Submit your Article

Last week, a Kathmandu-based Thai diplomat came to talk to me about BIMSTEC. He sought my views on the way forward for the organization, with Thailand now on the cusp of taking over its rotating chairmanship. I am by no means an expert on BIMSTEC, but then who in Nepal is? Compared to their knowledge on SAARC, even seasoned foreign policy analysts here know little about BIMSTEC, mostly out of choice. 

Nepali foreign policy establishment and analysts are reluctant to own up BIMSTEC, something they see as an Indian construct that is being promoted to isolate Pakistan, India’s arch-enemy. By contrast, they feel a kind of kinship towards SAARC, an outcome of collective effort of smaller countries in the region, mainly Nepal and Bangladesh. India is promoting BIMSTEC to secure its larger strategic interests, the thinking goes, while the interests of smaller South Asian states is best secured via the SAARC channels. 

BIMSTEC is getting a charter after over two decades of its formation, and India is pushing for its greater institutionalization. But it won’t make headway so long as smaller countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka (all members of both SAARC and BIMSTEC) remain suspicious of Indian intent. It’s not just about intent either. Prior Indian commitments on connectivity projects and infrastructure development have been mostly unrealized. This is in contrast to the reputation of China as an actor that gets things done, and one which has a much bigger investment purse. 

This is also why many in Nepal believe BIMSTEC is all about minimizing China’s presence in the neighborhood, not the least because of the country’s unwavering support for Pakistan. India had grown increasingly suspicious of SAARC after Nepal and Pakistan started pushing for China’s inclusion as a full member. India, as even Indian commentator acknowledge, had to somehow take Pakistan out of the picture, and hence BIMSTEC.   

Conceptually, there is nothing wrong with any initiative that aims to lift people’s living standards through greater connectivity and trade. Historically, too, South Asia and South East Asia have since time immemorial exchanged people and ideas. Yet the hard reality today is that India has simply refused to open its territory for third-country trade. Nepal and Bangladesh are, at their closest, just 27 km apart. But trade between them remains miniscule partly owing to India’s reluctance to allow the two countries to open a passage via its ‘chicken neck’. This narrow piece of land connecting mainland India with its northeast territories has become an even more sensitive place—and thus more impervious to outsiders—following the recent India-China border tensions. 

If Nepal cannot freely trade with Bangladesh, can it realistically hope to do so with Myanmar and Thailand, either via land or rail routes? BIMSTEC is not just about cross-border trade. All kinds of other co-operations are envisioned in areas as diverse as fishery to climate change. Yet no regional grouping can today prosper without extensive exchange of goods and people, as is the case with more successful regional bodies like ASEAN and EU.  

As the fulcrum between the two regions and by far the biggest economic power in the grouping, the onus is on India to show it is serious about regional trade and connectivity. It must also do a better job of assuring smaller countries on delivery. SAARC has always been hobbled by India-Pakistan rivalry. BIMSTEC, on the other hand, has been hostage to India’s lack of strategic vision. One can only hope that the compulsions of economic revival after the Covid-19 pandemic will prompt a rethink in New Delhi. 

“Democracies do not always make societies more civil—but they do always mercilessly expose the health of the societies in which they operate.” — Robert Kaplan

The self-proclaimed democrats in the country never tire of defending our dysfunctional democracy with the oft-repeated lame argument that it’s not the system but the present set of leaders who are to blame for the mess we are in. The reality, however, is that democracy as a system has failed miserably in Nepal. One has to be high on something to be optimistic about Nepal’s future if the current system is to continue.

First, let turn to the argument that calls for patience, i.e., when we have a good set of leaders our democracy will deliver. If it's the leaders that are to be blamed for our present misery, then, maybe our society is not ready for or compatible with the kind of democracy we have today. When are we supposed to get the leaders who will make our system work? And where will these leaders come from? Because as things now stand, the next in succession, the so-called youth leaders who are already in their 50s, are no different to the old leaders we have today.

Those who are benefitting from the present mess further console us by saying democracy takes time to take root and your grandchildren will reap the democratic dividend. So be patient. They can afford to say that because they are either paid to be democratic, democracy is their career/profession, or they just want to fit in by appearing liberal. The mainstream press and a handful of those who write for it or those claiming to be public intellectuals and members of civil society and those who have successfully monopolized the debate and discourse and as a result the national narrative, have made other gullible wannabe liberals and democrats parrot the same view. Therefore, questioning the effectiveness of the system is tantamount to blasphemy. We have become a democratic theocracy in which only the select few ordained by foreign gods can preach and others have to obediently listen and not ask any question—no matter how ridiculous their preaching is.

And obediently we listen to all the crackpot theories and concepts that have been promoted in the past 30 years by our media and illiberal intellectuals to show the past rulers/system as illiberal and undemocratic. Questioning those, we are made to believe, would make us appear deranged and illiberal and feudal. Further, having an independent mind is not tolerated in democratic Nepal. That's why no one dares ask these intellectuals the validity of the crackpot theories and concepts they use all the time to dismiss their critics just to appear scholarly and to hide flaws in their arguments. Two such nonsensical concepts, the absolute darlings of our mainstream intellectuals (?) and media, are Bahunbaad and Mahendrian nationalism—the two concepts that have divided our society and weakened our nationalism, but no one dares say anything against those.

You question their assertion and provide counter arguments to the popular narrative that pits Bahuns against others and that wrongly blames them for Nepal’s underdevelopment and the plight of others while forgetting that the majority Bahuns and Khas-Aryas too are miserable like the rest. If you question this “sacrosanct” theory/concept, you are automatically labeled feudal and undemocratic. You question granting citizenships to foreigners married to Nepali nationals without any waiting period, or you argue for vigilance against foreign designs on Nepal and for adoption of a strong, independent foreign policy to resist undue foreign interference, be it political or cultural, and you are automatically labeled a Mahendrian nationalist.

Let's also ask what exactly have we achieved with the (il) liberal democracy in the past 30 years. Mob mentality has taken over, thanks to the state’s inability to control anything due to corruption. People have lost faith in the government and state institutions, so much so that they have resorted to punishing those accused of committing even prettiest of crimes themselves. The mob is the judge, the jury and the hangman in today's Nepal. Democracy was supposed to make us more tolerant and our institutions stronger, but the exact opposite is happening. And yet, we cannot question the system.

In terms of foreign relations, too, we are now reduced to being an extension of our neighbors. And our leaders openly ask and invite foreign interference in domestic politics. Yet the media pundits have us believe that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Those who dare criticize the system and ask about its ills are shunned by mainstream media. That's the way freedom of speech and expression is practiced in our democracy by the mainstream press that calls itself the bastion of democracy.

And some of you would be quick to dismiss my arguments too. My last name would work against me. A Bahun, hence, automatically feudal and illiberal. And some illiberal liberals may quote Churchill to prove me wrong: democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried. But as BBC correspondent Humphrey Hawksley writes in his book Democracy Kills, quoting Churchill no longer does the business. We all need to ask, what's so good about having the vote in societies with weak institutions? The answer is, nothing.

As Robert Kaplan argued in his 1999 essay, “Was democracy just a moment?”: “Democracy often weakens states by necessitating ineffectual compromises and fragile coalition governments in societies where bureaucratic institutions never functioned well to begin with. Because democracy neither forms states nor strengthens them initially, multi-party systems are best suited to nations that already have efficient bureaucracies and a middle class that pays income tax, and where primary issues such as borders and power-sharing have already been resolved, leaving politicians free to bicker about the budget and secondary matters.”

But we are yet to see a strong middle class and we have our own share of problems that make democracy ineffective in Nepal. We don't want to talk about them because the immoral leaders, with help from equally immoral, shortsighted and illiberal intellectuals, have “retreated to moral arguments only to justify democracy” and as such they have been successful in hoodwinking many of us into believing that democracy, the form we have today, is the only solution to Nepal’s problems. Of course, those who do not buy this humbug can't speak out against it because in today's democratic Nepal it would make them appear immoral and idiots instead.

With the critics silenced with the silly moral arguments, the immoral bunch is having a field day, and the country is suffering. As things stand now, the country will suffer for a long time. Democracy is indeed killing us and no good has come out of our right to vote.

Go ahead, give your moral arguments in support of democracy, but before you do, ask yourself: are you really happy and proud to be living in the current mess that is Nepal?

In a recent interview with nepalpress.com, an online news portal, Prime Minster KP Oli unconditionally condemned the bloody crackdown on Myanmar’s peaceful protests. He wished for swift restoration of the democratic process and the country’s return to normalcy. It was not Nepal’s official statement on a foreign country. But the statement of one country’s head of government on another country, wherever it is made, must be considered the position of his government.

This hasn’t stopped Nepali Congress and JSPN lawmakers from asking for a formal government statement on Myanmar, where the military has shot dead at least 500 people. Separately, a group of civil society members have called on Nepal to join international efforts to make the Burmese junta accountable for its murderous rampage. The high level of public and intellectual support in Nepal for Myanmar’s pro-democracy protestors partly owes to the large Nepali diaspora there. The presence of an estimated 300,000 Burmese of Nepali origin in Burma can be traced back to the Second World War when they fought there on behalf of the British.

Our earnest wishes aside, the country of 54 million that has always been under the shadow of its powerful military is unlikely to revert to democratic rule soon. Some smaller democracies in the region—especially the ones that don’t share a border with Myanmar—may speak out against the atrocities there. As will leading global liberal powers like the US and the EU. But the two countries that are best placed to effect change in Myanmar—China and India, in that order—will remain mum.

The largest democracy in the world has sealed its lips, nay, it even participated in an army parade in Naypyidaw on the bloodiest day of the military crackdown on unarmed people. As more and more countries turn inwards, strategic calculations have come to prevail over humanitarian ones even in liberal societies. India fears Myanmar could be slipping into complete control of China, which is already Myanmar’s largest trading partner as well as the biggest source of its FDI. An overt stand against the junta, India fears, could make the country tighten its embrace of China. Not to forget, the junta also has the power to foment unrest in the northeastern Indian states bordering Myanmar.   

China and the Burmese military are not the best of pals these days. Beijing believes the junta is placing unnecessary hurdles before crucial BRI projects, partly to prove its nationalist credentials. The Chinese will nonetheless be loath to let the international community dictate terms in Myanmar, even if it’s for the noblest cause. As Beijing sees it, what happens in Myanmar could be repeated in Taiwan or Hong Kong. So China, as well as Vladimir Putin’s anti-Western Russia— and another permanent member of the UN Security Council—won’t allow the Security Council to take strict measures against the junta.

Has the narrative of absolute national sovereignty gained such traction in global affairs that all possible humanitarian interventions abroad will look dubious from now on? Some Madhesi lawmakers in Nepal compared events in Myanmar today to what has happened in Madhes during its various uprisings. Is that a credible comparison, and will such comparisons help or hinder the cause of the Burmese people? The comparison also raises another important uncomfortable question: what should be the grounds for foreign intervention in Nepal on humanitarian grounds?

All the modern expertise of conflict resolution is, at the best, flawed. It stands on the “two or more parties” notion and tries to fix it there. To an extent, it’s okay because they try to reconcile the parties that are stuck with “I’m right, you are wrong” attitude. Skilled conflict managers try bringing the parties to talk, encourage them to stand in the others’ shoes and look at things from the others’ viewpoint. If done well and if the parties are open enough, there is a chance of success. The unskilled ones will simply use reward or punishment to shut them up and make peace.

In the less developed world, we are more used to shutting them up and making peace. But we are also learning the other approach from the West, thanks to all the development in social sciences, and the theories of human rights, peace, conflict management, and so on.

All this is fine. By whatever means you resolve conflict, that’s awesome. Except there’s a little problem. You cure only the symptoms and not the cause. For, in this whole business of conflict resolution, there is little effort in allaying the “I versus others” mentality.

A different model of conflict management has existed for ages in the East, specifically in the Indian and Himalayan regions. This is not a model of reward or punishment, neither is it of stepping in the other’s shoes. It’s a model of knowing that there is no ‘other’ out there whom we can reward or punish, or in whose shoes we have to stand. It’s a model of knowing that the ‘other’ is only a fiction, projected on a fictitious screen by our own confused minds.

Just like we too are fictions, created by our confused minds. In the Eastern spiritual systems, this fictitious ‘I’ disagrees with that fictitious ‘other’ on totally fictitious grounds for some equally fictitious idea. As soon as we understand this, the whole plot drops. The fictitious stage crumbles and the show of conflict comes to naught.

Of course, it sounds high. But that’s the point—it sounds high because it is high! What the Buddha or Krishna or the countless Himalayan sages taught in this hallowed land has the highest knowledge possible to the human race.

It’s a different thing that we have forgotten their teachings. When people in Nepal and India spend months and years reading conflict management theories from the West, and our NGOs spend millions in conflict management workshops, it seems to me like we are sitting on a heap of 24-karat gold and spending hardearned money to import some gold-lookalike from Morocco.

The cause of conflict lies in the human psyche, in what we generally understand as ‘ego’—which runs the entire show. It is what we usually identify ourselves with— race, religion, ideology, beauty, money, and what not. This play of ego—self-identity—is nothing but an illusion. When one understands it, there is no self-identity to hold on to. When the understanding deepens, first the idea of ‘identity’ and then even the idea of ‘self’ dissolves and one stops seeing any difference between oneself and others. Our illumined masters tell that in that state of deepest realization, all duality between ‘I’ and ‘others’ drops, and everything becomes part of one consciousness.

Perhaps we will have a little idea of it if we pause here and ask: Who is the one that is reading this piece of writing? Is it the eyes? Is it the brain? There are trillions of cells in the eyes and the brain. Which one of them is ‘I’? Ok, I may not be any of those cells, nor the back muscles that are now aching. But I feel the back pain anyway, so who is it that feels it? Where in the body is this ‘I’ located?

Of course, we cannot find or locate it. The more we try to find the ‘I’, the more elusive it seems. So it may not exist at all! But it exists, because we feel we are. But did it exist before birth? And what happens to it when we die? Does it just fizzle out?

We will not get an answer to any of these questions. Let’s not try even, or we might get further confused. A great deal of preparation is needed to know the nature of ‘I’. The good news is that our illumined sages have made it easy for us. We know, reading them, that at least we are not what we think. And there is not much difference between this ‘I’ of mine and the ‘I’ of others. Actually, there is no two at all—there is no ‘I’ and others! We are all flimsy compartments of one big whole separated by these illusory I’s!

For now, let’s understand it only conceptually. When we have enough motivation to go deeper, we can start with preliminary meditation practices and take baby steps toward the real understanding of ‘I’. If it’s the highest knowledge, it cannot be assessed by chance or by shortcuts. You cannot just jump onto the moon to have a look at the earth.

So how do we use this knowledge for conflict resolution? Well, we don’t need a real experiential understanding of not-two—the non-duality of ‘I’ and ‘others’. We can start with a conceptual framework, and gradually work to have experiential understanding. When we set ourselves on the path of such realization, when we actually understand the truth of not-two, of non-duality, we get to the root of resolving all conflicts. After all, where is the ‘other’ to have conflict with?