Though the occasion is being used by the Trust to re-remember the contributions of Nidhiji to transforming Nepal’s social, political and cultural space, it nevertheless should be an occasion for the larger body of stakeholders to reflect upon the political struggles of Nidhiji and how he dedicated his entire life to giving a voice to the downtrodden and laying the foundations for a progressive society. [break]
Writing about Nidhiji and trying to comprehend his views on non-violence and politics is not an easy task, particularly as there is a greater risk of being labeled a ‘subjective’ analyst who has a special relationship with the one he is writing about.
I therefore face a difficulty in completely disassociating myself from my emotions as these are deeply attached to the late Nidhiji. My childhood memories are filled with the struggles that my father and his colleagues waged to establish democracy under Nidhiji’s leadership.
Furthermore, it becomes rather difficult to write about the virtues of a political leader at a time when society have developed a severe trust deficit towards politics.
Unfortunately, that same trust deficit has become legitimized by the politicians, who have adapted themselves to the errant ways of politics. Nevertheless, Nidhiji’s life and legacy stand out all the more at a time when politics has lost its definition.
The objectives of politics have lost their legitimacy. Whenever I think of Nidhiji, I tend to become pre-occupied with a few questions-- Why does this figure continue to fascinate me? Was he a politician or a saint? How was it possible for Nidhiji to mobilize the masses for democracy? This article is dedicated to exploring these questions.
Nidhiji’s was a politics based on morality. He was a politician who remained firm in his agenda and his methods, and defied established authority and the immoral practices of society-- but always peacefully. A lone man of morals consistently fighting against injustices despite all odds evokes the image of a ‘messiah’.
Such messiah images tend to live in our cognition for a long period. That is exactly how it is with Nidhiji. It is quite unfortunate that a politics which has been severely criticized for not having any politicians of moral standing has failed to honor a man who lived to infuse politics with sanctity.
Nidhiji’s legacy lies in his commitment toward the politics of non-violence. He was a politician who was shaped by the anti-colonial movements after the Second World War, and particularly the Gandhian way of fighting injustice.
His refusal to abide by the then violent Congress philosophy stands testimony that he was a man who rose above party politics, and was firmly committed to the values he believed in. He never submitted to the ethos of violence for achieving political objectives.
He always emphasized the relationship between means and ends in politics. He used to draw the analogy of the seed and the tree-- what we reap is what we sow.
Nidhiji was not in favor of a society whose transformation takes place on the foundations of violence. He would rather have struggled and died without achieving democracy than submit himself to the demonic appeal of violence.
He was undoubtedly a heroic figure such as we often find in our historic epics, standing up against injustice, for morality, and fighting the cause of the downtrodden. Nidhiji is one such leader, whose virtues have not been discussed at length.
The failure of the Nepali state to recognize the causes in society at large that he served has become one of the reasons that have given rise to ethnic and communal politics.
It would be quite interesting for the ruling class and the leaders of ethnic movements to know that Nidhiji was dead against ethnic politics.
Commenting on an election held in Jaleswor, Mahottari, he wrote in his diary in 1956, “There is a tendency of voters backing the leaders of their ethnic groups and community. And this trend is detrimental for democracy (quoted as suggested by Mr. Nabendra Kumar Nidhi, the eldest son of Mahendra Narayan Nidhi)”.
Politics is very likely to lose its objective of transforming the lives of commoners if viewed and practiced either from a communal or a narrow perspective.
Democracy for him was not a matter of periodic elections alone. What mattered most to him was who governs? Nidhiji believed that it is not the state or governments that should govern people, but rather the interrelationships of individuals, groups and the community should shape society so that it governs itself.
What mattered to him more was not the supremacy of a particular system of governance, but the freedom of individuals that could shape a perfect system for themselves.
He was a follower of the process, but was aware that the process should follow the aspirations of common beings.
Always attired in dhoti-kurta, with spectacles and lathi in hand, Nidhiji personified both simplicity and assertiveness-- simple like common folks and defiant against rulers. I often wonder whether he was a socialist. He was in favor of equality, but never practiced violence to achieve that.
He was in favor of uplifting the lives of the poor, but also favored the right to private property. He loved the young and children, and always fought the excesses of elders. He consistently fought the failings of history, but never attempted to dismantle it completely.
Moreover, why was it that Nidhiji was able to mobilize the masses for democracy? Nidhiji was neither a splendid orator nor a demagogue.
His was rather a soft-spoken personality. Nidhiji’s life of simplicity, which was largely guided by Hindu religiosity blended with his passion for social reform, helped him gain the trust of the common man, something he retained till his death. Writing in Harijan in May 1939, Gandhiji says, “A born democrat is a born disciplinarian.
Democracy comes naturally to him who is habituated normally to yield willing obedience to all laws, human or divine….Let those who are ambitious to serve democracy qualify themselves by satisfying first this acid test of democracy. Moreover, a democrat must be utterly selfless.
He must think and dream not in terms of self or party but only of democracy. Only then does he acquire the right of civil disobedience.” Nidhiji could easily relate to the aspirations of common people as he never craved political power, but consistently fought for democracy and remained a staunch democrat throughout his life.
At the Ninth General Convention of the Nepali Congress, Nidhiji stated, “People come and go, but ideological belief remains forever.” Nidhiji lived by his ideology.
Today, Nepal is in a state of fragility. Its social, economic, political and cultural realms wait to be redefined in a newer context. Progressive politics has been caught in the excesses of demagoguery and manipulation.
Politicians have dwarfed themselves to the extent where ideology has become a gimmick of the day--to be used for voter consumption, but not to be lived by.
Nevertheless, the spirit of the democratic age survives through the dedicated lives of ardent democrats, and it will remain forever.
Kaspar D. Naegele once remarked, “For every speechmaker who would selectively remind us about change, displaced populations, inner and outer migrations, shifts in the style of life, and requirements to keep up to date, there is another who tells us that fundamental human nature never changes.”
Different people have the luxury of defining what different fundamental nature they want to live with. As a politician, Nidhiji lived his entire life by his commitment to democracy.
As a social reformer, he kept fighting against the structures of society that perpetuated injustice. As a spiritualist, he always followed the path of truth.
As a fighter of peace, he never favored violence. As a humanist, he was always above communal and ethnic politics.
Such was the fundamental nature that shaped Nidhiji’s life. Unlike Nidhiji, we common folks also have the luxury of defining and choosing what should constitute our fundamental nature or what fundamental characteristics should define us. The fate of society and nation largely depends upon what its members choose to live by.
Nidhiji defined his way of life and lived by it. Should we also define how to live in the larger society?
And it is our decision to live in a spirit of negotiation among varied communities that could help emancipate us from the national woes.
However, the leaders of the political parties have a greater responsibility than common people. Almost all top leaders of the political parties are participating in Nidhiji’s anniversary function, to deliver forth on their understanding of who Nidhiji was and how he influenced politics and society.
Nidhiji is synonymous with democracy, peace and collaborative politics.
He redefined politics in relation to power. Can the politicians of the day even ponder doing likewise? Perhaps that could be the greatest tribute they can offer to Nidhiji.
Sameer is the author of “Unfinished Journey: The Story of a Nation”
Related story
Spiritualist Khemraj Keshabsharan passes away
