Why are Nepali politics currently in such dire straits? There is a common goal that the whole population apart from minority royalist elements aspire to achieve; a movement towards which was started with the April people’s revolt and seems to have stalled with the introduction of the Maoists to government one year ago. Yes, undeniably Nepal is facing huge obstacles on the road to fully representative democracy. New outlooks, refreshment (not the New York fact-finding-mission-kind) and ideas are desperately needed to drag the flagging democratic process out of the doldrums it is currently foundering in. Lacking too is the simple desire for change from politicians of every party. At times the octogenarian Koirala looks like an unstoppable bundle of energy when compared with the revolutionaries who still seem to be dazed by the direct sunlight that was so lacking in the jungle.


Looking away from the stalemate in Kathmandu and outside of Nepal’s borders for fresh approaches, lessons can be learned from its southern neighbour and the struggle there for independence in the twentieth century. This will provoke angry reactions among Nepali nationalists, but while examining the history of the Indian independence movement, striking similarities with Nepal’s struggle of today are thrown up. The colonial rule of the British can easily be compared with the autocratic madness of Gyenendra – neither had any public mandate or was accountable for their actions, and both ruled through fear, subterfuge and division. Hinduism did, or will play a major part in any national movement, being the dominant religion in both countries, (India however had to deal with much higher and more intense levels of religious tension than Nepal) and despite the outlook of many Nepali nationalists, Nepal and its southern neighbour are the two most alike countries in South Asia sharing close ties linguistically, culturally socially and to an extent, geographically.

Whereas the Indian independence movement succeeded in garnering world sympathy and support, in mobilising its population (almost completely peacefully in spite of colonial oppression reaching violent levels, read Jallianwalla Bagh) towards its cause, and eventually in attaining complete independence, the Nepali attempt has been hijacked by a bunch of stale, corrupt and lethargic power grabbers, and shows no sign at all of stumbling any further along its winding road. The process, if it is still a process, for no real movement has been seen in months is led by a dithering octogenarian well past his prime, and the so-called ‘alliance’ of the interim parliament consists partly of a mass of squabbling, bickering street thugs who wear suits and ties while letting their younger counterparts do as they please in the streets.

Where are the shining leaders of the pro-democracy movement in Nepal? God knows the cause is just as noble as the one championed by Nehru, Ghandi, and Gokhale. Do we see any examples of the courage, dedication and spirit demonstrated by them and the hundreds of other figures of the movement of the twentieth century in Nepal? Do we see a common unity among the population and parties, a common goal? No. We have the leader of “the people’s war”, the captain of the class revolution attempting to withhold his party’s spending accounts for its cadres languishing in cantonments (must have overspent by buying bound copies of das Kapital for every party worker) while sending his children to America to be educated and decrying the ‘interference’ of the US and India. Nehru, Gandhi and others sacrificed most of their worldly possessions during their pushes for reform, the only example the writer can find of this in Nepal is the head of the JTTM-J faction, who ekes out a living somewhere in the jungle of Bihar, nipping across the border now and again to help his cadres torch a bus. Well done that man…

The challengers faced by the early leaders of the independence movement in India were no less daunting than what the parties of today’s Nepal are up against, if anything, more so. Activists in India were constantly conspired against, and imprisoned by the British, and India, unlike Nepal had concentrated, large and vocal religious minorities to try and bring into the framework, and although we cannot forget the disaster of Partition, strenuous attempts at preserving national unity were made right up until it. The linguistic and cultural differences that activists had to deal with were huge, by far eclipsing those we can see in Nepal. From Bengal to the Punjab, from Kashmir to Tamil Nadu, India is and was more linguistically diverse than Europe and the different areas held different customs, beliefs and views all of which had to be brought on board in the struggle for independence. The masses, belonging to different classes and castes all across the country were harmoniously brought together, and urged to action by a relatively small group of thinkers, believers and most importantly doers, willing to face prison, hardship and poverty and of whom the vast majority did.

Then why is the story so different in Nepal? Are the methods that were used in India, ones of effective civil disobedience, peaceful protest and dialogue so vastly complicated, difficult and incompatible in any other country? Nepal and India are undeniably similar, the majority of their populations practice the same religion (and the problems of caste which accompany it), speak similar languages and share close cultural and historical ties so why can we see too vastly different approaches to a common goal?

If only the process was a ship with sails, and hot air could be utilized as a force with which to move it, Nepal’s politicians would at last be able to justify their existences…

Tags: nepal
Current Location: Ktm, Nepal