Submit your Article

“Communism won’t come here in a taxi.” This statement by King Mahendra had become very famous, not just in Nepal but across the globe. He made this state­ment close to the first anniversary of the dissolution of the parliamentary system and the elected government. He said it in response to some coun­tries’ suspicion that the Chinese authoritarian communist system could enter Nepal.When an agreement was signed with China on 27 September 1961 to build a highway linking Kathmandu with Kodari, there were incessant talks in Nepal about how Chinese communism would easily travel here. Naturally, India was alarmed; it feared such a road link would pose a threat to its security. West­ern countries were also unnerved. They too were apprehensive about the spread of communism in Nepal. “With the agreement on the Kodari highway, Nepal has openly invited communism,” they would say.

At the time of the agreement, Mao’s communist rule had been in existence for 12 years and Mahen­dra was on a two-week trip to Chi­na. In Beijing, a civilian honor was conferred on him, and in a speech Mahendra called Mao’s revolution “glorious”. He also said there had been ‘a rebirth of the people’s eco­nomic revolution’ and an increase in China’s power during Mao’s rule.

Indian newspapers painted that speech as sycophancy toward Chi­na. Mahendra had told the Chinese President that Nepal would not be a satellite state of any nation. “We don’t intend to follow any particular country or power alli­ance,” he had said. China, how­ever, expressed more concern about Tibet than about Nepal’s political situation.

In response, Chinese President Liu Shaoqi said: “When a handful of reactionaries revolted in Tibet, Nepal was firm with the right pol­icy of not interfering in China’s internal affairs.” One reason why China has remained happy with Nepal is because when it comes to Tibet, Nepal has always supported China. After Mahendra came back home, the apprehension of com­munism coming to Nepal was more common among foreigners than among Nepalis.

The defeat of the Kuomintang in 1949 had given birth to an era of Mao’s communism in China. China was distinct from western countries; it was also spreading communism aggressively. It brought Tibet under its control in the name of reform. But it did not do so until com­munism was firmly established. After the invasion of Tibet, there were fears that China would also enter Nepal and India. Stopping China’s advance was a strategy that India and western countries had adopted.

Both India and China said they would consider an attack on Nepal an attack on their own soil. While it was an expression of affection, it was also a roundabout way of saying that Nepal was under their security umbrella.

Mahendra had made the state­ment involving communism and taxi at a public forum attended by Indi­ans at a time when American and Indian suspicions were at a peak. He had inserted it in an interesting man­ner into a speech he delivered on 18 November 1961 at the inauguration of the Parthi Dam in Pokhara, which was built with Indian aid.

He said: “I’ve heard that some people say building the Kathman­du-Lhasa highway will be akin to inviting communism. It makes me laugh. I have nothing to tell those who, in their parochial ways, main­tain that communism will only travel in a taxi. I can only express sym­pathy for them. What else can I say?” (Shree Panch Maharajadhi­raj Mahendra Bir Bikram Shahdev baata bakseka ghosana, bhasan ra sandeshharu, 2022)

Next week’s ‘Vault of history’ column will discuss how Nepal tried to allay Western suspicions of Chinese communism

KathmanduThe Americans in Nepal can cry themselves hoarse that their Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) is neither a ‘military alliance’ nor aimed against ‘any particular country’. But despite their best efforts the IPS will continue to be seen as an anti-China geopolitical strategy. The more vocal they are on the issue, the more the perception will stick that they are being dishonest. This is not without reason though. While the Americans insist on the purity of purpose of the IPS, on the same breath, they also cannot resist warning Nepal not to rely too much on the Belt and Road Initiative, which they see as a ‘debt trap’ for poor countries.

The Chinese understanding of the IPS is no different, and this is not without benefits for Nepal. For one, Nepal can thank the IPS for making Xi Jinping visit Nepal. Given Nepal’s lack of commitment on finalizing his pet BRI projects, Xi would not have come if China was not so alarmed about the heightened American activism in Nepal. In the Chinese perception, India, which is still paying the diplomatic price of the 2015-16 blockade in Nepal, is happy to let the Americans and Europeans do the cheerleading against China for the time being.

The IPS is nebulous by design. There is no dotted line to sign on. The Americans can declare that they want to partner with so and so country under the strategy without that country ever having to formally endorse it. But it creates problems for small and geopolitically sensitive countries like Nepal which, as Tika Dhakal recently pointed out in his Kantipur column, is free to choose its other foreign friends but not its neighbors; it would be suicidal of Nepal to support the American strategy if it comes at the cost of alienating China, that vital counterweight to India.

It would be naïve to assume that India, which has traditionally been paranoid about any presence of western powers in its traditional backyard, would so easily outsource its Nepal strategy to the US. Perhaps, as the Chinese suspect, Indians are now allowing the Americans to do the heavy lifting against China while they try to work out their new Nepal plan.

The Indians want the Americans to keep up the pressure on China in South Asia, but not let them increase their influence in the region to the extent that India is no longer able to play a decisive role here. What may happen though is that as the communist government in Nepal inches progressively closer to China, India will be more and more comfortable working with the Americans, the Europeans and the Japanese to do the anti-China posturing on its behalf.
For the Chinese, Nepal’s recent packing orders to illegal North Koreans were the latest warning sign that the Americans are getting disconcertingly active in Nepal. This is why it has become important for President Xi to come now. To make his point, Xi might even decide to stay for a night in Kathmandu, despite a brazen lack of progress on the BRI projects. Symbolism means a lot in Chinese diplomacy.

On the fourth anniversary of the promulgation of a new constitution on September 20, the federal government has asked people to celebrate the day with deepawali and proud displays of the Nepali flag. Even t-shirts emblazoned with the flag have been printed for the day. But not everyone will be celebrating. Mad­hes-based parties plan on marking it as a ‘black day’. As does a big chunk of the Tharu community of Kailali district, the heart of their proposed Tharuhat province. Tikapur in Kailali, the site of the infamous 24 August 2015 clash between the police and Tharu protestors that led to the death of eight people, appeared calm during a recent visit. But scratch beneath the surface, and one can see the old wounds—inflict­ed by the horrendous events of 2015 and the subsequent arrest and detention of Resham Chaud­hary, the elected federal lawmak­er from Kailali-1 who was deemed the ‘mastermind’ of the Tikapur incident—are still raw. Following the 2015 clashes, the local Pahade and Tharu communities drew apart, and the chasm is yet to be bridged.

“Four years ago, I took part in the August 24 protests,” says a 35-year-old paan shop owner in Tikapur who refused to give his name. “Now all that I want is to be able to live peacefully and continue with my small business.” This was the com­mon sentiment of the members of the Tharu community I spoke to on my recent trip to Tikapur. Yet it would be wrong to infer that the fire in their belly for their rights has been extinguished.

In fact, most locals and political party representatives are unhappy at what they see as injustice being done to Chaudhary, people’s cho­sen representative. The calm is also illusory. As local politicians put it, it will take only a small spark to start another conflagration. The onus is on the promulgators of the new constitution—whose draft pro­voked the 2015 protests—to work out a formula that will be to the satisfaction of both the Pahadi and Tharu communities. Unless that happens, Tikapur will remain a tinderbox

Tikapur, a small town in the south-western district of Kailali that drew national attention following the 24 August 2015 killings of seven police personnel and a toddler, appears calm now. People are busy with their daily lives. Nor does there seem to be much appetite for violence.

But scratch beneath the surface and the situation is entirely different. Even after four years of the incident, the situation remains fraught with danger. Compared with the Pahadi community, the Tharus seem dissatisfied with the government and the major parties. Both the communities obviously want to avoid a repeat of the 2015 violence, but there are deep divisions between the two. Before the bloody incident, the relationship between the two communities was cordial.

Resham Chaudhary, who was elected a member of the federal House of Representatives from Kailali-1, as well as a dozen other local Tharus have been sent to prison for their roles in the killings. Their relatives vouch for their innocence and are furious with the authorities, which adds to the precariousness of the situation.

The Tikapur deaths resulted from a protest against an Akhanda Sudurpaschim (‘Undivided Far-West’) and in favor of a separate Tharu province. Less than a month later, the country promulgated a new constitution, which is still contested by Madhes-based parties, mainly the Rastriya Janata Party-Nepal, on whose ticket Chaudhary won the election. The Tharus also feel aggrieved because while the demand of the Pahadi community for an undivided far-west was fulfilled, their demand for a Tharu province was not. According to the 2011 national census, Tharus constitute 41.53 percent of Kailali’s total population, followed by Chhetris (21-23 percent) and hill Brahmins (12.41 percent).

“The situation looks normal, but there is a clear psychological division between the Tharu and Pahadi communities,” says Unnati Chaudhary, a local journalist. “For example, people from one community are unlikely to go to a shop owned by a member of another. They would rather go to the market across the border in India. Some traders have already left the area.”

Resham Chaudhary and others are behind bars, she adds, “But why? Their families want to know the truth.” The government is yet to make public the report of the commission formed to unearth the truth about the killings and other aspects of various Madhes movements, of which the Tikapur incident is a part.

All behind one cause

There are differing views within the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) on how to view the Tikapur incident. A few days ago, NCP co-Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal reiterated that the Tikapur issue was a political one. KP Oli seems unsure about his stand, even as most of his former CPN-UML colleagues continue to see Tikapur deaths as a purely criminal act.

But at the local level, not only the Tharus, even the leaders of the ruling Nepal Communist Party as well as the main opposition Nepali Congress are unhappy with the inaction of the federal government and the political parties in dealing with the situation in Tikapur. “The old scars are yet to heal. Although the situation looks calm, it is actually quite volatile,” says Gopal Thapa, a district-level NCP leader. As he speaks, Thapa can barely hide his anger at the ‘injustice’ done to the people of Kailali-1.

There is consensus among local units of political parties in Kailali that the Tikapur violence was political (and not criminal), and should be resolved politically. This means Resham Chaudhary and others convicted for the 2015 deaths may have to be released. It is one of the major demands of the Rastriya Janata Party-Nepal, but as the court has already issued a verdict, the government is not in a position to set them free. “But it is undoubtedly a political issue,” adds NCP’s Thapa.

That is also the position of the local wing of the Nepali Congress. “We firmly support the Tharus’ demand for withdrawing the cases against Resham Chaudhary and others. That would help restore social harmony here,” says Bhuwan Adhikari, president of the NC Kailali-1 constituency.

Dishonoring public mandate. 

At the same time, there are strong arguments against such a position. Many say the security personnel were killed in cold blood and there can be no amnesty for such a grave crime. My conversations with the locals have led me to conclude that the situation in Tikapur is so volatile that even a small trigger can cause an upheaval. None of those I talked to wanted to speak on the issue on record. People live in constant fear that they could be detained anytime, given their past experiences of witnessing the arrests of dozens of people in connection with the 2015 killings. Soon after the killings, many Tharus’ shops and houses were vandalized and property looted, but no proper investigation was carried out and nobody was tried.

Many people lost their jobs and struggled to make ends meet. Locals recalled the difficulties they faced after the incident, as a curfew was imposed for 45 consecutive days. To this day, people are cautious about taking part in political events. Whenever a political program is organized, security is beefed up. There is a perception among many Tharus that the government and the security forces protect only the Pahadi community. But despite differences over the constitution and other political issues, both communities want to maintain peace and harmony and prevent a spark in a tinderbox.

Resham Chaudhary’s incarceration means there is an absence of an elected representative in Kailali-1. Fearing arrest, he was underground for a long time following his landslide victory in the 2017 general elections. Finally, last year, he took the oath of office, but then the Kailali district court imposed a life sentence on him and 11 other people in connection with the Tikapur deaths. “The government and the political parties should make a clear decision. Either they should release Chaudhary or hold a by-election to elect a new member of parliament from this constituency,” argues Thapa. “How can you leave a constituency and its people without an elected representative for five years? It is a dishonor of the people’s mandate.”

Trouble brewing

Meanwhile, preparations are underway to launch another Tharu movement. Between 24 and 26 August, there was a Tharuhat-Tharuwan National Conference, which concluded by forming an 11-member Tharuhat-Tharuwan Rastriya Morcha led by leader Laxman Tharu. Security was tight during the
conference. According to journalist Chaudhary, people from both the Tharu and Pahadi communities were against such a huge gathering, fearing a possible communal riot or an outbreak of violence; they urged that the conference be held outside Kailali. In the run-up to and during the event, some radical youths even attempted to instigate people, but nothing untoward happened.

Formation of a separate Tharu state, release of local leaders who are facing court cases, ensuring the identity and dignity of this community, and inclusive and proportional representation of Tharus in all state organs—these were among the main demands voiced at the conference. The conference vowed to take the Tharu movement to new heights while also highlighting the urgent need to restore harmony between the two communities. 

The conference represented the first phase of a three-phase movement. The ongoing second phase, which ends September 20, the day of the constitution’s promulgation, is aimed at publicity and increasing awareness of Tharu issues. The third phase will start after marking September 20 as a black day. There are plans to stage protests in district headquarters and major towns, and to prevent the prime minister and federal ministers from entering Tharuhat areas. A call for an indefinite strike in the region is also in the cards. 

Security forces are keeping a close eye on the planned movement of the Tharu community. “We do not see the possibility of a major political eruption, but we have to be vigilant as people might be instigated to come out on the streets,” says a high-level security official in Tikapur.

When I was an undergrad­uate at Brown University, I took a class on Colonial Latin America. An exceptionally brilliant professor, R. Douglas Cope, taught the class. Method­ically through the semester, we read texts describing the arrival of the Spanish from Europe, and their gradual takeover of Latin and South America. We went through the conquistadores and the encomienda system. Post-colonial theory remains trendy in anthropology and English departments—in each of which I have a Masters degrees. I am not a subscriber to the theory that all structural problems of the present are the fault of the colonial systems of the past. The Indians (of India), for one, blame the British a lot for their social problems while under-examining their own roles in the poor state of affairs of their nation.

At the same time, it is hard to deny that many of the social problems of our day and age does stem from European colonial­ism, and the way the colonialists used savage methods to suppress and decimate the people and the lands they colonized. Indigenous people were brutally murdered in mass so the lands they had lived on for centuries could be turned to farmland and grazing land for the settlers. I wonder how much of North America’s landscape is “natural,” and how much of it has been changed by the hands of the white man. I also wonder how many of the current hurricanes and torna­does that the US experiences are man-made.

Vast farmland, aerated by tox­ic pesticides and nurtured only by chemical fertilizers, cover the middle of the US. I travelled through Iowa during a cross-coun­try trip in the early 90s. Long lines of corn that had been planted in precise lines, zipping by our eyes for days. Fallow land looked like the surface of the moon—nothing grew on them, not a single speck of weed, no moss, no fern, no fungi. No bees buzzed, no but­terflies flew. There were no soy­beans and pumpkins climbing the corn plants, as in the Three Sisters method of planting practiced by indigenous tribes.

Nothing else interrupted the landscape, except an occasion­al mammoth tractor or truck in the horizon. The landscape was anything but natural. Did these vast plains in the middle of the continent contain massive for­ests before? Did CO2 and oxygen circulate differently, leading to more stable weather patterns? It is hard to know how much the hand of the European settlers have changed the landscape and the weather in North America.

We thought the devastation of indigenous people and their lands was over, that we now lived in civilized, democratic countries with human rights. Then along came Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s new­est President. And in his actions we can see all of European colo­nial and imperial history as if it’s happening in front of our eyes. The Amazon has been set on fire. South America will burn to ashes, and be replaced with beef farms and soybean plantations to feed cattle in Europe, China, and emerging economies.

People all over the world, acute­ly aware of the climate crisis, are horrified and devastated by these actions. And yet Western democ­racy says we must let this ecocide megalomaniac play out his course of action. Nothing can stop him, because the holy strictures of European democracy is so sacred he must be allowed to burn and slaughter through the last remain­ing old-growth forests of the plan­et for a terra nulla future in Brazil.

Protesting beef is tagged as a BJP activity in the subcontinent. But one can no longer ignore that the Hindus had a point when they resisted the eating of beef as an unethical and immoral activity. If life itself is going to be snuffed out in this planet due to people’s appetite for beef, how can we view this eating as ethical and moral?

I visited Brazil in 2005 to attend a conference on migration, and later visited the World Social Forum at Porte Allegre. Lula was the much loved President of Bra­zil. When he showed up at the forum, people surrounded him and showered him with love. There was a feeling of peace and love in the air, if such things can be felt.

Later I ended up in a Vipassana center in the hills around Rio. I was relegated to the dish-wash­ing with an indigenous Peruvi­an man, while the white people cooked. I didn’t like the division of labor or the way race played out in what should have been a race-neutral space of Buddhist practice. Back in Rio, I saw black people living in immense poverty side by side huge wealth. I didn’t like that either.

On another memorable occa­sion, I thought I’d take the bus to Copacabana beach. I was about to step off the bus saying: ‘Copaca­bana?’ with a bright smile when a tired looking indigenous woman wrapped her arms around me in a bear hug and screamed: ‘No!’ She wouldn’t let me go till the bus had arrived at a safe neighbor­hood and I was out of the favelas. Brazil was riven with violence, race inequality and class injus­tice—the feeling was palpable.

How the world responds to the apocalyptic devastation of Brazil now will be a test not just of our commitment to climate change, but also to our ideas of fairness and equality. This is the moment to seriously redress environmen­tal and racial injustice.