Premier Baburam Bhattarai must be experiencing the excruciating agony of knowing what to do but not being able to do what he knows needs to be done. The scholar-premier is not alone to be in the grips of informed helplessness and hence need not lose hope. His more illustrious predecessors have faced similar predicaments and yet contributed to the making of Nepal’s history in their own ways.
King Mahendra was a hard-boiled politician who probably believed his own fiction that communism did not travel by trucks. In the event, Maoism did benefit immensely from trans-Himalayan trade in Yarsagumba, red sandalwood, and other assorted contraband. Mao may not have had any role in the process, but within decades of Mahendra’s death, the ideology of the Great Helmsman of China became a potent force behind a People’s Uprising that eventually dumped monarchy into the dustbins of history.
King Birendra tried to interpret geopolitics in so many ways that he was ultimately caught in the web of his own conclusions. The ‘Zone of Peace’ proposal was conceptually sound, but fatally flawed from the angle of realpolitik. But so is the case of, say for example, independence of Palestine, end of occupation in Afghanistan, cessation of unwarranted drone attacks on Pakistan, and accountability for atrocities committed by occupying forces in Iraq or in Libya more recently. Imposition of the will of the strong, Nietzsche notes somewhere, is the way of nature. Nepal turned into a zone of violent conflicts in Birendra’s own lifetime. It was not his fault. He merely had to suffer the consequences of choices he had made in making friends and antagonizing competing contenders.
When B P Koirala realized that putting faith upon the goodwill of the West during Cold War decades had been a mistake, it was too late. By the mid-seventies, the US administration had discovered that the flight to Beijing via Islamabad was the more effective tactic of playing the Great Game in south and central Asia. Isolated within his own party, vilified in national politics, and pitied by sympathizers in the international community, the Senior Koirala died a wise but a deeply dissatisfied statesman.
Friends & provocateurs
Recent experiences are even more telling. For all his chutzpah, Chairman Gyanendra learnt late in the day that charity is never an ingredient of foreign policy. To their credit, people in his coterie did try to bargain with the Indian establishment by offering them hydropower lollies, but there was no turning back after February First hara-kiri. Once the army saw that the crown was an albatross, the clock began to tick for the quaint icon of history.
Perhaps due to his past associations with gaming houses, Gyanendra had assumed that he understood complex moves of Chinese checkers well. But when Beijing sought New Delhi’s clearance before responding to requests from Kathmandu, he immediately understood that he had bungled big time. He reportedly rued in private that the Chinese were fair weather friends. What he failed to accept was that so would have been any other country.
It is a well-worn cliché of international relations that countries have no permanent friends or enemies, only interests. The last Shah should record his reminisces for posterity. His experiences could be useful for generations of politicos to come. Lessons from the mat of failure are more important in politics and diplomacy than sermons issued from the pulpit of success.
When in New Delhi, Premier Bhattarai may discover that the stridency of anti-Nepal rhetoric in the Indian capital is no less than anti-India rants of his own party here in Nepal. The premier may be asked to explain his contingency plan should the constituent assembly hit rough weather again.
Girija Prasad Koirala was naïve enough to believe that Nepal could be a ‘land-link’ between China and India. He tried to play the ‘equi-proximity’ diplomatic game with the help of Western powers. In trying to balance the weight of two Asian giants on his frail shoulders, he first fumbled in befriending Beijing, fell to the ground in New Delhi, and then ended up being a marginal force in Nepali politics. His desire to become the first elected head of state remained unfulfilled as Indians deftly pulled the rug from under his feet even as the Chinese and Western powers watched with bemused detachment. Maoists have since appropriated the ‘equi-proximity’ terminology that fails to impress the Chinese but annoys Indians no end.
Premier Bhattarai may sneer that those are instances of royal and bourgeois breakdowns. If anything, the collapse of the first elected Maoist government in the world was even more spectacular. It is easy to believe conspiracy theories, but the apparent cause of fall of Pushpa Kamal Dahal government was the treachery of his trusted coalition partner. The rest is a familiar story. Humpty Dumpty sat on a ‘nationalist’ wall. Humpty Dumpty had a ‘democratic’ fall.
Home & abroad
Earthquakes are known for after-shocks. Political tremors, however, begin with a gentle swing, unfold into unsettling vibrations and end with a reassuring lapse into calming oscillations. It is possible that the clamor for the political scalp of Sharat Singh Bhandari will end in a whimper. The timing of the orchestration, however, tells a different story. Apparently, Premier Bhattarai has been served notice just before his planned pilgrimage to the power places of New Delhi. For great powers, foreign policy is the extension of domestic policy. In countries like Nepal, it is the other way round.
Censures issued from Balkhu Palace against the four-point agreement between UCPN (Maoists) and Democratic Madeshi Front were meaningless. The UML has so little credibility in Tarai-Madesh that nobody need bother over its pious pronouncements. The fellow travellers of Marxist-Leninist apparatchiks in Muslim and Tharu communities too do not command much respectability even within their own constituencies. But once palaces across Bagamati at Balkhu and Sanepa join hands, it’s time to take notice. With UML’s street muscle and the access of Nepali Congress to salons of commercial power, the two together have the wherewithal to put the ruling coalition in a spot of bother.
If the premier were to ask for the resignation of the defence minister, it is quite likely that Bijay Kumar Gachchhedar would be the next target of Maoist hardliners. Departure of Gachchhedar may make way for the re-entry of Bamdev Gautam in home ministry, but it is extremely unlikely that UML would be a more reliable coalition partner in future than it had been in the past. The choice between Gachchhedar and Gautam is an unpleasant one. Dahal probably prefers his former deputy. But is that in the interest of peace and constitution? Premier Bhattarai needs to take a call before embarking on his pilgrimage. The UML is etching to get back in Singh Durbar. The Maoists would have to remember the parable of camel in the tent before making a decision.
Dismissal of Prabhu Sah from the cabinet may have been forced upon the premier, but the decision is fraught with political pitfalls that are even more serious than the controversy over Bhandari’s future. After the departure of Matrika Yadav, Sah is the most prominent face of Maoists in Madesh. Over last few years, he has adroitly built what can best be termed as ‘a non-Yadav backward caste coalition’ of Maoist sympathizers at every level of the class divide. Such a social engineering has broadened the base of the party among groups inimical to upper-castes but envious of Yadavs at the same time. Since the broad Sah group of various castes—Teli, Sudhi, Guptas and Rauniyars—are the second largest one in Madesh after Yadavs and can match them in terms of muscle, money and men, Maoist’s loss will be Jayprakash Prasad Gupta’s gain. Gupta faction of MJF stands to benefit most from the discomfiture of Bhandari and the disgrace of Sah.
Shaky coalition and edgy opposition however are relatively less unsettling issues. When in New Delhi, Premier Bhattarai may discover that the stridency of anti-Nepal rhetoric in the Indian capital is no less than anti-India rants of his own party here in Nepal. The premier may be asked to explain his contingency plan should the constituent assembly hit rough weather again. He needs to take UML and Nepali Congress into confidence in order to negotiate from a position of strength with the neighboring country. That strength, however, has already been denied to him.
When faced with impossible choices, it always makes more sense to listen to the heart. Knowledge can fail; instinct is a more reliable guide when every option is equally unpleasant. That should see Premier Bhattarai through his New Delhi odyssey. There is no higher to go once one has reached the summit. Descend has to be so calm and composed that the spirit to scale other peaks remains intact even after a retreat into safety becomes a compulsion.
Related story
Minimum wages to journalists to be implemented: chair Aryal
-1778309205.webp)
