It seems that the revolutionary party has outfoxed all other political parties in terms of corruption, bad governance and mismanagement of bureaucracy. It seems ready to compromise on its every single ethos just to remain in power. Maoist leaders recently threatened to boycott the parliament to avoid passing the anti-money laundering bills. Yet, they claim to be progressive and revolutionary. But the truth is that they have defaulted on their promise of progress and prosperity, thereby undoing the gains of their own revolution. It is indeed sad that those who shaped history at a particular point are upending it. A famous saying goes, those who dismantle history will sooner or later witness their own downfall.
Often, ‘revolutionary’ ideologies have led to devastating consequences in Nepali history. All is well for the commentators who believe in the changing nature of politics and ideologies. As the politics changes, so do ideologies, they say. But how would one explain the fate of those retiring combatants whose checks were seized by their own masters? For they are the ones who scripted the glory of the Maoist movement. Unfortunately, they have been rendered into what Ashish Nandy calls ´ahistoric´ beings.
Marginalization of history makers is, however, not a new phenomenon in Nepal. History making revolutionaries of Nepali Congress, of various Communist and Madhes-based parties have been pushed to the periphery by the very leaders of those revolutions. The sons of Bir Bahadur Thami and Ile Thami, the revolutionaries who were martyred in Piskar Massacre of 1984, joined Maoists’ liberation army when they were deserted by their mother party, the then CPN(ML). Chances are that the retiring combatants will follow suit and join other fronts if their masters continue to ignore them.
And if history sidelines its leading actors, it becomes difficult to take stock of the larger political processes of national and societal reconstruction. American Political Scientist Charles Tilly says, “At least for large-scale political processes, explanations always make implicit or explicit assumptions concerning historical origins of the phenomenon and time-place scope conditions for the claimed explanation”. Those assumptions remain open to historical verification and falsification. Hence, the process of legitimizing history matters. History gains its legitimacy only by including the lives of ´ahistorics´ in its domain. Legitimacy of history matters also because it is one of the important factors to understanding current crises.
As things stand, Nepal is likely to get caught in the vicious cycles of violent conflict and our failure in addressing and managing the dignity of ´ahistoric´ is likely to threaten our collective identity. In spite of the opportunities provided by the current political context, there are enough indications that taking the ongoing peace and constitution processes to their desired end will be no easy matter. Fake commitments from the Maoist leadership on peace and constitution have only made matters worse. Hence, there is an immediate need to addressing the fault lines of history by redressing the injustices of the past, but with a rational approach.
Justice cannot be compartmentalized. Neither should it be interpreted differently for different castes, communities and ethnicities. Justice for one cannot be attained at the expense of injustice for others. The debate of inclusion will not bear any fruit, if not viewed from a humane perspective. It is important to realize that the constructed ´ahistorics´ may compromise with the history.
It is only transformative politics that can legitimize history. Change is the prerequisite of the day. And, unless the voices of ´ahistorics´ are incorporated in history, hegemonies are likely to dominate our fate for a long time. It is important for revolutionaries to understand that if they cannot manage both ´ahistorics´ and ´change´ in the history of Nepal, there will be no change.
The society cannot be reconstructed by a single thread of ideology and idea. It must take stock of prevailing ideas dominating larger historical, social, cultural, economic and political spheres. We must learn to live with our share of imperfections in the political system. Time is the time for the stakeholders of social and ethnic movements to come to terms with their imperfections. There is enough space to avoid a catastrophe if we can only learn to negotiate our way through crises. A tough though not an impossible task.
sharmasumit77@gmail.com
Related story
District court rules in favor of acid victim Arati Shah
