The Panchayat regime shaped nationalism as regional hatred. Such sentiments had two repercussions. One was that the authoritarianism flourished in a very parochial sense. A culture of sycophancy developed from administration to literary practices. Regressive policies, rules and regulations affected Nepal’s relation with not only India but consequently also with other countries. Awards and ceremonies were centered on series of national songs colored by praises of monarchy. Secondly, nationalism, in turn, became a sore on the body for many Nepalis: It became the most sensitive bodily part. Even a slight pinch made us wail for days and months.
The problem is not that I grew up with such orientations; the problem is Nepali political ideology of the center at present is the same. I was listening to a televised discussion by a veteran politician of the monarchial times. His ideas of nationalism and hence his views about Nepali foreign policies, Nepali economy in relation to India and China (let me emphasize that they are the two leading countries of the global economy and Nepal’s position is developmentally incongruous) are the same. He has not changed and he cannot change. If you argue with such people, they retort with the same statement which they used decades ago, “Should we sell our country to the other?”
Such regressive ideologies do not help one to comprehend the ideas of negotiation, economic cooperation, industrialization, tourism and many other possibilities of national development. Let me give you a very striking example. A very able Indian businessman from Uttar Pradesh wanted to open a series of resorts along the Chure range which would overlook the Himalaya.
His plan was to attract middle class Indian tourists who would visit the resorts for some days and nights during the summer. When he approached the concerned authorities in Kathmandu, his proposal was rejected. The argument by the officials was: What if such Indians stay in Nepal and infiltrate our sovereignty.
This is what I mean by the metaphor of sore. Why would an affluent middle class family opt for living in Nepal which has nothing to offer in any economic terms? Furthermore, in case of an imaginary fear of settlement by the Indian in the Chure range, a prudent administrative mechanism would strengthen laws of migration instead of hampering tourism scopes.
Such patterns of thought are not only regressive but also the causes of fear for development. A large group of uneducated (do not take the term literally merely) administrators from the Panchayat times onward remained gratified within a system of administrative limits of Kathmandu as instrumental for the Panchayat and later systems.
There were and still are some behavioral reasons for such distanciation with neighborly negotiations. One is that Indian political dialogism was rarely less aggressive in tone and contents of comprehending Nepal, and the other was poorly educated Nepali administrators who neither had vision nor efforts took risks of negotiation for the sake of development.
The Panchayat legacy, thus, has left a form of nationalism which has become the code and condition of Nepali political culture in Kathmandu. The ideology has presently surfaced emphatically in Kathmandu centric political culture. Since none of the political ideologues from Nepal and India find a way out of the cul de sac, all of India for Nepalis and all of Nepal for Indians are objects of insignificance, if not utter dislike.
Let me address the issue academically. When we offered a course South Asian Studies: India to Pokhara University M Phil students, there were some ideological problems. Offering a course on India (or even China for that matter) is rumored as getting money from the country. My argument is not illogical because decades ago when Central Department of English at Tribhuvan University planned to offer American studies as an extended program, the administrative haut monde asked informally how much money Americans have given to the department.
The initial apprehension could not overpower the epistemic motives. The philosophy was that to know Nepal is to know the neighbors in all the seriousness of academia, in the location of university classrooms, in term papers and research writings.
Finally, my understanding is that (I rarely draw conclusions because I do not know how to) my students are better able to critique both Nepal and India, their contestations, and the differences and similarities in the serious location of higher education, not in the legacy of regressive Panchayat legacy of political melodrama which has surfaced more in the present times. I think there is a need to address such contested neighborly relations primarily in the university domain, specifically in the class rooms.
orungupto@gmail.com
Related story
Mainstream Nationalism vs. Regional Nationalism
