Nepal’s Road to Chaos – Struggle for Sovereignty

(Courtesy: Pritam Rana)

Nepal, a multitude of petty principalities in the Himalayas, was built up into a single monolithic state by King Prithvi Narayan Shah in the 18th century . Once unified, Nepal managed to retain its sovereignty despite the presence of expansionist East India Company in the Indian plains. In the north Tibet and China were ancient polities. Nepal’s expansion following King Prithvi Narayan Shah’s death brought it into confrontation with East India Company. In the Anglo-Nepal war (1814-1816), Nepal was defeated. Earlier in 1792, in a confrontation with Tibet, Nepal was able to stop invading Chinese forces in 1792.

The rise of the Ranas after 1849 saw Nepal as a firm ally of the British interests in the subcontinent. Jung Bahadur’s support to the British facing Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 brought back Butwal plains to Nepal. Following Bhimsen Thapa’s hardline anti-Company policy would have been disastrous. Nepal’s support of Indian mutineers would have resulted into British punitive expedition against Kathmandu and subsequent occupation of Nepal. Nepal would have thus lost its sovereignty as one of the princely Indian states. The Ranas also managed to persuade Britain to recognize Nepal’s sovereignty in 1923 and Nepal was able to maintain diplomatic ties with Britain in the form of an ambassador to London. The British maintained a resident in Nepal since 1816 Sugauli Treaty.

As Mao’s communists defeated and drove Kuomintang to Formosa in 1948, a new threat emerged toward Nepal’s northern frontier. Communist China marched into Tibet in 1950 to consolidate its claim altering Nepal’s strategic scenario. At the same time, anti-Rana politicians influenced by Indian Congress sought to establish democracy and socialism, a system foreign to Nepal. Used to authoritarian centralized rule, these ideas were bound to invite radical change and threat to Nepal’s existence as an independent country.

Before India and China clashed in 1962, Nepal gave up its experimentation with democracy and established a semi-democratic polity with considerable power in the hands of King Mahendra. In the heights of the Cold War, King Mahendra chose neutral foreign policy and adherence to non-aligned movement primarily to keep Nepal away from being entangled in Sino-Indian schism. Nepal thus was isolated from Western countries, its principal friends. Foreign investement into exploiting water resources was thus not forthcoming from the rich Western countries while the masses remained poor, mainly into subsistence farming, employment into British and Indian armies and as laborers in India.

After 1990, political change was idiosyncratic. While communism failed in Eastern Europe, Nepal saw a resurgence in appeal to communist parties. Populist slogans appealed to poorer, uneducated classes and from 1996, a radical wing of Nepal’s communists, the Maoists began armed revolution in the rural areas. Political violence unleashed in Nepal cost 15,000 lives and it propelled Nepal’s Maoists into the major political party. Its radical and revolutionary ideals has brought into conflict with the old order. This movement has managed to eliminate Nepal’s royal family from power. Its current aim is to integrate its armed cadre into Nepal’s army and take control of this oldest institution of Nepal. Absolute control is the supposed goal to transform Nepal into a one party communist state.

Nepal’s democracy has been skillfully infiltrated and brutally exploited by communists. Popular King Birendra should never have yielded to demands to liberalize the political system in 1990. Without a firm mechanism to check the growth of illiberal and extremist organizations, Maoists emerged and catapulted themselves to power employing unchecked political violence. King Birendra lost his life and his family in mysterious circumstances in 2001, which harks back to times of Nepal’s bloody past coups of the 19th century. King Birendra’s brother, King Gyanendra, failed to restore order in 2006 when the drive to republic gained momentum resulting in loss of monarchy, an institution with greatest contribution to Nepal’s unification and consolidation. Loss of the King as head of the state has resulted in a leadership vacuum.

March toward federalism could end up with disintegration of the state along ethnic lines aka Bosnia Herzegovina leaving room for future discord and armed conflict. The notion of federal states within a small territory as Nepal sounds impractical. The idea of these federal states negotiating with India to export power sounds farcical. Nepal’s move toward unfamiliar terrain could well take it to a point of no return.

The neo-elite of Nepal, primarily Brahmins, does not have a lasting legacy of statesmanship. Demolishing institutions in the name of restructuring is eliminating Nepal’s identity.
In the multipolar world, Nepal may well fall into the trap of emerging powers and their national interests. China’s emergence into a world power may influence pro-China elements in Nepal into suppressing Tibetan refugees and their deportation to uncertain fate in Chinese prison camps.

Communists and Maoists are already into anti-Western line. Nepal’s water resources need massive capital injection for development if it were to sustain projects capable of meeting Nepal’s rising energy demand. The hope of creating projects to export energy will always require technical expertise from the West. Nepal’s good relations with US and EU, including its traditional special ties with UK, cannot be surrendered to suit the short term foreign policy interests of its immediate neighbors. Nepal should cooperate in regional groupings like SAARC and BIMSTEC and exploit Nepal’s unique status as a center for sustainable tourism.

Radicalization of the youth by extremist political organizations and elimination of traditional institutions will erase Nepal’s appeal as a center of its unique culture. Heated political controversies with propensity for armed conflict has already earned Nepal’s image as a failed state among Nepal’s friends and donors. Further deterioration of law and order may invite intervention by India. Nepal may lose its sovereignty the same way Tibet lost it to China and Sikkim to India. The Himalayan Kingdoms were lost to expansionist designs of neighboring powers with deteriorating conditions expediting the loss of sovereignty. Therefore it is imperative that Nepal maintain partnership with NATO to maintain its territorial integrity. Nepal could well learn more from participation in NATO operations. Also, revenue in the form of pay and security assistance would be welcome.

Under no circumstances should Nepal join Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) despite shortsighted arguments like it would ensure energy supply. Russia and China who are key members of this alliance are keen to develop an anti-Western front through this new Warsaw pact. The SCO member states are mostly totalitarian dictatorships bent on suppressing political freedom and human rights. Nepal’s membership into SCO would ensure the rule of anti-democratic forces like Maoists who would be more than happy to suppress individual rights and establish authoritarian political order.