For almost 240 years, political forces of Nepal had been reinforcing feudal monarchy as the greatest symbol of national unity. But feudal monarchy had been throttling democracy for the luxuries of a few elites, who never minded starving millions.
When millions of Nepalis rose up against the hereditary Rana regime in 1950, the Rana rulers compromised with India for remaining safe in Nepal and for positions and possessions. They had not made a compromise to empower the Nepalis but to maintain their dominance in different subtle ways. Independent scholars can still find the most privileged positions of Ranas in Nepal even today. This proves that the New Delhi-mediated compromise in 1950, in reality, did not intend to democratize and enhance Nepal. If the New Delhi-based compromise between India, Rana rulers and the Nepali Congress were in the Nepalis’ favor, they would not have to continue their anti-feudalism struggles even after 58 years today.
The constituent assembly poll is going to be held on April 10 for the most vital purpose of formally terminating the existing feudal rule. Against this feudal rule, Maoists had been engaged in armed insurgency from 1996 to 2006. About 15,000 people were reportedly killed (hundreds remain still disappeared.) during the decade-long armed insurgency. Most of them were killed by the state, as media and human rights reports have confirmed.
The feudal regime, with which different parties such as the Nepali Congress and the Emaalay cooperated in the near past, launched a military coup d’etat in February 2005 and censored people’s daily life by defying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. King Gyanendra, as the chief representative of the feudal regime, acted as the active chairman of the cabinet. He tried to justify his autocracy on the basis of the US war on terror. King Gyanendra tried to depict Nepal’s political insurgency as similar to Al Quaedian terrorism. His regime obtained military, economic and technical assistance from the US Administration, India and the European Union in the name of defeating Maoist ‘terrorism’ in Nepal. His approach of blind suppression without considering people’s suffering and their sympathy with the insurgents carrying their agenda further isolated him from the majority of people. This is how the atmosphere for the abolition of monarchy further developed in Nepal.
During the feudal regime’s counterinsurgency period, the feudal rulers, including their secondary forces Nepali Congress and Emaalay never raised the insurgents’ grassroot agenda for discussion purposes. They thought it would be a huge treason to discuss the grassroot agenda.
While the Maoist rebels had demanded for the constituent assembly to end feudalism and establish an inclusive republic, the monarchist forces, including the Nepali Congress and the Emaalay, treated such an agenda as something detestable. Today, the Nepali Congress and the Emaalay argue that they are the most people-loving democratic parties in Nepal. Although they have officially declared themselves as republicans, people will have to wait and see what type of role they are going to play in the coming constituent assembly. It is true that they have considerable numbers of supporters with them. But the way they treat the majority agenda (working class people’s concerns) shows they have not still made up their mind to come out of the feudal infrastructures. One vivid proof of this is their insistence on maintaining all the existing feudal mechanisms based on which they are contesting the constituent assembly polls because they believe they can still secure their privileges with the help of such mechanisms.
The Nepali Congress, the Emaalay and the Sadbhawana Party (Ananda Devi), members of the Seven Party Coalition government, have agreed to deploy the army in an undeclared form. The comprehensive peace accord signed with the Maoist rebels prohibits them from mobilizing army without the rebels’ consent. But they have unilaterally decided to mobilize the army on April 10 though the rebels have opposed the decision. They say there has been no such decision with their consent. What is notable in this context is that the parties previously in state power under the leadership of the feudal monarchy are still making efforts to secure their positions by mobilizing the army, which is customarily sympathetic to the monarchy. It is extremely surprising and ironical that the parties labeling themselves as ‘democratic’ cling to feudal concepts, attitudes and mechanisms against their own advocacy of democracy and human rights. A few months ago, Nepal’s Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala’s daughter and current de facto Prime Minister Sujata Koirala told the Nepali service of BBC that she favored monarchy in Nepal. She said monarchy was a symbol of national unity and so it deserved its protection. She said so against the norms of the interim constitution in which the republic has been written. In fact, this opinion of hers was far too outdated because by utilizing the tag of ‘national unity,’ Nepal’s feudal monarchy divided people, manufactured artificial consensus through media manipulation and buried grassrot agenda. The feudal monarchy for 240 years became such a ‘symbol of national unity’ under which people’s human dignity was enslaved. Monarchist intellectuals still preach such a symbol. Such intellectuals cultured by feudalism will never understand what the symbol of Nepal’s national unity is. The state restructuring agenda include the representation of all ethnicities, socially stratified and regionally isolated communities. People from all walks of life participated in the April uprising of 2006. All kinds of communities rose up against the feudal regime continuously defying the military curfews up to 19 days. This was and is the unity within diversity, never forgettable. Thus, diversity is the best symbol of Nepal’s national unity. Diversity can be utilized most productively to make Nepal one of the most democratic and prosperous nations. Diversity may also be misused to divide Nepal. Feudalists are trying to misuse diversity to divide Nepal and to establish medieval natured regencies. It is apparent that only privileged and elite rulers are going to lose heavily after the constituent assembly polls in Nepal. The process of mainstreaming all the deprived communities will begin through the work of drafting a new constitution based on the synthesized concept of federal republic. Feudalists will try to ignite people’s diversity violently while the drafting work is on. This is what all the political forces, who are in favor of national unity, must incessantly remind themselves of.
Leave Your Comments