Nepal’s great divide
The post-1990 era in Nepal, following the first people’s movement, has seen a surge of ‘independent citizens’ voices’. Press freedom and liberalization were among the remarkable changes the new democratic government brought. Hopes were high, and dreams were soaring.
But looking back after three decades at the years that followed, we can easily see the great divide that this phase has reinforced. Absence of an active royal family and the Panchayat elites did not automatically make Nepal a democratic haven. Economic liberalization became an opportunity for the select few business families to multiply their wealth through monopoly trading without putting the wealth into production or job creation. As of 2020, only 15 percent people are employed in industries. From three percent in 1992, it went up to 10 percent in 2000, and the graph has since been almost flat. Liberalization was hijacked by the nexus of wealthy businessmen and politicians, and nothing was done to strengthen the fundamentals of the economy.
As a result, Nepal’s economic state remains precarious, and almost 40 percent of GDP is dependent on remittance sent by youth working overseas in dangerous conditions.
Another big promise of the early nineties was of the democratic changes Nepali Society was expected to accommodate. We had INGOs and foreign-aided Nepalis penetrating the countryside with a missionary zeal. The change that was supposed to come from the grassroots was rather managed by those centered in Kathmandu who hardly had any connections to the grassroots.
As a result, we had an era of lost opportunities, misplaced priorities, unnervingly foolish initiatives, ineffective and inefficient wastage of precious funds, and a pilferage in the name of the oppressed and the poor.
In the 21st century, till now, Nepal has undergone major political shifts. The political revolution against the Kathmandu-centric power, leading to the removal of monarchy and heralding of a federal republic, brought yet another era of promise. But the reality bit back harder this time. And we are in the midst of an anarchy characterized by policy shortsightedness, cheap populism, and mediocre and uninspiring politicians.
As I write this column ruminating about the disappointing path of democracy in Nepal, votes are being counted in the US elections. America had elected Trump as its president four years back, and this time also, he is in a neck-and-neck struggle for the top post with Democrat Joe Biden. And, gauging by the social media, not surprisingly, the elections in the US have Nepali intelligentsia hooked.
This brings us to a major dichotomy that I believe Nepal is facing. Some months back, when Nabaraj BK, a boy from a so-called lower caste, was beaten to death by upper caste people in Rukum, it had taken more than a month for the Dalitlivesmatter hashtag to trend in social media. That too did not happen organically, but was inspired by George Floyd's murder in the US and the resultant protests the world over.
By the very nature of this era fueled by technology, it has become easier to get news from Florida and France than from your own village in rural Nepal. It has become easier to understand what the white male American is thinking than what goes on in a Dalit Nepali’s mind in Rukum. And because of this great divide, what runs in the people's minds is biased towards the big and the global.
Social media, media, and the intelligentsia are supposed to influence the polity for the society’s betterment. But till the time we have people with foreign degrees and no exposure to the harsh realities of hinterland Nepal as opinion builders and decision makers, this fundamental fault line in our democratic ecosystem cannot be wished away.
The politicians know they can take the media and the intelligentsia for a ride because the inputs of the intelligentsia aren't based on real insights from the ground but are rather pretentious preaching of self-righteous snobs or the ranting of the privileged ones. To strengthen democracy, we need to look for a way to bridge this divide. We have to find a way, through the education system, to build democracy for the bottom up. And this new silent revolution has to be led by the country’s youth.
Could Nepal be another Afghanistan?
Not trying to be a doomsayer, but with the US and India getting closer militarily against China, things are going to get bleaker for Nepal. And if we don’t get our house in order and our priorities straight, we run the risk of feeling the horrors of a superpower rivalry. Not because we are important, but because we are unimportant and insignificant due to our poverty and weak military. That makes it a perfect proxy battleground for major powers.
They may not be eager to make us their enemies’ Afghanistan or Vietnam or Korea. But as things stand, and from a realistic perspective, events beyond our control, and even the control of big powers, could lead to an ugly situation here. Time has come to study the not-so-distant history of China’s role in the Cold War, the Soviet mistakes, the plight of Afghanistan, and how they all led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are lessons for Nepal.
Let’s first look at the nature of the US-India defense cooperation: Weapons apart, one of the most important aspects of the recent US-India defense pact is information-sharing, under which India will have access to satellite images and other intelligence gathered by the US. Similarly, India will also get accurate GPS coordinates to target military installations in China, if things come to that. So, what's the big deal, you may ask? The big deal is that a real military alliance often starts with intelligence sharing because, information, as it was in history, is still a tool that decides the outcome of any war.
Sharing of sensitive intelligence between two friendly powers signals to the opponent that it now has to deal with the combined strength of the two (or more) powers and runs the risk of a two (or more) front war. China today finds itself in the position the Soviet Union did in the 1970s. Today’s India is what China was then, and China today is what the Soviet Union was for the US and China back then.
Let’s then look at the Sino-Soviet relations to better gauge what is in store for all powers—and for us.
The People’s Republic of China pursued the policy of yibian dao (“lean to one side”) immediately after its founding in 1949 and allied with the Soviet Union. But owing to various reasons the Sino-Soviet partnership started to crack and by the 60s they were sworn enemies. With the Soviet sympathizers in the Communist Party purged or killed or sent to reeducation camps during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), Chairman Mao faced no opposition in the party to get closer to the United States.
Soon, the two sides were openly talking and President Nixon’s China visit in 1972 led to the US-China strategic alliance against the Soviet Union. As expected, a major component of this alliance was modernization of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. The US began providing modern arms and technology to China, and China in turn allowed the US to maintain CIA posts in Xinjiang to gather intelligence against the Soviet Union. This kept both countries abreast of the Soviet military movements.
A slippery Soviet slope
This strategic alliance was what led to the eventual disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Soviets were now forced to deploy more forces along their borders with China. The cost of deploying troops in harsh terrains was not cheap, but the Soviets had no option. Similar to what China is faced with now.
The Soviets had to justify their rising military spending and prove they were not to be taken lightly and that they were not to remain quiet when an openly pro-Soviet regime in Kabul was threatened. The USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and the US—supported by China, among others—decided to get involved to give the Soviets their own Vietnam. Also, through its proxies—the various factions of the Afghan resistance, the Mujahedeen—the US mounted a formidable defense. The Soviets were forced to retreat and soon after the Soviet Union became history.
But how does what happened then apply to today’s Nepal, you may ask? And that’s a valid question.
First, China will have to deploy more troops along its rough and harsh borders with India, which is not going to be cheap.
China’s defense spending will have to increase because despite being a major military power it is years behind the US in military technology. China understands that the US is not a power to be taken lightly and it always has a new weapon or two in its arsenal that most have not even dreamed of or have only vague knowledge about. And it’s always safer and better to avoid a direct confrontation. But China will have to operate with the assumption that the US could get involved in its military confrontations with India and that China could be subjected to a multiple-front attack. And the military spending has to go further up.
Rising military spending with trade restrictions imposed by the US and its allies could lead to economic problems and China will find itself, like the Soviets, having to justify its military spending to its people, to prove its international standing. As it also wants to avert direct confrontation against India and the US, it will be forced to look for less risky battlegrounds in its neighborhood.
If history is any guide, major powers refrain from directly confronting each other in their territory and even outside. They rather use proxies. China sent volunteers to Korean War, the Soviet Union and China provided money weapons and intelligence to Vietcong during the Vietnam War, and the US provided weapons and money to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan.
Nepal, the natural choice
Russia still dominates much of Central Asia, and China wouldn’t want to get involved there. South East Asia is a major economic powerhouse and it makes no sense to get involved there as well. Pakistan is a nuclear power and a sworn ally, therefore out of question. India is big and not as weak and now with the US as an ally isn’t to be touched. Afghanistan, with the presence of the US and NATO forces, isn’t a good option either. And other South Asian countries don’t share land borders with China. Naturally, in this case, Nepal appears to be the best choice to settle things with its opponents.
From the perspective of US-India alliance too, it makes sense to lure China in Nepal. India needs to find a way to end its rivalry with China or it would be faced with major economic consequences. The US too would have to find a way to work with China as well, lest other ‘rogue states’ side with China and create problems for the US elsewhere. (Or, for that matter, it could as easily be China luring US-India alliance in Nepal.)
Nepal, an ally of none and as such of no significance to any, is a poor economy with a weak military. Its political leaders have no long-term vision. Top party leaders are constantly embroiled in intra-party feuds concerning their positions on India or China. This allows the US-India alliance or China to wage a proxy war in Nepal. From the superpower perspective, it only makes sense. Not that they are waiting for it to happen but there’s nothing they can do to avoid it either.
Therefore let’s not be too optimistic and talk about peace and how India and China would settle their differences soon and all that.
The surge in Hindu and Han nationalisms in India and China respectively would make any amicable solution to their problems difficult, if not impossible. And things are unlikely to return to pre-Ladakh days soon. Both need to appear tough and now India, with the US by its side, is in no mood to back down, and for the Chinese inching back would signal weakness and the CCP doesn’t want to be portrayed as weak. Same with the Indian leadership. Add arms race to this dangerous mix and one has to snap sooner or later. They would both be glad to take their fight elsewhere, and Nepal is the most convenient battleground they can hope for.
Revolutions and counter-revolutions
Maybe Nepal will witness revolutions supported by one of US-India or China and counter-revolutions by the other, each side linking change here with their national security. And that is what is going to bring the superpower rivalry to us. Even if Nepal is totally destroyed, it’s not going to affect the world economy and security even a bit. One will instill its puppet regime and withdraw and the other would support the forces against the puppet regime, and that’s about it. The real fighting powers would have reached settlements and be in good terms with each other, and as big powers they need to be in good terms—and a messed-up Nepal then (just as it is now) will be no one’s immediate priority.
Maybe this is the reason Nepal has remained or been forced to remain weak—and is constantly being reminded of how insignificant it really is. While others get billions in aid and FDI and weapons and choppers, all we get are old discarded weapons, field hospitals, buildings to teach languages to our soldiers, and just enough aid to survive.
So, yes, Nepal is important in unimportant ways and this country can be bombed right and left to settle scores elsewhere.
And who do we blame for this? Without a doubt all leaders who ruled us after King Mahendra. Although he paid lip service to it, the king was no fan of non-alignment. He believed in pragmatic alignments. For instance, he was addressing the US Congress on 28 April 1950, the same day Nepal and China signed the treaty of friendship. Yet King Mahendra also refused to comply with the Chinese request to do something about the Khampa rebels in Mustang.
Sadly no one after him followed his policy and years of mismanagement have made us a friend of none—and reduced our status to a battleground where superpower strengths are tested and their rivalries settled.
Let’s just hope people living off our tax money are aware of this clear and present danger.
Could Nepal be another Afghanistan?
Not trying to be a doomsayer, but with the US and India getting closer militarily against China, things are going to get bleaker for Nepal. And if we don’t get our house in order and our priorities straight, we run a risk of feeling the horrors of a superpower rivalry. Not because we are important, but because we are so unimportant and insignificant due to our poverty and weak military. That makes it a perfect proxy battleground for major powers.
Time has come to study the not-so-distant history of China’s role in the Cold War, the Soviet mistakes, the plight of Afghanistan, and how they all led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are lessons for us in Nepal too.
Let’s first look at the nature of the US-India defense cooperation: Weapons apart, one of the most important aspects of the recent US-India defense pact is information-sharing, under which India will have satellite images and other intelligence gathered by the US. Similarly, India will also get accurate GPS coordinates to target military installations in China, if things come to that. So, what's the big deal, you may ask? The big deal is that a real military alliance often starts with intelligence sharing because, information, as it was in history, is still a tool that decides the outcome of any war.
Intelligence-sharing between two friendly powers signals to the opponent that it now has to deal with the combined strength of the two (or more) powers and runs the risk of a two (or more) front war. China today finds itself in the position the Soviet Union did in the 1970s. Today’s India is what China was then, and China today is what the Soviet Union was for the US and China back then.
Let’s then look at the Sino-Soviet relations to better gauge what is in store for all powers—and for us.
The People’s Republic of China pursued the policy of yibian dao (“lean to one side”) immediately after its founding in 1949 and allied with the Soviet Union. But owing to various reasons the Sino-Soviet partnership started to crack and by the 60s they were sworn enemies. With the Soviet sympathizers in the Communist Party purged or killed or sent to reeducation camps during the Cultural Revolution, (1966-76) Chairman Mao faced no opposition in the party to get closer to the United States.
Soon, the two sides were openly talking and President Nixon’s China visit in 1972 led to the US-China strategic alliance against the Soviet Union. As expected, a major component of this alliance was modernization of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. The US began providing modern arms and technology to China, and China in turn allowed the US to maintain CIA posts in Xinjiang to gather intelligence against the Soviet Union. This kept both countries abreast of the Soviet military movements.
A slippery Soviet slope
This strategic alliance was what led to the eventual disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Soviets were now forced to deploy more forces along their borders with China. The cost of deploying troops in harsh weather conditions was not cheap, but the Soviets had no option. Similar to what China is faced with now.
The Soviets had to justify their rising military spending and prove they were not to be taken lightly and that they were not to remain quiet when an openly pro-Soviet regime in Kabul was threatened. The USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and the US—supported by China, among others—decided to get involved to give the Soviets their own Vietnam. Also, through its proxies—the various factions of the Afghan resistance, the Mujahedeen—the US mounted a formidable defense. The Soviets were forced to retreat and soon after the Soviet Union became history.
But how does what happened then apply to today’s Nepal, you may ask? And that’s a valid question.
First, China will have to deploy more troops along its rough and harsh borders with India, which is not going to be cheap.
China’s defense spending will have to increase because despite being a major military power it is years behind the US in military technology. China understands that the US is not a power to be taken lightly and it always has a new weapon or two in its arsenal that most have not even dreamed of or have only vague knowledge about. And it’s always safer and better to avoid a direct confrontation. But China will have to operate with the assumption that the US could get involved in its military confrontations with India and that China could be subjected to a multiple-front attack. And the military spending has to go further up.
Rising military spending with trade restrictions imposed by the US and its allies could lead to economic problems and it will find itself, like the Soviets, having to justify its military spending to its people, to prove its international standing. As it also wants to avert direct confrontation against India and the US, it will be forced to look for less risky battlegrounds in its neighborhood.
Nepal, the natural choice
Russia still dominates much of Central Asia, and China wouldn’t want to get involved there. South East Asia is a major economic powerhouse and it makes no sense to get involved there as well. Pakistan is a nuclear power and a sworn ally, therefore out of question. India is big and not as weak and now with the US as an ally isn’t to be touched. Afghanistan, with the presence of the US and NATO forces, isn’t a good option either. And other South Asian countries don’t share land borders with China. Naturally, in this case, Nepal appears to be the best choice to settle things with its opponents.
From the perspective of US-India alliance too, it makes sense to lure China in Nepal. India needs to find a way to end its rivalry with China or it would be faced with major economic consequences. The US too would have to find a way to work with China, lest other ‘rogue states’ side with China and create problems for it elsewhere.
Nepal, an ally of none and as such of no significance to any, is a poor economy with a weak military. Its political leaders have no long-term vision. Top party leaders are constantly embroiled in intra-party feuds concerning their positions on India or China. This presents a major strategic advantage to either the US-India alliance or China to wage a proxy war in Nepal. From the superpower perspective, it only makes sense. Not that they are waiting for it to happen but there’s nothing they can do to avoid it either.
Therefore let’s not be too optimistic and talk about peace and how India and China would settle their differences soon and all that.
The surge in Hindu and Han nationalisms in India and China respectively would make any amicable solution to their problems difficult, if not impossible. And things are unlikely to return to pre-Laddakh days soon. Both need to appear tough and now India, with the US by its side, is in no mood to back down, and for the Chinese inching back would signal weakness and the CCP doesn’t want to be portrayed as weak. Same with the Indian leadership. They would both be glad to take their fight elsewhere, and Nepal is the most convenient battleground both can hope for.
Revolutions and counter-revolutions
Maybe Nepal will witness revolutions supported by one of US-India or China and counter-revolutions by the other. And that is what is going to bring the superpower rivalry to us. Even if Nepal is totally destroyed, it’s not going to affect the world economy and security even a bit. One will instill its puppet regime and withdraw and the other would support the forces against the puppet regime, and that’s about it. The real fighting powers would have reached settlements and be in good terms with each other and as big powers they need to be in good terms—and a messed up Nepal then (just as it is now) will be no one’s immediate priority.
Maybe this is the reason Nepal has remained or been forced to remain weak—and constantly being reminded of how insignificant it really is. While others get billions in aid and FDI and weapons and choppers, all we get are old discarded weapons, field hospitals, buildings to teach languages to our soldiers, and just enough aid to survive.
So, yes, Nepal is important in unimportant ways and this country can be bombed right and left to settle scores elsewhere.
And who do we blame for this? Without a doubt all leaders who ruled us after King Mahendra. The king was no fan of non-alignment, although he paid lip service to it. He believed in pragmatic alignments— that he could be touring and meeting the US president a week before signing a major border treaty with China says a lot about his pragmatic alignment policy. But sadly no one after him followed his policy and years of mismanagement has made us a friend of none, and reduced our status to a battleground to test superpower strengths and settle their rivalries.
Let’s just hope people living off our tax money know the solution to this clear and present danger.
Thailand’s Chakris after Nepal’s Shahs?
In 1782, Nepal, under the regency of Rajendra Rajya Laxmi Devi, was pushing ahead with its expansion campaign started by the regent’s late father-in-law, Prithvi Narayan Shah. In the same year, King Thongduang (Rama I) initiated the Chakri dynasty rule in Siam (now Thailand).
Nepal threw out the 240-year-old Shah dynasty in 2008. But the Thai Chakri monarchy remains unharmed. Instead, the current monarch, Vajiralongkorn (Rama X), seems intent on tightening his hold. At his prodding, police are cracking down on Thai youths who have been taking to the streets asking for greater accountability from their profligate and promiscuous monarch. They would also like to see greater respect for democratic norms from Thai military.
The year 2001 was the Shah dynasty’s beginning of the end after a largely popular king and his family were gunned down in a royal massacre. He was replaced by a determined autocrat with no truck for democratic norms. Making matters worse, King Gyanendra and his spoilt son, Paras, were suspects in the killing of King Birendra’s family. People just didn’t trust the new monarch who had ascended the throne under such unpropitious omens.
Something similar happened in Thailand. In 2016 King Bhumibol’s (Rama IX’s) death brought Vajiralongkorn to the Thai throne. The former was widely revered, even deified. The latter is as widely loathed. It’s hard to love him too. The new king is a free-spending playboy who has been putting up in a luxury hotel in Germany—in the warm embrace of his 20 concubines—to escape Covid-19 in Thailand.
Thai youths had seen enough. They have been out on the streets for months, protesting against the unearned privileges of their king. But their grievances run deeper. The constitutional constraints on the monarchy and the military he controls were lifted following the army’s 2014 coup. Even before that the armed forces frequently removed popularly elected governments. The tipping point came in February this year when the progressive Future Forward Party, with 81 seats in the 500-member lower house, was banned on trumped-up charges.
Those accustomed to unearned privileges for long assume things will always be the same. But, then, a sudden tsunami sweeps everything away, as happened with Nepal’s Shah monarchy.
Today’s youths are supposedly lazy and complaisant, quick to pick a fight on social media but shy of any kind of direct political activism. Yet what we see is the opposite. The youths are right now at the forefront of political protests, everywhere from the US to Thailand to Nepal. They want greater democratic freedoms, an end to old unearned privileges, and less racial and economic inequality. It would be foolish to take them lightly.
Who would have thought the Shah monarchy, with its considerable public support and long legacy, could be pushed aside so easily? The protesting Thai youths may not get all they want this time; the monarchy-backed Thai junta is way too powerful right now. But the king’s blatant disregard of popular sentiments and the junta’s ham-fisted crackdown tactics suggest the days of the old Thai establishment are numbered too. The Chakri dynasty has survived for longer than the Shah dynasty. But not by much.
