A Red Nepal and a Crimson South Asia

(Courtesy: Siddhartha Thapa)

Although war in one of the world’s poorest countries makes little sense, the resurgence of leftist ideological warfare that epochs a quasi democracy dictated by the proletariat can only bee seen to undermine the foundations of democracy in South Asia.

One of the dynamics of the late 20th century and early 21st century politics has been the import of democracy in third world countries. However, democracy (in the purest, most liberal sense) has succeeded in only a handful of countries around the world. The reasons behind democratic failure can only be evaluated by reviewing historical, social and economic factors.

Democracy is not indigenous to South Asia, however democratic principles have prevailed in South Asian societies for a very long time. One the most important facets of a maturing democracy is the connection between public reasoning and development of democracy. As Nobel economist Amritya Sen argues:

Public reasoning includes the opportunity for citizens to participate in political discussions and to influence public choice. Ballot can be seen as only one of the ways – albeit a very important way – to make public discussion effective, when the opportunity to vote is combined with the opportunity to speak and listen, without fear. The reach – and effectiveness- of voting depend critically on the opportunity for open public discussion.

In line with Sen’s assessment of democratic evolution, the Nepali Maoists waged their people’s war primarily aiming to re-engineer the roots of the foundation of an evolving democracy. Naxalites and other leftist rebel outfits in India have waged a bloody war aiming to topple the widely accepted form of democratic governance. The fact that India’s successful absorption of democracy has indeed had a remarkable impact in South Asia, the resurgence of a leftist movement will only work as catalyst to dismantle the very foundation of democracy in South Asia.

The notion that democracy can only flourish if there is an opportunity for political discussions in (and the opportunity to speak and listen), without fear, is the most important dimension with which to scrutinize the leftist notion of democracy. Silencing of opinion makers through harmful means, assassination of opposition leaders, forceful abductions of unarmed civilians, are only a few examples of the atrocities of leftists movement in South Asia (and Nepal in particular). A violent movement that stifles the peaceful process of public discussion (or dissent) does not qualify as progressive democratic evolution (the murder of Gansesh Chilwal and his deputy after they burnt effigies of the Maoist leader is an excellent example).

From a different angle, the Hindu caste system is an elaborate example of systematic disparities. Unfortunately, secularization has only worked to isolate the many minority groups within Hinduism – a phenomenon that Fareed Zakaria refers to as “the tyranny of the minority over the will of the majority.” Other religions have reaped the benefit of the quota system and other privileges offered by governments with an aim to foster an inclusive society. But these benefits come at the expense of groups within the majority which may not align 100% with the majority views.

The leftist movements in South Asia have primarily concerted their effort to exploit areas of disparities – a viable political platform to ascend power but not necessarily sufficient to retain power. Likewise, the Maoists of Nepal, evoked the idea of ‘self determination’ for the mobilization of masses in their favor. However, such a fallacy can only instigate ethnic and communal violence that will eventually lead to the disintegration of the nation state.

Economic disparity has led to successive convulsions and the resurgence of leftist movements in South Asia. The ruthless leftist movements in South Asia, especially the Maoists of Nepal, have worked strenuously to dismantle the economic development achieved after introduction of democracy in 1990 – basically, the Maoist organization today consists of one faction that fought and lost in elections and another to which the notion of the ballot if completely foreign.

Vital state infrastructure that had finally made its way into rural Nepal (electricity, telephone, education and road building) have succumbed to premature “deaths” with the rural population deprived of the fruits of democratic development. Consider for example, that the education system in areas such as Rukkum, Rolpa, Jajarkot, Sallyan has been virtually replaced by systematic indoctrination of the Maoist variety which does not really substitute for education as the rest of the world knows it. An entire generation of Nepalese have grown up in the hinterland, with knowledge of guerilla warfare and Maoist doctrine, but no practical knowledge with which to make a living.

Economic autonomy, a market based on competitive consumer choices and minimalist government regulation are the cornerstones of an emerging democratic economy. However, leftist ideology (by its very ethos) is designed to dismantle the cornerstones of democracy and challenge economic development through economic stagnation. The intentional deceleration of free market economic progress is part and parcel with both Maoist rhetoric and Maoist tactics designed to bring the state to its knees.

The Maoists’ have systematically uprooted local economies and devastated the supply of essential commodities. The lack of government response provided the Maoist guerillas the leverage and the audacity to run propaganda campaigns throughout rural Nepal, blaming the government for the poor state of the economy (while actively partaking in acts designed to run the economy into the ground).

The political implications of a possible Maoist victory in Nepal will inevitably alter the dynamics of South Asian politics. More importantly, democratic ideals and institutions will be challenged. Nepal will serve as the core state for leftist ideologues throughout South Asia and the world.

Although the BJP and Congress in India will continue to sustain their popular support through the Northern and Mid-Western states, states plagued with Naxalites and violent communist movements will continue to gain momentum posing serious threats to Indian national security.

As nation states throughout South Asia, particularly India, fails to acknowledge the seriousness of the threat posed by a resurgent leftist movement, democracy in South Asia will fall victim to a negligent counter insurgency policy.

Ancient social structures that have so far provided moral guidelines through which societies across South Asia have evolved harmoniously will come under increasing threat from a resurgent leftist movement. The idea of ‘self determination’, as envisioned by the Maoists’ in Nepal, aims primarily to warn India about the possible consequences that the Maoist can impose by destabilizing India’s security.

Minority groups (Kashmir, Assam, Telganga) which have for long battled with the Federal government in Delhi will see in a Nepal, a benchmarking model through which a violent movement succeeds in addressing the needs of minority groups.

As India has sustained an economic growth of over 8 % for the last six years, a leftist resurgence in South Asia will cripple markets for further economic growth.

Therefore, an immediate reversal in policy at the South Block and Race Course Road is required to contain the imminent threat posed by a leftist resurgence. The ultimate aim of leftist policies are to replace democratic institutions with proletariat setups, dictated by COMPOSA and PWG (amalgamations of South Asian leftist forces). The end result would be the erection of the Compact Revolutionary Zone (CRZ) – a red zone that will stand against any and every notion of liberal democracy and market based economics as we know them today.