Unity Call

(Reproduced, Courtesy: Chiran Jung Thapa)

United we stand, divided we fall. This aphorism is becoming salient to Nepal's current context. As the country deviates from the course of peace and prosperity while ethnic and political polarization widen, devastating consequences seem inevitable. But that need not be so, only if Nepal could discern a new linchpin.

Amongst the innumerable identities the Nepali State has acquired, "a nation of crabs" is perhaps the one that is least heard of. As the analogy goes, when crabs are placed even in an open basket, no crab is able escape to freedom. It is because of the crabs' innate tendency to pincer back anyone trying to make its way out. Eventually, every crab in the basket is doomed.

Although a majority of Nepalis have never seen a basket of crabs, Nepal is awash with examples of such crabby demeanour. This analogy is applicable at every level of the Nepali society. However, it is the political tussle that epitomizes the country's crabby characteristic. After more than a year of bickering and haggling, Nepal is back to square one. The political parties have wrangled so much that neither has a consensus emerged nor has the promised peace been palpable.

To make matters worse, the resignation tendered by a few Madheshi members of Parliament (MP) and a Madhesi minister from their respective positions portends further polarization. This incident has given a new twist to the current political gridlock because many believe that the Madheshi leaders are aligning to form a grand Madheshi party.

Given the apathy exhibited by the governing authorities towards the Madheshi grievances, unity along the ethnic lines were inevitable. It was just a matter of when.

But now as the speculation of a grand Madheshi party seems to be materializing, there is a growing hum of fear that such an ethno-political alliance will only exacerbate the already fragile political landscape. Many believe that such an ethno-political alliance will only widen the rift in both the political and societal spheres. Further, Hridayesh Tripathi's warning of a secessionist movement in Terai if the national army is mobilized to quell the Terai agitation, has only added to the tensions.

More ominously, the formation of ethnically homogeneous militant factions has surely increased the prospects of violence. The Madheshi groups have recently unveiled a militant wing named Madesh Raskhya Bahini (Madhesh Security Brigade). Likewise, Chure Vabar Ekta Samaj – a group that was formed to counter threats against people of hilly origin in the Terai region, has made its 100 manned army public. And with the formation of these two militant ethnic factions, it clearly appears that Nepal is headed for another bout of an even more intractable identity-based conflict.

Losing a linchpin

Since the birth of modern Nepal, the King and the institution of Monarchy had served as the linchpin. For more than two centuries, the institution not only served as a symbol of national unity but had managed to prevent any blown out ethnic or religious frays. For better or worse, the institution was reckoned as a bastion of national identity and many regarded it as the cohesive factor.

Today, however, Monarchy no longer serves that purpose. Following the February 1st takeover, intense opprobrium was heaped on the Monarch by the international brethren. And following the April uprising, the King and the institution of Monarchy have been ostracized by the political parties, and the media. As a consequence, the King has been turned into a bête noire, the Royalists have been depicted as outcasts, and the institution of Monarchy has become a taboo.

The damage the royal-bashing has inflicted upon the institution of monarchy, however, is of little significance when compared to the damage it has inflicted to the nation. With the removal and degradation of Monarchy as the symbol of national unity, Nepal has certainly lost the cohesiveness. But even more calamitous has been the inability to provide a substitute for the discarded linchpin. Because of this loss and the lack of a substitute, ethnic, political and individual zeal have quickly replaced that void. And the repercussions have been nothing but utterly polarizing and weakening the nation. And it has become increasingly evident that no single political force in the country possesses the capability of providing a sustainable solution to Nepal's woes. Neither has the alliance amongst the top political parties been adequate to deliver the desired progress.

The oxymoronic example of Girija P. Koirala adds more weight to the notion of a weakened nation. Although Koirala is touted as the most powerful prime minister in the history of Nepal, yet he is also the most impotent prime minister ever. First, his ill-health has confined him to the contours of his official residence. Injected with oxygen, he feebly delivers his edicts from his sick-bed. Second, during his reign, his authority has been hounded by more protests and agitations than ever recorded in Nepal's history. Third, under his commandership, the State's authority has critically eroded to a point that his government's writ barely operates in large swathes of the country, especially in the Terai region. Fourth, right under his nose, border encroachment is perilously rampant. But Koirala neither has the courage to confront the Indians over this issue nor does he have the capacity to prevent such encroachment.

Probable prescription

Today, it has become apparent that there is absolutely no alternative to unity amongst all political forces in Nepal. The authority of state has weakened so much that any minor spoiler is capable of causing a major disturbance to the process. Hence, what is direly needed is a mother of all alliances - a grand alliance. Only such an alliance can salvage the country from total disintegration.

Unlike before, this new alliance should include all the major and minor political forces. It is not just the Royalists or Madhesis that need to be included in the process. Other regional groups and other political parties should be included as well. Inclusiveness, however, should not imply that each will acquire a prominent position. Rather, it is to ensure that even the minor players become stake-holders of the process.

Following the formation of the grand alliance, the primary objective should be to transform the conflict into a consensus. Only achieving a consensus is insufficient. What is required is a commitment from all in the alliance to collaborate and cooperate. And that commitment, cooperation and collaboration will require continuity. Any break will only mess things up.

Although it may sound flimsy and redundant, a consensus is certainly feasible. If all the squabbling factions were to start from the factor that unites rather than ones that divide, they would come to realize that a consensus can be engendered. A simple introspection into their respective positions and interests would reveal that the ultimate crystallizing element is the linchpin. And that linchpin is the idea of "for the better good of the country." Even if the hubristic ambitions of the leaders are factored into the equation, all protagonists in this process are nonetheless in the pursuit of the greater good of the country to a certain extent. The only varying factor is the approach to achieving that greater good. Since the primary objective is the same for all and only approaches vary, why not coalesce for the objective rather than remain divorced over the approach?

Nepal urgently needs "constructive engagement" rather than "cleansing confrontation." Instead of cleansing attempts - that are bound to lead to further conflicts, an inclusive approach would undoubtedly increase the prospects of yielding a sustainable solution. By trying to purge the Maoists, the nation has had to endure a decade long violent conflict. So, the possibility of similar conflicts cannot be denied if attempts are made to proscribe any political force from the process.

The biggest threat to Nepal stems not from anything else but from the internal weaknesses and most of it is self-inflicted. The longer the major political players are divided and are at daggers drawn, the higher the prospects of disintegration. Also, the longer political forces remain divided, the more uncertainty and instability this divorce will breed. This in turn will provide more room for international actors to interfere in Nepal's internal affairs.

Today, Nepal truly stands at the crossroads. And Nepal's destiny lies in the hands of the Nepalese themselves. The divergent factions can remain hunkered down in their unyielding positions and be doomed like the crabs, or they can converge and unite to discover the possibility of unimaginable prosperity for the country. The moment is ripe to cast off the crabby characteristic and become true citizens of a country. But until all the political forces realize that their credibility and viability is contingent upon cooperation and collaboration, a peace and prosperous Nepal will prove illusory.

Related Texts:

Where's Nepal heading?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/wheres-nepal-heading.html

The Forgotten Police Story (in Nepal)
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/10/forgotten-police-story-in-nepal.html

Debunking the Democratic Dogma
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/09/debunking-democratic-dogma.html