Category: Breaking 3

By Uttam B. Khatri

Not too long ago, the American Ambassador to Nepal Dean R. Thompson had a meeting with Kathmandu Metropolis Mayor Balen Shah. What is interesting is the depiction of a historic map of the “Greater Nepal.” In the front of the rather controversial map, the Ambassador and the Mayor were seen as the supporting witnesses of the campaign. Just a few months ago, the Mayor of the Metropolitan City of Kathmandu, Balendra Shah, who is very popularly recognized as Mayor Balen hung the map in the forefront of his Mayoral office. The incident made the headline news in Nepal and the neighboring countries, including India. Mayor Balen’s act was in fact in exchange for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Damodar Das Modi’s endorsed exhibition of a huge mural on the wall of the recently inaugurated parliament building in New Delhi. Obviously, the act of Mayor Balen was in protest of Modi’s hegemonic showoff in the South Asia neighborhood.

Last year, when Indian Prime Minister Modi inaugurated the New Parliament building, he tried to draw his audience’s attention to focus their mind on the mural of “Akhanda Bharat”. The mural includes many integral parts of Nepal. For example, some pre-historic as well as historic landmarks of Nepal, such as Janakpurdham, the birthplace of Sita Mata, Lumbini, the birthplace of Lord Buddha, Kapilvastu, Biratnagar etc and many other parts of present-day Nepal have been shown within “Akhada Bharat.” The mural did not only invade Nepali territories but also parts of Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar have been included within Akhanda Bharat, India. Naturally, the neighbors have protested against and condemned the display of the mural in the most important building in India. Mayor Balen certainly proved his courage and love for Nepal by hanging the map of the Greater Nepal in the forefront of his office, in retaliation for PM Modi’s intent. The photo of the American Ambassador and the Mayor in front of the map of Greater Nepal can be taken as an indication of support by the U.S. Government towards the campaign which has gained momentum in Nepal, lately. The question is, if the Indian Premier can promote something pre-historic legend, what is wrong if Mayor Balen hangs the map of “Greater Nepal” which was in fact, the reality of the modern era? The Greater Nepal was the truth until 1816 when the British East India Company occupied and merged Nepali territories into their colony of India. The occupation of Greater Nepal’s land was merely based on a very deceitfully drafted document called the Treaty of Sugauli. The Treaty had never been ratified by the King or the Prime Minister of Nepal. Unfortunately, the so-called Treaty was imposed on Nepal unilaterally by the British colonialists. They declared war on Nepal, which is known as the Anglo-Nepal War of 1814-1816. However, they still could not defeat Nepal for a protracted period of almost two years.

The highly publicized mural in the newly constructed Indian parliament building in New Delhi and the subsequent highlight on the map of Greater Nepal in Kathmandu generated some news that became viral in both capitals.  Again, the truth is that the Indian mural is a pre-historic legend whereas the Greater Nepal is a reality. Therefore, dwelling on the real facts rather than on a fictitious story will be more warranted in the following paragraphs.

The Greater Nepal was the unified Nepal which was started by King Prithvi Narayan Shah and was continued by his son Prince Bahadur Shah to save Gorkha and dozens of small kingdoms of the region from the invading British East India Company. The fact of the matter is that there would be no country called Nepal in existence today if Prithvi Narayan had not defeated the first British invasion. Nepal and several dozens of small kingdoms of the region would have been swallowed up by the British and merged them into their colony, over two hundred fifty years ago.

Another truth is that there is no part of today’s India within the lost territories of Greater Nepal. Truthfully, there was no country named India before the British colonized more than five hundred kingdoms of the South Asian Subcontinent. India came in today’s shape and size only after the British Government de-colonized the subcontinent and created two countries Pakistan and India in 1947.

Pakistan was divided into two parts, East Pakistan and West Pakistan and India in the middle. East Pakistan got independence from Pakistan and turned into Bangladesh, in 1972. India played a major role in creating Bangladesh.

It is widely believed that the British had intended to return the lands of Greater Nepal which they had looted after the Anglo-Nepal War. They were fully aware of the fact that the so-called Treaty of Sugauli was unfair and done deceitfully. They wanted to return the occupied land back to its legitimate owner when they decided to grant independence to Pakistan and India. The British had contemplated the value of the military assistance given to them by Prime Minister Jung Bahadur Rana in quelling the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 that had proved a great help to save their Empire.  Furthermore, the British also realized the importance of the sacrifice made by tens of thousands of Nepali soldiers during World War I and World War II in order to save their Empire.

Before the independence of India, freedom fighters such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Ballav Bhai Patel among others knew that the British had planned to return the occupied land to Nepal. The first PM, Nehru has even written in one of his books that the British had occupied Nepal’s land that needs to be returned to Nepal. However, during the negotiation for independence, the Indian leaders hatched a conspiracy to keep the occupied land of Greater Nepal within India. During the partition, the Hindus and Muslims interests clashed for bigger portions of the land. Unfortunately, Nepal had no representation at this crucial time.

After the Indian independence, the politics in Nepal also saw some dramatic changes. The home minister of the newly installed Government, Patel proposed to merge Nepal into India. Nehru disagreed with Patel’s use of force to take Nepal. He did not want to tarnish the image of a newly independent India by invading an independent neighbor. Nehru and his close advisors apparently adopted a slow and steady approach towards Nepal.

In the meantime, the political situation in Nepal could not remain as usual. King Tribhuvan wanted to take the power back from the hereditary Rana regime. The Ranas would obviously want to stick to power as long as possible.

After the decolonization, the Ranas had lost the blessings of the British and they had to substitute the same from the Indian leaders in power. The last but not the least was the newly emerging leadership in Nepali politics. All three sets of actors had their own agendas, self-interests and some weaknesses.

King Tribhuvan, in order to oust the Rana had the support of Nepali people. However, people’s rally alone was not enough for the King to restore a powerful Monarchy. The King was encouraged and assisted by the Indian leadership to go into exile in India. Consequently, King Tribhuvan and the rest of the Royal family were exiled to New Delhi and remained there as a guest for several weeks. Nehru and his subordinates had been pressuring the King indirectly and in a diplomatic manner for him to agree to bring Nepal under Indian control. Under such circumstances, the King could possibly not raise questions for the restoration of Greater Nepal.

The Ranas as mentioned earlier had become desperate to cling to power and continue their regime. They had to please the Indian Government and leaders by all means. Besides, the Ranas were afraid of losing all their wealth and the properties they had amassed in India. They could not dare to talk about the lost land of Greater Nepal.

Thirdly, most Nepali political leaders and their followers were either self-exiled, born, educated and trained in India. Most of them were the followers of Indian freedom fighters like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, and Jaya Prakash Narayan among others. Some of them even went to jail with their Indian mentors. Those Nepalis could possibly not speak in favor of Greater Nepal either. Under the circumstances, during the crucial time of the partition of India, no powerful and effective voice could emerge claiming the return of the lost land of Nepal. Unfortunately, the golden chance for the restoration of Greater Nepal was lost. India has continued to occupy the Nepali land that had to be returned and freed from the Indian occupation just like the rest of India and Pakistan and Bangladesh were freed from British colonialism in 1947.

The reason why Nepal has remained poor, backward and unstable is mainly due to her geography. Nepal has remained India locked from three sides. In the north remains the formidable Himalayan range. Since its independence, India has been conspiring to merge Nepal into India. India has not only continued to occupy Greater Nepal’s territories but also has occupied present-day Nepal’s land in Kalapani, Lipu Lake, Limpia Dhura, Susta, and has also encroached Nepali land across the border in more than six dozen places.

Indian leaders tried to pressure King Tribhuvan to negotiate the sovereignty of Nepal. It is believed that the king turned down the Indian leader’s proposed offer to make him the King of India if he agreed to merge Nepal with India.

King Mahendra had to face the Indian leaders the same way. But King Mahendra was a benevolent Monarch, he knew the politics very well. He established Nepal on the international stage and opened the country to the world. It was King Mahendra’s effort that earned the United Nations membership in Nepal. King Mahendra was the savior of Nepal.

King Birendra had no less stressful life in dealing with the Indian hegemony. The Indian leadership directly and indirectly pressured the king to come under their umbrella. He did not want to compromise with the Indian leaders. He rather negotiated with his people and chose to remain as a constitutional monarch.

Last but not least, even King Gyanendra did not negotiate with the foreign forces at the cost of Nepal’s interest. He refused to be under the Indian umbrella as well. He rather gave up his throne to avoid the bloodshed in the country.

The gist of this write-up is the restoration of Greater Nepal has remained in a state of slumber for over two centuries. However, after the political change of 1990, some people like Phanindra Nepal, Surendra Dhakal and a few others have dared to raise questions about Greater Nepal. Unfortunately, very few politicians want to talk about the subject. The main reason for their silence is that they are afraid of India. However, Mayor Balendra Shah has proved himself brave enough to support the campaign for the Restoration of “The Greater Nepal”.

The writer is currently residing in Silver Spring, MD, USA.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect People’s Review’s editorial stance.

Nepal’s persistently feudalistic order demands the proliferation of direct democracies at the grassroots.

By Bihari Krishna Shrestha

SAVING INDIA’S DEMOCRACY 2024

India, a country of 1,4 billion people and a 543-member strong Lower House of Parliament recently conducted its 18th general election whose all pre-poll predictions including the findings of exit polls had concluded that PM Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) would sweep the polls for the third time in a row, this time with even bigger margins. BJP’s own rallying cry was winning over 400 seats, in Hindi: Abaki baar, 400 paar, for its National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in which BJP remains the dominant partner.

However, when the actual results came, it belied all those optimistic predictions and expectations. For the first time, the BJP failed to win a simple majority in its own right. It could win only 240 seats, that is 32 short even for the majority in the House.

More than the BJP loss, the results dented BJP strongman, Narendra Modi’s stature in the party as well as in the country. The party did not do well even in constituencies where Modi spent time campaigning. While UP was always seen as BJP citadel, that was where the party suffered its most humiliating defeat at the hands of the regional Samajwadi Party.

Several factors were at work. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta, India’s eminent academician wrote in the Foreign Affairs magazine (June 14, 2024) “Voters seemed to be turned off by what was one of the most vicious and vitriolic BJP campaigns of recent years, replete with explicit hate speech directed at India’s minority Muslim community”. Even more importantly, BJP, despite its massive welfare schemes that reached out to some 80 percent of its massive population (free food, gas connections, toilets, access to water, and cash transfers), BJP’s performance was bedevilled by continuous high unemployment, wage stagnation, and widening inequality. The problem was also exacerbated by BJP’s emphasis on winning more than 400 seats turning it into pathways for possible amendment of the Ambedkar-written Constitution that provided for generous reservation provision for people in the lower rungs of Indian society, categorized as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. At the opposition’s suggestion, a fear was sparked among these poorer segments of the Indian population that the BJP with elitist tendencies might just do away with these provisions and leave them high and dry.

The election was fought against the backdrop of growing Hindu nationalism and deepening authoritarianism that seemed to assure a sweeping victory for Modi “that would have all but converted India into a one-leader, one-ideology, and one-party state.” According to Mehta, “the BJP’s humbling at the ballot box has saved Indian democracy.”

NOT SO IN NEPAL

What happened to the BJP in India in terms of its setback at the polls seems to fit the larger pattern of the self-correcting capacity of democracy in that when parties or politicians fail to deliver, people punish and change them in the next election.

But not so in Nepal! While the top three politicians of three major parties, the NC, the UML and the MC, count among the most corrupt in the country, the MC leader Prachanda with even the blood of 17,000 people on his hand and systematically evading transitional justice, all three of them were reelected with massive majorities in the last election.

Prachanda’s case was even extraordinary. At the time of the last election, Rabi Lamichhane, the popular TV  anchor-turned-politician and chair of the newly established Rastriya Swantra Party was so very popular among the people that any old-time politician stood little chance against him at the polls. Capitalizing on his own popularity, Rabi was even more admired by the people when he threw the gauntlet against none other than the one-time Maoist Supremo Prachanda who, once a very popular politician himself, had since lost all of his earlier charisma of power and persuasion, and was planning to contest election from his home constituency in Chitawan.

But the new hero on the scene, Rabi, announced that he too would contest the election from Prachanda’s constituency to give the latter a sound defeat. The challenge was real and potent. If that happened, Prachanda did not stand a chance against Rabi. So, to save his skin, Prachanda migrated from Chitawan and went to Gorkha-2 constituency with the help of his former comrade-in-arms and Gorkha native, Baburam Bhattarai, Prachanda contested the last election, and surprisingly, won massively even in this new constituency where he had very little prior familiarity and working relationship with the local voters.

By and large, almost all the corrupt and infamous in the three major parties were reelected. So, in contrast to neighboring India, Nepal’s democracy did not turn out to be self-correcting. It must further be emphasized that these three corrupt leaders have been reelected not for the first time; they have been reelecting themselves for decades. In other words, Nepal’s multiparty democracy, or its Westminster system, has been stagnating ever since it was restored in 1990.

FACTORS AT WORK

For one thing, huge sums of money are spent during elections. For instance, in the Nepal election of 2017, as per the Election Observation Committee, a sum of NRs 96.9 billion was spent as election campaign finance and together with government expenditure to conduct polls the cost amounted to a whopping NRs 131.62 billion. Of these two categories, the more concerning is the funds splurged by the political parties, much of which is used for directly or indirectly buying votes from the people.

While Indian parties too are reported to have spent vast sums of money in campaigning, it seems they have not been able to buy votes as effectively as in Nepal.

Two variables could be possibly identified. Firstly, Indian constituencies are much bigger than Nepal’s. For instance, the population per constituency in India comes to an average of 2.6 million people which makes it far more difficult to buy votes amidst these vast masses. In Nepal, the corresponding population is only 109,000 on average per constituency which makes it far easier for money to make rounds amidst this limited number of people.

Secondly, India is far more urbanized than Nepal. Amidst large urban voters, it is the performance of the parties that seem to matter. For instance, in the last 2022 election, the alienated urban voters elected independent candidates in local elections in a few urban centres like Kathmandu, Dharan and Dhangadi.

In contrast, rural voters, who also happen to be poorer than their urban counterparts seem more amenable to traditional forces of group and kinship loyalties including attraction to cash. It is this factor that seems to have played a crucial role in returning our rich and corrupt politicians in the last election, thus making our democracy stagnate over the decades.

PROSPECT FOR CHANGE

As mentioned above, while India’s democracy seems self-correcting, Nepal’s is not. The same old faces, now totally tarnished in their image, are managing to get reelected over and over again, even as they become brazenly more corrupt to make money to fund their own election and those of their party members and more. Nepal’s democracy has turned into a stubborn and self-perpetuating vicious cycle that has only made people’s lives increasingly miserable and difficult.

However, Nepal does have tremendous experience in terms of the fact that genuine democracy– i.e. a system of representative governance under which elected officials find themselves in a position with the compulsion to be inescapably accountable to the people–does deliver. For instance, the nationwide network of forest user groups–in which all forest users are members and control the elected officials from deviating from their duties–have not only regenerated our devastated forest wealth, the FUGs have established themselves as the major financing institutions too for funding various local development activities in the communities.

The lesson here is that in our kind of feudalistic social order, it is the direct democracies that work. So, the challenge for us is to restructure the Westminster system that we have into a system that builds on direct democracies at the base and makes the higher tiers accountable to these grassroots democracies.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect People’s Review’s editorial stance.