Inferiority Syndrome in Nepali parties

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Nepali political leaders and rulers seem to be suffering from inferiority complex. This is a syndrome that is likely to push the country into perpetual dependency. This inferiority syndrome existed in the past and exists today and, if the mindset of the leaders does not change, it will continue to exist in future, too. The leaders and rulers are scrambling to get support of the foreigners especially Nepal’s two immediate neighbors either to go to power or remain in power.

Although the seizure of power has been interpreted as a Maoist term because they, in principle, want to capture power through violence, the purpose and objective of all political parties is similar. The methods of capturing state power may vary depending upon the ideology and organizational nature of different parties, the objective of all political parties and their leaders is to capture power. The communists prophesize their principle to advance and complete the revolution though forceful means and capture state power as was done in Russia in 1947 and in China in 1949. Other parties mainly the rightist and parliamentary ones want to go to power by means of election. They may be prepared to do anything and everything possible to ensure that they win the election.

The rightist and parliamentarians often get afraid of the word revolution everywhere in the world. This is also exactly the same case in Nepal. But the reality tells something else. In fact, all existing major political forces once advocated violence and armed revolution. They condemned violence only after they got what they wanted or, in other word,  they renounced violence only after they went to power. The Nepali Congress, which is the oldest political party of Nepal, had launched armed and violent revolution in 1990s that forced the oligarchic Rana tyranny to bow down paving the way for the establishment of multiparty democracy in Nepal. Once this mission was achieved in 1951, the Nepali Congress disbanded its armed force called the Mukti Sena or Liberation Army. And the Congress declared that revolution was over. The case with the CPN-UML is slightly different. Previously this party used to be known as the CPN-ML, which started its political organization with violent activities of annihilation of class enemies. The ‘Jhapa Kand’ was a violent start of communist revolution influenced by Charu Majumdar’s Naxalbadi armed rebellion in India. The Jhapa armed episode is a glorious event for some while it was condemned by others. The Jhapa armed movement was summarily crushed by the brutal force, which forced the then CPN-ML to abandon the path of violence. The difference between the CPN-UML and other parties is that CPN-UML abandoned the path of violence before its objectives were achieved while others did only after their initial purpose had been fully or partially met.

Now the case and role of the UCPN-Maoist is hotly debated in Nepal and outside. This party, which was previously known as the CPN-Maoist, launched the armed insurgency or people’s war and achieved partial success. Once they entered into the peace process, they began the management of its combatants, which were either integrated into the government army or sent on voluntary retirement with cash incentive. Now the UCPN-Maoist does not have its armed combatants and it is a civilian party like any other political parties in the country. Still some parties mainly the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML often accuse the UCPN-Maoist of plotting to seize state power. This is either their political stunt to demonize the Maoists in the eyes of the people or they are obsessed with unnecessary fear that they would lose to the UCPN-Maoist even in the peaceful politics. Since the Maoists have no weapons and combatants, their goal is now to capture power through peaceful means or winning in the election, which is the same method and approach other parties have adopted. So there should not be any fear and misgiving on the motive and the commitment of the Maoists to democracy and election.

The inferiority syndrome prevails not only in the relations with the foreigners but it exists in the domestic politics as well. This inferiority complex is the reason why parties want to be in power during the election. This is because they have no trust in their ideology, organization and the people. Desire to hold the election under their own government is guided by the motive of influencing the election process through the manipulation of state power and misuse of security organs, bureaucracy, state media and the national exchequer. If we look at the events right after the demise of the Constituent Assembly last year, it becomes clear that parties have either no faith on their own organizational strength or simply do not want election. After the Constituent Assembly was dissolved, the Baburam Bahttarai-led government had announced fresh election for a new Constituent Assembly. But the declared election could not be held due to protest and non-cooperation from opposition parties. The opposition parties put forth the ouster of the Bhattarai-led government the only condition to hold the election. Had the election held on the date announced by the previous government, a new kind of situation would have been created in Nepal’s political spectrum. The opposition parties seemed to be obsessed with the fear that they would lose the election held under the Maoist-Madhesi coalition government. This is an example how our parties do not believe in free and fair election.

Similar the attitude of the parties is responsible for external interference in Nepal. The parties seek external support for power than the support of the people within the Nepal. This is the reason why the foreign trips of our leaders are often viewed with suspicion and skepticism. It is not applied to any particular parties, this tendency prevails in all leaders of all major political forces of the country. Political parties can have their relations with the parties of other countries and their leaders can go on foreign trip either on their own or at the invitation of their counterparts or the foreign government. But it should be at the notice of the government and the government should know the purpose and duration of such visits. But our leaders sometime go on foreign trips secretly that arouses speculation and suspicion among the people. The problem is with both the government and parties. Neither government wants to know nor do the parties bother to reveal the details of  their foreign trips. Against this background, the diplomatic code that the foreign ministry had issued sometimes ago needs to be strictly followed and implemented.

National interest should be the paramount concern while dealing with the foreigners by any individual and political entity. We have seen and witnessed that foreigners especially from our immediate neighbors land in Kathmandu in a surprise manner and get involved in meeting with the leaders at the time of some crucial political developments, ostensibly to influence in the emerging political developments. Foreigners may be doing it in their own interest but it is the leaders of Nepal’s political parties who need to avoid such unnecessary and unwanted meetings and sermons. Nepalese leaders should clearly tell the foreigners that we are capable of handling our own affair. If parties and leaders maintain this decorum and accord priority to the national interest, external interference can be prevented, to a large extent. As a Nepali citizen, one must be loyal to this country and if one is not loyal to the country, it is better to give up the citizenship. The leaders must realize that the most fundamental duty of a citizen is to be loyal to the country. The world history has shown that countries that allow foreign interference have either vanished from the map of the world or have lost their independence status.

This requires our leaders to free themselves from inferiority syndrome and they should believe on their own strength. Nepalese fought wars against invaders and occupiers in the past and demonstrated their valor, for which the brave Gurkhas are admired all over the world. Our forefathers sacrificed their lives to defend Nepal and its independent status. This glorious history needs to be maintained. It is not to say that we should wage war against any power or country but we should be prepared to go to any extent to defend our national independence, identity and interest.  For this, the first and the foremost requirement of our parties is to build a common approach on foreign and security policy and translate it into action rising above the partisan politics.