and Nepal, as often cited, have cultural-historical linkages. But the most crucial aspect is the earliest inhabitants of Nepal, who are considered as the descendants from the Indus Valley civilisation. Apart from the legends, the well known ruler King of Nepal to have united greater part of present day Nepal is Prithvi Narayan Shah, the ninth generation descendant of Dravya Shah, who was a Rajput migrant from the western parts of India and had established the Gorkha Kingdom. There is a large group of Nepalese at the helm who feel proud of these linkages and their power assertion resonates in the entire region of the Himalayan state.
The most interesting facet of this historical diffusion also relates to the legends where people of Nepal locates the word Gorkha emanating from the sanskrit word “Gau’ and ‘Raksati’, meaning the ‘protectors of cow’. To date, Nepal has banned the killing of cow due to this religious Hindu sentimental linkage. Hence, the majority of population in Nepal that is formed as a new social grouping cannot be dissected with India, as their cultural evolution within Nepal has the very foundation of racial and social affinity to India.
Having said that, the heart of the core problem in India-Nepal ties in present day Nepal also lies in these cultural-historical affinity. The nationalist discourse of Nepal Communist Party (NCP) is based on the premise that India, especially under PM Modi and CM Yogi Adityanath, is advocating the creation of a ‘Hindu Rastra’ in Nepal. What is most hilarious is these narratives of political power assertions is that they tend to undermine the real evolution and establishment of Nepal as a Hindu Rastra under the reign of Prithvi Narayan Shah. More comical is that those who advocate this anti-Hindu narrative are the left leaning leaders who are themselves full-fledged Hindus and celebrate the festivals/holidays of Hindu culture and religion. Hence, the complex relationship of India with Nepal is not about the ‘big brother’ or ‘Roti-beti’, but a social-cultural milieu, which has been developed as ties of arteries through blood and sweat. The propagation of anti-India sentiments is created on the foundation of national identity divorced from this true social identity. The reasons seem obvious for any thinker that it serves the control over internal agencies and gain power for specific objectives.
Communist Ideology in a Democratic System
State’s behavior and foreign policy is determined not just by internal actors, but also by external agencies. For a big or major power, as the internal actors are strong, they have greater influence on both internal and external agencies, and therefore, the external factors have little or no greater influence on foreign policy orientation. However, for a small state, if the resources and internal capabilities are fragile, the external actors have a decisive role and influence in reorienting the direction of foreign policy. Nepal has dual dilemma: one, as it exists in the midst of two rising major powers (India and China) and hence, has much larger pressures from external actors; two, as it has weak internal agencies, therefore the control even on internal affairs is highly dependent on foreign actors.
The new regime of NCP with PM Oli has sought to look inwards for strengthening internal agencies by reinvigorating ‘nationalism’ rhetoric and deal with external agencies pulling out the geo-strategic and geo-economic card. However, these internal agencies are themselves highly dependent on external actors. Most of the NCP leaders are ideologically inclined towards the northern neighbor. The character formation began in the mid and late 50s with the establishment of China-Nepal diplomatic relations. However, since the unification of the majority of communist under one umbrella of NCP at the behest of China, the ideological affinity has taken larger strides, over riding the internal environment of rule and power.
NCP came to power through a democratic process and therefore commands greater legitimacy. However, when this power association gets embroiled in multiple issues, the very supporters of these representatives question the capability to rule and continue to sustain on power. Similar were the sentiments of many Nepalese who were increasingly becoming dissatisfied with the autocratic ways of Oli. To the extent that the NCP within showed lines of friction with Prachanda and Madhav Nepal questioning the unilateral decision making and divisive policies of PM Oli. But what was that Oli doing wrong in Nepal? The answer is one line ‘Oli was imposing Chinese style rule in a democratic environment.’
The superimposing of Communist ideology in a democratic system has its own challenges. It defies the historical tussle of ideology between US led democracy and Soviet-China defined Communism, and also undermines the current geo-strategic war game between US and China in the larger geopolitical environment. It may temporarily support the development objectives of Nepal with the inflow of cash and other infrastructure projects, but on a long run, it builds internal dissent over the destruction of system of rule. It questions the very ethos of democratic system, which is based on open spaces for multiple opinions and voices; rather than affinity to a particular ideology.
NCP under Oli has been projecting blind faith to Chinese affiliation with its cadres being trained in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ideology. The issue is no more of ‘Samriddha Nepal, Sukhi Nepali’, but of which camp Nepal wants to join. Clearly, Nepal under NCP has greater love for China, but then it rejects the social fabric of Nepal and creates internal social divisions and animosity among masses, especially widens the social divide of Pahadi v/s Madhesi. These divisions in the society will have long term affect on its ties with other countries, especially with India but also with other western powers. This political war game Oli and his team is playing is to put the future of Nepal at stake. The question that will loom large and will remain for the Nepalese to ponder is ‘Can Nepal a small state take the risk of political, military, and ideological alliance with a power (China) that has never supported any small power’s desires and aspirations to rise independently’. Nepal cannot afford to let the Communist ideology define the character of Nepal’s democratic system and Oli along with his team needs to awaken to this reality of Nepal.
