Views of a Nepali Economist

The following opinion piece was published in Republica on January 11, 2015 with the title "Loose tongue". The direct link to Republica is here.

The year was 1968. Martin Luther King Jr, a devout follower of Gandhi and his peaceful method of protests, had just been killed. The United States was involved in an unwinnable war in Vietnam. There were anti-war protests and anti-discrimination rallies held all over the US. Like all major cities, Chicago saw its share of clashes between the police and the protestors. When the situation turned violent after King’s assassination and a huge police force had to be mobilized in Chicago to keep peace, Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago, announced: “The police are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve disorder.” It was a Freudian slip, an insensitive thing to say at the wake of King’s assassination and the violent rallies.

CPN-UML Chairman KP Oli appears to have made a similar political slip of the tongue recently. This is not the first time he has done so. He is prone to making comments that are politically incorrect. Over a year ago, when one of his constituents asked him if he would ever return to his constituency again after the election, Oli verbally thrashed the questioner. He said that he had been elected as a Member of Parliament and not as a Village Development Committee secretary. That was not a politically correct thing to say. But, Oli cannot help himself from saying such things. He prides in letting people know that Oli ko boli is banduk ko goli (Oli’s speech and bullets of a gun are the same). How? He has yet to explain that.

However, unlike Daley’s slip, Oli’s recent Freudian slip may have more far-reaching consequences. Madheshi leaders have different aspirations from that of the other major political parties. Therefore, to throw a politically incorrect verbal abuse at them was not wise. Madheshi leaders have now decided to abstain from all dialogues in which UML is a party. But, UML is a coalition partner in the current government with Nepali Congress. So, every dialogue will have a UML presence. If the Madheshi leaders stick to their guns, their absence from dialogues will mean that a significant voice will be absent. That does not bode well for the “consensus decision making” that we keep reading about.

Maybe the Madheshi leaders were not interested in working through the mess of designing federal Nepal and writing the new constitution. Maybe they were looking for an excuse to not appear in such discussions. That is actually what the UML leaders are accusing the Madheshi leaders of. The UML leaders could be right, or they could be wrong. But what is not in doubt is the fact that Oli’s loose tongue has given the Madheshi leaders an excuse to withdraw from talks. And, like all opportunistic politicians, Madheshi leaders will milk this opportunity to try and have their demands met.

Now, to be fair to Oli, he may have spoken politically incorrectly, but his overall sentiment on the Madhesh restructuring issue is one that most of us from the plains agree on. As a resident of Morang, I would hate to see my district split. I believe the sentiment is true for most residents in Jhapa and Sunsari as well. It also does not make sense to create a single Madhesh province out of all 22 districts in the Tarai. That is nothing but greed on the part of the Madheshi leaders. They wish to have control over the entire breadbasket of the country and the profitable southern border with India. Other political parties see through that greed, and will not let that wish come true. The Madheshi leaders need to know that it is a politically infeasible strategy.

There are broader repercussions of the constant spat and disagreement between the political parties. Forces that are muted at other times become vocal to take advantage of the chaos. The British ambassador had no business poking his nose into religious matters. Nothing is stopping a Nepali from any religion converting to Christianity. It has been going on for decades without any obstruction or opposition from the Nepali public or the government. Yet, the ambassador felt the need to express his thoughts on a non-issue. Nepal has already been declared a secular republic, and converting to Christianity is not banned. And, now, after Oli’s comments on Madheshi leaders, he has been visited by the Indian ambassador to take stock of his views. These incidents show that constant disagreements among our political leaders have allowed foreign forces to insert themselves into issues that are distinctly domestic in nature. They have started asserting themselves on issues they have no business worrying about.

Oli has refused to apologize for his politically incorrect outburst; rather he has asked the Madheshi leaders to apologize to him. However, if he and other UML leaders truly believe that the Madheshi leaders simply needed an excuse to walk out of talks, they should not give in. Oli should tell the Madheshi leaders that he had an outburst and that he is sorry for it. The Madheshi leaders represent a large chunk of the Nepali population. Their presence in dialogues is necessary to get a more representative decision on constitutional and federalism issues. Their absence from dialogues is unacceptable.

Labels: ethnic federalism, federalism, Freudian slip, KP Oli