Submit your Article

Nepal is not a small country. There are 167 countries in the world that are smaller than Nepal in size. Nepal is bigger than Austria, Switzerland, South Korea and Israel, to name a few. You don’t normally read of these countries being referred to as small by either foreigners or their natives. Comparably, they are smaller than many big countries but their international standing is no less.

Nepal is small because it perceives itself as such. The small-country-syndrome is engrained in our collective psyche and we are made to feel hopeless and helpless all the time. It’s a little country that is always intim­idated by big powers that sur­round it. It’s a country that never got over its own perceived sense of smallness and always feels it is at the mercy of its big neighbors— and everybody else.

Now this country that perceives itself as small and weak finds itself being courted by its neighbors and the reigning superpower, and it has absolutely no idea how to respond to their overtures. It now finds itself “in the vortex of world conflicts” but doesn’t know how to stand up for its interests—at least in the past, our rulers knew whose side we need­ed to choose to remain and be acknowledged as being an inde­pendent country.

These days we don’t even know what constitutes our national interests and how to go about defending those. The undem­ocratic-by-today’s-standards Rana regime knew that it had to ally itself with the British if we were to remain independent. The Ranas rejected both the German and Japanese overtures and allied Nepal with the power that guaran­teed and respected Nepal’s sover­eignty—of course in exchange for its able-bodied fighting men and continuation and enrichment of the oligarchy.

In the era of colonization and hot wars we managed to main­tain our sovereignty and indepen­dence because our rulers made the best choices in the worst of scenarios. The last ruler who stood tall without any emotion­al baggage was King Mahendra. But we have demonized him so much that any positive men­tion of him or praising of his for­eign policy is ridiculed by the brainwashed liberals as following “Mahendrian nationalism.”

The “sponsored” national nar­rative that views King Mahendra as a villain—favorite of our liberal elites and mainstream press—has made us fear that if we stand up for our interests, one of our neigh­bors is going to get angry, and we being the smallest, weakest and poorest one have no option but to please all, all the time. As a result, diplomacy for us is nothing more than appeasing everyone. But if you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one, and only make yourself more miserable.

The ‘small, powerless, weak’ country syndrome has debilitated us and it’s our own doing. Our diplomacy is driven by irratio­nal fears, and the foreigners are taking advantage of not our real weaknesses but our perceived ones. We have failed to ask the most important question: What’s the worst that can happen if we make our real priorities clear and align or not align with one of the three—India, China or the US?

An embargo maybe: Diplomacy then means having good relations with the other so that there are no energy and food shortages. No development aid: If one cuts down or stops development aid, then maintain good relations with the other two so that we keep getting the money, and ask for market access. No tourists: have the other two send us more tour­ists and have more direct flights. We being on some evil countries’ list and international embargo: be in more than friendlier terms with the enemy of your enemy.

The worst of all scenarios is the likelihood of a proxy war and per­petual chaos and political insta­bility instigated by the disgrun­tled power (s). But that can only happen if it finds leaders that are willing to be used. If our leaders are united on national interests then no power can destabilize us. Diplomacy then can be used to develop the country with the help of whoever provides us more and helps keep the disgruntled at bay, thereby averting any proxy war, in exchange of our loyalty.

Therefore, we—insecure little in the middle—first need to imagine what’s the worst that can befall us if we make our choices clear—and whether or not the friend(s) we choose help(s) us feel empowered and grow stronger.

Let’s not continue with the pol­icy of stunting our growth—unless we want to be the circus dwarf who makes the whole world laugh at him with his antics.

Much has been said about Comrade Prachanda’s “anti-imperialism” state­ment on Venezuela and Nepal’s reluctance to join the US-led Indo-Pacific Strategy and their collective impact on Nepal’s relations with the US, and India and China. In light of global and regional events, the three powers won’t let us off the hook easily. No matter what our wishy-washy leaders and intellectuals believe, there is no way to sweet talk our­selves out of the new Cold War. India and China have invested heavily here and now we are on the US strategic radar again after almost 60 years. Therefore, the chance of Nepal having to deal with one of the following three scenarios is very likely. Scenario A: India and China, despite their geopolitical rival­ry, will be on the same page on Nepal, i.e., keep the US out of it. Each of our neighbors believes that given its influence in Nepal, it will be able to use the country as a bargaining chip in its dealings with the other. Neither would want Nepal to have any US back­ing as it will lead to a confident Nepal, which makes it harder for them to view it as their own exten­sion/satellite.

Scenario B: The US will make “further inroads” here with India’s help. Since India finds itself sur­rounded by China in South Asia, it could very well be open to the US’s idea of roping Nepal into its strategy. As India and the US are “allies”—maybe difficult ones, but allies nonetheless—India probably won’t see the US as infringing on its interests in Nepal, but rather acting on its best interest by keep­ing China out. The two will think their partnership in Nepal helps curb Chinese activities, interests and influence in Nepal.

It will signify a major diplomatic victory for India because China then won’t be able to play the Nepal card in its dealings with India. And the US can prove to the Chinese that it still has influence worldwide including in China’s “strategic backyard.” Further, if the Indo-US partnership is suc­cessful in Nepal, the model can then be applied to other South Asian countries that too face a difficult choice between India and China.

Scenario C: The US will go solo in Nepal. From the US strategic perspective it makes a lot of sense too. It knows the country well, enjoys immense soft power, and the American intelligence has already used our terrain against China 60 years ago. Now imagine being the most influential play­er between the two major Asian powers and with all the latest in surveillance and monitoring technology! Given our location, we could be an excellent listening post for the US to gather intel on missiles and other strategic pro­grams of both India and China— and to mobilize its field agents— just as China’s Xinjiang was used in the 80s to gather intel on the soviet missiles program.

The US can then play the Nepal card to coax India into going with it on many global issues. If things blow out of proportion in the South China Sea or the Indian Ocean between China and the US, it can also thwart any Chinese strategic plans against India in or through Nepal—in case India sides with the US against China. Alternately, a strong US presence in Nepal will restrain India and China and make them seek peace­ful ways to resolve their “issues,” thereby sparing it a significant military adventure or cost as India’s ally.

The only option left for us is to decide who we choose as our ally and set terms favorable to us before any of the three decides for us. Therefore we need to ask each power what’s in it for us if we side with them. Whoever provides us more, we selfishly and shameless­ly side with it, just as many third world countries have done for their development—and survival and security. Without a firm com­mitment to one of the powers we will only be getting paltry sums that neither significantly aid our development at best and are det­rimental to our survival at worst.

Just as my good friend Bhaskar Koirala, the director of Nepal Insti­tute of International and Strategic Studies, recently said, “The US MCC grant of 500 million dollars although previously part of the Asia pivot is now being channeled through the Indo-Pacific strate­gy.” We need to acknowledge it as such and accept that the money we receive from India and China is also part of a named or unnamed strategy. Then decide on where the big money—and less micro­management— is and be part of it.

If we want stability, peace and development, we need to be cold, calculating and objective—and that can only be done when we shed the useless peaceful and neutral cloak. It’s time to imagine the worst and ask very difficult— and impolite—questions.

Nepal is in a deep mess and there’s no way out. Recent events prove we have no reason to be optimistic. First, the Bibeksheel-Sajha split. When the party of bright Nepali youth merged with the party of a foreign returned journalist, most of us were excited. We hoped that soon it would emerge as an exemplary party that would force the dominant parties to become democratic, respon­sible and accountable. But it turned out, the party was no dif­ferent to other parties and despite big talks of democratizing Nepal, it itself lacked inner democra­cy. The potential third force split before it could even begin to make a difference.

We also witnessed the defeat of Dr Govinda KC who was fighting against the commercialization of medical education that makes health care expensive for poor Nepalis. But the democratic “com­munist” government of one of the poorest countries in the world stood for exactly the opposite and had its way. Both houses of the parliament endorsed the watered-down medical education bill. The opposition could do nothing. The medical bill was passed by our parliament. And all were in it together, the opposition and the so called—and self-declared— prominent members of the civil society and rights activists.

The opposition is morally bank­rupt, corrupt, divided, and hence weak. As such it could not mount an effective opposition against the government’s bullying. Or could it be that there was a tacit under­standing between the government and the opposition, not to open the file on NC’s involvement in the controversial purchase of the wide body aircraft? What a win-win for the both parties, and a lose-lose for Nepal.

And while the political parties were in a hush-hush win-win trade off with each other, the recently appointed Chief Justice Cholendra Shumser Rana suspended and took action against some “ill-in­tended” judges on big scandals, including the 33 kg gold smug­gling, and tax evasion by a major telecom provider. When even the judges start making “mistakes” it only means one thing: we are messed up big time. Flee the country, young men and women, while you can.

In addition to this domestic freak-show, our leaders also left no stone unturned to make sure we messed up diplomatically as well. The US invited our foreign minister Pradeep Gyawali to DC to discuss Nepal’s role in the Indo-Pacific Strategy. But we—the flag-bearers of the non-aligned movement—had to see something sinister behind a natural and harmless alliance. The distress­ing thing about Nepal’s decision to not join the strategy was the way we said it.

Instead of rejecting the Ameri­can proposal outright, we could have slept on it and carefully weighed the pros and cons. We could have asked for time and what America would provide us in return for our participa­tion. We could have asked the next foreign ministerial meet­ing be held in Kathmandu. That would have been a mature thing to do and prove to the Americans and our neighbors that we are serious about our national inter­ests and cultivating our friends near and far.

By refusing even further delib­erations on the issue, we proved that we are immature when it comes to maintaining good rela­tions with a country that has been a good friend of Nepal for the past 70 years. If the government thought it made the Chinese hap­py by its immaturity in DC, the Chinese were unmoved, as is evi­dent by the Chinese proposal to reduce the number of projects under its Belt and Road Initiative in Nepal.

If this was not enough, Com­rade Prachanda, one of the two chairs of the ruling Nepal Com­munist Party, had to issue a strong statement denouncing Ameri­ca’s role in Venezuela. He could have kept quiet or just issued a milder statement to prove his revolutionary credentials and to keep himself relevant in whatever global communist movement he fancies. He as always hinted he was misquoted and was hood­winked into issuing it. Then, soon after, came another statement that said the party stands by its earlier statement.

In a fitting quid pro quo, the American ambassador did not attend a diplomatic briefing held by the Nepali government. The message was clear: if you don’t value our friendship by undiplo­matically rejecting our Indo-Pa­cific proposal, and then go on to denounce us for what we do in our backyard, then we too will make our displeasure obvious—of course, diplomatically.

All these episodes show we are not getting better and have nothing to be hopeful about. Expect more unpleasant surprises on both domestic and diplomatic fronts and stop reading the news to save yourself from depression.

You have probably already come across pieces on porn and alcohol regulations, and on other crackpot theories that Hinduism, patriarchy and capi­talism are responsible for rapes and other criminal activities in the country. Yes, there’s a porn ban in effect and the government is enforcing stricter alcohol con­trol (i.e., making it impossible for alcohol companies to sponsor cul­tural, sports or any other events, to put up billboards or to adver­tise in any media). Not many have dared ask the correlation between porn, alcohol and rapes and other criminal activities. How many rapes are committed because of porn and how many under the influence of alcohol?

 If porn and alcohol led to rapes and crimes then Europe and even Japan would be pretty dangerous places to live—but they aren’t. There are many western countries where you can get porn in cable and you have beer commercials on national TV. Actually you have beer and hard liquors commer­cials in Chinese TV channels, and nobody draws any connection between crimes and alcohol there. Of course, porn is banned in China to prevent the spiritual pollution of its citizens, as the argument goes. But the curious ones can go to any book store and under photography section find books on human body photog­raphy with nude and semi-nude models. Porn is banned but cele­brating the beauty of human body is not. And no, Japan, and China and European countries aren’t any more dangerous than many South Asian countries with porn and alcohol bans.

Now the question is, what made our all-powerful govern­ment make silly decisions that make no sense whatsoever? The real reason that Nepal is becom­ing dangerous is not because of porn or alcohol, but because of politics. Yes, it’s bad governance and corruption that have made Nepal unlivable.

If I know I can pay money or use political and personal connec­tions to get just about anything done, wouldn’t I be emboldened? This is exactly what’s happening. People aren’t afraid to commit crimes because they know their political connections, wealth or their parents will bail them out. The police find themselves help­less. The politicization of police force has made police officers think 10 times before arresting a criminal. When you see people arguing with police officers on the streets, refusing to follow legiti­mate and valid orders, you know the country has issues with how it’s governed.

Don’t get me wrong. Nepal Police is an impressive organiza­tion and its officers are compe­tent. But the political system has thus far not shown any interest in utilizing their skills and trainings to rid the country of crimes and criminals. They have to follow government orders, and the gov­ernment is influenced by party leaders, donors, the powerful ones and who not! The govern­ment sits idle, no matter how seri­ous the charge or how heinous the crime committed by family members and friends and neigh­bors of political leaders and big businessmen. The police then have to ignore court rulings and charges filed against criminals and pretend they do not even see most wanted criminals when everybody else sees them chatting up the prime minister and home minister. The police have to deny any such sighting and sheepishly tell us, “we are leaving no stone unturned to nab the culprits.”

This is it. No porn, and no alco­hol is to be blamed for rape and other crimes. Instead, the govern­ment, if it is serious about safety and security of its people, should stop interfering and influencing police investigations and have a “no exceptions” policy. Crimi­nals, no matter who they be, say, even the president’s son or the prime minister’s daughter, won’t be spared. That would do.

Thirteen-year-old Tomiko Matsumoto was in school in Aki district (close to Hiro­shima) on August 6, 1945. She had no idea it would be a day she and her little world of her friends and family would change forever. She survived the bomb, but her young brothers and her mother did not. Neither Tomiko nor her family had anything to do with the war.

On August 11, 1945, two days after the bomb was dropped in Nagasaki, “in the ashes of their home, Dr Takashi Nogai discov­ered the bones of his wife beside her rosary beads.” A devout Cath­olic, he wasn’t a military man nor was he involved in planning and implementing the attack on Pearl Harbor. He hadn’t been conspir­ing with Germany to dominate the world either. He was in his own little world with his wife, and they too had nothing to do with the war (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Paul Ham, 2011).

Nor did countless others who died and survived the A-bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Naga­saki on August 6 and 9 respec­tively. They were hit by a terrible weapon of mass destruction. A weapon so powerful that it had the capacity to destroy a whole city. A weapon so powerful that it left the survivors scarred both physically and mentally for the rest of their lives—the scars so severe that many survivors thought it would have been much better if they too had perished, just like their parents, children and friends. But they were the survivors, the hibakusha. And for a long time, they were untouchables.

You may very well say, what happened to those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was sad and they didn’t deserve it. But what does it have to do with us living in Nepal in 2018, as if we are going to be hit by a bomb anytime soon? Fur­ther, both our neighbors have a stockpile of nukes and the “deter­rence” will dissuade them from ever using the weapon against each other. So we are pretty much safe and we have no reasons to be “paranoid” about a nuclear apocalypse.

But we have every reason to be paranoid and concerned. I am not saying it. The institution that is responsible for our sur­vival as a country and for our security, Nepal Army, believes that Nepal would be a lot safer in a world without nuclear weap­ons. Its Defense Doctrine of 2014 specifically calls on the govern­ment to champion the cause of denuclearization. It rightly views a nuclear war between the neighboring countries as a potential security threat. Is Nepal Army paranoid? No. Its fear is quite legitimate.

Many factors can trigger a nuclear war, including something as simple as “faulty intelligence.” If a country gets the idea that the other is about to nuke it, then it will try to preempt the attack. And you can never be sure of human reaction in the face of believable-but-faulty intelligence.

Further, today’s nuclear bombs are more destructive than the ones dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 73 years ago. If our neighbors nuke each other, we will not be able to protect our­selves from the fallout effects.

Therefore, so long as there is something awesomely destruc­tive that let the insane leaders play God (or Satan) by unleash­ing hell on earth, we can nev­er feel secure. No sane people could. Nobody has to endure what Tomiko and Dr Nagai had to.

We take pride in the Buddha. We never tire of telling the world that the apostle of peace was born in Nepal. But taking pride in being the birthplace of Lord Bud­dha isn’t enough. We are weak, defense and economy wise. But we have immense spiritual power. After all we are the people who believe in the universal brother­hood of the Geeta and peaceful ways of the Buddha. We can, we must and we should be the ones doing all we can by taking on glob­al leadership to abolish nuclear weapons from the face of this earth. And it starts with us, you and me.

The first step in the right direc­tion would be to start a campaign to be signatory to the ratification of the UN Treaty on the Prohi­bition of Nuclear Weapons. (We have signed the treaty but we are not yet a signatory to ratifica­tion. That’s half-hearted. We are only deceiving ourselves.) Let’s not care what our nuclear armed neighbors and other big powers think, or give into their pressure. Let’s use our conscience and prac­tice what we preach to make our­selves and others safe. Others will soon follow.

For humanity’s sake, let’s for once be proactive.

My apologies. You the readers are already bombarded with news and analyses of Nepal’s foreign minister Pradeep Gyawali’s meeting with the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. And you must have read and heard the experts say how Nepal being part of the American Indo-Pacific strategy is against our interests and more importantly against China’s too. And you probably have come to agree with the so-called experts that the US wants to include us in some evil plot against China and we should not be in any alliance that harms the real or imagined interests of our northern neighbor.

But actually talking are their insecurities, plus, junkets, paychecks and ignorance of international politics and entrenched anti-India feeling, which automatically translates to pro-China attitude.

Nepal being part of the Indo-Pacific strategy is very much in our interest and it is not against China, as many make it out to be.

First let’s talk about how our neighbors deal with us: they decide to open a trade route through our land without even consulting us. And they justify it by their insincere “Oops, we didn’t know it belonged to you” and “Stop being too sensitive” attitude.

A neighbor imposes embargo and the other neighbor does not provide any real help to ease the scarcity of energy. The two are in competition to prove who is the most influential player here, and their diplomats blatantly violate protocols and appear at times like viceroys of the yesteryears, overloading their colonies.

But here we are, with our so-called experts advising that we should not expand our reach with the outside world lest we offend India and China. But does it then make sense to remain poor and neglected and humiliated just to make our neighbors happy?

Yes, the US has launched its own counter strategy to deal with China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). But the US and China are not at war yet. And they won’t be for many years to come. Yes, India is against the Chinese BRI as well, but it too isn’t at war and China remains India’s largest trading partner.  Therefore, all of these grand strategies are nothing but ways to prove one’s global relevance, influence and importance. And this diplomatic game has been going on for thousands of years.

China is right to pursue its BRI and the US is not wrong either to go with its Indo-Pacific strategy. In real strategic terms these grand strategies mean nothing. Even a weak country like Nepal can oppose, even if it can’t do much else, if China or the US use our land against each other. And we will always have the option to withdraw from an alliance if it stops being in our interest.

Here’s a hypothetical scenario: The US launches an attack against China from Nepal despite Nepal’s opposition. Then Nepal becomes a victim of US aggression and automatically sides with China because if it doesn’t it will be attacked by both. And if China launches an attack against the US using Nepali territory despite out opposition, then, China is an aggressor to both the US and Nepal. In that case, we naturally side with the US to spare us its drones and missiles.

Therefore, to think that we can be used or we will let ourselves used just because we join one alliance or the other makes no sense. Our paranoid experts forget that by joining strategic alliances the smaller and weaker countries aren’t giving up on their sovereignty and just because one has joined the BRI or the Indo-Pacific does not mean it will allow either China or the US to use its territory by either against the other. Therefore, our joining the Indo-Pacific strategy does not automatically translate as being anti-Chinese.

The US wants us to support its Indo-Pacific strategy just to prove its global reach and influence and to get the number count up by one. There’s no real I-will-destroy-the-other in these strategies, be it BRI or Indo-Pacific. These strategies can crumble anytime and be replaced with something else. It won’t be surprising if the US itself joins the BRI or the Chinese join the Indo-Pacific strategy. Superpowers compete with each other but they also cooperate. Given the sheer size of the US and China and the great distance between them, they won’t go to war with each other. Because if they do, they will be stretching themselves and making themselves vulnerable to attacks from other enemies.

Therefore, it will be very unfortunate if our leaders view becoming part of the US strategy as compromising our sovereignty or as allowing the US to use our land against China in the most unlikely push-comes-to-shove scenario. The US has finally viewed us as independent and with some seriousness and we can use this opportunity to modernize the Nepal Army, attract FDI, get more scholarships, ease visa restrictions on Nepali tourists and students, have direct flights connecting the two countries and ask America to open its market to Nepali products. And so long as there is American goodwill or interest, we can make America our ‘third neighbor’, so that we are not dependent on just China and India for our security, development and economic well-being.

America has done its part. Now it’s up to us to use of this rare opportunity. If we squander it, we will have to pay.

 In September 1986 Deng Xiaop­ing proudly told Mike Wallace, an American journalist, “We permit some people and some regions to become prosperous first. Our policy will not lead to… a situation where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” But a young singer had a different view altogether. Four months before the interview, Cui Jian had played the song “Nothing to my name” in a TV song competition and immediately became the talk of the whole country. The song has been analyzed from various angles by various scholars, but most agree that it symbolized the yearnings and frustrations of the youth in the immediate aftermath of the 1978 reforms. China in the 1980s was going through monumental changes. Some wanted more freedom and western-style democracy. Some were confused with ris­ing inflation. Some were angry with the state doing away with the lifelong employment/benefits (‘iron rice bowl’), and with ram­pant corruption. The top ech­elons of the party had political reformers and hardliners engage in ideological and power strug­gles. Young students nationwide were debating the future of Chi­na. The Triangle (sanjiaodi) at Peking University became the hub of student activism where student leaders, influenced by dissident intellectuals, delivered passion­ate speeches and put up posters demanding political freedom and end to corruption.

There’s absolutely no reason to believe that the new Chinese model will be replaced by something imported anytime soon

Student activism led to protests in January 1987 but they achieved nothing. Instead these protests strengthened the hardliners in the party. The reform-minded Hu Yaobang was forced to step down. In 1989, Hu died and the students thought it was the right time to push for political reforms. They were joined by the workers who had lost their jobs or those who feared losing their jobs due to privatization, and others who felt that the reforms had done nothing to change their lives.

Much has been written about the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen crack­down. There’s no denying that the state was wrong to use force and live ammunition to empty the square. But the students weren’t in the right either. Their ‘here and now’ attitude yet again weakened the liberals and strengthened the hardliners in the party.

The students were confused and didn’t know what they actu­ally wanted. There were faction­al rivalries in the square. Each student leader wanted to come out as the bravest and most rev­olutionary, and these students share the responsibility for what happened there and elsewhere in China then.

With the protests over, the state started addressing some of the grievances. Leaders were told to keep an eye on their off-springs’ business activities and Deng Xia­oping ordered ending the privi­leges accorded to his son’s China Kanghua corporation that was accused of engaging in illegal practices. The pace of economic reform was slowed to address the employment and economic con­cerns of the people and to cleanse the system of ‘evils’.

The state understood that it needed an ideological replace­ment for socialism. But first it had to strengthen the Communist Par­ty rule. Thus a multifaceted cam­paign was launched to remind the Chinese of the national humil­iation and the party’s fight for national liberation and pride.

Economic development con­tinued in a more systematic way, which led to employment opportunities, and people felt less dependent on the state. People now literally tended to their own business. Confusion and helpless­ness were replaced by a sense of direction and determination.

The majority came to accept that economic reform and strong leadership were necessary to become rich and strong and the state was doing all it could to reassert China’s rightful place in the world, along with the view that the western countries were using democracy to destabilize China and stall its growth. The fate of post-1990 democracies made the majority disillusioned with the western model. More­over, the West’s criticism of China on human rights and lectures on democracy irked many Chinese.

With people getting richer and taking pride in their system and heritage, the state found Confu­cianism more suited to govern China. And it was accepted by the public as well. It is a homegrown ideology that focuses on meritoc­racy, rule of law and social justice. The old sage who for the most of the 20th century was criticized for China’s problems of 2,000 years was suddenly wanted again. He is now China’s answer to democra­cy and his ideas have given more to China than the chaos democra­cy has unleashed in many parts of the world.

Hence there are no more large-scale protests for political reforms. The people and the state are now in harmony, with each following its own way (dao). The Chinese model borne out of shame, pride and quest for power has brought the people and state together. And there’s no reason to believe that this model will be replaced by anything imported anytime soon.

Heaven and a billion-plus peo­ple can’t be wrong.

(This is the concluding article of a three-part series on the motivators behind China’s current growth trajectory)

Stories by Trailokya Raj Aryal

China avenging national shame

Over to Deng

With the 1949 Revolution, China avenged its centu­ry of humiliation. A new China was born—the line in the 1943 propaganda song, “there would be no New China without the Communist Party” was, we have to admit, quite prophetic. But the euphoria was short-lived because the New China was far from perfect. Disasters, one after another, resulting from Chairman Mao’s ambitions and mistaken understanding of ground realities, led to loss of millions of lives. Everything was in shambles. In 1974, Premier Zhou Enlai, while he was receiving treatment for cancer in a hospital room in Beijing, was also finalizing a plan to realize the dream of a modern, rich and powerful China with Li Xiannian, Ye Jianying, Chen Yun and Deng Xiaoping. Although the deliberations to make China a modern socialist power by 2000 had been going on since the early 1960, Chairman Mao’s frequent mood swings made everyone fear their political and personal survival and the agenda took a backseat.

It was Hua Guofeng, Mao’s “chosen” successor, who made it possible for Deng to carry out future reforms

Finally, on January 13, 1975, Pre­mier Zhou presented his plan at the Fourth National People’s Con­gress. China needed foreign trade and technology to recover from a series of socialist misadventures, the latest being the ongoing Cul­tural Revolution (1966-1976). While delivering the speech stat­ing the need for modernization in four key areas—agriculture, economy, science and technolo­gy and national defense, or Four Modernizations— Zhou knew it well that he would not live to see its implementation and was not even sure that the plan would be implemented as it was the craziest of times and nobody had a clue where China was headed.

And there came a sign from the most unlikely source—heav­en (tian). The devastating 1976 Tangshan earthquake was seen by many as signaling a change, as major natural calamities preced­ed dynastic changes in Chinese history. Soon after, Chairman Mao went to see Marx, euphe­mism for death then. Zhou had already gone to meet Marx a few months before the Chairman had his chance.

The story of what happened after Mao’s death has been told and retold many times. The popular version credits Deng for everything good that hap­pened thereafter. Deng played a huge role in China’s growth, no doubt. But it was Hua Guofeng, Mao’s “chosen” successor, who made it possible for Deng to carry out future reforms. But Hua is confined to obscurity in many accounts.

As Ezra Vogel explains, it was Hua who abandoned radical Mao­ism, arrested the notorious ultra-left Gang of Four members includ­ing Mao’s actress-turned-revo­lutionary wife Jiang Qing, and established the Special Economic Zones to attract foreign invest­ment, and who reluctantly rein­stated Deng. Deng, however, proved to be a better politician than Hua. In a few years, Deng had him sidelined and replaced by his loyal, Hu Yaobang.

Shortly after his political come­back, Deng formally launched the Four Modernizations in 1978. The revolution was postponed for 100 years to signal to the foreigners that China was now prioritizing political stability and economic growth, and to assure the Chinese people that the era of nonsensical socialist adventure was now over.

Deng’s change of course

Deng was not dogmatic. As a young work-study student in France, he had seen the good side of capitalism (of course some scholars rule out this interpreta­tion, while others swear by it). The chaos resulting from Chair­man Mao’s misguided policies made him find a way to fuse good traits of capitalism with socialism.

He also had a personal reason for doing away with the ultra-left ideology, as Merle Goldman has argued.

A group of Red Guards had thrown out his son, Deng Pufang, a student of physics, from a third-floor window at Peking University. The guards were the youth who felt they were following Chairman Mao’s call to destroy the reaction­aries and rightists. (Some claim Deng Pufang tried to kill himself by jumping off ). Deng Pufang sur­vived but he wasn’t given urgent medical care, and he remains paralyzed as a result. Deng’s other children were sent to rural areas for reeducation and he himself was sent to a tractor factory and was paid so little that he had to cut down on his favorite indulgence, smoking.

While craving a morning smoke at the workers’ dormito­ry in Jiangsu’s tractor factory, Deng must have realized that he himself as well as millions of Chinese had had enough of the leftist misadventures. Not long after, when he got the Mandate of Heaven, the plan was already there and the time was right to change China.

And Revlon met the revolution­ary Iron Brigade Women who in the 1960s shunned all signs of feminism and declared make-up un-revolutionary and feudal. Colonel Sander’s crispy chicken was happily consumed by the comrades opposing US imperi­alism. The old comrades who had spent some time in France during their youth under the work-study program realized they had not fallen out of love with the taste of croissant after all. Everybody got what they wanted in Deng’s China, except people like Wei Jingsheng, who want­ed the “fifth modernization”, i.e., western-style democracy.

Heaven is never wrong.