Nationalism as a Political Agenda - Defining Nepali Interests

(Courtesy: Comrade Libre)

The need to re-assert Nepal's national interests in unambiguous terms, is immediate. For a "New Nepal" a "new" set of basic motivations are desperately needed to spur debate on what is (versus what is not) in the interest of the Nepali state and her people.

This writing marks the commencement of a "name and shame" campaign to force Nepali politicians to reverse the current priority of "me," "my party" and "my nation" to a viewpoint that defines Nepal's national interest and pursues its implementation relentlessly.

In order to identify a yardstick against which performance may be measured, behaviors that ARE NOT in Nepal's interest may be exemplified. Outlined below are documented activities (ideas) that have undermined the image of Nepal and Nepalis - condemnable activities that should not be tolerated in the "New Nepal."

No more Indian communists in Nepal's parliament. When it comes to Nepal's national interest, the "New Nepal" got off on the wrong foot. An Indian communist (Sitaram Yechuri) presiding as the chief guest during the inaugural session of Nepal's post-Gyanendra parliament was a disgrace to the Nepali psyche. Two years on, Yechuri's dream of mainstreamed Nepali Maoists serving as a model for Indian Naxalites sounds like a bad joke. A interim Nepali parliament that insists on Maoist decree over democratic mandate, is an even worse tale.

That Indian and Nepali interests do not align is not a panchayati myth; it is fact. The mention of Yechuri however, should not confuse anti-Indian sentiment with the pursuit of Nepal's national interest. Nor should excuses that portray anti-Indian sentiment as archaic, panchayati-era thinking be taken at face value. Determinations as to whether or not policies are in line with Nepal's national interest should be made on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, whatever is deemed to be in Nepal's interest should be pursued in an uncompromising manner, and without exception.

Nepali politicians who fail to act in Nepal's interest should move to India. The practice of Nepali politicians taking direction from their Indian counterparts on matters of sovereign Nepali interests, is unacceptable. It is bad enough that Nepali politicians are unable to articulate what Nepal's interests are without making allusions to either India, China or the United States of America. Worse still is leaders like Madhav Kumar Nepal and Krishna Prasad Sitoula who consistently serve the Indian interest and simultaneously undermine Nepali dignity.

Political parties that feel the need to open satellite offices in India should contest in Indian elections. The Nepali Congress' decision to open a satellite office in New Delhi is confounding. Is it the NC or the Nepali Embassy that represents Nepal in India? Precisely what about the Nepali Congress (it's bahun dominated politics? it's undemocratic mechanics?) is it that leads the NC leadership to envision the NC as India's conduit into Nepal? Should the Maoists follow up by opening a satellite office in China? The sort of public subservience that the Nepali Congress displays towards India is precisely what undermines Nepal's sovereign interests.

Reliance on American policy to counter Maoist extremism must end. The change in American personalities (as opposed to American policy) has certain political elements reminiscing the days of Moriarty. Ironic as it may be, the former American ambassador probably did more for Nepal's sovereignty than Gyanendra, Girija and Madhav combined. Gone are the days of spoon feeding when Moriarty would do all the trash-talking on behalf of Nepal's cowards in parliament. The changed American stance truly forces Nepalis to take hold of their own destiny and fend for themselves. Whether Nepalis are able to consolidate and build upon the base that Moriarty left behind remains to be seen.

When it comes to their national interests, do either India, China or the US (or any other country for that matter), consider what might be best for Nepal? If the Dalai Lama was permitted to open an office in Nepal or if ULFA was given sanctuary in Nepal, would China or India care to ask Nepali politicians for their guidance and direction? If American intelligence estimated Bin Laden's location in a Saudi-sponsored madrasa (along the Indo-Nepal border), would the US pause to consult Nepal's politicians before taking unilateral action?

To cite recent history, when it served India's interest, Nepal's Maoists were provided sanctuary and exclusive access to Indian resources. Retired Indian Army General Ashok Mehta was RAW's designated chauffer to Baburm Bhattarai (and Suresh Ale Magar) during the signing of the 12 Point Agreement. Mehta served as Baburam's (and Ale Magar's) official tour guide at a time when official Indian policy identified Nepal's Maoists as "terrorists." Given changed circumstances and realities however, Ashok Mehta has ratcheted up his anti-Maoist rhetoric and has even suggested a limited Indian military incursion into Nepal.

The hypocrisy described above is what the pursuit of national interests is all about - dynamic responses to changed circumstances, using modified approaches. The example above should serve as a timely reminder on how India pursues her own national interests. And by extension, this example should also prompt Nepali leaders to first clarify what Nepal's interests are instead of relying on Indian, Chinese or American direction on sovereign issues that pertain to Nepal.

Credit must be given where it is due and on the topic of defending Nepal's national interests, the Maoists are the only party to have recognized the value and importance of this political theme. The manner in which Maoist leaders have attempted to create space for forces traditionally loyal to the Monarchy is politically masterful. Their intuition demonstrates superior knowledge of the construct of forces the NC and UML pitted against the Maoists' in combat. Moreover, the Maoists' rush to capture a politically (and economically) viable voter bank shows how reactionary and far behind Nepal's traditional "useful idiots" are.

Given the nature of the groups that have traditionally advocated Nepal's interest above all else, a merger of like minded forces to continue protecting and serving Nepal's interests cannot be ruled out. While Nepal's supposed democrats are left wondering when the nationalist train left the station, other forces are busy cementing relations that will define Nepal's interests moving forward.

However, an immediate alliance between nationalists that cross party boundaries, the Monarchists and the Maoists is hardly a done deal. The insurmountable damage that the Maoist insurgency has wreaked on Nepal's sovereignty, her identity and her once bourgeoning democratic politics is not easily negated. The Maoists thrive on conspiracy theories that portray their opponents as pawns of one external power or the other. It appears the Maoists' transition to civilization has provided them with a rude awakening that the Maoists' too have played their part as expendable puppets.

Related Posts:

(Nepali) Congress At Crossroads
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/12/congress-at-crossroads.html

The Problem with Nepali Political Civil Society - The Leftist, the Cowards, and the Compromised
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/10/problem-with-nepali-political-civil.html

No Impunity for Civil Society Leaders: Nepalis are watching....
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/09/no-impunity-for-civil-society-leaders.html