Nepal’s Politics And External Meddling
Yuba Nath Lamsal
When it comes to assessing Nepal as a country, different actors have defined Nepal’s situation differently. In the eyes of the international community, Nepal is a least developed country with an agrarian economy that is slowly sliding into the status of a failed state. The assessment of the international community is based on Nepal’s inability to appropriately tackle the internal crisis on its own.
The assessment of the political parties on Nepal’s status is not uniform. Most of the parties do not have a clear-cut definition but are of the view that Nepal is a country whose development is conditioned by its landlocked position. They have different programmes for rescuing Nepal from the state of underdevelopment and backwardness.
Unclear assessment
The parties are unclear in their assessment of the nature and character of the political forces of Nepal. In the eyes of the monarchists, all the political parties carry an alien ideology and agenda. The monarchists claim to be the only patriotic force and say their programmes and policies are homegrown, and thus suit Nepal’s peculiarities and conditions.
But their past record does not match their claims as the monarchy that ruled Nepal for 240 years had one sole objective - protecting the regime even by capitulating to the external forces. In the eyes of the other parties, the monarchist parties and forces are right-wing extremists and representatives of the outdated and outmoded feudal system which is on the verge of extinction with the abolition of the monarchy.
The Nepali Congress is one of the oldest parties in Nepal which either led or actively participated in the movement for political change. The role of the Nepali Congress was no doubt crucial in the political movements of Nepal. In the beginning, the Nepali Congress was a revolutionary party which wanted radical change in Nepal. The Congress adopted the Western model of democratic system and socialist programmes were incorporated into its economic policies.
The Nepali Congress chose to be called a social democratic party. When it went to power in 1959 with a landslide victory in the first ever parliamentary election, the Nepali Congress did try to implement some of its economic programmes, including land reforms, which was a radical one at that time. However, the Nepali Congress, in course of time, degenerated into a rightist and reactionary party eventually supporting ultra-capitalism.
At present, its policies and programmes represent the capitalist and comprador class and gets physical and moral support from the imperialist forces abroad. It claims to be the only democratic party in Nepal and dubs all other parties as being either rightist authoritarian or leftist totalitarian.
The CPN-UML is just as unclear when it comes to analysing the country’s political situation and international context. It does not have its own policy but carries the agenda of either the Congress or the Maoists. It claims to be a progressive party and calls the Nepali Congress a status-quoist party, the monarchist parties regressive and the Maoists left-adventurists and ultra-leftist.
The UCPN-Maoist has made its own and unique assessment and analysis of the country and the parties. Based on its analysis, the Nepali Congress is a party that represents, protects and patronises feudal elements and the comprador class, and acts in the interests of the expansionist and imperialist forces abroad, while the CPN-UML is an agent of the Nepali Congress having no independent position and stance.
According to the Maoist party, Nepal is in semi-feudal and semi-colonial state. The Maoist party claims to be the only revolutionary party and capable of transforming Nepal into an equitable and prosperous country.
The Maoists further say that Nepal is beset with numerous contradictions and anomalies on the political, social, economic and cultural fronts. The crisis that the young republic faces at present is because of its inability to properly identify the basic contradictions in the society and their root causes and accordingly resolve them permanently.
The crises and contradictions had long been embedded in the Nepali society, but no attention was paid to tackle and solve these crises in the past. The eyes opened wide only after the contradictions came to the surface, creating a real crisis in the society.
The Maoist insurgency is the result of multiple contradictions of the Nepali society. Ever since Nepal was created, the goal and objectives of the rulers were to protect the interests of the elite and feudal class. The centralised structure of the state could hardly address the backward and marginalised sections of the society because of its class interest and orientation. This gave further rise to contradictions in the society, which were reflected in the form of resistance on various occasions. Be it the anti-Rana movements, anti-Panchayat struggles or resistance against the monarchy, they were representatives of the people’s resistance to the existing contradictions and exploitation. The political change of 1951, too, failed to address the contradictions, instead it only helped them widen.
As an organised armed resistance, the Jhapa uprising was launched by some young revolutionaries for the ‘annihilation of class enemies’. The Jhapa resistance failed because its leadership was opportunistic which slowly degenerated into a reformist and revisionist line. Moreover, the Jhapa movement and the party that launched this resistance had no clear goals and plans, and it lacked any objective analysis of the Nepali society and its principal contradictions.
The UCPN-Maoist rose in Nepali politics as the 1990 political developments, too, brought about only cosmetic changes but failed to address the fundamental contradictions
According to the Maoists, the domestic reactionaries and external imperialist and expansionist forces have blended together, and a national liberation movement is necessary to free Nepal from external domination and internal exploitation. Under this analysis, expansionist and imperialist forces are more dangerous than the internal reactionaries because the domestic reactionaries are not acting on their own but at the behest of the imperialists and expansionists.
The Maoists have also properly identified the contradictions in the society and the principal enemy of Nepal and the Nepalese people. The Maoists have identified the external expansionist force and its allies as the primary obstacle for Nepal’s development. Although imperialism is a threat to Nepal’s revolution and radical change of the society, it is currently less dangerous compared to the magnitude of the threat Nepal is facing from the expansionist and hegemonic force.
The UCPN-Maoist has designated the Untied States of America as the leader of imperialism under whose command and control, its allies reinforce imperialist domination. With the change of time, the very nature of imperialism has also changed. Although the inherent character of imperialism remains the same, the methods and approaches of imperialism are different in the present context.
In the past, imperialism used force and applied coercive methods to control the affairs of other countries. With the technological revolution, the world has turned into a small global village. In the present technologically driven world, a country does not need to use force to control another country’s affairs. IT can do so through technological, economic and cultural domination and control. The imperialists are currently doing so through the media, technology and multi-national companies to ensure their control of the world. This situation is best described as neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism.
The Maoists do not see the United States as the principal threat because it does not directly interfere in Nepal’s affairs. The UCPN-Maoist has designated India as an expansionist and hegemonic force that is interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs. India is being, thus, viewed by the Maoists as the principal threat and obstruction to Nepal’s desire for radical political change, economic revolution, social reforms and cultural transformation.
The recent developments in our political spectrum are illustrative of direct external interference and meddling in our internal affairs, which back the Maoist analysis on the domestic political situation and the role of the external force.
Objective analysis
This has raised the question of the capability and credibility of our political parties as they cannot decide even on the formation of a government and instead seek diktats from foreigners. The correct and objective analysis of the Nepali society and the principal contradictions of the Maoists have drawn overwhelming support of the people, which were reflected during the insurgency and also in the Constituent Assembly election. This is illustrative of the patriotic and realistic attitude of the people, which should serve as a lesson for all the other existing parties.
When it comes to assessing Nepal as a country, different actors have defined Nepal’s situation differently. In the eyes of the international community, Nepal is a least developed country with an agrarian economy that is slowly sliding into the status of a failed state. The assessment of the international community is based on Nepal’s inability to appropriately tackle the internal crisis on its own.
The assessment of the political parties on Nepal’s status is not uniform. Most of the parties do not have a clear-cut definition but are of the view that Nepal is a country whose development is conditioned by its landlocked position. They have different programmes for rescuing Nepal from the state of underdevelopment and backwardness.
Unclear assessment
The parties are unclear in their assessment of the nature and character of the political forces of Nepal. In the eyes of the monarchists, all the political parties carry an alien ideology and agenda. The monarchists claim to be the only patriotic force and say their programmes and policies are homegrown, and thus suit Nepal’s peculiarities and conditions.
But their past record does not match their claims as the monarchy that ruled Nepal for 240 years had one sole objective - protecting the regime even by capitulating to the external forces. In the eyes of the other parties, the monarchist parties and forces are right-wing extremists and representatives of the outdated and outmoded feudal system which is on the verge of extinction with the abolition of the monarchy.
The Nepali Congress is one of the oldest parties in Nepal which either led or actively participated in the movement for political change. The role of the Nepali Congress was no doubt crucial in the political movements of Nepal. In the beginning, the Nepali Congress was a revolutionary party which wanted radical change in Nepal. The Congress adopted the Western model of democratic system and socialist programmes were incorporated into its economic policies.
The Nepali Congress chose to be called a social democratic party. When it went to power in 1959 with a landslide victory in the first ever parliamentary election, the Nepali Congress did try to implement some of its economic programmes, including land reforms, which was a radical one at that time. However, the Nepali Congress, in course of time, degenerated into a rightist and reactionary party eventually supporting ultra-capitalism.
At present, its policies and programmes represent the capitalist and comprador class and gets physical and moral support from the imperialist forces abroad. It claims to be the only democratic party in Nepal and dubs all other parties as being either rightist authoritarian or leftist totalitarian.
The CPN-UML is just as unclear when it comes to analysing the country’s political situation and international context. It does not have its own policy but carries the agenda of either the Congress or the Maoists. It claims to be a progressive party and calls the Nepali Congress a status-quoist party, the monarchist parties regressive and the Maoists left-adventurists and ultra-leftist.
The UCPN-Maoist has made its own and unique assessment and analysis of the country and the parties. Based on its analysis, the Nepali Congress is a party that represents, protects and patronises feudal elements and the comprador class, and acts in the interests of the expansionist and imperialist forces abroad, while the CPN-UML is an agent of the Nepali Congress having no independent position and stance.
According to the Maoist party, Nepal is in semi-feudal and semi-colonial state. The Maoist party claims to be the only revolutionary party and capable of transforming Nepal into an equitable and prosperous country.
The Maoists further say that Nepal is beset with numerous contradictions and anomalies on the political, social, economic and cultural fronts. The crisis that the young republic faces at present is because of its inability to properly identify the basic contradictions in the society and their root causes and accordingly resolve them permanently.
The crises and contradictions had long been embedded in the Nepali society, but no attention was paid to tackle and solve these crises in the past. The eyes opened wide only after the contradictions came to the surface, creating a real crisis in the society.
The Maoist insurgency is the result of multiple contradictions of the Nepali society. Ever since Nepal was created, the goal and objectives of the rulers were to protect the interests of the elite and feudal class. The centralised structure of the state could hardly address the backward and marginalised sections of the society because of its class interest and orientation. This gave further rise to contradictions in the society, which were reflected in the form of resistance on various occasions. Be it the anti-Rana movements, anti-Panchayat struggles or resistance against the monarchy, they were representatives of the people’s resistance to the existing contradictions and exploitation. The political change of 1951, too, failed to address the contradictions, instead it only helped them widen.
As an organised armed resistance, the Jhapa uprising was launched by some young revolutionaries for the ‘annihilation of class enemies’. The Jhapa resistance failed because its leadership was opportunistic which slowly degenerated into a reformist and revisionist line. Moreover, the Jhapa movement and the party that launched this resistance had no clear goals and plans, and it lacked any objective analysis of the Nepali society and its principal contradictions.
The UCPN-Maoist rose in Nepali politics as the 1990 political developments, too, brought about only cosmetic changes but failed to address the fundamental contradictions
According to the Maoists, the domestic reactionaries and external imperialist and expansionist forces have blended together, and a national liberation movement is necessary to free Nepal from external domination and internal exploitation. Under this analysis, expansionist and imperialist forces are more dangerous than the internal reactionaries because the domestic reactionaries are not acting on their own but at the behest of the imperialists and expansionists.
The Maoists have also properly identified the contradictions in the society and the principal enemy of Nepal and the Nepalese people. The Maoists have identified the external expansionist force and its allies as the primary obstacle for Nepal’s development. Although imperialism is a threat to Nepal’s revolution and radical change of the society, it is currently less dangerous compared to the magnitude of the threat Nepal is facing from the expansionist and hegemonic force.
The UCPN-Maoist has designated the Untied States of America as the leader of imperialism under whose command and control, its allies reinforce imperialist domination. With the change of time, the very nature of imperialism has also changed. Although the inherent character of imperialism remains the same, the methods and approaches of imperialism are different in the present context.
In the past, imperialism used force and applied coercive methods to control the affairs of other countries. With the technological revolution, the world has turned into a small global village. In the present technologically driven world, a country does not need to use force to control another country’s affairs. IT can do so through technological, economic and cultural domination and control. The imperialists are currently doing so through the media, technology and multi-national companies to ensure their control of the world. This situation is best described as neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism.
The Maoists do not see the United States as the principal threat because it does not directly interfere in Nepal’s affairs. The UCPN-Maoist has designated India as an expansionist and hegemonic force that is interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs. India is being, thus, viewed by the Maoists as the principal threat and obstruction to Nepal’s desire for radical political change, economic revolution, social reforms and cultural transformation.
The recent developments in our political spectrum are illustrative of direct external interference and meddling in our internal affairs, which back the Maoist analysis on the domestic political situation and the role of the external force.
Objective analysis
This has raised the question of the capability and credibility of our political parties as they cannot decide even on the formation of a government and instead seek diktats from foreigners. The correct and objective analysis of the Nepali society and the principal contradictions of the Maoists have drawn overwhelming support of the people, which were reflected during the insurgency and also in the Constituent Assembly election. This is illustrative of the patriotic and realistic attitude of the people, which should serve as a lesson for all the other existing parties.
Comments
Post a Comment