By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
The Theory
Social theory and social movements predate communist thought.
Socialism is thus a political and economic theory or system of social organization based on collective or state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics).
The Nepalese Socialist Front is nowhere near these ideals.
However, socialism takes many and diverse forms, and is a continually developing concept.
Can we expect any new reformist and revolutionary ideas from the Front?
There is a dire need to transform Nepal’s post-feudal, pseudo-capitalist, pre-modern agrarian, mini-industrial society into a much more egalitarian system in which collective well-being for all becomes a reality in the entire country.
In such a system, the pursuit of individual self-interest becomes subordinate to such values as association, community, and cooperation.
In Nepal’s present condition riddled with rampant corruption, this is asking too much.
There must be an explicit emphasis on solidarity, mutual interdependence, and the possibility of achieving genuine harmony in society to replace conflict, instability, and upheaval.
Are Nepal’s political parties with their history of inter- and intra-party feuds and conflicts capable of such a transformation?
Instead of finding an alternative to the rule of existing dominant classes and elites, the so-called leaders of existing political parties have themselves become the dominating political class, but without any acumen, ability or élan.
We suffer from a dearth of high-class socialist thinkers, genuine movements and dedicated parties.
Thus, Nepal’s brand-new Socialist Front is going nowhere!
On the domestic front we have some parties – mostly on the fringe – aspiring to form the so-called “Socialist Front”.
One would have thought that at a time when the whole country is roiled by various scams, these parties would have better things to do.
The question arises why choose the term ‘socialist’ and not ‘communist’. After all they are all communist political parties.
Was being ‘communist’ now outdated? These communist political parties have been discredited all over the world and remain only in a few countries.
Then there is the question of ideology. It will not be enough to claim that these parties aspire to nurture ‘socialism’ with Nepalese characteristics.
The short-term motive of forming the Socialist Front seems to be electoral – not to reach complete irrelevance and be consigned to the dustbin of history.
In China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is trying to build communism with Chinese characteristics – with mixed results.
One of India’s founding fathers, the great Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru aspired to mould Indian society according to socialist principles, but failed miserably.
Both China and India had great theoreticians and ideologues, but had mixed results in influencing their respective societies.
Nepal is in a still worse condition – there are just no inspiring leaders. How then does the ‘Socialist Front’ hope to proceed forward? Are they going to take the cue from the West or from the two great Asian civilizations?
Ideosyncrasies in the Formulation & Execution of Nepal’s Foreign Policy
It is unfortunate that an article in The Annapurna Post on Nepal’s foreign policy has gone unnoticed, especially since it claims to be inspired by the latest version of the ‘Yadu Nath Khanal Lecture Series’ of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA).
The article in question is titled: “Nepal should adopt a multi-alignment policy” and the lecture was by veteran diplomat Madhu Raman Acharya on: “Safeguarding Nepal’s National Interest: Foreign Policy Choices in the Changing International Environment” (July 5).
It should be stated in the strongest terms that Nepal should on no account give up its traditional policy of non-alignment.
Considering Nepal’s very sensitive geo-strategic location, a policy of so-called multi-alignment would gravely endanger the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In addition, Nepal does not have the resources or the necessary contacts to pursue a policy of multi-alignment like India – a nascent great power.
India is in a class by itself and plays in a completely different league. To avoid any misconceptions, it does not term its policy multi-alignment, but multi-engagement.
It is all well and good to take cognizance of the shifting dynamics of international relations and suggest adopting a more flexible and pragmatic approach.
However, we cannot lose sight of Nepal’s geo-political dimension that it is – all said and done – a prisoner of geography.
When one is like a yam squeezed between two rocks, there is precious little room for manoeuvre.
The main point is not to rock the boat (to use another metaphor).
There is, of course, the possibility that the roots spread out profusely – but that is a completely different ball game.
Nepal’s dynamic non-alignment policy is unique. It avoids taking sides in both regional and international conflicts and confrontations:
- The Sino-Indian Border Conflict
- The US-China confrontation
- The US-Russian proxy war in Ukraine
- The overall Indo-Pakistani conflict, but especially over Kashmir.
In such a charged international environment, where is the scope for ‘multi-alignment’?
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment