"Over the past few years", the new party's manifesto reads, "foreign financial interest, encouraged by liberal economic policies, privatization, globalization, and a policy of economic openness, has helped strengthen the capitalistic system."It then concludes: "While we can't ignore that open market policy can produce some good results, this can also subvert our social values. There is a need then for a liberal economic system to bear some social responsibilities. We need to launch an agrarian revolution; an industrial revolution; and a technological revolution to ensure that we move in the direction of a socialist society and a socialist economy."
Same old story
It is difficult to decipher from this gobbledygook what this new party actually stands for that is different, for example, from UCPN (Maoist) and CPN-UML. It will be equally hard to persuade voters to identify with the verbiage of party's name and the acronym which, in effect, is likely to be scorned as another meaningless coalition with shady name and camouflaged stance on issues that affect their everyday life.
More generally, we can say that basic issues of life and living need to be common concerns of parties of all faiths and they do not require separate leaderships and distinctive ideologies. Unfortunately, there is no tradition in Nepali politics of its parties focusing on an agenda that is short, simple, and transparent. Instead, all parties tend to put forward grandest of visions; none provides a roadmap on how their visions will be realized.
This background alludes to the insanity of forming yet another outfit that claims to be a national party. If we combine the programs and ideologies of just two or three existing parties—NC, UML and Maoists—they cover all conceivable political ideologies and philosophies, except for some groups who promote ethnic and regional interests. The conclusion then is that hundred-plus of parties splashed over the country's political landscape haven't done anything useful for the society and, for this reason, all can be labeled as rent-seekers and social parasites.
Loss for Madhesh
Upendra Yadav, the architect of the union of three disparate ethnic parties, may have conceived of one common platform for the main ethnic groups—Madheshis, Janjatis (indigenous), and Khas (parts of the ruling ethnic group, narrowly defined as Chhetris)—to promote common welfare. However, it is difficult to see a rationale for these three ethnic groups uniting to pursue a common goal which, at this stage of Madheshi non-integration into the national mainstream, isn't shared by other two ethnic groups and, most specifically, these groups do not face existential challenges on a level Madheshis do.
To expand on the theme of special needs and aspirations of Madheshi people, most of this would be alien to other two ethnic groups and, in large part, these two groups could see any gain accruing to Madheshis group as possibly opposed to their own interests.
We can take a snap shot of official Nepal as projected by level of ethnic participation in government and private businesses, except in traditional farming and petty trades. For all practical purposes, Madheshis are invisible in those occupations, while the two other ethnic groups rule the roost—they are the face of official Nepal and run vibrant businesses in the modernized sectors of the economy. The two non-Madheshi groups make up much larger proportions of the nation's army, police force, administrative and foreign services as well as private sector businesses such as banking, finance, tourism, trading and transport, whereas Madheshis' presence remains next to nonexistent.
It can thus be argued that Madheshi population's effort at assimilation, integration, and sharing of opportunities is likely to be at variance with interests of other two groups. Therefore, to keep the party together, Yadav will have to act as defender of other two ethnic groups in the coalition and, implicitly, this will force him to be silent about Madheshi rights and exclusion. And that will be the end of Yadav's political career in Madhesh. Yadav's electoral rout is then quite predictable, including his loss of the electoral constituency that he has carried in the last two elections.
Raut's edge
Whatever obstacle comes in Upendra Yadav's way, much of it will be of his own doing and deserved. Yadav was among the first Madheshi leaders to raise the issue of Madheshi people's right—Madheshi Janadhikar—that caught public imagination and made Madheshis aware of their rights that gave them a compelling reason to vote for Yadav's Forum. And Yadav's party was handsomely rewarded. In the 2008 CA elections, it won 52 parliamentary seats, an overwhelming victory for the Madheshi cause. With his electoral strength came political clout, including his key support in the election for President and Vice-President, both Madheshi natives.
Although Yadav was cut down to size by his own party members, the main reason for the setback of his party is his failure to work for Madheshi Janadhikar, which Madheshi people saw as a betrayal. This factor also played against him in 2011, when Sarat Singh Bhandari—leader of the rebellious wing of Yadav's party—came up with the idea of a separate Army battalion of Madheshi natives. Although his earth-shaking idea for nation-building got much traction among Madheshi public, Bhandari lost his job as Defense Minister. Surprisingly, none of Madheshi leaders backed his effort, including Yadav. This episode proved Yadav as self-serving and non-committal for Madheshi cause, much like other Madheshi politicians who have all but forgotten Madheshi agenda.
Enter CK Raut and his independence appeal—that Madhesh for all these years had been ruled like a colony and must be liberated. Perhaps Raut went too far with his advocacy of independence but, nonetheless, he developed a following. However, it looks now that Raut has overplayed his card as the new liberator of Madhesh. He can just look at the new country of South Sudan, separated from Sudan some years ago. The outlook is that, like South Sudan, a liberated Madhesh is more likely to descend into chaos and violence and likely to end up in much worse shape.
Probably Yadav could have calmed down Raut, persuading him to work for his party, by lacing it with some specific attractions, like demanding 50 percent Madheshi reservations in all government jobs, not just military. But, as it stands, Yadav has been dismissive of Raut. Raut's campaign has lost its clout because of opposition from Yadav but it looks like Yadav's leadership of Madheshis could melt away as a result of his new political misadventure.
sshah1983@hotmail.com
Related story
Rotary of revolutions
