The flag, with its distinctive triangular shape, blue border around a red field containing a white crescent moon and sun, is wholly unique and has a certain artistic value missing from most national flags. There has been a lack of solid research about who designed Nepal’s flag and the date or place where it was originally adopted. Nonetheless, the essential elements of Nepal’s flag make it one of the oldest in the world, being derived from designs that are more than 2,000 years old. In the broader picture, this is much older than Denmark’s 13th century flag, which is considered to be the oldest flag still in use.
Instead of changing the national flag, Nepal’s communist parties should adopt original native names.
More importantly, the basics of Nepal’s flag have had a much longer life than the past Shah and Rana periods combined. The Maoist argument that “the sun and moon symbols in the existing flag signify the Rana and Shah regimes” is flawed. These regimes cover relatively a short period (1776-2007), whereas the origin of Nepal’s flag stretches much farther back into history.A triangular, similar to Nepal’s flag, is referred to in the 4,000 years old epic “Mahabharata”. The origin of Nepal’s flag can be traced to Gautama Buddha’s time when the tradition of displaying state flags and idea of democracy was sown in the region. Buddha’s father, according to a latest research, was an elected representative of Kapilvastu, not the king as it is often misrepresented (Kapilvastu was one of the federal states of Shakya republic).
When interpreted from the point of view of Buddhist teachings, the flag’s red represents the realm of desire and attraction; blue encompasses truthfulness, bravery, courage and strength; and the white stands for wisdom. Buddhist teachings were secular and they took a religious form many years later. Thus religious, secular and atheist people have some common ground when it comes to Buddhist symbolism.
It is hard to understand the logic behind objections to Nepal’s flag from any progressive left political parties, since it is well accepted that the blue color symbolizes peace, and the red reflects revolution and victory, all of which are in line with Nepal’s common heritage.
The claim that the moon and sun in the current flag are a reference to the Shah and Rana dynasties seems groundless. These regimes were feudal, but the argument that the sun and moon are symbols of feudalism is unconvincing.
Instead of changing the national flag, Nepal’s communist parties should at least adopt some original native names to reflect the new socio-political realities, nationally and internationally. Much more needed is a change in Nepal’s political party nomenclature. Tags such as Marxist-Leninist or Maoist imply that there has been no renunciation of the history of brutal state repression that has been justified in the name of communist ideological orthodoxy.
It borders on self-delusion for Nepal’s communist parties to retain their names and symbols as they are today. Nepal’s left parties are generally less progressive than Scandinavia’s moderate political parties. The monikers “Marxist-Leninist” and “Maoist” are very loaded terms that Nepal’s left would benefit from rethinking, just as the left elsewhere in the world has managed to shake off its totalitarian baggage and move forward.
Subjectively speaking, I have no allegiance to any specific political party in Nepal, although I look forward to the day when there exists a party in Nepal that promotes social democracy and cultural diversity, one that is internally democratic and truly representative of its rank and file, and is competitive as other political parties. Foremost, however, is the need for multiparty democracy because political parties serve as the arteries and veins of the democratic system.
Modern and sensible political parties, in order to engage in real democracy, must give sound reasons behind the policies they promote, and not just spout rhetoric. The Maoists have been proven right in their demands for a constituent assembly, federalism and inclusive democracy. Their proposal to change the national flag is an exercise in rhetoric without substance.