Fraternal Ties Fraught With Frightening Thoughts

He’s really messing with us, right?
The memorandum of understanding signed between Nepal Communist Party (NCP) and the Communist Party of China (CPC) on establishing fraternal ties has triggered an array of suspicions and speculations. Beijing has tried to allay those misgivings, but almost with deliberate tepidity.
NCP co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ – the man assumed to have taken many of Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli’s party responsibilities – has also borrowed a key Oli personality trait: speaking allegorically. One moment it’s the chicken-versus-eagle parable about the NCP’s present and future. Before we even started scratching our heads, Dahal affirmed he would not rest until the NCP became the Nepali people’s only political party.
Forget the monarchy, such impenetrable profundity would be enough to stir the spirits of the Ranas, Mallas, Lichhchavis, Kiratis and everyone preceding them in the bygone.
Ordinarily, the people wouldn’t bother too much about political fraternizing. We all tend to hang out more and more with people we agree with. Institutionally, the Nepali Congress’s links with Socialist International gave it vital international legitimacy. (Although not enough to prevent the chairman of the Rastriya Panchayat from leading the Nepali delegation to the International Parliamentary Union.)
But training Nepali comrades in the virtues and wisdom of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era? Forgive our ignorance, but the only thing new the incumbent Chinese President is trying to do is break the term limit imposed by Deng Xiaoping.
Now, Chinese Ambassador Hou Yanqi has made it clear that while Xi Jinping Thought does provide a new underpinning for, among other things, global governance, Beijing does not seek to impose its political ideology on any country. Well, probably not.
Still, the context and coincidences are too chilling. With the swiftness of a magician’s wand, Nepal’s two major communist factions that were once set on obliterating the other decided to join hands ahead of parliamentary elections in 2017. If there was a magician anywhere, it sure seemed like s/he was domiciled across the Himalayas.
The promise of unity was enough to allow the two factions to jointly win a majority in parliament, and subsequently formalize their unity. Since assuming power, Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli’s government has worked unapologetically toward abridging civil liberties as well as freedom of speech and expression. During this same period, communist luminaries representing both the erstwhile Marxist-Leninist and Maoist strands have been praising the Chinese political system as one worthy of emulation.
Dahal, having graduated from co-chair to de facto executive chairman of the NCP, has brought back some of the ‘people’s war’-era radicalism in his rhetoric. Even the seemingly innocuous words he uses are scarcely reassuring in context. For example, Dahal says the Oli government is not in ‘favor’ of ‘controlling’ the press, all the while signaling an intent to establish a one-party state.
What are the Chinese up to? Sure, they have been seeking a more forceful assertion of Nepali commitment to upholding Beijing’s interests here. The politburo up north might not be terribly interested in Nepal as part of their usual agenda. But it’s fair to assume they have Nepal in mind whenever the issue of the Dalai Lama’s death/succession comes up. Also, we can’t be that far away from their deliberations on China’s relations with India, the US-led Indo-Pacific Strategy and the Himalayan front of the containment/encirclement threat.
Now, those political managers certainly wouldn’t want to honor Nepal with a Xi visit in exchange for nothing. Training Nepali communists – those in power, at that – on Xi Jinping Thought might be deemed as a big-enough fig leaf to serve as quid pro quo. After all, Xi has been dangling the prospect of a visit for far too long that Nepalis have prepared themselves to believe in it when they see it happen.
But, then, might the Chinese be up to something else? Maybe this snake-scorpion-frog equilibrium has become so tedious that they have decided to make a move in anticipation of the responses of the two other protagonists?
So, no, Dahal may not be exactly messing with us. But he sure seems to be having some fun while he’s at it.

It’s Not What You Say, It’s What We Hear

Did our head of state publicly make fun of the way the leader of the opposition speaks?
A spokesman for President Bidya Bhandari insists that she was merely commenting on the venue’s poor public address system. In his characteristic magnanimity, Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba says he isn’t offended even if Bhandari had indeed dissed him.
The episode took Maila Baje back to the aftermath of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation summit held in Kathmandu in early January 2002. Then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba had declared a state of emergency and deployed the military against the Maoist rebels. The Nepali Congress was still united and Deuba was on professional, if not entirely pleasant, terms with party president Girija Prasad Koirala.
At one point, Koirala felt comfortable enough to tell his one-time protégé that he should have addressed the South Asian summit in Nepali, as his English speech pattern was near-incomprehensible. Deuba instantly responded: “My Nepali is scarcely better, Girijababu.”
Not that Deuba is always able to let things go so easily. When he gets mad, he really blows the gasket. But, then, during such times, he is more likely be operating ‘under influence’, as they say. Broadly speaking, this innate tendency toward self-deprecation has helped Deuba professionally as well as personally.
So why haven’t we been able to shrug off this Bhandari-Deuba thing? Maybe because it is symptomatic of our political times. What matters more is what the president, prime minister, or any other public figure is perceived to have said. Bhandari’s words are there in the ether for all of us to see. So are her facial expressions and physical gestures.
There is a palpable feeling that the political order has given the people the right to speak their minds but also guaranteed the leaders’ right not to listen. Even then, freedom of expression is being curtailed on one pretext or the other. We can debate ad nauseum how valid or widespread such popular perceptions are. That’s immaterial. The fact is that it is there. And since it will be a convenient rallying point for every kind of discontent that is bound to grow, the perception, too, can only grow.
In defense of the president, public speaking is an art not everyone is naturally proficient in. Improvisation comes easily to a rare few. Others must have in reserve a recovery strategy, if they are intent on taking the risk. A president already under fire for extravagant pomp and ceremony should know better than to admire the preceding speaker for the applause he received while complaining of the incomprehensibility of his content.
Moreover, who nitpicks with the sound system at a solemn function held in remembrance of such an iconic personality as Ganesh Man Singh, especially when the audience hasn’t complained? True, Deuba’s tirades at her government must have become too unpalatable to the president, but it’s not her job to defend it. For one thing, why relitigate the ‘my government’ controversy that’s barely been put to rest? For another, Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli is far more adept – institutionally and individually – in defending his government.
The people may be full of prejudices – nothing personal here, Madam President. It’s a hazard of our touchy-feely times. The last thing a public figure should do is give the impression of fueling those prejudices – unless, of course, there’s something else going on here.

When Words Collide So G(eog)raphically

Our former Fierce Once has stepped in it again.
What instigated this latest expression of geopolitical acuity? Or, to put it less charitably, was this the time to ingratiate himself to the Chinese so obsequiously?
In terms of burnishing his credentials as the next prime minister, Nepal Communist Party (NCP) co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ might have seen the meeting with visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi as too good an opportunity to miss.
While briefing the dignitary on his new role as the executive head of the NCP in all but name, Dahal could easily have been carried away by recent developments in the country and outside. The shakiness of the existing Nepali political order, the dampening of the spirit of Wuhan between the Asian giants and the sole superpower’s penchant for perpetuating perplexity did provide a somber backdrop. Amid all this, might Dahal have attempted to explain all the wonderful ways in which he would steer relations with China as premier?
If so, it would not have been out of place for the US-led Indo-Pacific Strategy to enter the discussions. Dahal has been quoted as assuring Wang that “Nepal firmly adheres to the policy of non-alignment, disagrees with the so-called Indo-Pacific Strategy, and opposes any attempt to contain or thwart China’s development.”
Dahal’s allies insist that he merely reiterated his party’s line on the US-led strategy and its implications for Nepal’s neighborhood. Still, the NCP co-chair could have been more sensitive to the fact that his party also leads a government that has had a hard time confirming or denying Nepal’s precise place in the Indo-Pacific Strategy.
Is that lapse sufficient reason to pursue Dahal? After all, the brouhaha is based on a Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs news release on the Wang-Dahal meeting. One key point of contention is that the release used the antecedent so-called – without quotes – to describe Dahal’s characterization of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. The clear implication thus would be that one of the two leaders of Nepal’s ruling party rejected the notion that the American policy on and approach to a vast geography even amounted to a strategy. But, then, all we have is the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ word.
If Nepal is indeed a part of a US-led initiative to maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific as part of sustaining peace and prosperity, that doesn’t mean it has opened itself as another front for the containment of China. So Dahal shouldn’t be made to answer for Beijing’s misapprehensions. Nepal’s inability to reassure China on this count is not tantamount to its complicity in the original charge.
But, then, words regularly tend to conceal more than they clarify. And who knows this better than Dahal? He has perfected the amalgamation of bloviation, equivocation, obfuscation and prevarication into a profitable political tool.
Indeed, the Americans and Chinese want him to clarify matters for their own reasons. In the process, the Americans have provided clarification of their own. The Indo-Pacific Strategy should be understood as only policy and not a club which would welcome Nepal as a new member, the chief of the Political Section of the American Embassy in Kathmandu said, almost validating the qualifier attributed to Dahal by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs news release.
Maybe Dahal can pull this off to his advantage. Heck, he may already have done so: by keeping alive the notion that the Indo-Pacific Strategy is not aimed at containing China and letting all parties grandstand on its underlying nature and significance.

What’s Sauce For the Goose …

It’s taken more than a couple of days, but we’ve finally woken up to the ‘fact’ that the much-ballyhooed expose by that retired Indian gumshoe might not have been so unvarnished.
To be fair, Amar Bhushan has clearly labeled his latest thriller Inside Nepal/The Walk-In as a work inspired by true events. Based on the novel’s assertion that Indian intelligence agents plotted the emaciation and eventual elimination of Nepal’s monarchy, Rastriya Prajatantra Party President Kamal Thapa went to the extent of demanding a parliamentary probe.
Let’s be honest, here. Those mocking how easily Nepali reporters, editors and analysts could be taken for a ride, too, were no less stunned for the first few days after a reputable Indian newspaper published a story based on Bhushan’s book.
Not that there aren’t other curiosities galore. When the book, originally released in June, went out for early reviews, the title was The Walk-In, one of the two stories in the volume. By the time Daily News and Analysis wrote up a story conveying the impression that the book was a memoir by a former special director of India’s external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the title had changed to Inside Nepal, the other story.
The three-month lag time, the turnaround of the title and the relative respectability of the newspaper are enough to convey the subplot. And from the perspective of those who wanted the story out in this way at this time, the mission was accomplished.
With enough plausible deniability, RAW has helped enough Nepalis believe what they have always wanted to about their recent history, i.e., that the abolition of the monarchy was not an indigenous undertaking.
When something is said to have been inspired by true events, what proportion of fact and fiction are we talking about? Any Hollywood scriptwriter taking a best-selling book to screen can tell you that he or she would feel comfortable with retaining about a quarter to a third of the original. These days, the proviso is invoked mostly to ward off ruinous lawsuits.
It’s hard to believe that someone with Bhushan’s rank and experience in his field could have come out with the book without a thorough vetting process from his former employers. Still, who’s to say that Bhushan hasn’t used the based-on-true-events stipulation to shield himself from the consequences of revealing the truth RAW originally intended to? After all, he was active on the ground when a trade-and-transit embargo not-too-furtively turned into an uprising against the palace-led partyless polity in 1990. 
In the old days, truth was the best defense when it came to libel, slander and the like. Would it be misplaced to surmise that RAW has decided to send a deeper message to its local cohorts. When the Nepali monarchy was eventually abolished in 2008, the prime external instigators surely considered it a done deal. If the institution is inching closer to restoration these past months, according to the RAW’s line of thinking, it is must be because of the local collaborationists’ incompetence.
Clearly, Comrade Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ and his erstwhile Maoists are under pressure here. Instead of sharing the spoils of the parliamentary mainstream they once derided, maybe the ‘people’s warriors’ should have worked harder to ensure that the monarchy remained lifeless. What must have additionally sensitized RAW is the fact that the monarchy’s support is growing among people who were once steady republicans or had reconciled themselves to the change.
If the monarchy were to be restored, the Nepali Congress would have the easiest way out. It can blame Girija Prasad Koirala for putting personal vengeance above national viability without the grand old man available to respond. Those Congress leaders like Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Bimalendra Nidhi anxious to defend Koirala would be doing so at their own peril.
The erstwhile Unified Marxist-Leninists can all rally behind Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli and resurrect his you-can’t-go-to-the-moon-on-a-bullock-cart refrain. Dahal seems to have gotten the memo, at least considering his avowal to deploy his full might against those opposing Nepal’s momentous changes.
As for those of us LOLing at how easily some of us swallowed the fiction-as-fact ruse, maybe we should take a deep breath. Didn’t we lap up every detail about a supposedly seedy and scandalous palace when the guy who brought out Blood Pond or whatever it was called had described his book as a work of fiction? And what about the short-lived Bhandaphor series after the 1990 political change? Just because White Tiger remains a bestseller after all these decades doesn’t mean that it's the last word on what Jang Bahadur Rana was or wasn’t.

Familiarity Breeds Contretemps

Amid modern India’s persistent and perspicuous anxieties over Chinese motives, intentions and influence in Nepal, there has always been a small silent and serene constituency in New Delhi confident that all would be well once Nepalis got to know their northern neighbors better.
A peculiar opportunity arose in March 2006 when Beijing pulled the rug from under the royal regime by sending state councilor Tang Jiaxuan to open a dialogue with anti-palace parties. This must have buoyed Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, whose organization Beijing had denounced for having tarnished the Great Helmsman teachings.
The development also had a sobering lesson that would have come in handy during Dahal’s ill-fated premiership in 2008-2009. Having made grandiose statements about all-round newness, Dahal soon felt the gravitational pull from the north too discomforting. After all, Dahal was too human not to have a spine. His eventual resignation speech was a tirade against the ‘gods’ of the south. That he also intended the message for northern audiences became apparent by the deftness with which he shifted his (geo)politics.
Dahal didn’t need to detail his unidirectional disenchantment. Someone once so keen on establishing discontinuities, Dahal was merely the latest in a string of Nepali leaders befuddled by the nature of state-to-state reciprocity when it came to relations with China.
Bahadur Shah could be forgiven for misunderstanding the content and quality of China’s friendship and support because Nepal had not yet become a tributary to the Middle Kingdom. The Chinese were under no obligation to interfere in his power struggles with his nephew, King Rana Bahadur Shah. However, Bhimsen Thapa and Chandra Shamsher Rana were justified in wondering whether the trek up north every five years with goodies-laden beasts was worth the trouble if Nepalis were expected to contend with the British juggernaut alone.
Prime Minister Tanka Prasad Acharya’s desire to establish a road link between Nepal and China was rebuffed, even though Zhou Enlai had so eloquently described our two peoples as ‘blood brothers’. Acharya must have wondered whether worsening Sino-Indian relations alone were responsible for Beijing’s sudden enthusiasm for the project a few years later during B.P. Koirala’s premiership.
King Mahendra is accused of agreeing to the road project only to spite India. His ‘communism-doesn’t-come-in-a-taxicab’ quip entrenched his pro-Chinese image among those already so persuaded. Even if the king had let Tulsi Giri sign the relevant agreement in order to endure the expected blowback from New Delhi, can that explain subsequent events? Chinese propaganda against Nepal during the early years of the Cultural Revolution may be partly explained by the madness of that decade. Still, don’t we need to explore why King Mahendra never visited China again or why no senior Chinese leader landed in Kathmandu as part of their regional sojourns?
Sure, the Chinese played host to Crown Prince Birendra, who subsequently as monarch was a regular visitor up north. That ties into another question. Was China’s seeming indifference in Crown Prince Dipendra rooted only in the fact that his father was actively engaged in steering Nepal-China relations regardless of the nature of the political regime in place? During his brief incumbency, Crown Prince Paras seemed to have a better standing up north than did Dipendra.
On paper, at least, Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli has inaugurated a new era in bilateral relations. The Indians continue to make noises here and there. But they seem to have grown used to a more assertive Chinese presence in Nepal. Nepalis, for our part, have long marveled at the miracle the Chinese have produced in the past four decades. Technology has overcome geographical barriers to connectivity.
Yet tough questions persist. Are high-speed trains arriving here anytime soon? And what might they carry to and fro? Can petroleum products come through Chinese ports at prices Nepalis can afford? Chinese pledges to uphold and safeguard Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity have always sounded good. Does the record inspire enough confidence?
The recent arrests of Chinese human traffickers, bank hackers and on-flight robbers can be construed as confirmation that our northern neighbors are as human as those of the south we know so well — and, for that matter, as ourselves. The contretemps that familiarity with the Chinese have bred should encourage Nepalis to know ourselves better in order to navigate the neighborhood more easily.