Views of a Nepali Economist

The following opinion piece was published in Republica on August 6, 2015. The direct link to Republica is here.

Prithvi Narayan is not much appreciated these days. It wasn't long ago that it was not the case. Large scale of the public was staunchly pro-monarchist and worshipped the Shah Kings as avatars of Lord Vishnu. The Maoists built propaganda against that image, and succeeded to change enough mindsets to overthrow the monarchy. The mystery surrounding the Royal Massacre and King Gyanendra's (and his son's) unpopularity played their part as well. Many statues of Prithvi Narayan around the country were brought down from their pedestals. Many were happy that the centuries-long Shah oppression had finally ended.

However, it is erroneous to believe that Shah Dynasty continuously ruled Nepal since 1769. The Shah Kings directly ruled Nepal for a total of 107 years, in installments—77 years between 1769 and 1846, 29 years between 1961 and 1990, and a year between 2005 and 2006. They were ceremonial heads for 27 years—10 years between 1951 and 1961, 15 years between 1990 and 2005, and two years between 2006 and 2008. For the first 77 years of Shah Rule, Nepal was a unified country in name only, mainly for international purposes. Internally, we no longer had kings in every town, but we also did not have solid administrative structures. The country was administered and governed loosely. After the unification, the ex-kingdoms were now municipalities, still ruled by local elites with substantial local autonomy.

Exploitation of the country's people and its riches truly took place during the continuous 105-year Rana regime between 1846 and 1951. While the Shah Kings of the past had been glad to relinquish their control over most of their citizens and allow significant autonomy for local rule for the sake of national unity, the Ranas craved for absolute control. The Ranas changed how the country was ruled and administered, mostly for greater benefits to Rana rulers. They designed and perfected the art of exploitation. The Shah Kings felt that they owned the country, the people were their subjects, and it was the duty of the kings to care how their subjects fared. On the other hand, the Ranas knew that their control over the country was temporary—they did not own the country, the Shah Kings did—and this meant they had to exploit and enrich themselves as quickly as possible. There is no question who destroyed Nepal more. The Ranas were running that race against themselves, and won.

No other Shah King receives more negative press than Mahendra. Like all Shah Kings, Mahendra felt that the country was his, he owned it, and he had to protect it. In 1951, he had seen China annex Tibet, then an independent country. Post-independence India had been eyeing to annex Nepal, and historians have written about Mahendra's confrontations with India's leaders on the issue. Disbanding the democratic government, forming the Panchayat System, and pursuing a neutral policy between India and China were his attempts to ensure Nepal's long-term survival. In 1975, India annexed Sikkim, then an independent country. The United Nations and the world's superpowers had failed to defend both Tibet and Sikkim's sovereignty. Some see this as proof that Mahendra's worries about Indian intentions were spot on.

National survival and sovereignty is contingent on a degree of integration. And, integration of a society as diverse as ours could not have been accomplished without force. Prithvi Narayan accomplished that first by creating one single country instead of dozens of fragmented mini-nations, and established the modern Shah monarchy. The Ranas could have easily ended the monarchy when they were in charge. However, the monarchy was the glue that held this country together. The Ranas recognized this, and kept the monarchy alive. Even after the Rana-rule ended, the monarchy was the glue that kept the country together.

Mahendra introduced policies to further integrate the country. Very few Nepalis lived in Tarai because it was swampy and malaria-infested. Mahendra encouraged people in the hills to go and settle there. There were two clear advantages of that policy. First, Tarai had productive land that was not being put to use. People moving from the hills to Tarai would increase agricultural output and create new economic zones. Second, a thriving population in Tarai would ensure territorial defense against Indian encroachment. Remnants of this latter reasoning can still be found in far-western border villages. Mahendra gave free land there to poor people from the hills and also gave them guns to defend the border in case of Indian aggression. Households in those villages still have the guns that Mahendra gave them.

However, Mahendra is portrayed today as the occupier of Madhesh. His promotion of Nepali language as the national language is criticized as a policy of "Khas dominance." Some Nepali academics have argued that the Nepali language is imperialistic and it dominates every other language in Nepal. A language cannot be imperialistic. Also, it is wrong to attribute Khas language dominance to Mahendra's policies because the dominance predates Mahendra.

Claims by Janajati and Madheshi leaders that there is a grand design and centuries-long plan by the Khas population to dominate others is wrong. Nobody makes centuries-long plans. If the Newari Kings in the Valley had the vision of unification and acted on it, we would all be speaking Newari today. However, that did not happen. The Khas speaking king from Gorkha united us all, and we ended up taking Gorkhali language as the national language. The same has happened in the history of every single country in the world. You have to look it up.

It is always good to look back and see how we became the people we are today. We had no say in how our history was written, but we are responsible for writing our future. Being cognizant of our history—without the jingoism—to understand how we arrived here is always a good start and can show a way for the future.

Labels: ethnic federalism, federalism, Khas, madhes, Mahendra, monarchy, Prithvi Narayan, Rana

The following opinion piece was published in Republica on January 7. 2013 with the title "Like for like". The direct link to Republica is here.


Let us cut to the chase. We all know what they say about ‘politics’ in general, that it is a dirty game. In Nepal, politics is not just a dirty game. It is a filthy game. The players have bankrupt moralities, bulging bank accounts, no sense of obligation to those who got them elected, and no sense of ‘duty’ to serve or work for the greater good.

In recent times, a few facts have emerged out of Nepali political characteristics. When a constituent asked if he would ever step again in the constituency that elected him in Jhapa, UML leader Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli was quick to quip that he had been elected as an MP and not as a VDC secretary. If only Oli was as quick in actually doing the work he has been repeatedly elected to do, people in Jhapa would never have had to ask that question. Speaking of VDC secretaries, if Oli and his party worked even half as hard as a Nepali VDC secretary does these days in absence of elected local officials, they would have formed the new parliament by now. They barely got their PR list together after a month of the election results. We have no idea how long we should wait for them to form a government.

The politicians’ readymade quip for their less powerful constituents clearly shows the attitude they have towards the public. They see themselves as superior masters, and us as their subservient servants whose only job is to occasionally cast votes for them, and then shut up. Karl Marx was right when he said that the oppressed are allowed, once every few years, to decide which particular representative of the oppressing class will represent and repress them. It is ironic that Marxists and Leninists such as Oli enjoy Marx’s nightmare with glee.

One of the core responsibilities of a member of parliament is to “raise issues of his/her constituents”. Yes, the MP is involved in discussions and negotiations in the House, and in drafting laws and bills, but they also have an obligation to listen to the problems of people that elected them. How many times have Oli or other MPs from Jhapa raised the wild elephant issue in the parliament in order to find a solution? How about the supari crisis that farmers in Jhapa have been facing for the past few years? Community forests in Jhapa are being exploited by timber mafia while the public that takes care of the forests don’t get to consume its products. This has been a persistent issue for around two decades in Jhapa. How many times have MPs from Jhapa raised those issues in the parliament to seek solutions? It is one thing to make a smart quip to make your constituent look silly in front of the media, but entirely another to actually do what you were elected to do.

The second fact is that despite not listening to us, our politicians pretend to know us and our worries. They pretend to know what’s good for us. The Maoists deserve credit for raising issues of minorities and asking them to fight for equity and equality between all castes, classes and creeds in Nepal. However, the greed of political power got to them and they exploited the marginalized for their political gain, which I am sure they regret today. The leadership formed of upper-caste Brahmin men asked minority groups to follow them in the fight. Now, there is nothing wrong in upper-caste men leading minorities in their struggles. Many white Americans were involved in fighting for the rights of Black Americans in the 1960s. The feminist movement during the 1970s had many men as leaders and supporters. But, how many upper caste Brahmin men have led minority struggles and become wealthy in a span of six years?

The third fact is that the Rana oligarchy has returned in Nepal, and our political leaders are the New Ranas. Major parties create a High Level Political Committee, and this HLPC decides who becomes what, what is to be done, and who does that. Nepali political parties today have mastered the ‘cartel’ theory, second only to OPEC, the organization of petroleum exporting countries. The cartel of high ranking political leaderships has been making decisions as a group and deciding the fate of Nepali politics and democracy for some years now. In the past, they had decided on taking turns on which party gets the prime minister’s post. As a result of this oligarchic decision making, a person who lost from two different constituencies was able to become the prime minister. The same idea of taking turns is being floated again. Money from state coffers has been distributed to uncles, wives, nephews and sons for their vacation or mountaineering efforts. If this doesn’t remind us of the Ranas, I don’t know what will.

However, the fault lies in us. As the great George Carlin mentioned, these politicians did not come out of nowhere. They did not fall from the sky. They come from Nepali parents and families. They come from Nepali public and private schools, colleges and universities. And, not to mention, they are elected by Nepalis. We produced these politicians. We snatch money in the airport from our sisters who return from the Middle East, and then hand her over to the policeman, the protector, to rape her. We solicit bribes in broad daylight and are proud of it. We sweep our homes every morning and throw the dirt outside our walls because we are selfish and we want our homes clean but don’t care an ounce about our streets being dirty. So, the fault lies in us. We are selfish, amoral and greedy people, and we have got the political leaderships that we deserve—selfish, amoral and greedy.

Labels: George Carlin, HLPC, Jhapa, KP Oli, maoists, Marx, oligarchy, politics, Rana