The NJD broke only into two groups simply because it did not have more than two members in the legislature. If the party had more leaders in positions of pecuniary benefit, it is quite likely that the ground for further division would have remained intact. However, fragmentation of NJD is not unique. Madhesh-based parties have been disintegrating into irrelevance for quite a while. The most significant indicator of inherent disunity of Madheshbadi parties was the near-vertical division of Madheshi Janadhikar Forum-Nepal just before the extension of CA’s term was to be put up for vote in the parliament. Jayprakash Prasad Gupta and his collaborators robbed MJF-N leader Upendra Yadav of the decisive say the deputy prime minister had in the ruling coalition.
With its last fragmentation, the original MJF has splintered into at least five factions in three years, each new entity encircling a powerful protagonist. Three of these groups continue to be led by influential politicos. Bijaya Kumar Gachchhadar of MJF-L had remained a minister in almost every democratic cabinet formed after 1990 and his party colleague Sharat Singh Bhandari has longer experience of being in governments of all hues. Jayprakash Prasad Gupta of MJF-G was first picked up by Nepali Congress strongman Girija Prasad Koirala and had never since looked back. The third faction continues to be dominated by the originator of the MJF idea and leader of MJF-N Upendra Yadav.
Individually, Messrs Gachhedar, Gupta and Yadav are all consummate politicos and probably know about benefits of staying together or possible losses of drifting apart more than anyone else. However, like once-formidable names of Sadbhavana Party such as Hridayesh Tripathi, Shyamsunder Gupta and Rajendra Mahato, the trio probably decided that going separate ways too had its compensations. The role of India in micromanaging Madheshbadi parties is openly discussed in Pahadi circles. However, there must be more to the phenomenon of continuing fragmentation of political parties than spookiness of secret agents from a neighbouring country.
Unity in Prosperity
The CPN-UML is run more like a body of corporate investors than a political party. Other than operating some of the most influential NGO-conglomerates of the country, powerful members of UML Family dominate transport cartels and run profitable schools, hospitals, banks, petrol pumps, stationary and medical shops, consumer cooperatives, manpower agencies and housing companies. These kinds of businesses require the services of organized crime. Hence, hoodlums like the ones that beat up journalists or threaten writers are promoted and protected by UML leadership. As they say in the movies: There is nothing personal about it; it is business. A popular Hindi song celebrates the theme even more eloquently: Ganda hai, par dhandha hai—it is dirty, but it is industry.
Prior to the extension of CA’s term, gossip went around town that attempts were being made to create divisions within UML ranks. Apparently, all such efforts hit a wall. No matter how high the inducement, targeted lawmakers probably assessed correctly that the price of deserting the party of establishment would be too high. It is not easy to tempt passengers off a gravy train. Madhav Kumar Nepal, Khadga Prasad Oli and Jhalanath Khanal may not stand each other, but they are astute enough to realize the attendant benefits of staying together.
Nepali Congress appears to be a divided house, but it has learnt its lessons from the last split when the more Sher Bahadur Deuba hit out at Girija Prasad Koirala, the more he ended up strengthening the hands of his own opponents among militarists and Maoists alike. The NC support-base has shrunk considerably after losing Madhesh and honchos of the party realize that their urban, upper-caste and middleclass followers would not tolerate leaders that want to set up their separate shops. His apparent incorruptibility apart, Sushil Koirala has neither organizational capability nor personal charisma but none in the party dare challenge his supremacy for the simple reason that the price of rebellion would be political decimation. In the political economy of the bourgeoisie, voters value predictability of outcome and stability of the system high over everything else.
Rumours in Kathmandu are merely tantalising skin and juicy flesh covering the stone of truth. Corridors of power have been abuzz for a while with suggestions that all attempts are being made to create divisions in the Maoist ranks. Separate confabulations of Dr Baburam Bhattarai, Mohan Baidya and Narayankaji Shrestha give credence to the tittle-tattle. And yet, it would probably need an occurrence of cataclysmic nature to create decisive rift among Maoist honchos. Paradoxically, the glue that holds together that disparate party is not its principles but pure pragmatism. Its leaders are too perceptive not to have realized the continuing relevance of Benjamin Franklin’s suggestion to revolutionaries: "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
The revenue system that feeds excesses of Maoist leaders—retinue of whole-timers, chauffeured SUVs, helicopter rides and five-star lifestyle don’t come cheap—would disintegrate the moment party fragments. Collectors of protection money from traders, enforcers of levies upon prosperous professionals, regulators of profitable ventures like commerce in Yarsagumba and facilitators of loan transactions have a vested interest in keeping the unity between in warring leaders intact. Ironically, even those that pay through their nose to the Maoists dread the day party would fragment and multiple claimants would emerge to fleece them separately. The one-window system Maoists have put in place is much easier to handle than, say for example, militant Madheshi groups that seem to multiply at dizzying speed.
The common thread that has helped keep the unity of Big Three parties together is their relative prosperity: All of them are still having a gala post-monarchy party. With the palace secretariat gone, there are enough surpluses in the economy—formal and real—to go around, and nobody wants to risk upsetting the applecart. Madheshbadis parties have to make do with the crumbs from the high table. Leaders and claimants of Madheshbadi movement are merely confirming the cliché that lower the stake, higher the rivalry.
Petty Squabbles
After 1990, the NC lost no time in abandoning democratic socialism to join the ruling class of the capital. The UML emerged as the party of permanent establishment doing its bidding to keep the NC tied up with the management of political contradictions. Maoists claimed the empty space and established themselves as rebels with a cause, though the cause was intentionally left unclear as its leaders cultivated friends and allies according to the convenience of the moment. By the time of CA elections, these three parties had already established themselves as arbitrators of Nepal’s fate. Madheshis realised that they were being left out all over again.
The spark for the first Madhesh Uprising had come from designs of relatively privileged Madheshis fearful of their collaboration with the ruling class in Kathmandu being exposed. But like all revolts, the movement went out of their hands within days as elements that were more enterprising took its reigns. Rebels, almost by definition, resist authority and control but they often are extremely susceptible to instigation. It did not take very long for various manipulators to turn Madhesh Uprising to turn it into an anti-Maoist movement. After the gory clashes in Gaur in March 2007 that claimed 29 lives of mostly Maoists, MJF lost all claims of being a movement for equality and social justice.
Bereft of its ideological plank, MJF became a front rather than a forum of ambitious individuals. Once creed is lost, it does not take very long for communalism to raise its head. As an organizational principle, even communalism has its redeeming features: It spurs constituent members to sacrifice their personal goals for the good of the community and modern organizations can be built to accommodate conflicting nationalist aspirations as Hindutvawadi Bhartiya Janata Party has done successfully in neighbouring India. Caste-ism, however, leads straight to favouritism, nepotism and individualism. Unorganized, unprepared and unable to break into the inner circle of power, rebels then become mere outsiders knocking on the door. They can no longer challenge power; they are reduced to seeking favours.
Sadbhavana, MJF and to a certain extent, even Tarai Madhesh Loktantrik Dal (TMLD), have all fallen prey to their own machinations: A political party is a miniature state and regional formations have no future under unitary system of governance. The political economy of Madhesh has not evolved enough to force unity between squabbling politicos. Proliferation of minor parties, predicted French political scientist Maurice Duverger, is guaranteed under proportional electoral system. He should have added that the risk of every ambitious individual ultimately desiring to open his independent shop would be even higher in societies with clearly delineated lines of politics between rulers and outsiders.
A coalition of Madheshbadi parties is desirable, but is unlikely to emerge anytime soon. Political parties dominated by Pahadis seem no longer interested in taking initiatives to reclaim their lost ground in Madhesh. That leaves the field wide open for more fragmentations, which should in time lead to frantic search for coalition partners among the Big Three. Some political entrepreneurs may even choose to go back to their parent parties. Change is, paradoxically, guarantee of continuity.
Related story
Parties agree to form 11-member panel to probe FinMin Sharma’s...
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
