Nepal is not a failed state

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Some people tend to portray Nepal’s present scenario as the syndrome of a failed state. But we should not arrive at such a hasty conclusion. Before arriving at a conclusion of such a crucial question, we must analyze historical, cultural, social, political and economic dynamics of Nepal.  Given the geo-political and geo-strategic position with which Nepal has been able to survive and preserve its national and sovereign identity and status, it would be superficial to conclude that Nepal is on the verge of sliding into the status of a failed state.
It is true that Nepal’s current political situation is very fluid and in the state of flux. Almost every country in the world has experienced such an environment at certain point of history. Even the big powers of today had undergone many ups and down and situation similar to what Nepal is facing at present. The United States of America, Britain, Russia, France, Germany, China and India, came out of the dire state and ultimately emerged as global power because of their resilient people and visionary leaders. Similarly, there are many other small and poor countries in the world especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America that are facing exactly the similar situation and we cannot call them as failed states. But we cannot conclude that they have failed.
We are judging the performance of the state and qualification of a country to be a successful or failed state purely on the basis of parameters and yardstick set by the Western countries. It does not necessarily mean that the measures and methods used by Western countries to judge the success and failure of the state may be applicable globally. Different countries have their own national situation, historical perspective and cultural dimension to measure the performance of the state and its people. The Western countries are individualistic society which focus more on individual rights and liberty, whereas the Eastern countries and societies are more community based and they value more on collective and community rights and welfare. In other words, the Western concept is right-based and the oriental values are more of responsibility and duty-based. This is the fundamental differences in understanding and judging the states’ success and failure.
It is necessary to first understand the core political, social and cultural values as well as historical traditions and perspective of a given country or society and analyze these factors before arriving at a certain conclusion on the success or failure of any state. Nepal is definitely not the United States of America nor is it any European country. Its political tradition and social and cultural dynamics are also different from any other countries in Africa. Nepal is a country with a long history with an independent and sovereign status. Nepal is, perhaps, one of the oldest countries in Asia. When the entire South Asia came under British colonial rule, Nepal maintained its sovereign and independent status not by coaxing but fighting fiercely and bravely with the British colonial force. Thus, it would be unwise to make simplistic analysis and conclusion on Nepal’s ability as a state.
Nepal, thus, has a long political legacy and its own tradition—unique and different from other countries in the world. Against this background, the success and failure of Nepal as a state needs to be debated and accordingly conclusion has to be drawn. Given the dismal political and economic situation Nepal is undergoing at present is not definitely a positive trend. It is true that Nepal is in its history’s worst crisis. The Himalayan Republic has been in such a dire strait since the Anglo-Nepal War in 1914-16. But, given this situation, it would not be politically correct to arrive at a conclusion that Nepal is close to the status of a failed state.
Many pundits have based their assumptions and conclusion on the reports of some foreigners, on whose support and grant their bread and butter lies. A London-based International Peace Fund sometime back published a ‘Failed State Index’, which included Nepal among the countries that have either already become failed states or are heading towards that direction. The Index does not clearly states Nepal as being the failed state but says that Nepal is in the possibility of becoming a failed state. The main basis of its conclusion is Nepal’s ongoing political instability, poor economy and fragile security. It has further stated that Nepal would be a failed state if a new constitution was not promulgated in time and on-going political process not concluded to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.
There is no shade of doubt that if political, social, constitutional and security related problems are not resolved, they may give rise to newer problems, which one day may lead the country towards the status of a failed state. But the condition through which Nepal is passing is manageable and would be managed. Nepal has experienced such crises and problems on various occasions in the past as well and it tactfully and successfully handled all the crises. The present crisis, too, would be handled and resolved successfully because Nepal as a state has capability and credibility to tackle its own problems.
If we analyze the state of affairs and political activities that have unfolded over the last two centuries in Nepal, we always find the Nepalese people resilient, optimistic and forward-looking.  The Nepalese people are often peace-loving and flexible but, when deemed necessary, they become tough and resistant. This nature of the people of Nepal has maintained the proud legacy of this Himalayan Republic. They have supported the rulers when they act at the interest of the country. It was the overwhelming support and active participation of the people belonging to different ethnicities, castes and creeds that made the unification of Nepal possible. For the just cause of the country, people have always extended support to the rulers. But when the rulers turned dictator and acted against the interest of the people and the country, Nepalese people have always risen against the authoritarian regimes and rulers. The 1951 revolution, the 1990 political movement and Jana Andolan II of 2005-6 are its example. Nepalese people launched two successful revolutions—one in 1951 and the other one in 2006. In 1951, the century old Rana’s oligarchic rule was overthrown by the revolutionary strength of the people. The 240 year-old feudal monarchy was abolished in 2006. The situation prior to the Jana Andolan II was also not different from the one we have experienced at present. There was a civil war between the feudal state and the revolutionary Maoist insurgents. Political pundits both at home and abroad had portrayed the picture that Nepal was soon becoming a failed state but they were proved wrong by the people of Nepal. The similar situation has arisen at present and people may rise anytime against those responsible for the present abysmal condition of the country.
Nepal as a country or state has not failed but parties and rulers have miserably failed. Also the political systems we adopted at different interval of our history have failed. Ranas failed so did their oligarchic rule. Panchayat failed which ultimately led to the Shah monarchy’s downfall and abolition. The Jana Andolan II not only dumped the monarchical system into the trash of history but also marked a departure from the traditional parliamentary system and brought in the radical agenda of the Maoists. With the formal agreement to go beyond the traditional parliamentary system, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML lost the political ground to have their presence felt in Nepali politics. The result of the last Constituent Assembly election was its reflection. However, the radical agenda of the Maoists, too, were not allowed to be institutionalized by the coalition of traditional and status quoist forces. The present political standoff is the result of the conflict of these two traditional and radical forces.
This standoff is not likely to remain for a long time. The global experiences have shown that the old and outdated ideas and systems have always been dislodged and replaced by the new and revolutionary ideas and concepts. This is the law of nature as well as the spirit of evolutionary theory. Thus, the radical politics are more likely to replace the traditional system and accordingly revolutionary forces would be established in Nepali politics. Thus, the present situation is not the syndrome of a failed state but a political labor pain to give birth to a new, innovative and radical change.