Nepal is now passing through a serious political crisis. This is the crisis that has been caused by the failure of parliamentary system and the sectarian interest of the parliamentarian political parties. Mainly two types of views have surfaced in the Nepalese politics as regards the solution to this problem. One of the streams of the political parties in parliament, including UML, has taken position in such a way that the local election is the unfailing means that can supposedly bring to an end the entire problems of democracy, people’s livelihood and national independence the country and people have been confronting till the date. They have only one mantra: the local election. Their one point formula is: let’s go for local election first; all the rest will automatically come in its track later. And, they have posed themselves as the staunch defender of national independence. UML does not seem to move either side from this position till now i.e. they have no other option except election. This is one aspect of the present Nepalese politics.
On the other, the pro-Madhesh political party leaders and Baburam Bhattarai have been projecting constitution amendment as the only solution to the on-going crisis in Nepal. They say: let the constitution be amended first and then federalism be established, all the rest including local election will go along its way. These parties, which claim to stand for internal nationality i.e. federalism, have been parroting that it is the only means that can solve entire problems. Moreover, they don’t seem ready even to talk of any compromise unless the constitution is amended i.e. they have no other option left except constitution amendment. This is another aspect of the present-day politics in Nepal.
Between these two apparently opposite streams that seem to have no meeting point with one another, Prachanda, who is leading the coalition government in support of Nepali Congress, is making an attempt to push both the processes of local election and constitution amendment simultaneously. How will the local election take place when federalism has been adopted but the borders have not yet been demarcated? What type of election will take place before deciding on which structure, the old or new, the election is being held? Perhaps, Prachanda himself does not have answer to such questions. Nevertheless, he has not stopped holding frequent meetings with K P Oli to discuss about local election and with Madheshi parties to discuss on how can the next constitution amendment be made fruitful. It is most likely that Prachanda’s daily routine will be this until his term of premiership ends in coming April. The constitution amendment the task that the expansionist master has endowed upon Prachanda is now like a bone stuck at his throat: neither can he swallow in nor can he spew out easily. This is the external appearance or form of Nepalese politics at present.
Till now, seven new constitutions have been written in Nepal, they have been amended many times and the elections held in this course are far from being counted. In spite of this, the problems related to people’s democracy, people’s livelihood and national independence have not yet been solved. People of the oppressed nation, sex and region including workers, peasants and national bourgeoisie have been suffering from the twofold oppression: internally domestic reaction and externally imperialism and the Indian expansionism. This oppression is not declining but mounting further. The domestic reactionary state formed of the comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie and feudal class has been repressing upon the democratic aspirations of the oppressed people while, on the other, imperialism and mainly the Indian expansionism in our case has been intervening upon national independence. They are doing it, not independently, but in collaboration with each other. As a result of this twofold oppression, Nepal has been in a semi-feudal and semi/neo-colonial condition since long. The present crisis is the reflection of this very socio-economic condition.
The appearance of an object is decided by its essence. The problems in its form can be permanently solved only after the problems in its essence are resolved. External intervention upon appearance of an object cannot bring about any change in its essence. It means that change in the form of an object does not necessarily change its essence. However, change in essence of an object necessarily changes its form. In the name of solving the present political crisis, the UML stream is intervening in the Nepalese politics by means of local election and the pro-Madheshi stream is doing the same by means of federalism. Not the national interest, but the narrow interests of UML and pro-Madheshi parties are hidden in these two methods of interventions. What is clear is that none of these methods can address the on-going political crisis of Nepal. That is, neither local election nor constitution amendment is the solution to the on-going political crisis. Trying to do so is tantamount to prescribing antacid to a cancer patient.
As a consequence of this internal aspect i.e. essence of the Nepalese politics, Nepalese people have been victims of twofold oppressions. The internal oppression is related to people’s democracy and livelihood and the external one is linked with national independence and territorial integrity. Nepalese people have been confronting these problems ever since the Sugauli Treaty in 1816. Sometimes, national independence and sometimes democracy seem to be principal but they are inter-related and cannot be separated. Nepalese people will simultaneously attain both or none. The alliance between domestic reactionaries and the imperialism and former’s submission to the later have altogether caused this situation to happen. The reactionaries and revisionists in Nepal have been enlivening the state power by dividing people on the basis of democracy and national independence. Everyone must be clear on it.
In the Nepalese politics, a part of reactionary power, which is formed of comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the feudal class, has been deceiving the people in the name of democracy and other part in the name of independence. Yesterday, monarchy imposed despotism and plundered the people in the name of national independence. Nepali Congress and UML raised the slogan of democracy against the autocratic rule of monarchy. But, their so-called democratic regime did not differ in essence compared to monarchy. All of them did the same but slogans were different. The CPN (Maoist) leader Prachanda, who said that both of these problems should be simultaneously resolved by the method of new democratic revolution, took a U-turn and has now totally sunk in the quagmire of imperialist parliamentarian system. Like other bourgeoisie, he has started raising silly logics that democracy has triumphed in Nepal; the country now should go along the direction of economic revolution and Nepal will attain her national independence once she is economically prosperous.
Now the debate between democracy and national independence has again surfaced in Nepal. The pro-Madhesh parties, including the New Force led by Baburam Bhattarai, have now pretended to have become the real messiah of federalism and protector of democracy for the oppressed nationalities and Madheshi people. The on-going campaign of constitution amendment the pro-Madhesh leaders have taken up is in fact a part of the Indian expansionist design to make its puppets the master of Madhesh and pave the way towards Sikkimising Nepal. It is not in favour of the oppressed nationalities including landless and poor peasants of Madhesh. What should be understood here is that whether it is in Madhesh, hill or Himalayan region, the federal structure that is built under the leadership of parliamentarian leaders, who have feudal mindset and are brought up by imperialism and Indian expansionism, cannot liberate any oppressed class, nationality and the lingual community. The puppets of Indian expansionism and feudal elements cannot be the liberator of oppressed Madheshi people. It is equally true for the oppressed people residing in hilly and Himalayan region as well. It must be grasped firmly.
On the other, the UML leader KP Oli is now saying that India has entered into Madhesh with the slogan of Federalism and by so doing it has jeopardised the national independence of Nepal. It has created confusion among the honest patriots, regarding the stance of UML. However, it is only a form; the essence is quite the reverse. First, most of the UML leaders and Oli, in the main, is a man fully trusted by Indian expansionism. The anti-national role he played during the period of Mahakali Treaty with India is open to all. He has not formally registered any opinion, written or verbal, against the Indian intervention in Nepal after he came to lead his party and the Government of Nepal as well. Had he been a real patriot, he should have at least taken some initiative to abrogate the past unequal treaties with India and write the new ones. Second, he has opposed not Indian expansionism but federalism, he is in favour of unitary system and it stands on the base of feudal ultra-nationalism. He is a trusted man of Indian expansionism with a feudal mindset. It is his essence.
Thus, it is clear that neither the slogan of federalism raised by the so-called pro-Madhesh leaders can deliver real democratic rights to the oppressed class, nationalities and lingual communities nor can the ultra-nationalist mindset of the UML leaders can strengthen the base of national independence in Nepal. These slogans are only the show tusks of elephant. In fact, the constitution amendment and the national independence are the political ladders that pave respectively the way to ease Indian intervention upon Nepal and prepare a base to build unitary autocratic structure by destroying federalism in Nepal. To understand it otherwise is to deceive by oneself.
How does the situation develop in the country is not clear yet. On the one hand, the pro-Madhesh leaders have threatened that the election before constitution amendment is the declaration of war; while on the other, they have not withdrawn their support to the Prachanda-led government. The threat by pro-Madhesh leaders does not affect much at present when the unity among pro-Madhesh leaders is waning and people’s support to the movement is declining. Nevertheless, given that the geo-political location and demographic situation of Madhesh is suitable for India to intervene in Nepal, a Nepalese patriot cannot and must not ignore its strategic sensitivity. Therefore, only by strengthening the internal nationality for Madheshi people can they stand up as a strong fortress against the Indian intervention upon Nepal. It is an important key for the national independence of Nepal.
The contradiction amongst the reactionaries in Nepal is sharpening. And, it is also a fact that most of the leaders of parliamentarian parties of Nepal are the men trusted by Indian ruling classes. A lot of facts have proved it. None of them can in due course stand firmly facing Indian expansionism. If India gives any day a signal from Delhi, the entire parliamentarian leaders will sit together to find an ‘appropriate’ solution to the on-going political crisis. The leaders, who are fighting at loggerheads now, can stand at one position tomorrow in the mediation of their common master. A new treaty can be reached in the name of consensus. However, history is a witness that any accord which is reached among the reactionary political forces of Nepal in the arbitration of Indian expansionist rulers will not be in the interest of Nepal and Nepalese people.
One of the very negative aspects of the strife between pro-Madhesh and UML leaders now is that it has created a deep mistrust between the oppressed people residing in hills and Madhesh. A situation in which every person from the hilly region thinks that the entire Madheshi people are Indian agents and the every Madheshi person believes that the entire hilly region people are their neo-colonial rulers is very much awful. It directly helps the Indian expansionist design of Sikkimising Nepal. The feudal ultra-nationalist doctrine of UML and the federal doctrine of pro-Madhesh leaders are driving the country towards that direction. Its ultimate result is national disintegration. Everyone must be serious in it.
It has been already said that democracy and national independence are related with each other. One cannot be detached from another. The way how Nepali people residing in hilly region are oppressed by imperialism, Indian expansionism and Nepalese reactionary state power and their local tyrants, the Nepali people residing in Madhesh also are oppressed by the same enemies and in the same manner. Thus, the contradiction made of people of oppressed class, nationalities, sex and region of both Madhesh and Hill, at one pole, and imperialism, Indian expansionism and the domestic reactionary state power, at the other, has been the fundamental contradiction of the Nepalese society as a whole. This contradiction can be resolved by new democratic revolution that is accomplished under the ideological guidance of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism led by the vanguard party of the proletariat and is run by joint dictatorship of the entire people of oppressed class, sex, nationalities and region.
As an influence of the high caste chauvinism of hilly ruling class of Nepal, one of the bitter realities of the Nepalese society is that there is a derogatory practice through which people from the hilly region humiliate the Madheshi people. It has created a kind of contradiction between Nepalese people residing in Madhesh and the hilly region. It is a friendly contradiction between the different sections of the oppressed people. Nevertheless, the reactionaries have been attempting to antagonise this contradiction and turn it hostile. The revolutionaries must handle this contradiction in a friendly way and solve it with the method of ideological, political and cultural integration among the people.
In the end, Nepal is now at a dangerous crossroads. The parliamentarian parties have no way to solve this crisis. Rather contradiction between them is getting sharp, which seems to deteriorate the situation further. It is the new democratic revolution that can solve the basic contradictions the nation and people have been confronting. But it cannot be done overnight. Now, the revolutionaries must work hard to expose the anti-national and anti-democratic aspects behind two extreme doctrines mentioned before, try to unite the entire oppressed people from Madhesh and hilly region to fight their common enemy and develop struggle with a goal to establish People’s Federal Republican of Nepal. This opens up the way forward to institutionalising democracy for the people, ensure internal nationality and then strengthen national sovereignty of the country as a whole. All this is a way forward to accomplishing new democratic revolution in Nepal. This is the course the Nepalese revolutionaries should follow now.
March 5, 2017
