Mahendra's nationalism
Related story
Beware of myths
King Mahendra is blamed for all of Nepal's ills even after 43 years of his death and 25 years after the demise of the party-less Panchayat system he introduced. For academics and political analysts alike bashing him seems one of the easiest and most effective ways to establish their "democratic" credentials. And in the Post-2006 "New" Nepal, the democratic tag is the way to professorships, lucrative positions and offers to write reports for INGOs. Hence no one dares challenge the fake narrative being promoted lest it affects their career and income opportunities.
Thanks to our pseudo-intellectuals and politicized media, we Nepalis idolize the people responsible for Nepal's problems and vilify those who worked for the country. Nowhere in the world people judge historical figures based on today's standards, but ours is a different tale. To appear liberal we tend to scrutinize historical figures based on today's standards without even putting ourselves in their shoes, without taking into consideration the conditions these leaders found themselves in.
Furthermore, our "popular writers" and "opinion shapers" tend to be biased against the monarchy. For them no king ever did any good for the country. This simplistic but dangerously popular approach to history sees everything before 2006 as feudal and forgets all the contributions the past kings.
Therefore to understand Mahendra one needs to set aside the pre-conceived notions and fake narratives and see the world as he did. In the run of the mill literature he is blamed for imposing Nepali identity and anti-Indianism (often referred to as Mahendrian nationalism) and killing the nascent democracy. A cursory reading of world history is enough to prove that what Mahendra did was necessary.
On nationalism
Our interest driven scholars knowingly or unknowingly lump jingoism and nationalism together. Mahendrian nationalism was necessary to preserve the country's territorial integrity. Ever since the US President Woodrow Wilson uttered "right to self determination" in Paris in 1919, empires and countries started to disintegrate along ethnic/religious lines. In the aftermath of the Second World War Pakistan was carved out of India along religious lines. For an ethnically diverse country like Nepal that entered its modern nation-building phase after the end of Rana-rule in 1950, it was essential to establish a national identity that would make people in all corners of Nepal see themselves as Nepali first.
Given our many similarities with India, it was imperative for the Nepali state to focus on Nepaliness and come up with concepts, rituals and shared experiences to differentiate ourselves. Nation-building is a difficult and at times harsh process. Mustafa Kemal had to forcefully impose Latin alphabets to write Turkish to differentiate Turkey from its Arab neighbors and one of the first things Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew had to do was make Tamils, Malays and Chinese live together in the same apartment buildings so that they all saw themselves as Singaporeans first. Mahendra too had to impose and promote the Nepali language and Nepali identity. There was simply no other option; the times demanded it. We cannot blame him for his successors' failure to make timely adjustments to "Nepali identity".
Similarly, Mahendrian nationalism had no anti-India component. Nepal's theaters screened Hindi movies, Radio Nepal aired Bollywood songs and the King himself attended various functions in the Indian Embassy, went to India many times and invited Indian leaders and politicians to the country. Mahendra wanted to achieve total independence in conducting Nepal's domestic and foreign affairs just like Charles De Gaulle sought to do for France in the 1950s. All that King Mahendra did then was assert Nepal's independence and tried to balance the two giant neighbors without appearing too close to either. More than the Indian government, it was the Nepali leaders and intellectuals too willing to appease India who were quick to label Mahendra's efforts to limit India's role in Nepal's domestic and foreign affairs as anti-Indian.
System vs country
Even at a time when the literacy rate is at 65.9 percent and 85.86 percent have access to telephone and 27 percent to the internet, with countless FMs and newspapers, Nepal is still a mess. Democracy has failed to deliver. Imagine the scenario when only a handful had telephone access and the majority was illiterate and had no access to broadcast or print media. The leaders could do anything. So far we have only heard one side of the story: King Mahendra wanted all powers to himself and that led to the 1960 royal coup. There is more to it than this simple analysis.
If the political parties had delivered on their promises and addressed the people's development aspirations, the King would have had no reason or support to stage the coup. He acted when he realized that the people wanted his active leadership. Otherwise the people that revolted against the autocratic Rana regime just a decade earlier would have revolted against him and he would have been forced to cede power. No analyst has ever asked why the people did not revolt against the royal coup then.
Not all Nepalis were chained and put in prison, so what stopped them from coming together against him? Our analysts need to examine this aspect as well. Perhaps, in our effort to glorify BP Koirala we have overlooked his flaws. Maybe BP too had ego problems and basked in the personality cult bir biseshowor jindabaad ('long live brave BP') that his party, Nepali Congress, was promoting.
Mahendra was not averse to democracy or political parties as he is portrayed. If Late Shambhu Prasad Gyawali, former attorney general and minister, is to be believed (and there is no reason not to), King Mahendra wanted to work with political parties. According to late Gyawali, the ministers would discuss reforms/amendments to constitution and he being a lawyer and law minister, was entrusted with the draft (see, Byakti ra bichar: ek wakil ko samsmaran ra chintan, Kathmandu, 1998). But, before the draft was finalized, Mahendra died in 1972. His successor King Birendra showed no interest whatsoever in relaxing the ban on political parties until he was forced to do so in 1990.
Today when foreign intervention is growing and democracy has been hijacked by a handful of leaders, there is a lot to be learned from Mahendra. If he could limit foreign influence and embark on monumental changes 53 years ago, why can't our leaders do so today? To conclude: Would our scholars still be loathing Mahendra if he were a civilian leader instead?
The author is an international relations enthusiast trailokyaa@yahoo.com
