Nepal: A few hard truths

athale

Col. (retd) Anil A Athale is a Fellow at the Centre for Armed Forces Historical Research. A former Joint Director (History Division) and infantryman, he has been running an NGO, Peace and Disarmament, based in Pune for the past 10 years. As a military historian he specialises in insurgency and peace process.

It was nearly 40 years ago, in 1968 that I first came in contact with the Gorkhas and Nepal when I joined the 9 Gorkha Rifles, an infantry regiment of the Indian Army.

It was a love at first sight, and even in retirement I remain a Gorkha. It is no wonder that one has followed the unfortunate events in that beautiful land with concern and genuine sympathy. It is hard to find a person who would be able to resist liking the Gorkhas or Nepalis as the Maoists may prefer to be called (to distinguish themselves from the Indian Gorkhas). Fun loving, honest to core, loyal and above all brave, the Gorkhas make the finest soldiers in the world (as my jealous colleagues in the army would grudgingly accept). When recently the British crown Prince went to Afghanistan, he was protected by Gorkha soldiers of the British army. Need one say more?

What follows is therefore an assessment of Indo-Nepal ties by an ‘honorary ’ Nepali or Gorkha.

India and Nepal share a unique relationship, the closest parallel being US-Canada relations. Like them, we have an ‘open border’ that has no fences. People from either country can come and go freely, settle in each other’s country and even acquire government jobs, with no questions asked. The two countries share cultural, linguistic, historical and matrimonial ties that are extensive. Even now, the definition of Indian citizens includes citizens of Nepal and Bhutan. Some years ago, Prem Bhandari, a Nepali, had reached the rank of Lieutenant General in the Indian Army. He tragically died in helicopter crash.

The largest Infantry regiment of the Indian Army is the Gorkha Rifles, which has close to 75 percent Gorkhas of Nepalese origin. In fact, Nepalese have spread all over India, be it the tea gardens of Assam or the southernmost tip of India. Most of them are economic migrants and have blended so well in the areas they have settled that one has never heard of any ‘anti Nepali’ agitation anywhere in India. The ‘insular’ Maoist leadership of Nepal needs to ponder over what the unemployment problem in Nepal would have been without this free emigration to India.

Nepal or the ancient “Kirat’ (mountain people) kingdom finds mention in the Mahabharata. Viratnagar, where the Pandavas spent the last part of their 14 years of banishment, was possibly the capital of King Virat of Mahabharata. The birthplace of Lord Buddha, Lumbini, is also located in Nepal. Nepal has been thus very much part of mainstream India, and its language Nepali or Gorkhali is closest to Sanskrit. Successively ruled by various dynasties in the middle ages, Nepal dominated the sub-Himalayan region stretching from present day Nepal to Nahan in Himachal Pradesh. Parts of Uttarakhand including Dehradun and Darjeeling were under their sway. The memory of having ruled over large parts of India is thus an essential part of Nepalese psyche.

Full coverage: Nepal polls and after | Nepal's tryst with destiny

In the 19th century, Nepal resisted the British and the two wars fought between the British and Nepal were some of the toughest fought battles. The British were so impressed with the Nepalese valour that they offered an honourable treaty, kept the Nepalese independence and recruited Gorkhas in their army in large numbers. The origin of the distinct and independent Nepalese identity and pride lie in the history of the late 19th century.

Throughout most of the 20th century, Nepal was ruled by the hereditary prime ministers or Ranas, and the King was a mere titular head. The Rana rule was oppressive and ruthless and there were many popular movements against it. But the Ranas enjoyed British support and continued to flout the people’s will. In 1950, matters came to head and King Tribhuvan fled to India. Indian pressure led to a bloodless revolution and the King was restored to his throne on February 18, 1951 and Nepal became a constitutional monarchy with Nepal Congress coming to power. It is believed that King Tribhuvan wanted Nepal to become part of India and made such an offer to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru rejected this offer as in his ‘Grand Design’ he envisaged Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim as ‘Buffer States’ between India and China.

Since 1951 Nepal has gone through many transitions, from limited democracy to the Panchayat Raj of King Mahendra to parliamentary democracy and direct rule by the King.

In ‘Hindu’ Nepal, the king was regarded as the ‘avtar’ of Lord Vishnu and monarchy enjoyed status akin to that in UK and Japan. The monarchy suffered a grievous blow on June 1, 2001 when the entire family of King Birendra was allegedly killed by Crown Prince Deependra. King Gyanendra, younger brother of Birendra, succeeded him to the throne.

The last six years saw a bloody revolt by the country’s Maoists. In a classical guerrilla fight, the countryside was overrun by the Maoists while the settled areas remained with the Royal Army. Frantic international efforts finally led to a ceasefire and an election was held on April 10 this year. In the election, judged largely free and fair as well as peaceful, the Maoists emerged with a majority of 120 seats out of 240 elected ones. The vote share of the Maoists is however 31 per cent.

Despite the strong links, the Indo-Nepal relationship has not been a smooth one. In the early 1960s, when King Mahendra abrogated democracy and introduced limited popular rule through the ‘Panchayat System’, India was critical. But while sympathetic to the democratic forces, India never intervened in the internal affairs of Nepal. The 1962 India-China conflict was a watershed as the humiliation of India at the hands of China changed the equation. Henceforth, all Nepalese rulers, of whatever persuasion, began to play the China card against India. In place of earlier close relations, Nepal shifted to ‘equi-distance’ as the corner stone of its foreign policy. This has remained and continues to remain a thorny issue.

India has been the largest aid donor, trading partner and avenue of employment, yet whenever in trouble, the Nepal rulers have whipped up anti-Indian sentiments. A few years ago, a major ruckus took place when a TV channel mischievously attributed anti-Nepalese remarks to a film actor (Hrithik Roshan) and the whole Kathmandu Valley erupted into an anti-India orgy. The Opposition parties have always used India as a convenient stick to beat the ruling party.

Like in many Asian and African countries, the root causes of unrest in Nepal are economic. It is undoubtedly true that Nepal had feudal rule, but it was nowhere near being as brutal or exploitative as the Maoists make it out to be. In rural Nepal, the centre of unrest, there are no landlords owning huge tracts of land, the Maoist’s slogan of land reforms notwithstanding.

By the same author: Indian Marxists and their evil designs | Drop the Olympic torch, Sachin! | Chinks in the Bamboo Curtain

The grinding poverty in Nepal is result of two factors — population explosion and tough geography. As per the UN reports, Nepal has a per woman fertility of 5 children and a population growth rate of 2.3 per cent. These figures are similar to other destabilised areas of South Asia, namely Pakistan and Bangladesh. Radicalism breeds amongst exploding populations. 86 percent of this growing population lives in rural areas, and 82 per cent people work in agriculture, fishing, or forestry.

Because one-third of the country consists of mountains or hills, little additional land is available to tend. The share of land being cultivated rose from 17 percent in 1974 to 30 percent in 1998, and the remaining areas that could be added consist mostly of slopes and marginal lands that are environmentally sensitive and less productive. With negligible industrial growth and the population growth exceeding growth in agricultural production for the past three decades, poverty has become a fixture. Nepal is the poorest country in the world outside of Africa: With an annual gross national income per capita in 1999 of US $220, it ranked 164th out of 173 countries. Thus Nepalese have seen standards of living falling year after year.

I came face to face with the stark reality of poverty in Nepal when I commanded a recruit company way back in 1973. While signing the usual ration demand I found that we were overdrawing rations as related to the strength of the company. I called my quartermaster to ask why the rations were falling short. His answer stunned me. This was a regular phenomenon with new recruits, he said. In the first month or so in the army, they over eat. Simply because it was first time in their life that they were getting a full meal. He assured me that once this ‘insecurity’ was over, the ration requirement would fall and we could adjust the ‘overdrawal’ with ‘underdrawal.’ This then is the reality of rural Nepal.

The root cause of unrest in rural Nepal is thus not political but economic. The overthrow of monarchy or the advent of a Communist regime cannot change the economic fundamentals of the situation. But that is precisely what the Maoists are promising, and in that lie the roots of future trouble and instability.

Maoist chief Prachanda, who led his guerrilla People's Liberation Army to war against the state for 10 years as its supreme commander, released the poll pledge at a five-star hotel in Kathmandu. The 39-page comprehensive manifesto roots for change with the main slogan calling for 'New leadership and new thinking for a new Nepal'. It also seeks mass support to make Prachanda the first President of a Federal Republic of Nepal. Outlining the main features of the new constitution that would be written after the April 10 election, it describes the Maoist strategy for financial and social transformation of the country. Baburam Bhattarai, Prachanda's deputy who headed the team entrusted with formulating the manifesto, said if voted to power, his party would increase Nepal's per capita income to $3,000 in 10 years from the current $270.

The Maoists have also pledged to scrap all unequal treaties signed by earlier governments, most of which are with India, and seek to get equal pay and pension for Nepal's Gorkha soldiers employed in the Indian and British Armies. The president, to be chosen through a direct election, would be the head of state as well as of the army while the prime minister would be entrusted with the day-to-day running of the government.

The manifesto clearly has emphasised the ‘political’ aspect while the economic promises are vague. Not only that, Prachanda, the supreme leader of Maoists has gone on record to express his full faith in ‘pure’ Marxism and was critical of Chinese and Soviet ‘revisionism’. With portraits of Lenin and Stalin adorning the Maoist head office, it is not difficult to imagine that Nepal is headed for the state-controlled economy model, an experiment that has failed worldwide.

Read hard-hitting columns by well-known authors

The entry about ‘equal pay and pensions’ for Indian and British Gorkha servicemen is mischievous and shows either ignorance or an anti-India bias. For unlike the British, the Indian Gorkha soldiers receives exactly the same pay and pension as his Indian counterpart. The talk about revising ‘unequal’ treaties is aimed at the 1950 treaty of Peace and Friendship with India.

Next: Pragmatic or dogmatic? The challenges ahead for Nepal

The views expressed in the article are of the author’s and not of Sify.com.

SEARCH