But, no, that is not happening. What looks like natural in human behavior and ideologically compatible is found abnormal in power game. There could be no better epic to explain this intricacy than Mahabharata where the cousin brothers Pandavas and Kauravas had to resort to war to resolve their family dispute. They had vast territory to share in mutual benefit, enough resources to enjoy their regal life and enough time to reflect and reconcile. But destiny had something else in store – ambition, anger, animosity and annihilation. The war became inevitable for a simple reason that Duryodhana was devoid of spirituality unlike his cousins, the Pandavas. Even his father, King Dhritarashtra despite being endowed with wisdom and insight could not go spiritual and desist from attachment to his son. The only factor that did not figure up in their conflict was the people and their suffering. Does it not sound resonating in present-day Nepal from the long distant past?
Nepal would have been different today if King Mahendra and BP Koirala had understood each other with a broader sense of historicity. Both would have gone down as great democrats and nation-builders if only they could have tolerated each other for people’s welfare.
All political dramas, epical or current, unfold before us well-testified in this context. Nepal would have been different today if King Mahendra and BP Koirala had understood each other with a broader sense of historicity. Both would have gone down as great democrats and nation-builders if only they could have tolerated each other for people’s welfare. On the hindsight, Mahendra could have let BP to function, at least, for a full term of parliament to allow infant democracy to take some roots. After all, he had the emergency power vested by the then constitution to take over anytime he liked. But he made haste with a long-term national waste. BP Koirala similarly could be sensitive in placating Mahendra’s ego by moderating his measures of fast change. A perception of the realities of the past and potentiality of the posterity comes only with a sense of spiritual inspiration. Deprived of it, one cannot see beyond two eyes and naturally they did not, and landed the country in perpetual conflict not yet resolved. King Birendra indeed demonstrated some streaks of realization, a product of spirituality, in 1979 and 1990 and, thus, conceded to popular pressure. But he and his family met a dreadful end. Some palace insiders believe that it was mainly due to spiritually dry queen and crown prince.
Since then, two more persons climbed up the pinnacle of power in our recent history, who should be held responsible, for the same reason of spiritual deficiency, in leaving the country in lurch. They are Girija Prasad Koirala and Gyanendra Shah. Thanks to their deeds and misdeeds, democracy is still struggling to survive, the state is struggling to remain unified and the people are struggling to save their identity. People listened to Girija not just once but several times in 1990, 1992, 1999 and 2006. They catapulted him to the height of power twice and brought the reigning kings to their knees again twice. But devoid of spiritual insight and vision he was blinded by narrow family and party interests. Consequently, his party is left leaderless, democracy rudderless and the country anchorless.
With absolute power and public support in hand that Gyanendra enjoyed during his initial days of legitimate kingship, he was ordained with great opportunity to go down in history as one of the greatest kings of Nepal. But he missed all of them simply because he was starved of spiritual awareness. He indulged in taking power and pelf instead of giving something to the people. What he thought spiritual was only religious, worshiping of gods and goddesses, donning tika and garlands, and performing ritualistic sacrifices. To be religious and ritualistic does not at all mean to be spiritual. There he failed to understand the inner nuances of spiritualism and he invited his own downfall. People who are demanding to declare Nepal as a Hindu state have similarly misunderstood the interrelationship between Hinduism and spirituality. They wrongly believe in turning people spiritual by religious faith and following. It did not happen and it will not happen that way. To be spiritual, one need not be religious. But we need an element of spirituality in those who wield power on behalf of the people.
To come back to the present reality, we could appreciate Prime Minister Nepal and opposition leader Dahal if they had joined hands out of ideological affinity to assert a communist constitution; but to see them personally hostile against each other is neither ideologically convincing nor spiritually justified. They need to reconsider their postures, at least, to respect their common faith in communism, common inspiration of Marx and Engels and common agenda of a new constitution that will not only go down in history as a great achievement but also elevate them high that most of the foregoing leaders missed. That is possible if only they were spiritual.
adityaman@hotmail.com
Related story
