Nepal's Struggle with Feudalism and Fatalism - Moriarty, Martin and Manmohan as "Gods"

(Courtesy: el Zorro)

Whether it be the dawn of "loktantra," "ganatantra," or "prajatantra," the Nepali peoples' struggle with feudalism and fatalism continues. There is no better example of how these unfounded notions of helplessness and subservience are preyed on, than misleading commentary that confuses policies with individuals, and vested positions with national agendas.

With "assistance" from individuals like Mr. Ritu Raj Subedi ("US Hard Stance On the Maoists") and Mr. J. Sri. Raman (Moriarty's Departure and Nepal's Democracy - Newsfront 14-20 May, 2007), the Nepali people are intentionally misled. We are directed to believe that our destiny is determined by the Americans and Indians and every other foreign power that be. However, such is not, and absolutely need not be the case.

How Commentators Prey on Feudal/Fatal Attitudes by Elevating Individuals

Logically, a movement away from a feudal/fatal mindset should be expressed through the Nepali peoples' right to self-determination, sovereignty and national pride. Instead, the arguments forwarded by people like Subedi and Raman, encapsulate the exact opposite sentiments: Their propositions amplify feudal/fatal attitudes by assigning undue importance to selective foreign positions (over Nepali priorities), and suggest that it is these elements (and not the Nepali people), that control Nepal's destiny. (Bull shit!)

As evidence of this lingering feudal/fatal mindset, consider the circumstances that surrounded the designation of UNMIN's head of mission.

Truth be told, Mr. Ian Martin is not the only person on the face of this planet with the ability to steer Nepal through its delicate peace process. If history is any indication, Martin's legacy in East Timor should be sufficient to alert any Nepali citizen of the limitations of UNMIN and more specifically, the limitations that arise from elevating an individual to the status of divinity. (Whatever!)

When civil society personalities (using privately owned media) advocated for Ian Martin's return to Nepal (after Martin was asked to go clean up the mess he left behind in East Timor), the request had resounding effects far beyond what was verbalized. That request reinforced pillars of the feudal and fatalistic attitudes that still perpetuate the unfounded belief that Ian Martin (and Ian Martin alone), holds the key to Nepal's peace process. (Wrong!)

Stated differently, the fatal mindset of "whatever Ian Martin says/does is the absolute way out for us" and the feudal attitude of "we need a white-skinned foreigner to ensure that our peace process stays on track," severely impairs Nepalis' collective judgment.

Consider this: While Ian Martin takes every opportunity to laud the Nepali people for choosing the path of peace (and for overcoming immense adversities in our quest for democracy), it is Mr. Martin's mission that is getting funded $93 million. Only a fraction of this huge sum is injected into the Nepali economy!!

Has anyone cared to consider how much sense UNMIN's funding makes when placed in the context of $93 million that could potentially place 2 square meals on the laps of starving Nepalis for an entire year? How about $93 million worth of debt reduction for all those donor agency loans for which another generation of Nepalis are due to remain in debt?

Extending the Individual-based Argument to Discredit Unwarranted Criticism

The same logic presented above (as faulty as it may be) applies when political commentators maliciously blur individuals with national policies and present self-deluded positions to intentionally confuse the Nepali public.

For example, when Ritu Raj Subedi publishes a piece that argues the fallacies of US policy on Nepal (based on an even more fallacious argument of historical democratic experience), there are two messages that his writing sends out: The first message is that US Ambassador James F. Moriarty is "bad" for Nepal. The second message is that Nepal's future is somehow linked to the whims and fancies of an individual (James Moriarty).

If Ritu Raj Subedi (and those who share his intellect) was beyond the grasp of the feudal/fatal mentality, what he would be arguing for, would be the revision of American foreign policy on the basis of the desire of the sovereign majority of the nation-state of Nepal.

Such an approach would carry much more weight. But, Mr. Subedi does not appear to appreciate this angle because he, like the prevalent feudal/fatal attitudes his arguments feed on, is archaic, delusionally-democratic, and will eventually be disdained by all who are able to see through Mr. Subedi's vested position and interests.

To drive the point home, consider one of Mr. Subedi's arguments as an example: Sure, the Nepali Congress took up arms to combat the Rana regime and the UML started off as a radical leftist outfit as well. But Mr. Subedi's proposal that the Maoists should be pardoned because of these historical experiences, is a position that defines the very root of Nepalis' fatalistic attitude!! (K garne? Yestai ho! - Hoina! Afno bhabisya lai afnai haat ma line!).

Why should we suffer today because our forefathers suffered similar circumstances? Are we obligated to condone the Maoists' application of violence because the Nepali Congress is in power today? Has anyone bothered to ask the Nepali Congress leaders (of that generation) whether they feel their armed struggle then, justifies the Maoists' armed struggle now?

Questions like these break the chains of fatalism. Arguments like Mr. Subedi's, make those chains stronger!!

Contextualizing Feudal/Fatal Arguments - Terrorism, Forgiveness and Vested Interests

More often than not we find writers like Subedi and Raman, trying desperately to link the American policy on Nepal to the wider "war on terror" - a policy that both writers know, is a faltering platform. And the reason these writers attempt to establish this link is because they understand the growing unpopularity of the American war in Iraq and they hope to mentally associate US policy on Nepal with the war in Iraq. (Sorry, but we're not that stupid!!)

If any argument linking Nepal to Iraq has to be made, consider this one: The 16 Nepali workers who were murdered in Iraq weren't shot by American troops. They were murdered in cold blood by Iraqi insurgents.

Further, the Nepalis who were killed in Iraq didn't end up there on American sponsored visas and if one must look for a direction to point fingers, then there is nowhere to point but in the Maoists' direction.

Why? Because if the Maoists hadn't started an armed insurrection and robbed an entire generation of their right to education, their right to employment and their right to a better life, those 16 Nepalis would probably never have been driven to the state of desperation that landed them in Iraq. Need more be said?

What writers like Raman and Subedi know (but do not discuss) is that there is no relevance between the circumstances under which the American invasion of Iraq occurred, and the circumstances that led the American government to brand Nepal's Maoists, as terrorists.

There is however, a direct relationship between the circumstances that led the current Indian government to jettison its "twin-pillar" policy and those that forced the Maoists to change their insurgent tactics. (For obvious reasons, the latter relationship is not a topic that is discussed by either writer).

The fact is, forgiveness may know no bounds for the Nepali people (at least this is what Ian Martin and Nepal's delusional intellect would like to believe), but the Americans seem not to forget those in their service the Maoists murdered on charges of being "informants." (Thank goodness someone still remembers!).

The intellectual classes, sipping bottles of Black Label and commenting from the luxury of their homes, would do well to acknowledge that those in the service of the American government aren't the only ones who continue to see Nepal's Maoists' through terrorist lenses. There are thousands of Nepalis who don't feel the same sense of forgiveness or forgetfulness that others attempt to express on their behalf. (Ever wonder how truly dangerous it is to be a Maoist without a weapon in Nepal's countryside?).

Terrorism as an agenda side, most insulting to the Nepali intellect, is Mr. Raman's feudal suggestion that democracy in Nepal is somehow tied to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government or that Nepal's democracy remains at the mercy of the current American Ambassador Moriarty (or future Ambassador Powell). Mr. Raman should at least acknowledge that the will of the Nepali people is subject neither to his country's government, nor to the fancies of American (or any other country's) policy.

As the Sub-Editor of the government's mouthpiece (with a terrorist-turned-minister as the Minister of Information and Communication), one is able to empathize with Mr. Subedi's personal predicament. If he doesn't start spewing anti-American venom immediately, who knows how long his job (but not just his job) will last?

Similarly, as a self-proclaimed peace activist, Mr. Raman's position also makes sense - peace at all costs, under all circumstances while justice, law and order, take a back seat. When placed in perspective, both positions make perfect (non) sense.

Whether they leverage terrorism, supposed foreign interests, or excuses for why Nepal's Maoists should cease to be viewed as terrorists, all of these arguments reek of defeatism, fatalistic attitudes, and a biased feudal mindset, that prioritizes selective foreign interests (and individuals) while minimizing Nepali interests (and capable Nepali personalities).

Conclusion - Exposing Weaknesses in Feudalism/Fatalism Based Arguments

When it comes to Nepal's democratic transition, it is the Nepali people who lie at the forefront of this transformation - not Moriarty, not Powell, not Manmohan and not Martin. And while writers like Raman and Subedi forward their best attempts at protecting the limited interests of the groups they currently represent, they will continue to fail in their selective anti-American, pro-Indian, pro-Maoist, and (biased) pro-Nepali "crusades."

And why will positions such as those posited by Raman and Subedi eventually fail? The answer is simple. Because these arguments prey on the feudal and fatalistic attitudes that are slowly, but surely, being eroded by Nepal's new generation. Without feudalism and fatalism to leverage, any proposition that elevates individuals (and neglects the masses), will receive zero attention.

Every rational and thinking individual understands that it is the Bush ADMINISTRATION and not President George W. Bush, that retains responsibility for the policy on Iraq. It is UNMIN as a mission to Nepal and not Ian Martin, that ultimately bears responsibility for carrying out its mandate. It is the coalition government of India (and not Sitaram Yechuri), that has chosen to publicly exercise its influence over Nepal's Maoists.

Unfortunately for thinkers like Raman and Subedi, it is American policy (derived from one of the most liberal democratic traditions that exist today), and not simply James Moriarty, that drives the American position on Nepal. Even more unfortunate (for subscribers of Raman and Subedi's arguments), is that it is based on the will of a large number of Nepalis, that American policy can be what it is, vis-a-vis Nepal.

A fixation on individuals tends to ignore the very medium that creates, supports, and facilitates what is often misrepresented as individual views. Ironically, nothing exposes vested minority interests like people who fall into their own conspiracies even as they (not so) cleverly try and pigeon hole the masses into believing delusional versions of white lies.

Related Links:

Bahunists and Bahunism - A mini-Dissertation on the Caretakers of Nepal's Feudal Tradition
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/bahunists-and-bahunism-mini.html

The UN and Maoist Arms Controversy: Overkill or Negligence?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/02/un-and-maoist-arms-controversy-overkill.html

Surreal Politics - How Nepal’s Intellectual / Political Class, Continue to Look the Other Way…
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/surreal-politics-how-nepals.html

Myth #1: Dispelling the Myths of Nepal’s Peace Processhttp://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-1-dispelling-myths-of-nepals.html

Myth #2: “Moriarty’s insistence on Maoist disarmament is interventionist policy.”
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-2-moriartys-insistence-on-maoist.html

Myth #3: “The Americans are contributing to an eventual meltdown in the peace process, which will ultimately precipitate another political crisis in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-3-americans-are-contributing-to.html