But don’t mistake the Marxism practiced by its professors in the world’s newest republic for what Marx stood for. The deviation or, depending upon one’s perception, unique features of Nepali Marxism are evident from not only the behavior of political leaders of that ideological persuasion but also activists and “professionals”, most notably the civil society variety, who presumably have their political masters’ ears.
Preaching & Practice
Money makes the world go round. Nepali Marxist movers and shakers are no exception. While a Spartan lifestyle is expected of a true Marxist, the word austerity does not seem to exist in the dictionary of most of our communist leaders and top-rung activists, including those masquerading as professionals in various walks of life.
I/NGOs are dominated by leftists, gripe Nepali Congress activists. On average, better organized and articulate than their Nepali Congress counterparts, the leftist groups have their strengths. But their posturing against expansionism, feudalism and all that jazz does not sit well with their unquestioning acceptance of the motives of their munificent benefactors—some of whom have their own political, strategic and theological axes to grind in this impoverished country, and are well aware of the advantages of not putting all eggs in one political basket, to command the loyalty of even those political groups whose stated goals are not to their liking. This is not to advocate a complete rejection of aid; only that tallying our national interests with donor agenda is the least one can expect from self-professed Marxists. In contrast, their mantra seems to be: As long as the money keeps flowing in, don’t ask any questions. No surprise, this is Marxism, Nepali style.
It is fashionable among Left activists to rail against what they call neoliberalism and neocolonialism driven by rich nations and the multilateral lending agencies they dominate. They tend to draw their inspiration from Latin American Left movements. No doubt, Latin Americans have some genuine grievances against developed-country economic policies, as do Africans. But how relevant are such raving and ranting to us, given our unique history? Although never colonized, Nepal faces a perennial existential crisis, whose causes are found more in our own neighborhood than beyond.
Landlocked between the world’s two most populous countries that are also leading emerging economies, Nepal maintains an open border to the south as the price of transit with strings attached. Our Marxist intellectuals and civil society activists conveniently forget what prompted Nepal to seek membership of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1989. It is reported that 75 percent of tailors in Kathmandu valley are non-Nepalis. For a landlocked poor country like Nepal, it sometimes becomes strategic to tap into the funds of multilateral agencies, along with some of their inherent faults. Most leftist opinion makers wish away these issues. They slam the rich countries but do not have the heart to refuse their munificence routed through various organizations. Ironically, knowingly or otherwise, they may be receiving funds from organizations ultimately funded by the very governments they criticize. No surprise, this is Marxism, Nepali style.
Nationalism used to be touted as something that distinctly set them apart from others. That pretence is still there but they are few takers now. History is testimony to Left nationalism being mere rhetoric, to be whipped up when underground, only to be discarded at a critical juncture, when foreign push comes to shove and “pragmatism” has seemingly no alternative. Granted, Nepali Congress is no different, but let’s give credit where it is due—one cannot accuse the party of hypocrisy on this score: Nationalism has never been an issue for it. The hypocrisy of the self-proclaimed Left intellectuals on nationalism is all too evident in their view of Mikhail Gorbachev. They accuse him of betraying the communist movement by introducing reforms at the behest of the West, but fail to appreciate the nationalist in him that stood in sharp contrast to his successor Boris Yeltsin. Likewise, our communists of the Maoist variety—who also profess Marxism—ignore the fact that Maoist China turned to the West for better ties when it found the Soviet Union overbearing but now enjoys excellent ties with its former rival as it perceives the threat to its interests emanating more from the West. No surprise, this is Marxism, Nepali style.
Marx called religion the opium of the masses. In Nepal, communists raise funds through religious events, don’t mind being patrons of religious trusts and spend precious time and energy kicking up a storm over the issue of appointment of temple priests—all the while managing to profess secularism, which, of course, has its advantages in the eyes of certain sections of the international community. No surprise, this is Marxism, Nepali style.
If one major communist party pooh-poohs the education being provided in our schools as being of the “bourgeois” kind, others profess deep concern over the deteriorating quality of public schools and the exorbitant fees charged by private ones. But where do most of the top leaders, full-time activists, opinion makers, university teachers, writers et al of the political Left who wax eloquent about the need to reform the educational system educate their wards? Not in public schools, where most Nepali kids study, but in private, “boarding” schools, or even posh schools in a neighboring country, where “good English” is believed to be assured. No surprise, this is Marxism, Nepali style.
Communism/Communalism
Communism here has been replaced with communalism. A Left party raised the ethnic banner with such ferocity and persistence that communalism has spread like wildfire all over the country. Others—thanks to their silence—meekly followed. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao—did they advocate it? No. In fact, Marx said the opposite. Remember “whither state”? And here we are talking about creating new boundaries within a nation state. No surprise, this is Marxism, Nepali style.
The very notion of monarchy is, theoretically, against the grain of communist philosophy. But, alas, the Nepali Left is a bundle of contradictions on the issue of monarchy. Some oppose it in “principle” but had to accept it out of pragmatism in 1990. For some, there was an “undeclared/tacit” “unity/understanding” with a monarch on “certain issues” even when they were officially fighting for a republic. One can overhear an activist of a party displaced as the country’s largest communist party telling a foreign consultant, “…but he was different”—“he” meaning a slain monarch—implying that if his successor had been like him, monarchy would have been acceptable. Then why blame the abolished institution’s entire 241-year history? No surprise, this is Marxism, Nepali style.
Agreed, non-communist parties and their leaders and hangars-on fare no better. But, then, aren’t Marxists supposed to be “different”?
Related story
Kathmandu hosting int'l conference on 'Marxism and Socialism'
