Now, we can all wonder why Surendra Pandey would wade into something that could actually shore up the prime minister’s constituency. Directly accusing Oli of conspiring to restore the monarchy might not have fared any better, considering the palpable national mood. At least, the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-Madhav Kumar Nepal faction would not be accused of being willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike.
For now, Pandey’s remark at a sit-in organized by the anti-Oli faction of the Nepal Communist Party has given the republican variant of Hindu statehood the most potent shot in the arm since the Universal Peace Federation-sponsored Asia-Pacific Summit in December 2018, known to us pejoratively as the ‘holy wine’ conference.
Not that Oli has been an innocuous onlooker in all this. Days after visiting Pashupatinath to perform a ‘special worship’, the prime minister announced the government was expediting the construction of a temple to Lord Ram in land he declared last year was the deity’s real birthplace.
Leaders close to Oli, too, have been claiming that he would deliver some extraordinary remarks during a mass gathering being organized by the Oli-led faction on February 5. The venue, moreover, is the road in front of Narayanhity, the former royal palace. The prime minister’s defense at the Supreme Court in the House dissolution case is being waged by a bevy of lawyers with overt royalist sympathies. And Water Supply and Sanitation Minister Mani Thapa inexplicably referred to ‘His Majesty’s Government’ during a speech, which his subsequent apology only helped fuel the frenzy.
Two years ago, ostensibly buoyed by the public’s revulsion at the government’s overt support of a controversial Christian organization’s initiative, Nepali Congress general secretary Shashank Koirala urged the nation to address the issue of restoring Nepal’s Hindu identify through a referendum. Tiptoeing around the monarchy may have made some sense then.
Although his comment was not new, it prompted Rastriya Prajatantra Party president Kamal Thapa to propose joint action with the Nepali Congress. A fortnight later, on the eve of the Nepali Congress’ crucial mahasamiti conference, the BJP lost key state elections seen as a bellwether for the 2019 national elections. Almost on cue, Koirala stepped in to clarify that he had never suggested that Nepal be declared a Hindu state again. In the changed atmosphere, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s much-hyped trip to Janakpur became just another religious visit.
For his part, Thapa hasn’t quite budged from his announcement that the RPP would launch a decisive campaign for the restoration of Hindu statehood. To be sure, he finds himself in the perfect place. In power, the RPP was too inconsequential to make a difference. In opposition, it is too insignificant to heat up the streets. Thapa has acknowledged that the RPP blew the chance Nepali voters gave the party in the 2013 constituent assembly elections. In that sense, its debacle in the parliamentary elections 2019 was deserved. With other organizations taking to the streets with more specific slogans and programs, Thapa may be running out of time.
Still, keeping the Hindu statehood agenda alive helps Thapa keep his party alive. His advocacy of restoring the monarchy remains tepid, which gives Pashupati Shamsher Rana and his Rastriya Prajatantra Party faction solid points for political scrupulousness. Rana wants to redesignate Nepal as a Hindu state because an overwhelming part of the population professes the faith but retain the country’s republican character. Rana has since begun advocating a return to the monarchy but still believes someone other than ex-king Gyanendra would sit on the throne.
The Nepali Congress, however, has a more arduous job. Having helped to legitimize the Unified Marxist Leninists as well as the Maoists during the post-2006 years, the party was late in realizing that the communists no longer needed democratic crutches. Democratic socialism need not necessarily be incompatible with the overt espousal of Hinduism, as the Christian Socialists in Europe attest to.
Still, religion puts the Nepali Congress in risky territory. When the party remained wedded to constitutional monarchy, its link with Hinduism was ancillary. For a party that had to resort to the creative ambiguity of a comma in the 1990 Constitution on religion and statehood, a full-blown embrace of Hinduism would be, well, a giant leap of faith.
And we haven’t even started addressing the more elementary issues often recounted in this space. Can the mere fact that most Nepalis happened to be born Hindus be extrapolated to mean that the state’s character should be designated as such? Sure, most Nepalis are Hindus. But didn’t they vote resoundingly three times for parties explicit in their secular affirmation and orientation? And don’t officially atheist organizations today hold the largest number of elected seats?
Then, there’s the inevitable question of the monarchy. Granted, not every Hindu is a monarchist. (Nor can every secularist be deemed a republican.) But when you talk about the restoration of Hindu statehood, consider the individual/institution needed to officiate such a state. True, our presidents have presided over Dasain and other religious observances with admirable gusto. (Lately, the president and prime minister seem to have been carried away by their zeal.) But the president is doing so under a secular dispensation. A Hindu state would have very little room for either institutional tentativeness or the vagaries of an individual’s temperament.
By definition, a Hindu republic won’t have a king, who has traditionally solemnized Hindu statehood. We also would lack a bada gurujyu and mool purohit. We do have the mool bhatta at Pashupati, but, then, we already want someone more indigenous there, don’t we? A return to the 1990 constitution would solve those problems, but the Hindu republic votaries believe they have a catchy slogan that only needs a credible storyline.
This is an updated version of a post that originally appeared on Saturday, December 15, 2018.
