Submit your Article

I had asked a young researcher studying BP Koirala for her Mphil an easy question: Did she find anything new about him that we haven’t yet been told? Her answer was naive for my taste: she said she found him ‘double-faced’.

I didn't mince words to say that she was being utterly naive. Humans are complex in all manners, more so in matters of morality in politics.

The foundation of Nepal's Grand Old Party was laid in India, inspired by the Indian National Congress. Established as an elite intellectual group in 1885, the INC slowly evolved into a political force, with years of rigorous deliberation. By the time the Koirala sons were growing up in exile, the Congress under Nehru-Gandhi was preparing for succession of power after the British. It was a movement that united India.

Young Nepali students studying in India started organizing themselves and finally, BP was able to unite three different parties—two in Varanasi and one in Kolkata to form the Nepali Congress.

From letters and diaries of that time of the legend himself and those of friends and relatives, the researcher had concluded that BP was double-faced. I laughed out loud. After research of many years, she had finally found out that BP the legend was also human.

I admire BP for the liberal-semi anarchist-renaissance man he was. King Mahendra punished a popularly elected government and established People's Panchayat—different name for Democracy by King's Grace, and put BP in jail. His prison years were well spent in creating some of the masterpieces of Nepali literature.

He was learned, and had the gumption to take up challenges and live for those. But his charisma was more of a romantic sort. Some calculations went wrong, and many decisions backfired. His health too did not support him much, and the rest is history: he has become the most-hyped leader in Nepal with very less real impact and hardly a legacy to speak for him.

In politics, there isn't much that has come from BP after King Mahendra hijacked history, but the real question is: why could Mahendra himself not become the Lee Kuan Yew of Nepal?

Lee came to power in Singapore around the time of Mahendra's coup. And he was the prime minister for 31 years, till 1990, drawing strong parallels with the Panchayat rule of 30 years in Nepal.

What worked there and what did not here? This is an important question to be asked.

A simple explanation that has been tried is that Nepal is bigger and more complex. To some extent, this may be true. It may be unjust to draw parallels between city states like Singapore and a geographically difficult country like Nepal. Even the ethnic diversity is far more precarious in Nepal.

But blaming it all on the environment and structure is not the right approach. However difficult the task of sorting this mess, somebody has to get it done.

In the book Makers of Modern Asia published in 2014, Ramchandra Guha hasn't included BP among the 11 leaders profiled: Gandhi, Nehru and Indira Gandhi from India; Chiang Kai Shek, Mao, Zhou, and Deng from China; with Ho Chi Minh, Sukarno, Lee, and Bhutto closing the list.

Some intellectuals in Nepal were disgruntled that no Nepali was included in the list; they believed at least BP deserved a mention. But I thought his exclusion was justified.

The fact that in the 70-plus years of post Rana rule, we do not have a name that can be taken as the maker of an era speaks volumes about the lack of leadership Nepal has lived through. We have names that have been in power for a long time, like Mahendra, or leaders who have been able to keep politics centered on them for long, like Prachanda, but hardly anyone whose legacy will have an enduring impact.

In Nepal, there is a class of intellectuals whose main job has been to normalize all kinds of eccentricities that the political class has thrown at us. They are so tightly engaged with the ruling elite that knowingly or unknowingly, they are hardwired to take side of the status quo, and justify inefficiency, ineptitude, and lack of character among leaders.

This class of intellectuals has long been arguing that the hunger for a charismatic leader is misplaced, and development of healthy institutions is at the core of long-term progress. There are no fundamental flaws in this line of thinking, but it ignores one important factor: the context and the demographic window of opportunity. There can be no doubt that a charismatic leader with high integrity can make a real impact.

Politics and culture are not homogenous, and hence the mindset pushed by Western thinking ignores our context completely. The institutions of the West developed gradually while those of most new states were put into form immediately.  

In non-Western nations, institutions have been made strong only by extraordinary dedication of legendary personalities. Saying that Nepal's case will be an exception, is stretching the idea of institutions too far. The fact is that we need a Lee Kwan Yew to sort out the mess we are in, and however hard the punditry tries to make a case against it, without a transition to a presidential system of governance, we are doomed.

There has been a never-ending debate whether circumstance or personality shapes events. In case of Singapore, Lee settled the argument in his favor through sheer grit, and dedication. Singapore is a living statement now which the world can't disregard with any pile up of words or clever punditry.

While watching ‘A Suitable Boy’ (a TV adaptation of Vikram Seth’s novel) last week I noticed the village scenes set in 1950’s India are exactly what you would see today. The same can be said for many parts of Nepal. But yet, in others, time has moved on…

Around 15 years ago I visited Meghauli in Chitwan district. At that time Meghauli had an operational airstrip, mainly for guests to Tiger Tops lodge, but empty seats were also available to locals. Being familiar with ‘jungle’ village life, Meghauli, even at that time, was pretty progressive. Thanks mainly to one man, Hari Bhandary. The story starts back in the 1980’s when, the then young Hari was determined to lift the health conditions of his community. Through various chance meetings with visitors, most importantly Peter and Beryl Shore from the UK, who remain firm friends today, Bhandary started on his journey.  While working with leprosy and handicapped patients in Kathmandu, Bhandary came to realise his desire to study medicine would involve years away from home. Whereas his community needed help now. So in 1997, Bhandary opened a health post called Clinic Nepal.

When I visited around 2005, Bhandary was busy installing tube wells in the area so that women would no longer have to trail down to the river to collect tainted water for household use. A total of 246 hand pumps were installed and seven ground wells dug to supply clean water to five to 10 households. 

As time went on the projects under Clinic Nepal’s umbrella grew to incorporate, not just health and free mobile health camps, but water and sanitation, education, income generation, and even a Scout Group. I continued to visit over the years to watch this transformation. But I have missed a couple of years…

In those missing years, those tube wells of old have been overtaken by the Meghauli Town Water Supply and Sanitation Project (MTWSS) that benefits a whopping 1,892 households through a huge water and reserve tank. Not content with this, Bhandary set his heart on a more sustainable way of providing clean drinking water. In only a year (2019-2020) Clinic Nepal, with funds from the Government of Nepal through the Town Development Fund, ADB, as well asits own funds, set up a 100kW solar PV plant. 

Not only does this solar plant provide electricity for the immediate area, they are selling electricity back to the grid, and the proceeds of this (over Rs 73,000 in the first month!) are going back into the community. Initially to pay back the loan and now for system maintenance. The final repayment of the loan from the Town Development Fund was made last month (one year after the start of the project) and everything is up and running. A sustainable and environmentally-friendly way to pump drinking water and provide electricity to the community while saving money. Quite an achievement.

And as we are talking, I think back. Actually I had been to Meghauli twice before that meeting in 2005. In the early 1990s, and then towards the end of the decade, that second time accompanied by my aunt. Both times I went to watch elephant polo, organized by Tiger Tops, which used to be held annually in Meghauli. Now discontinued in favour of responsible tourism, I do remember on one of these occasions seeing the American actor Stephen Seagal there. I may even have bumped into Hari Bhandary without realising it!  

Rabia of Basra, an eighth-century Sufi saint, was on her deathbed when Sufyan visited her. He asked if she needed any help. A peerless mystic, Rabia said she had given herself to God, so no help was necessary. He then asked if she desired anything. Rabia answered: “My desire is meaningless. I have given all my desires to God.”

Sufyan’s ego got a great jolt. The famed and powerful scholar of his time felt dwarf in front of a frail old woman. He fell to his knees, and said: “O God, forgive me! My devotion is not as strong as this woman’s.”

Rabia smiled, and remarked: “You don’t get the point. You are seeking forgiveness for yourself. Forgive God first, and you will be forgiven.”

Thus goes the story. Believing it or not is up to us. We can either draw valuable lessons from it or set it aside as a myth. A mind open to truth can find many gems of wisdom in this little story.

Perhaps the most obvious gem here is that of bhakti, or true devotion. Sufyan considered himself a man of God, but in front of the God-attuned saint, he saw his own meagerness. But still he couldn't get the point. What could be the point here?

Rabia told him to forgive God instead of seeking forgiveness for himself. For a true devotee, God is not different from yourself. When you consider yourself different from God, bhakti gets corrupted and trade begins. And the corrupted bhakta (devotee) pleads: "O God! Please do this for me. If you do this, I will visit your temple. I will make offerings to you."

For Rabia, God is not different from her. It's His desire that she desires, it's His plan that she is working out. If He has planned destitution and disease for her, why try to change? Since she has God with her, any outside help would be redundant. Why would God—the ultimate source of all help—need anybody else's help? If you have got the ultimate itself, what else would you desire?

Rabia's oneness with the ultimate is rare. And when you are in total unison with it, you know what works and what doesn't. You know the rules that govern this world. One such rule that Rabia was trying to tell Sufyan is that you leave aside your desires. You leave aside your selfish motives. You leave aside even the wish of forgiveness for yourself. Instead, you wish everything for God. When you are one with the ultimate and you wish something for it, you will find fulfillment for yourself, in higher degree, imbued with a higher potency. That happens with faultless devotion, or true bhakti, the way Rabia lived.

When the Soviets opposed Nepal’s UN membership in 1949, the country had to wait for six more years before it was admitted to the global body in 1955. The newly independent India, a de facto Soviet ally at the time, wanted to secure its hold over its traditional backyard. The Soviets also saw Nepal as falling under the American camp after the establishment of Nepal-US diplomatic ties in 1947. The small landlocked country thus became an early victim of Cold War politics. 

Nonetheless, back in the 1950s and 60s, Nepal wielded some influence abroad, whether under King Mahendra or briefly under BP Koirala. They were perhaps the only two leaders in Nepali history who could deal with their foreign counterparts as equals, betraying no inferiority complex. Koirala held his own against Jawaharlal Nehru and Zhou Enlai. His 1960 address to the UN General Assembly—where he held forth on ‘big power complex’, China’s UN membership, Algerian independence, among others—has not been matched by another Nepali leader since. 

Mahendra was also completely at ease chatting up head of Soviet Presidium Kliment Voroshilov or American President Dwight D. Eisenhower. His 1960 state visit to the US, with roadside crowds cheering his motorcade, and his address to the joint session of US Congress, were both unprecedented.

Perhaps it’s no accident that the two times Nepal has been a member of the UN Security Council (1969-70 and 1988-89) were during the Panchayat days. With the domestic population under the monarch’s absolute control, he could focus his attention outwards, contributing to a consistent foreign policy. The prowess of diplomats like Risikesh Shah, Yadunath Khanal, and Bhek Bahadur Thapa who were at his disposal would also be hard to replicate today.  

Prolonged instability after the 1990 democratic change—greatly exacerbated by the Maoist insurgency—did significant damage to Nepal’s international standing. As the newly liberated political parties fought for power among themselves, Nepal’s national interest was compromised, once again showing that only a stable country can successfully project is power abroad.  

As the head of a powerful government with two-thirds majority, KP Oli has some clout on the international stage. Under Oli, Nepal has generated more interest abroad than at any other time since 1990. Yet nobody takes him seriously. This again owes to political in-fighting in Nepal, even within the ruling NCP, and the country’s ad hoc foreign policy (the abrupt dismissal of Leela Mani Poudyal as Nepal’s envoy to China a case in point). Even among the ruling NCP, factions compete for ambassadorships. 

Nepal’s increasing proximity to China, to the exclusion of everyone else, is also doing damage to her carefully cultivated non-aligned image. In fact, Nepal is these days known more for having a government closely aligned to its communist brethren to the north than it is as a vibrant federal democratic republic. Nor does the country have a coherent foreign policy. It is still the norm to hand out ambassadorships based on personal connections. Unnecessary embassies have been opened abroad while the ones that needed strengthening have been neglected. The two-third Oli government cannot even pass a long-agreed foreign compact through a parliament it controls. 

On the 75th anniversary of the United Nations, it is worth looking back at the days when Nepal was both seen and heard in important capitals and forums.