It just does not compute. One is a political party elected by an over­whelming majority to realize the goals of their first fully-democratic constitution. The other reigns over an authoritarian system where the party can chop and change the nation­al charter and curtail people’s free­doms at its will. How can they even see eye-to-eye, much less sign a pact of everlasting friendship and mutual learning? But even while the recent bonhomie between Nepal’s NCP and China’s CPC seems farfetched, the two also have many things in common. Both are communist parties, at least nominally. It makes sense for two communist parties ruling two neighboring countries to try to share ideas and keep the communist flame alive—at a time when the embers of communism are being extinguished around the world, including in South Asia. Then there are domestic com­pulsions. The NCP government came to power on the back of a promise to build stronger relations with Chi­na following the Indian blockade. Likewise, as China’s economic mir­acle loses its sheen, Xi Jinping seeks greater validation for his leadership at home and abroad.

The NCP’s intimacy with China has not been without controversy. Polit­ical analyst Puranjan Acharya says the new proximity between the two parties “raises doubts about Nepali communist parties’ commitment to democracy and pluralism.” Yet another political observer, Shyam Shrestha, cautions us not to read too much into the communist-communist agreement. He reckons Nepali com­munists are far too indisciplined (and perhaps also reluctant) to implement the structured ‘Xi Jinping Thought’. But he also thinks this could be a great opportunity for Nepal to learn from “China’s miraculous material progress” in recent decades.

India and the US, Nepal’s two other important international partners, have been spooked. They view the communist government in Nepal with considerable suspicion, and each is trying to work out its new modus operandi. This decision of one Nepali party could thus have far-reaching consequences for the whole country. After emerging from a long bout of uncertainty and instability, Nepal risks plunging into another, which could be unleashed by a new wave of geopolitical competition.

Has the NCP sold its soul to its Chinese counterpart?

China has built an image in Nepal of a powerhouse that does not overtly interfere in its political affairs. China’s approach has been to cultivate ties with all political parties, with greater focus on the ruling ones. So it has had normal and steady relations with the Nepali Congress (NC), the current main opposition, and other parties, irre­spective of their size or political ideology.In recent times, and particularly after Xi Jinping assumed presidency in March 2013, there has been some shift in China’s approach to dealing with Nepali political parties, mainly the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP). In 2018, at the 19th National Congress, President Xi presented his political blueprint for the next 30 years—‘Xi Jinping Thought on Social­ism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era’, simply known as ‘Xi Jinpingism’. This ideology has now been officially incorporated into the Chinese constitution.

In China, Xi Jinpingism is being taught to party leaders, cadres, bureaucrats and journalists, and has been included in school curric­ula. Of late, there has also been a concerted effort to export this ide­ology to other countries through the Communist Party of China (CPC). It may be a coincidence, but just when China introduced Xi Jinpingism, Nepal saw the ascendency of the NCP. A big section of the ruling party is in thrall to China’s political and development models.

Life after monarchy

China’s bid to strengthening Nepal’s communist parties began after the abolition of the monar­chy in 2008. During the decade-long insurgency (1996-2006), China did not support the Maoists; in fact it accused them of misusing the name of their Great Helmsman Mao. China even backed the monarchy to suppress the Maoist rebellion. But following the peace process and the monarchy’s abolition, China wanted to see a strong commu­nist force in Nepal. More recently, Chinese leaders encouraged the CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist Center), the two largest commu­nist parties, to unite—or so believe many Nepalis.

When the NCP was born after the merger between the CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist Center) in 2018, the Communist Party of China proposed to orient its leaders and cadres to Xi Jinpingism. “They offered to share his thoughts and we accepted. A further exchange of views will take place in the upcoming delibera­tions,” says Devendra Poudel, a member of the NCP School Depart­ment, which is responsible for the political schooling and training of the party rank and file.

Initially, the Chinese side had pro­posed the NCP School Department to learn its ideology and experience in running the party and the govern­ment. According to Nepali leaders, the Chinese had forwarded its pro­posal a year ago but it was delayed in the absence of the party’s School Department. “This should not be viewed as us embracing the policies of Xi Jinping. But we do also want to learn from China’s miraculous development,” Poudel adds.

This is not the first time the CPC has invited dozens of NCP delegates, both youth and senior leaders, to China to train them. A few months ago, a team led by Dev Gurung, a senior NCP leader, visited China to learn about Xi’s ideology and how the party and the government there function. Currently, the CPC has several training centers across the country to train both Chinese cad­res and representatives from other countries on Xi’s ideology.

Exporting ideas, importing trouble?

The latest bonhomie between the ruling communist parties of Nepal and China worries some. “NCP leaders being indoctrinated on Xi’s thoughts could further alienate a big mass in Nepal that is already suspi­cious of communists of any kind, especially during elections,” says Dr. Mrigendra Bahadur Karki, Executive Director of the Center for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS), a think-tank. According to Karki, if Xi’s thoughts are being embraced as a counter to the Indo-Pacific Strategy, it could backfire, giving the US, India and other western powers an excuse to propagate anti-China messages via Nepal. But how? “As it is a one-party state, there can be no meaningful political debates inside China. In this situation, if our ruling party embraces Xi’s thoughts, then other powers can denounce his thoughts in the name of criticizing the NCP. Such criticism could then spill over into China and create a difficult situ­ation there,” Karki clarifies.

In the past one year, there has been a series of exchanges between the NCP and the CPC focused on orientations and sharing ideas. In May 2018, Deputy Director of CPC Ma Zue Song was in Kathmandu to take part in a program mark­ing the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx’s birthday. He said that the NCP could play a big role in advanc­ing nation-building and socialist movements in South Asia. “We are ready to work with the communists and left forces around the world to observe, interpret, and lead through Marxism,” he said.

After party unification, senior NCP leaders such as Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Narayan Kaji Shrestha, and Jhala Nath Khanal have each visited China twice. Three provincial chief ministers—Mahenra Bahadur Shahi (Karnali), Prithvi Subba Gurung (Gandaki) and Shan­kar Pokhrel (Province 5)—have also gone to China. In April, a team led by NCP General Secretary Bishnu Poudel was in China for delega­tion-level talks. There is now little doubt that China wants a strong NCP-led government in order to secure its interests in Nepal. Cur­rently, 29 mayors elected on an NCP ticket are attending a seminar in Kunming, the capital of the Chinese province of Yunnan. The partici­pants were selected by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Such exchanges have raised fears that the NCP could be influenced by how the party and the govern­ment function in China. In the past one-and-half years, there have been some indications that the KP Oli gov­ernment is trying to curtail media and civil rights granted by the con­stitution. The growing influence of the executive on the functioning of the legislature and the judiciary has also been a matter of alarm.

Show or substance?

Observers say a section of the NCP is highly impressed by Xi Jinpingism. Political analyst Puranjan Acharya thinks there is a clear danger of the NCP being influenced by this ideol­ogy. “Now China has a declared pol­icy of exporting the ideology of Pres­ident Xi Jinping, which our ruling party appears ready to embrace,” he says, adding that this raises doubts about Nepali communist parties’ commitment to democracy and plu­ralism. “NCP leaders are saying that they want to learn from China. In political parlance, learning means imbibing elements of the way in which the party system functions,” he says.

Chairman Mao had a declared pol­icy of not exporting ideology. In his first five-year term, President Xi had said that China neither exports nor imports any political ideology. The policy, however, was changed when Xi Jinping’s thoughts were incor­porated into the CPC constitution, and term limits for the country’s president and vice president were abolished.

Another political observer Shyam Shrestha believes China wants to publicize its political and develop­ment model across the world as per the decision of the 19th National Congress last year. “Obviously China wants Nepal to adopt its political and development model. But I do not think Nepali leaders will sub­scribe to this ideology.” Why not, especially as the two communist parties even signed an MoU on extensive sharing of ideas and visits in Kathmandu recently?

“For one, our communist leaders are not used to working in a system. It is hard to believe they will disci­pline themselves just because they now have an agreement with their Chinese counterparts,” Shrestha elaborates. But yes, he adds, our leaders could learn from China’s tremendous material progress in the past 30 years, “which has captured the world’s attention.”

KathmanduThe International Relations Committee of the federal House of Representatives has issued a directive to the government to sell two loss-making Nepal Airlines Corporation (NAC) aircraft. NAC had bought these 56-seater planes—Modern Ark 60 (MA60) produced by China’s Xi’an Aircraft Industrial Corporation—six years ago. The committee, in an investigation, found that NAC was incurring constant losses by operating these aircraft, and that the Chinese side had not provided necessary support. It thus concluded that it would be better to sell
the planes.

In the fiscal 2016-2017, NAC earned Rs 191.1 million from the two planes while spending Rs 530.7 million on their operation. NAC had to bear losses worth Rs 339.6 million that year. In the following fiscal, NAC earned Rs 231.5 million and spent Rs 807.7 million on operations. In the first two fiscals of the aircraft’s purchase, NAC had already incurred a loss of Rs 915.7 million.

A report on NAC’s aircraft purchases that the committee made public last week states that the two planes went into loss due to lack of
proper planning.

Nepal had purchased the aircraft because they were considered suitable for flights in mountainous terrains and for small airports with short runways. But due to lack of the NAC’s long-term vision and support from the Chinese government and manufacturing company, the planes failed to perform well, the
report states.

The committee also found problems with four 18-seater Y-12e planes, which Nepal purchased in 2014. But in their case, the committee has directed the government to solve the problems through diplomacy. It has instructed the government to make greater efforts to procure vital aircraft parts from the manufacturing company,
and on time.

The NAC had received two aircraft (one MA60 and one Y-12) as grants. It had bought one MA60 and three Y-12e planes at a concessional interest rate, for 218.8 million RMB, which the NAC would have to start paying in biannual installments from next year. (Under the purchase agreement, it did not have to make a payment for the first seven years.) The first installment of 8.4 million RMB is due in October 2020; the last one is due in April 2033.

NAC’s spokesperson Ganesh Bahadur Chand says the Chinese side did not provide necessary manpower and spare parts on time. Chand adds that operating the two MA60 planes will not be possible unless China converts the loan taken for their purchase into a grant and provides additional manpower and
technical support.

“The two MA60 aircraft were simultaneously in operation hardly for a week after their purchase. If one is in operation, another is almost always grounded. Parts from one are taken out and fitted into another,” says Chand.
And of the four Y-12e planes, only three are flight-worthy. And only two are in operation due to lack of manpower and spare parts. One has been grounded for over
six months

“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.