Dissecting the “feudal” NA

(Courtesy: Abhishek Basnyat)

The charge of being a “feudal element” has been used with much frivolity and looseness in Nepal in recent times. Anything that anybody disapproves of is immediately labeled “feudal” and damned to perdition with no accompanying explanations. In his otherwise sensible Letter to the Editor denouncing “Maoists’ Crimes,” S.B. Shrestha from Tokyo cannot desist hurtling this over-used charge yet again at the national army. Not surprisingly, he offers nothing in the way of substantiating his accusation. What is it that makes the Nepal Army (NA) so “feudal”? It is high time such glib talkers stared at some hard facts in the face.

During the heat of the insurgency everyone—Chhetri, Bahun, Janajati or Dalit—who was chased out of the villages took shelter in areas secured by the army. Did the army resort to any “feudal” filtering process in deciding whom to protect? Detractors of the NA have always delighted in portraying it as a trigger-happy force bent on “annihilating” the Maoists. The truth, however, is that from the very beginning the NA’s mission has been simply to “disarm and push the Maoists into the national mainstream.” As a result of their operations, Prachanda was forced to publicly admit that the Maoists could never take over the state militarily. After resorting to other measures, the Maoists are currently in the process of joining the mainstream. Can this be labeled a “feudal” achievement of the NA? If maintaining the “feudal” status quo was the sole objective of the NA, why stop when it did during the April uprising? Though tragic, 19 dead during the course of Janaandolan II is a small number compared to the 50 or so who died in Janaandolan I (1990) and to the hundreds who’ve died in similar revolutions elsewhere. Is 19 just a plain old “feudal” number? On the contrary, it is a testament of the NA’s clarity of purpose and the resolve with which they stuck to it. Maintaining security and preventing any situation from getting out of hand are the main objectives of the NA. A far cry from the “bloodbath” that other forces regularly promise us in order to have their way.

Continuing on, the “feudal” NA has committed no violations of the Code of Conduct while we’re losing count of those committed by the “liberating” Maoists. Ethnically speaking, the top brass of the NA is probably more representative of national diversity than the central committee of any political party (including the CPN (M)). In social work, the NA has built over 500 kms of roads in the country, and mind you, they didn’t use “forced labor” for it. No statistic could fully capture the disaster-relief work the NA has done over the years.

The current national mood verges on the insane. Students, teachers, doctors, patients, dealers, traders, laborers, Maoists and Maoist victims are all out on the streets clamoring for their demands, sensible or not. The government is confused over its own decisions. Amidst all this madness that invariably brings the entire nation to a halt, the NA soldier still mans his post sweltering heat or drenching rain.

Soldiers are human beings too. They too must want higher wages, compensation for damages and so on and so forth. Yet they have the discipline and the patience to postpone their desires and do their duties even as everybody else goes rampaging, and even as the mudslinging against the “feudal” NA continues unabated. Insurgency or insanity, the NA trudges on. Rudyard Kipling must have had our soldiers in mind when he wrote: “If you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you…”

Despite a concerted effort to condemn, demoralize and humiliate it, the NA still continues on with its duty with quiet dignity and discipline. When the nation was reeling under the petrol shortage, it was the army pump (and some others) that provided raahat to the Kathmandu-basis. If there were a national emergency now, without doubt an NA unit would be dispatched to bring the situation back to normalcy. The stone-throwers from the student unions might pull in a medal or two if such a sport is invented in the next SAF games. For now however, it is Kamal Adhikari, groomed and trained in the disciplined barracks of the NA, that has won us a gold and done the nation proud.

The immense pressures the NA suffered from all quarters—including those who enjoyed its protection—could have broken up any institution from within. We’ve seen our political parties split at the slightest provocation. An army that has been through an insurgency surely must have had differences within its ranks too. Yet the army still functions as a single, well-oiled machine. Throughout the 90s when every institution in the country was politicized to its marrow, the army retained its integrity. Even in today’s fluid situation, the NA remained steadfast in retaining its “chain of command,” to which the political leadership wisely consented. As the parliament embarks on “democratizing” the NA, it would do well to heed the counsel of an institution that is as old as the nation itself.

Swept away in the emotionalism and rhetoric whipped up by demagogues we easily forget that ours is an army with a proud history. An army that has never seen defeat in war, it is a force that has continually risen to the challenges of securing the nation. An institution as old as the NA has surely developed, over its 238-year-old history, a set of traditions and customs that may seem quaint, alien or outdated to many of us. But let this not blind us to all the hardwork, danger and drudgery that our soldiers have gone through in the service of the nation (and even that of world peace). Different and exclusive as their customs and activities may seem, the same could be at the core of their many successes.

As Fareed Zakaria argues in his celebrated book, The Future of Freedom, the most credible and effective institutions even in the U.S. are not necessarily the most open and democratic ones. The Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court are successful precisely because they operate in a closed and exclusive environment. For the good of the country, the NA’s political independence and neutrality should be maintained even as we make it more responsive to elected bodies.

Old and venerable institutions like the NA, can take some time adjusting. But time and again we have seen that our old institutions are malleable and willing to move with the times. They will, no doubt, rise to present-day challenges as well.

In short, the manner with which the NA has conducted itself through the vicissitudes of Nepalese politics bespeaks a strong, dependable, professional and maturing institution. If all this amounts to little more than “feudalism” then we’re probably better off with a “feudal” army. It is likely still the better option to a recalcitrant and untrustworthy “liberating” one!