E-Kantipur

I have witnessed the so-called nondescript events of the past fortnight with a sense of curiosity and some sense of foreboding. Nepal’s new prime minister Baburam Bhattarai, known for his simplicity and down-to-earth approach to reality, has been pictured in the media as making a combination of performance and contemplation. Breaking some of the canons appears to be the prime minister’s conscious intention. Going out of the way and meeting people, riding a Nepal-assembled car, calling civil

society leaders and going to their residences and asking for their cooperation in matters of convincing other party leaders to take a more flexible attitude towards his policies have been some of Bhattarai’s noted and unique gestures.

During this period, Bhattarai’s problems have taken an uncanny turn. Differences within the Maoist party triggered by the handing over of the keys to the arms containers to the Special Committee and promises to complete the peace process by Prachanda and Baburam have drawn the main attention of stakeholders. We would not know clearly what may have transpired within the big UCPN-Maoist party on the subject of theory and action, but judging from what has come out so far, we can see a confusing melange of revolutionary position and pragmatism.

Theoretically, a communist party’s battle is fought through a people’s uprising and a non-conformist approach towards partisan political settlements. They project themselves as a monolithic force and believe in winning the state by people’s power. But in the South Asian region, especially in India whose political method has been replicated so far in Nepal, the electoral politics and the powerful texture of multiple strong political parties in the country, revolutionary communist agendas have either to be incorporated in the constitution, or if that is not considered to be the right method, to continue, as some Maoist leaders believe, to fight for a “people’s republic”. But the need to create a win-win situation for all parties in the politics of negotiation forces the communists to change their revolutionary lingo and take a pragmatic attitude towards a solution of the problems. That appears to be the best option.

What is seen and reported in the press in Nepal is that the Maoists have been taking up the cudgels to work with other parties to find ways to solve the peace process and prepare a draft of the constitution. In a short span of time, the Maoists have familiarised themselves with the intricate modes of the politics and poetics of national narration. Their approach to and control of various lucrative establishments and their influence on cultural institutions has taken place very fast. But the latest discourse about ethics and politics and operation of non-political but threatening groups within parties has drawn public attention.

Rumours about the rank and file of strong parties being involved in monetary deals and “tender wars” throughout the country are circulated daily. It is believed that establishments with good or bad records in society from where the guerrillas collect money for warfare can ironically become their favourite haunts. We have to see if that is the situation and if that may be affecting the formation of party policies and giving twists to communist ideology discourses in present-day Nepal.

But a great deal of the Maoist modus operandi is a copy of what has been going on in Nepal for so many years before the Maoists came. All the political parties of Nepal, it seems, are learning; but their apprenticeship and prolonged tuition time has cost the country dearly. The parties may have not realised this, but it is going to cost them very dearly in the end too. People have unfortunately become disillusioned with many political agendas of the parties. That is a serious matter. I have talked to people in the streets and educational, theatrical and literary circles about their concerns. A common answer I have received is that the political parties are guided by a love of power. The differences that appear within parties each time they form a government are caused by differences over the division of ministerial portfolios, but the logic is couched in political rhetoric.

What is Baburam Bhattarai doing as prime minister is not much different from what his predecessors did, but I have noticed that some of his gestures have revealed agonies and difficult human conditions. This morning only I saw a picture of a woman breaking down when Bhattarai went to meet her. I saw old people weeping after meeting the prime minister who had gone to a bridhashram to offer them warm shawls and ask for their blessings. The gestures of prime ministers may have a reiterative quality. I was amused to read a news item about erstwhile prime ministers travelling by bus to find out how much commuters suffer in this country. Visiting old people and meeting ordinary folks is nothing new to a person who has worked with them. But Bhattarai’s choice of location and people for meeting may be symbolic only if that reflects his sincere anxiety of a bigger nature.

Political leaders and ideologues, power seekers and good people in Nepal all have learned one thing — playing a make-believe game. The quality of not seeing what is so visible is very strong among the political leaders and policy makers in the bureaucracy. Over the months, we have seen that the country has been feeding itself on rotten food, rancid butter, rotten fruits; travellers are feeding on old terrible food by paying more money; even the whole rice and grains are worm-infested and hollow. The capital city of Kathmandu is feeding its consumers rotten

sweets, outdated food and medicines and dirty water sealed in camouflaged bottles.

Shakespeare’s play Hamlet opens with the statement, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” In Nepal, so much edible and consumable stuff has been found to be rotten. I like Baburam Bhattarai’s concerns, his gestures are honest and he is a good man; but what plans does he have to solve these problems? More and more agonies will be heard, more people will cry when they meet him, and more people will complain about injustice and violation of their human prestige. In such a context, where do the revolutionary communist ideologies of more revolutions stand? Where does the democratic socialism of the Nepali Congress appear in such a situation? How would the UML people’s multiparty system answer these problems? How would regional parties, the Madhesis especially, address these myriad questions?

Are we already living in a post-political situation? Have we lost the healthy political gains made over the years? These questions reverberate across the length and breadth of the country these days. The greatest concern is the psyche of not moving ahead and not trusting each other in matters of reaching a consensus on issues that are needed to draft a new constitution within the time limit. I am wondering whether it is money, power or ideological matters that are making it so difficult for the responsible actors to act.

Baburam Bhattarai’s visuals are not new, but why and how he is projecting them on the screen of Nepali history as prime minister and a political leader deserves serious attention. We are a few yards away from the solution. If we fail, we are not very far from an incorrigible political chaos either.

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.