Nepal is capable to handle its own problems
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Some pundits tend to portray Nepal’s present scenario as the syndrome of a failed state. This breed of people includes both Nepalese citizens as well as foreigners, who claim to be Nepal expert. It is their wishful thinking because they want to reap benefit from chaotic state of the country.
We have many donor-funded NGOs and donor-driven projects.
Such projects do not necessarily tend to work in Nepal’s national need and
interest rather than serve donor’s own agenda and interest. The condition of
Nepal is definitely not satisfactory. But it does not mean that it was better
in the past. The downward spiral in the economy and political uncertainty had
started right from the Panchayat. The Panchayat was a closed system which
restricted freedom of expression and other rights of the people. As a result,
people were not aware of the situation in the absence of free press. Now the
society is open and media is robust and vibrant that keeps us informing every
aspect of the country. Thus, we know the exact situation of the country. But we
often fail to compare the situation with that of the past.
Prior to 1990 political change, non-governmental
organizations virtually did not exist. People were not allowed to form such
group and carry out social service activities. There were royalist NGOs like
King Mahendra Trust For Nature headed by Gyanendra Shah (ex-king), Family
Planning Association headed by royal family member and Social Service National
Coordination Council directly under control of the Queen. This is the social
organizations were controlled and social activities carried out strictly for
the interest of the monarchy, royal family and ruling elites.
With the political change brought about in 1990, the
restriction on NGO registration was lifted, which saw mushrooming of NGOs of
different hues and hypes came into existence. A bad practice was allowed to let
the donors directly fund the NGOs without the notice of the government. This
practice is nowhere in the world exists. It is through NGOs foreigners directly
pursued and implemented their agenda in Nepal, some of which may not be in
Nepal’s national interest. This is where the fundamental flaw of our system.
However, the government recently has taken a decision not allow the NGOs to
receive fund directly from the donors but have to go through governmental
channel. This is a praiseworthy initiative by the government, which needs to be
strictly implemented and followed.
Despite this situation, Nepal is definitely not a failed
state. 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 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. Its political tradition and social and cultural dynamics are also different from any other countries in the world. Nepal is a country with a long history of independent and sovereign status. 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.
Nepal has experienced unique crisis in its history. But we have the experience of resolving these crises with our own ability and in our original way. 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.
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. Its political tradition and social and cultural dynamics are also different from any other countries in the world. Nepal is a country with a long history of independent and sovereign status. 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.
Nepal has experienced unique crisis in its history. But we have the experience of resolving these crises with our own ability and in our original way. 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.
Comments
Post a Comment