Home / Commentary / On Off the record / Defining nationalism
pushpa-column

Defining nationalism

By PR Pradhan

pushpa-columnWe have been experiencing many odd things in this “loktantrik” “new” Nepal. Those people who are campaigning for splitting the country are freely moving and launching the campaign without any hurdles. Those who are threatening to split the country are regarded as the leader and the government led by the so-called revolutionary person like Pushpakamal Dahal is unable to take action against such traitors. In foreign countries, one cannot even speak about splitting the country. If did so, he will be punished for being separatist, unfortunately, in this “loktantra”, there is no restriction for speaking such things, which is very odd. The “revolutionary” leaders are performing total surrenderism to India and condemning those patriotic leaders such as King Prithvi Narayan Shah the Great, King Mahendra, King Birendra, among others. Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai are in a race to please their Indian bosses. Dahal, in association with India confidant Sher Bahadur Deuba, is making all efforts to recognize pure Madheshi provinces by excluding hill districts from the Tarai districts. Dahal and Deuba are even ready to use Marshal against those who have opposed amendment of the constitution. Bhattarai, on the other hand, is provoking ethnic communities as well as the Tarai communities for their rights. All these leaders are serving foreign interests and are contributing the mission of splitting united Nepal comprised of Himal, Hill and Tarai. Neither these leaders nor the Madheshi leaders speak a single word about Indian encroachment in Nepali soil or construction of barrage by stopping the flow of rivers and inundating Nepal’s fertile agriculture land. They don’t speak about the plight of the people in Susta who have become landless as India has captured their land. Instead, the very leaders are keen to serve the Indian interests. There is the constitutional provision that only the province parliament can decide on demarcation of the provincial boundaries but by discarding the constitution, they are trying to amend the constitution just to serve the Indian concern. India wants to create separate provinces comprised of 22 Tarai districts with the plan to annex the Tarai provinces. This is not a new plan as it was developed during the time of annexation of Sikkim, a sovereign nation. We cannot say that these people in the government or in the mainstream politics don’t know this Indian plan. Of course, they are well aware about the Indian design, even though, they are in the race of becoming the new avtars of Lhendup Dorjee. In  democracy, referendum is the best way to know the people’s desire. Whether the Nepali people have wished to separate Tarai districts from the hill districts or not, the government can conduct referendum. Even if the leaders in the government are receiving pressure from the Indians to amend the constitution by excluding the hill districts from the Tarai provinces, if our leaders have a little affection with the motherland, they could avoid the Indian pressure by conduction referendum. Unfortunately, they don’t want to listen to the word referendum. Dahal is claiming that by excluding the hill districts from the proposed No 5 province, he is trying to cement unity among Himal, Hill and Tarai people. How is he cementing the unity among the people by creating disharmony among the communities! Similarly, Bhattarai is of the view of dividing provinces on the communal basis and giving total autonomy to the provinces so that the foreign elements could make their stronghold in such provinces.
The very leaders are denouncing those patriotic people who have opposed republicanism, federalism and secularism. They blame such patriotic people for following the Mahendra-model of patriotism. In fact, those Indians had quoined Mahendra-model patriotism which gave Nepal a sovereign and independent status. Not only that, in domestic field, efforts were made to establish infrastructures in all areas, whereas, Nepal was introduced as the independent and sovereign nation in the globe. King Birendra also contributed a lot in recognizing Nepal as a nation in the globe. Not to forget, considering possible threat on sovereignty and independence of the nation, King Birendra had proclaimed Nepal as a Zone of Peace (ZoP) which was recognized by 116 countries except for India. Why India hesitated from recognizing Nepal as ZoP, it is clear that India was eyeing on Nepal. That ZoP proposal was abruptly removed by the political leaders who had drafted the 1990 constitution without holding discussion among the people. Just to please India, our leaders had deleted ZoP without any proper justification. To conclude, the leaders of today are trying to define nationalism in other ways — perhaps Lhendup Dorjee model of nationalism which is popularly known as total surrenderism.

Check Also

pushpa-column

Hope within a hopeless scenario

By PR Pradhan The birth anniversary of Lord Shiva, popularly known as Shivaratri is being …