http://nepalinetbook.blogspot.com/

How Yesterday Tells Of Tomorrow

Four
years after that spring of discontent propelled us into supposed
newness, it’s becoming harder to ignore the fallacy of the entire
premise. By dumping all our ills on the monarchy, did the people really
expect to evade our responsibility for our being? The agents of change
continue to wear brave faces. But they cannot conceal their utter
bewilderment over where republicanism, federalism and
do-what-ever-you-will-ism will land everyone. It’s harder when there’s
no one else to blame, isn’t it?
Nepal’s emergence in its modern,
unitary form was not a fluke of history. Before that, we were a
confederation of confederations. Like people who ran petty
principalities elsewhere in the world, ambitious and ruthless rulers
sought unity for further conquest. When the ruler of one undistinguished
state bequeathed a legacy of overrunning territory after territory in a
web of ambitious, intrigue and bloodshed, his heirs confronted no less
zealous votaries of empire on the north and south.
But, then, the
king only sat atop courtiers, commanders and soldiers. Those who did the
heavy lifting came from all backgrounds and classes. When they shed
blood, no drop was redder than the other. The Brahmins so vilified for
having monopolized the subsequent state structure were the ones who bore
the brunt of exile and anguish. The equally reviled Chhettris lost
their heads because treachery and loyalty was defined by the power
equations of the moment. True, the vast majority of the people remained
marginalized and continued to lead a life of toil and want. That reality
cannot obscure the risks of death and disbarment proximity to power
carried. Neither kings nor courtiers were spared the tumult. For good or
ill, that’s how we got where we are.
One king’s determination to
enthrone his offspring from a Mathil Brahmin widow he had wed
destabilized the country. This is not to suggest that madhesis can
somehow be held collectively and perpetually responsible. Nor can the
hillsfolk. King Rana Bahadur Shah could not have done much without
willful collaborators among his courtiers. Everyone was convulsed by the
aftermath. The point here is not the abundance of blame to go around.
It is merely that without any of its disparate groups, the Nepal of yore
cannot be conceived. And without that past, there will be nothing to
measure the newness of tomorrow. To put it differently, no one has a
greater claim to Nepaliness than anyone else.
The Qing and the
Company didn’t choose not to conquer Nepal because we were not worth it,
as they have led us to believe. If that were the case, their successors
wouldn’t still be fighting their own larger battles on our turf. Forget
water, our location was always our greatest resource and will always be
so. The opportunity will lie in grasping the context. The Licchavis and
Mallas used that for commercial and cultural advantage in the past.
King Mahendra employed it to internationalize our national identity and
aspirations to far greater effect than in drawing assistance for basic
infrastructure. Just because King Gyanendra happened to be the man who
so vociferously emphasized the advantages Nepal stood to gain as a
transit state doesn’t diminish the intrinsic worth of that enterprise.
Was all that worth it? The debate will never end. Can we change it? Try
on.
This blast from the past would have been irrelevant had reason
found a place in the midst of our rage four years ago. After all, it
takes a group like the Khmer Rouge whose ideological repulsiveness was
matched by a collective ruthlessness to begin anew at Year Zero.
Notwithstanding their successes in exposing our fissures, Nepal’s
Maoists thrived on the contradictions of their rivals – a finite
commodity once they get toward being the only ones around. Capture state
power they might in the impending vacuum, but what will they do without
the courage of their convictions, no matter how craven they might have
been in the first place? Rants don’t resolve much.
It has been
tempting these past four years to portray the loudest critics of change
as those who stand to lose the most. But let’s stop pretending that
those who stand to gain the most aren’t constantly consumed by doubts
over whether change can be sustained geopolitically more than
internally. History may be harsh but it is hard to undo. That is why the
Indians can still seek the counsel of the ex-king or the Chinese can
contemplate inviting him on a visit despite the fact that it was their
representative who ended the practice of ambassadors’ presenting letters
of credence at the palace while we still had the monarchy.
Even
after elected representatives abolished the monarchy, the ex-king
continues to focus on his national role. Ceremony was always part of the
crown and that aspect of it could never go away as long as Nepalese
held tight to their traditions. Politically, too, how many of us really
refuse to take comfort in the realization that the king and the army are
still around to pick up the pieces and clean up should all hell break
loose faster?