Politics Goes Haywire In Nepal
Yuba Nath Lamsal
When politics goes haywire, people are the ultimate victims. Politics occupies a dominant place everywhere in the world. This is more so in the developing and least developed countries where the process of nation building is underway. Even in the developed western democracies, politics continues to dominate the other sectors although the economy is said to dictate politics.
In a developing country like ours, everything revolves around politics. Given our own experience and also in some other developing countries, including our neighbours, politics is guided, motivated and dictated by power. The general rule of politics is and should be to serve the people, and politics should be guided, motivated and dictated by the interests and welfare of the people
Power - the driving force
Unfortunately, this does not happen in Nepal as the politicians, parties and leaders run after power and position rather than the interest of the people and the country. This is the stark reality of present-day politics in most of the developing countries including Nepal.
The politics driven by power, position and perks is the root cause of the present mess Nepal is witnessing. Politics should have been part of the solution to the conflicts raging in the society. Instead, politics has become the source of all conflicts and problems in Nepal. This is not a new phenomenon but has been in existence for a long time.
The decade-long armed insurgency, which the Maoists call the ‘People’s War’, brought to the fore the core issues of the conflict that had remained hidden for years, decades and even centuries. The superstructure of the Nepali society in itself is evident of numerous conflicts and contradictions. The control over the economy, resources and political power has given birth to conflicts of various forms ever since Nepal was created as a unified political entity almost 240 years ago.
The conflicts and contradictions were expressed on various occasions in different forms. But such conflict could not appeal to the people in an effective way. As a result, the resistance movements in the past failed to achieve their goals. Some were aborted halfway through and some were crushed by the ruling class with brutal force, while a few achieved partial success.
Although there were disgruntlements against the ruling elites, the people did not come to the fore in an organised and formidable form in the past. As a result, the ruling class could easily suppress the small and disorganised resistance movements. Moreover, the ruling class and their leaders often engineered various plots to eliminate their enemies and consolidate their hold on power.
The monarchy was the centre of power until it was abolished three years ago. The monarchy deliberately created two rival groups in the political superstructure and pitted one group against the other and kept them busy in the internal power struggle. This was their strategy to retain their stronghold on power.
The Kot Parva (Kot massacre), Bhandarkhal Parva and Aalu Parva are some of the plots and intrigues engineered by the palace in association with different groups in the palace and higher political clusters to eliminate the prospective enemies. The Kot Parva, which was jointly engineered by a section of the palace and a group of the upper power echelon, gave rise to Rana family rule that lasted for over a century.
The resistance movement at the popular level was visible in an organised manner in the late 20th century. Library Parva, Prachanda Gorkha and Jayatu Sanskritam alike were people’s organised resistance movements against the repressive regime. The resistance movements remained small in size and strength, and they were easily crushed by the brutal regime.
The formation of the Praja Parishad and its activities were the first resistance movement that touched the heart of the people. This sowed the real seed of discontent and movement against the ruling class and oligarchic system. The ruling class or the Ranas - who were the virtual rulers although the monarchy was intact - awarded some members of the Praja Parishad with the death penalty and some with life imprisonment with confiscation of their property.
When four members of the resistance movement, namely, Sukraraj Shastri, Dasharath Chand, Gangalal Shrestha and Dharma Bhakta Mathema, were hanged by the Rana rulers, it slowly created a stir in the minds of the Nepali people and gave rise to an organised popular resistance movement. The Nepali Congress Party, which had developed on the foundation of the Praja Parishad, cashed in on the simmering discontent of the people against the ruling class.
The Congress Party which had revolutionary zeal and programmes was quick to win over the people and mobilised the mass for a revolution. Although this revolution, too, was aborted in the name of a tripartite Delhi Agreement, this was the first popular and organised resistance movement that had mass support. The people overwhelmingly supported the Nepali Congress-led revolution in the belief that it would not deceive the people and would successfully complete the revolution to bring about radical change.
The concept of radical change during that period was to bring about systemic change that would transfer power from the feudal class to the new revolutionary class. But the Nepali Congress in the guise of an agreement gave up its agenda and stance and instead entered into an alliance with the old ruling class.
Until then, the Ranas were at the helm of affairs whereas the 1951 change transferred power from the Ranas to the Shah kings. But it did not bring about systemic change in Nepal but just concentrated power in the same feudal class. The kings and Ranas belong to the same class which protected the interests of the feudal class.
Moreover, the Nepali Congress which had earlier championed for revolutionary change in Nepal also surrendered to the feudal class just for power. In this way, the Nepali Congress rallied behind the feudal and bureaucratic capitalist class.
The 1951 change did not bring about any significant change in Nepal’s political, economic and social strata but gave continuity to the old order. In the 1950/51 revolution, the revolutionary forces and people had pinned high hopes on the Nepali Congress and expected radical change. Their hopes were dashed as the Nepali Congress also joined the ranks of the feudal class, landlords and bureaucratic capitalist class.
The imperialists and regional hegemonic powers had played a crucial role in the degeneration of the Nepali Congress from a revolutionary party to a petty bourgeoisie party.
A similar phenomenon was repeated in Nepal time and again until 2006. Even the 1990 political movement brought about only cosmetic changes. The 1990 movement curtailed some prerogatives of the king but accepted the monarchy as the center of power. Despite this, the 1990 political change had some positive aspects as it laid the ground for further mobilising the people for real change in the country.
The conflict between the rulers and the ruled and between the feudal-bureaucratic capitalists and the working class remained unresolved. There are numerous conflicts in the Nepali society over political power; access to economic opportunities and resources; and ethnic, lingual and cultural identity. The ruling class tried to suppress these conflicts and growing discontent among the people. These conflicts and contradictions of the Nepali society kept on snowballing, which became more visible only after the Maoists started the armed insurgency.
The Maoists identified the fundamental conflicts and contradictions in the society and not only raised these issues more prominently but also put forward their vision and plans to address them. Politically, they hit at feudalism and its patron - the monarchy. Economically, the Maoists advocated an egalitarian society. The Maoists also launched a crusade against all kinds of social and cultural anomalies, including untouchability and all forms of discrimination.
The approach of the Maoists in dealing with and addressing the inherent conflicts and contradictions in the society enjoyed popular support, especially from those belonging to different ethnic, lingual and cultural communities - groups that hitherto were discriminated and marginalised.
More than that, the Maoists adopted the strategy that the feudal system that was protected by the armed forces could be overthrown only by force. The Maoists’ conclusion was that the political movement and people’s resistance failed to bring about systemic change in Nepal in the past because the movements were peaceful in nature, which could easily be suppressed by the feudal force. Based on this conclusion, the Maoists built its own army and challenged the feudal monarchical system and finally succeeded in toppling it.
Bizarre politics
In the past, one class - the feudal and bureaucratic capitalist class - ruled the rest of the people. Now a republic system has been established by dismantling the old power structure. With the abolition of the monarchy and establishment of a republic, the Nepali people have become masters of their own destiny.
Still politics is not moving in the right direction. The self-centered approach of the parties and leaders has taken a big toll of our politics because no significant progress has been made in the process of institutionalising the achievements. Nepal’s politics has become bizarre, and people continue to suffer.
When politics goes haywire, people are the ultimate victims. Politics occupies a dominant place everywhere in the world. This is more so in the developing and least developed countries where the process of nation building is underway. Even in the developed western democracies, politics continues to dominate the other sectors although the economy is said to dictate politics.
In a developing country like ours, everything revolves around politics. Given our own experience and also in some other developing countries, including our neighbours, politics is guided, motivated and dictated by power. The general rule of politics is and should be to serve the people, and politics should be guided, motivated and dictated by the interests and welfare of the people
Power - the driving force
Unfortunately, this does not happen in Nepal as the politicians, parties and leaders run after power and position rather than the interest of the people and the country. This is the stark reality of present-day politics in most of the developing countries including Nepal.
The politics driven by power, position and perks is the root cause of the present mess Nepal is witnessing. Politics should have been part of the solution to the conflicts raging in the society. Instead, politics has become the source of all conflicts and problems in Nepal. This is not a new phenomenon but has been in existence for a long time.
The decade-long armed insurgency, which the Maoists call the ‘People’s War’, brought to the fore the core issues of the conflict that had remained hidden for years, decades and even centuries. The superstructure of the Nepali society in itself is evident of numerous conflicts and contradictions. The control over the economy, resources and political power has given birth to conflicts of various forms ever since Nepal was created as a unified political entity almost 240 years ago.
The conflicts and contradictions were expressed on various occasions in different forms. But such conflict could not appeal to the people in an effective way. As a result, the resistance movements in the past failed to achieve their goals. Some were aborted halfway through and some were crushed by the ruling class with brutal force, while a few achieved partial success.
Although there were disgruntlements against the ruling elites, the people did not come to the fore in an organised and formidable form in the past. As a result, the ruling class could easily suppress the small and disorganised resistance movements. Moreover, the ruling class and their leaders often engineered various plots to eliminate their enemies and consolidate their hold on power.
The monarchy was the centre of power until it was abolished three years ago. The monarchy deliberately created two rival groups in the political superstructure and pitted one group against the other and kept them busy in the internal power struggle. This was their strategy to retain their stronghold on power.
The Kot Parva (Kot massacre), Bhandarkhal Parva and Aalu Parva are some of the plots and intrigues engineered by the palace in association with different groups in the palace and higher political clusters to eliminate the prospective enemies. The Kot Parva, which was jointly engineered by a section of the palace and a group of the upper power echelon, gave rise to Rana family rule that lasted for over a century.
The resistance movement at the popular level was visible in an organised manner in the late 20th century. Library Parva, Prachanda Gorkha and Jayatu Sanskritam alike were people’s organised resistance movements against the repressive regime. The resistance movements remained small in size and strength, and they were easily crushed by the brutal regime.
The formation of the Praja Parishad and its activities were the first resistance movement that touched the heart of the people. This sowed the real seed of discontent and movement against the ruling class and oligarchic system. The ruling class or the Ranas - who were the virtual rulers although the monarchy was intact - awarded some members of the Praja Parishad with the death penalty and some with life imprisonment with confiscation of their property.
When four members of the resistance movement, namely, Sukraraj Shastri, Dasharath Chand, Gangalal Shrestha and Dharma Bhakta Mathema, were hanged by the Rana rulers, it slowly created a stir in the minds of the Nepali people and gave rise to an organised popular resistance movement. The Nepali Congress Party, which had developed on the foundation of the Praja Parishad, cashed in on the simmering discontent of the people against the ruling class.
The Congress Party which had revolutionary zeal and programmes was quick to win over the people and mobilised the mass for a revolution. Although this revolution, too, was aborted in the name of a tripartite Delhi Agreement, this was the first popular and organised resistance movement that had mass support. The people overwhelmingly supported the Nepali Congress-led revolution in the belief that it would not deceive the people and would successfully complete the revolution to bring about radical change.
The concept of radical change during that period was to bring about systemic change that would transfer power from the feudal class to the new revolutionary class. But the Nepali Congress in the guise of an agreement gave up its agenda and stance and instead entered into an alliance with the old ruling class.
Until then, the Ranas were at the helm of affairs whereas the 1951 change transferred power from the Ranas to the Shah kings. But it did not bring about systemic change in Nepal but just concentrated power in the same feudal class. The kings and Ranas belong to the same class which protected the interests of the feudal class.
Moreover, the Nepali Congress which had earlier championed for revolutionary change in Nepal also surrendered to the feudal class just for power. In this way, the Nepali Congress rallied behind the feudal and bureaucratic capitalist class.
The 1951 change did not bring about any significant change in Nepal’s political, economic and social strata but gave continuity to the old order. In the 1950/51 revolution, the revolutionary forces and people had pinned high hopes on the Nepali Congress and expected radical change. Their hopes were dashed as the Nepali Congress also joined the ranks of the feudal class, landlords and bureaucratic capitalist class.
The imperialists and regional hegemonic powers had played a crucial role in the degeneration of the Nepali Congress from a revolutionary party to a petty bourgeoisie party.
A similar phenomenon was repeated in Nepal time and again until 2006. Even the 1990 political movement brought about only cosmetic changes. The 1990 movement curtailed some prerogatives of the king but accepted the monarchy as the center of power. Despite this, the 1990 political change had some positive aspects as it laid the ground for further mobilising the people for real change in the country.
The conflict between the rulers and the ruled and between the feudal-bureaucratic capitalists and the working class remained unresolved. There are numerous conflicts in the Nepali society over political power; access to economic opportunities and resources; and ethnic, lingual and cultural identity. The ruling class tried to suppress these conflicts and growing discontent among the people. These conflicts and contradictions of the Nepali society kept on snowballing, which became more visible only after the Maoists started the armed insurgency.
The Maoists identified the fundamental conflicts and contradictions in the society and not only raised these issues more prominently but also put forward their vision and plans to address them. Politically, they hit at feudalism and its patron - the monarchy. Economically, the Maoists advocated an egalitarian society. The Maoists also launched a crusade against all kinds of social and cultural anomalies, including untouchability and all forms of discrimination.
The approach of the Maoists in dealing with and addressing the inherent conflicts and contradictions in the society enjoyed popular support, especially from those belonging to different ethnic, lingual and cultural communities - groups that hitherto were discriminated and marginalised.
More than that, the Maoists adopted the strategy that the feudal system that was protected by the armed forces could be overthrown only by force. The Maoists’ conclusion was that the political movement and people’s resistance failed to bring about systemic change in Nepal in the past because the movements were peaceful in nature, which could easily be suppressed by the feudal force. Based on this conclusion, the Maoists built its own army and challenged the feudal monarchical system and finally succeeded in toppling it.
Bizarre politics
In the past, one class - the feudal and bureaucratic capitalist class - ruled the rest of the people. Now a republic system has been established by dismantling the old power structure. With the abolition of the monarchy and establishment of a republic, the Nepali people have become masters of their own destiny.
Still politics is not moving in the right direction. The self-centered approach of the parties and leaders has taken a big toll of our politics because no significant progress has been made in the process of institutionalising the achievements. Nepal’s politics has become bizarre, and people continue to suffer.
Comments
Post a Comment