State of the Nepali State - Equilibrium not in Sight

(Courtesy: el Mariachi)

In short, the Nepali nation state's current transition may be summed up as follows: Nepal is a country that is in existential jeopardy - a nation with a plethora of groups engaged in assessing and reassessing the relevance of identifying with their nation state; a nation of people who relate to a myriad of individual dimensions - caste, creed, ethnicity, religion - with as many differing prioritizations.

In essence, Nepal's transition to a republic is but one milestone along an indeterminate journey that is certain to outlive its people's sense of unbounded euphoria. So deprived of justice and visionary leadership has the Nepali state remained, that even the faintest sign of hope yields unmitigated celebration.

A 239 year old monarchy was painted as the root cause behind all of Nepal's socio-political and economic ills and was removed through a constituent assembly vote. The ills the monarchy was faulted for continue to grow, while pictures of Nepalis celebrating in the relatively affluent urban settings continue to receive airtime across the globe. Does anyone care about what the majority of Nepal's population - the rural class - have to say? Or are clips of adolescents covered in red vermilion sufficiently sensational to sell the six-o-clock news?

The reality is that Nepal's highly indoctrinated masses and an elite minority (who stand to gain from chaos) joined hands to cheer the monarchy's abolition. For they had nothing else to show for a decade of civil war and untold misery. Neither group dared risk a referendum for fear of the monarchy's unpopularity being democratically disproved. Had a referendum been held, it is very possible that the Maoists' "surprise" victory in the CA polls may not have been the only "surprise" to write about.

Alternatively, a decisive vote could have put the issue of monarchy to rest, democratically and without room for hearsay, forever. An inconvenient truth that is interpreted and misinterpreted is that despite Gyanendra's individual unpopularity (itself a product of some speculation and a politically motivated campaign of slander), the Nepali people as a whole were unable to exercise their individual right to choose on either the issue of monarchy or religion. Clearly not exemplary precedents with which to kick off the birth of a "New Nepal."

While a royal revival is highly unlikely, the point here is that same mode of callous extermination is a consideration that all Nepali institutions (political and otherwise) are now subject to, by virtue of established precedent. Essentially, the message it that terrorizing the population, then entering the mainstream (on one's own terms), and finally forcing the polity to align with one's agendas is a method that through Nepal's example, is standard operating procedure for any group with a radical agenda.

Nepal's indoctrinated masses continue to cheer, egged on by a literate few who stand to benefit tremendously from the international donor community. Meanwhile, a man with a history of exploding bombs in Katmandu was forwarded as the Maoist candidate for President; a man who freed heroin dealers on the farcical technicality that the confiscated drugs were not "100% pure", is Nepal's new Vice President. Are these facts too inconsequential to discuss or is there something fundamentally amiss in the Nepali psyche?

The Roman Caesars' had the gladiators to keep their masses distracted. Nepal it seems, has an endless stream of political comedians to keep her population entertained, diverted and deluded. With rising political awareness, the show may be coming to an end - but how far along the road the curtains will fall, is a question worth asking?

For the time being, it appears that the show is destined to go on. The duration of Nepal's transitory phase is not a reality that appears to have factored into a deluded equation of non-stop celebration. As in the past, Nepali people are falling prey to a pyrrhic victory - preferring to relish individual battles that are won, while losing the war altogether.

But as certain as the sun will rise from the East, the inconvenient truth that a stable and prosperous Nepal is but a fleeting reality (that is nowhere in sight), is bound to gradually dawn on the Nepali people. For the only consistent theme in Nepali politics is the inconsistent manner in which Nepal's leadership (from all walks of political orientation) have mismanaged, and continue to mismanage, the public's expectations.

Partly at fault is the fickle and populist minority - a population with the loudest voice, to which Nepali politicians must cater. Equally at fault however, is the highly self-serving and personally motivated Nepali elite whose skewed sense of individual liberties and democratic values continues to override the needs of the vast majority. Herein lies the contradiction that is the "New Nepal" -

Consider for example, Nepal's Constituent Assembly. The continuously regurgitated democratic lip-service follows that the peoples' representatives will vote the peoples' will - a claim that runs contrary to every political party's assertion that Constituent Assembly elections were anything but free and fair. Then, by deduction, the implication is that despite laudable increases in regional, ethnic, and gender dimensions, Nepal's constituent assembly remains unrepresentative of the broadest based Nepali voter sentiment.

However, degrees of representation is not the debate that need be had. Rather, it is the degree of friction between liberal and traditional sentiments, and the extent of radicalism that each entails, that should be of primary concern.

Although illiberal by most measures that extend beyond their party lines, Nepal's Maoists have unequivocally demonstrated that radicalism pays - up to a point. On the other hand, Nepal's traditional political forces, while "educating" the Maoists on democracy, have inadvertently become less traditional and relatively, more radical.

At the same time, upon eradicating the monarchy, a realization has dawned upon Nepal's established political actors that they can ill-afford to sustain a policy of unending appeasement - that when push comes to shove (and with no regal smoke screen to divert public attention), these parties must also stand their ground. The recent debacle prior to the election of Nepal's first President and Vice President (and the aftermath), are poignant examples.

In net terms then, is Nepal becoming a more liberal society or not? While ethnic assertion may be a sign of communal empowerment, is it not also an example of hardening positions, facilitated by radical, political platforms? Is a balanced approach (at the national level) even possible through compromise or is the middle ground only achievable on an issue-by-issue, basis? And, as alliances are created and broken during perpetual acts of horse-trading, what becomes of the government's responsibility to actually govern the Nepali nation-state?

This is precisely the fallacy of Nepal's current path: Liberal goals dominate the national agenda, each with its own set of political limitations. The Maoists are liberal as long as others kneel to their terms; the Madhesi parties are liberal as long as the "one-Madhes" demand is carried forth; the NC and UML are liberal, as long as they remain in power; Nepal's elite minority are ultra-liberal, so long as donor money keeps them gainfully employed.

Somewhere in this liberal tidal wave, political correctness has trumped political (moral, ethical) conviction. Unspoken guidelines are evident in every piece of politically motivated rhetoric. For example, when was the last time anyone dared to write a line in the mainstream media about the monarchy without a qualifying statement as to how bad the institution was for Nepal? Was the institution that established this nation just pure evil or are we being forced to retroactively judge 19th century events with a 21st century lens?

As another example, when was the last time anyone advocated for the survival of the Nepali nation state as a non-negotiable condition that should trump all political agenda? For example, when the new Vice President took his oath in Hindi, this non-issue became an unbearable insult to the student bodies of Nepal's mainstream parties. Is this not ironic given that every Nepali politician has pandered to India's whims and fancies, at every available opportunity? Nepal's nationalism was irreversibly compromised when the Seven Party Alliance was forged with a "made in India" stamp; is it appropriate for the student bodies (of the same parties who had no reservations about groveling to Hindustan in 2005), to raise a stink about the Hindi langue today?

These are but a few of the contradictions that define the "New Nepal." In a sense, vested elite interests and ultra-libertarian tendencies continue to cloud rational, balanced judgment - and it is these extreme agendas that are compromising Nepal's stature as an independent, sovereign State. While the ever-green argument of "Nepali nationalism" as misguided "Panchayati propaganda" continues to dominate the mainstream media, a closer evaluation of where this sentiment is alive and well may be a worthy academic pursuit.

Only when a healthy equilibrium between progressive, liberal tendencies and traditional values is reached, can Nepalis expect to move forward as a nation. Till then, the world will continue to marvel at Nepal as a experimental guinea pig while the Nepali people continue to suffer the consequences of their elite's making.

Related Posts:

More on Hope, Less on Commitment
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-on-hope-less-on-commitment.html

Kanak Mani Dixit The Nuanced
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/04/kanak-mani-dixit-nuanced.html

Nepal's Political Paradoxes
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/01/nepals-political-paradoxes.html