March 17, 2006

By SHRISHTI R.L RANA

The incongruence between the Chinese revolutionary legacy and attempted revolution in Nepal .

In a recent interview to Kantipur daily, Chairman Prachanda reiterated his demand for a Constituent Assembly. Curiously, he vowed to respect the verdict of the people even if they go in for an active monarchy, vehemently opposed by the Maoists in the past. That the Maoist supremo sounded like one of the most compromising revolutionaries of the world is surprising. In order to understand the wider implications of his words, it may be useful to look afresh into Maoism both in theory and practice. Prachanda Path, in theory, is supposedly a fusion of the Chinese model of protracted war and the Russian model of general armed insurrection. No examination of Prachanda Path can be complete without comparing it with the Chinese experience. This is because Prachanda Path emanates from the application of the Maoist principles to other, especially South Asian, countries. A closer scrutiny shows that Prachanda Path is inter-woven in the baffling interplay of historico-geopolitical, socio-economic and cultural factors.

Ideologically, the Maoist revolt in Nepal is said to be based on the experience of the Chinese revolution. The Nepalese Maoist leaders see striking similarities in the agricultural backwardness, exploitation of the peasants, and rampant corruption between pre-revolutionary China and present-day Nepal . Accordingly, they have accepted Mao Tse Tung's principle that the party, the people’s army, and a united front as the three weapons for a people’s revolution. Particularly, they strictly pursue the military strategies of Mao. In effect, this has led to their phenomenal success strategically, yet their goal to establish a people’s republic is still a far cry from the actual political scenario in the Royal Kingdom of Nepal. The Maoist leaders make us believe that the prevalent turmoil and destruction in Nepal is only transitory as it was in China before an era of progress set in. Sadly, though a decade of intense and committed effort has gone by, the Maoists’ minimum demands of socio-economic reforms and even their frequent revision of ideology for a political change in Nepal have failed to unfold any expected outcome. Hence, their contemplated transformation of Nepalese society is still a long way off. Perhaps, the reason behind the gap between promise and achievement is rooted in the fundamental differences between China and Nepal . Nepal ’s Maoists have overlooked the fact that Han and Khas societies are not the same despite an apparent similarity in their over all conditions.

The main difference lies in the historico-geopolitical reality of Nepal . In spite of international hostility, China could gracefully survive sans subsidies, grants, or foreign aid. On the contrary, the price that a landlocked country like Nepal has to pay in return for self-reliance does not make it worthwhile. The Maoist leaders appear to be aware that even if their revolution succeeds internally, it cannot continue without the support of India , and, for that matter, China . Nonetheless, it is not in the interest of India , or any international power, to support the communist revolution of any country in the present international order. Hence, even if the said revolution succeeds in Nepal , that too at the cost of millions of lives, it may bring in more internal chaos and isolate Nepal globally.

The socio-economic conditions of pre-revolutionary China and Nepal differ significantly too. The vast size of China and its abundant resources cannot be compared to those of a tiny state like Nepal . The seemingly ‘disastrous’ revolution paradoxically spelt a new socio-economic order in China by destroying all the obstacles to development. If Nepal had at least a basic infra-structure for development as in China , it might have been possible for a similar revolution to take place in Nepal .Additionally, in China , the revolution had succeeded mainly due to their leaders who had a finer understanding of socio-economic problems. The Maoist leaders of Nepal do not seem to possess similar vision and dynamism. Thus, the revolutionary model that opened a series of developments in China may not usher in a similar process of change in Nepal .

The cultural factor is yet another important dissimilarity that we all seem to ignore. The sense of collective responsibility that is implicit in the Confucian ethic played a largely positive role in the Chinese revolution. For example, it was estimated that till 1978, an average urban Chinese family lived in only 4.2 square meters of housing space without a murmur because the emphasis was on building factories rather than apartments. With the marked influence of globalization on Nepalese culture, the sense of collective responsibility has dwindled. Belligerent nationalism is fast on the wane and even patriotism fails to inspire most Nepalese any more. Possibly, this disappearance could be because they have a choice of working in and migrating to other countries rather than going through the entire struggle and the pain to develop Nepal itself. Their culture of identifying with the community even in the worst period of suffering provided bedrock for the dramatic development in China thereafter. Moreover, in Nepal despite the murder of thousands of people often innocent, by the Maoists there has been no convincing explanation or justification for these atrocities. In China , after killing the exploitative landlords and other feudal elements, there was a concurrent cultural revolution that won the moral support of the masses. A revolution, albeit an attempted one, entails simultaneous efforts for a cultural revolution or else it would turn into sheer terrorism with neither peace nor development. Therefore, in the absence of these factors, ironically, we might get mired perpetually in this destructive phase of the Maoist endeavor for a revolution.

Summing up, China ’s paradigm inspires some other countries as, today, this powerful nation is an epitome of prosperity and progress. Likewise, Nepalese Maoists have followed the Chinese model without realizing the limitations they face. Perhaps, this insensibility is what is making the success of the Nepalese Maoists exceedingly elusive. The Maoist violence is almost wholly unwarranted because there are other non-violent means that can lead to the same goal of growth and progress. Besides, justice and equality cannot be guaranteed even if the Maoist revolution succeeds in Nepal . The ideals of a revolution

are exotic but forcing others to be a part of the suffering implicit in a revolution is also an injustice against which revolutionaries vow to fight. All told, there is a paramount difference between the appealing idealism of the Chinese revolutionary legacy and the objective historic-geopolitical conditions of Nepal . Now, since ,Maoists are all set to intensify their activities and further target Kathmandu, we only hope their leaders come to terms with this obvious incongruence. Is it that the Maoists have unthinkingly or ineluctably embraced a shifting ideology which swings between blatant adhocism and tactical unscrupulousness?