The composer of Kolaveri, however, has translated the title for the benefit of non-Tamil audience. In the lyric, a jilted lover chides his former flame, “Why this murderous rage against me?” Madheshis must be asking a similar question after a tirade was unleashed against the decision of the government of Maoist-Madheshbadi Alliance to recruit about 3,000 Madheshi youths into the Nepali Army (NA) on the basis of positive discrimination. The government has since retracted from its position. The Defense Ministry says that recruitment will now be based on open competition. Apparently, the uproar of all anti-Madheshi forces in Nepal’s polity and society has saved the purity, professionalism and non-political character of an instrument of the state that was universally derided just about six years ago for its partisanship, politics and lawlessness.
This is not the first time that the military has succeeded in mobilizing public opinion against decisions of a legitimate government. When the army dithered to go after Maoists in Holeri in 2001 despite government’s decision, Premier Girija Prasad Koirala had to meekly resign, supposedly due to parliamentary opposition being orchestrated by CPN-UML. The Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal too found out that in a country like Nepal whenever there is a difference of opinion between the head of government and his army chief, it is the civilian authority that has to succumb. When Premier Dahal tried to sack Chief of the Army Staff General Rookmangud Katawal in May 2009 for insubordination, President Ram Baran Yadav overruled the government and forced the Prime Minister to leave office in a huff.
Koirala had a long experience of the intransigence of the then Royal Nepali Army. Dahal had intuited that even after renouncing its royal tag, it would take a lot of effort to bring the military under civilian control. Which is why when the two politicos—one an elder statesman of liberal politics, another putative supremo of an insurgent group—signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in a sombre ceremony held at what was then the Birendra International Convention Centre (BICC) and is now the Constituent Assembly Building (CAB) on November 21, 2006, no ambiguity was left in document for misinterpretation in the clause related to the democratisation of the NA.
Clause 4.7 of the now nearly forgotten CPA reads, “The cabinet would control, mobilise and manage the Nepali Army as per the new Military Act. The interim cabinet would prepare and implement the detailed action plan of democratization of the Nepali Army by taking suggestions from the concerned committee of the interim parliament. This includes works like determination of the right number of the Nepali Army, preparation of a democratic structure reflecting the national and inclusive character, and training them on democratic principles and human rights values.” Apart from emphasizing the training in human rights, there are three significant commitments made specifically in this clause: Right-sizing, democratic structure and inclusive character.
After the signing of CPA and promulgation of an interim constitution, Nepal faced multiple uprisings in Madhesh. Consequently, the country had to accept federalism and inclusion as fundamental principles of republicanism. Despite numerous challenges, Constituent Assembly elections have been held successfully. The republic was formalised when parliamentarians voted for the selection of President and Vice-President. There have been five prime ministers in as many years since 2006, but nothing has happened to commitments made for the ‘democratisation’ of the NA. Sadly, the army continues to function more or less as a state within the state and the political class of Nepal has no incentive to counter the propaganda machinery of one of the most well endowed and resourceful instruments of the government.
False beliefs
Apart from his immediate family and close friends, few remembered Dr Saubhagya Shah on his second death anniversary this year. Shah was a brilliant anthropologist of Tribhuvan University who died young on December 16, 2009 after a heart attack. An alumnus of elite Budhanilkantha School and Harvard University, he had the confidence of a scholar to listen to an opponent’s views with respect but respond to them with steel in his voice that comes from complete conviction.
Like many good anthropologists and sociologists of an earlier era, Shah was a believer in the values of hierarchy, order and meritocracy. He smiled intently to hide his displeasure when someone tried to insist upon necessity of proactive policies to ‘democratize’ the NA. That could have been the reason he was assigned by the army to prepare and present a paper on democratization of the army shortly before his death.
Shah was erudite and effusive as he waxed eloquent about the Nepali Army from a grand stage guarded by warrior-king Prithvi on the one side and poet-originator Bhanubhakta on the other in an auditorium inside Army Club premises. The central message of his paper was that NA was doing fine and all it needed was a coherent defense strategy from its paymasters to function properly in the changed circumstances of the country. Whether the NA has been doing fine and playing by the rules of civilian control can be debated, but there is no denying that the defense force of the country is in dire need of a practical policy to regulate and guide its functioning. However, it is also necessary to reexamine the performance of NA to frame a pragmatic defense strategy for the country.
It has been long believed that NA has been a protector of national interests. That is clearly a cognitive illusion—a false belief intuitively accepted as true. The NA has been an exemplary mercenary force that has served rulers of the country with dedication. Jang led the NA to crush the Sepoy Mutiny in Lucknow in 1857. Chandra’s forces served their British masters faithfully during the First World War. Juddha’s army remained loyal to the British Empire during the Second World War. Under Mohan’s control, NA helped independent India subjugate the Nizam of Hyderabad. Under Shahs, the army was instrumental in crushing Khampa rebels on behalf of the Chinese. These assignments enriched those who controlled NA, but whether they also protected ‘national interest’ is open to question.
The NA has helped promote national interests with its lucrative UN peacekeeping duties. However, NA’s role in peacekeeping at home has been far from satisfactory. The NA spokespersons have been heard mouthing platitudes about constitutions, laws and rules of engagements. In the manner of instruments of tin pot dictators in banana republics, NA has been misused against the Nepali Congress and the Maoists in the past. At least once, it took a sitting prime minister under custody and helped in his removal in December 1960. In military terms, campaigns of NA against Nepali Congress rebels had always been successful. But it had eggs all over its face after failing to contain Maoist insurgency despite getting whatever the military brass wanted in terms of operational independence, material support and a political role.
The reason behind NA’s successes in mercenary duties and its failure at home probably stem from its faulty leadership. The NA is not only in dire need of a defence doctrine, but also a system that fosters the environment for emergence of committed, competent and compassionate military commanders who appreciate Nepal’s precarious geopolitical position and respect the country’s diversity. That is a long process, but the NA must begin by honoring decisions of its political masters and stop politicking through its favorites in ruling and opposition parties. That is the essence of democratization of the army.
Fair deal
Initial claims for recruitment of about 10,000 Madheshis on priority basis in NA were made on the assumption that its total strength would ultimately be brought down to about 30,000 and the composition of the army would then represent the population of the country. However, vilification of Madheshis has been so strident that nearly half of the country is being painted as anti-national unworthy of serving in the defense forces. Such an approach is extremely shortsighted and will do immense damage to the cause of national independence, integrity and unity.
The illusion of validity is a false belief in the reliability of one’s own judgment. This delusion does not disappear just because facts prove it to be otherwise. Madheshis may not have been excluded on principle, but they have systematically been externalized as the ‘other’ of ‘we Nepalis’ formulation. That could be the reason there has been such uproar over recruitment of about 3,000 Madheshi youths in the NA to make the force appear less like an occupation army in much of Tarai-Madhesh. The decision was analogous to five-village settlement that Pandavas had consented to accept from the Dhirtrashtra regime. Once denied, nobody could stop an all-consuming Mahabharat.
Madheshis are not just another jaat (caste) or jati (community) of Nepali society; they are victims of internal colonization etching to exert their self-esteem and honor. When wilfully externalized population groups arise, their rage is often blind. Such an eventuality needs to be avoided at all costs. Mahatma Gandhi once said that anger and intolerance were the enemies of correct understanding. The permanent establishment of the country has slighted Madheshis once again in a very coordinated manner. The response should be to take it all in stride and prepare for a long and sustained political struggle. In the meantime, listening to Kolaveri may help calm nerves in the spirit of New Year of the winter.
Related story
Why this kolaveri di?
