Being a nation that survives on foreign aid, our political destiny belongs to those nations that are helping us establish institutions and providing humanitarian support.

By Nischal M. S. Basnyat

Nischal M. S. BasnyatOur erudite technocrats compare Nepal to India and China, our dedicated politicians look towards the US and western European nations for “democratic inspiration” and our educated elite give examples of Singapore and Hong Kong as models of development for our troubled nation.

Nepal, however, is very different: we do not control our own political destiny. We are not the ones dictating our own fate, to a great extent, it is done so by powers far greater and we are merely futile pawns running the daily fiasco. This isn’t my acknowledgement of god, nor do I believe in the stars having to be aligned. In the long term, neither the King, the political parties, nor the Maoists can completely control Nepal’s political path.

Being a nation that survives on foreign aid, our political destiny belongs to those nations that are helping us establish institutions, countries that are providing humanitarian support and states that are really feeding the people of Nepal. In the short term we might occupy and confuse ourselves with domestic politics, yet eventually our politics and policies will be dictated by far greater and richer nations, without whom Nepal will starve.

It is not how Nepal uses its aid that is questionable but rather how that aid uses Nepal. The term “humanitarian blackmail” may be used to describe our bittersweet relation with donor nations. The phrase has a negative connotation, as it is a strategy that ensures Nepal receives aid only if we do according to their plans. If our country leans too right, as in absolute-Monarchy, or if our country leans too left, as in a full Maoist state, these nations will keep us on track by removing aid, without which our nation, regardless of politics, will crumble. In this way, Nepal will experiment for decades, sometimes with absolute monarchy, sometimes with Maoism, until it balances itself at a moderate political approach, modeled after the political structure of the very nations fueling Nepal ‘s survival.

History teaches us a great lesson on how this has been done in Nepal. Many accredit our political leaders for delivering us “democracy” post 1990, and in fact they did do their duty for the nation. Many others recognize King Birendra for handing democracy to the country “on a silver platter” at a time when he controlled the entire nation, army and police, and could’ve easily put a few more in jail to further suppress the movement of 1990.

The unsung heroes in 1990, however, were the donor countries. The countries fueling the Kingdom made sure they would squeeze every bit of ambition that King Birendra might have had, in order for him to make what might seem like the generous decision of granting democracy. Fearing that Nepal might lean far too right if Monarchy strengthened its hold, the western countries were the first to make their move in 1990. The German ambassador during the crisis, Martin Snehler, from the comfort of his lawn at the German embassy, declared that Germany would retract all aid to Nepal if King Birendra didn’t ease his grip. Other western nations, both Nordic and American, followed the Germans with similar statements.

We are literally a nation sponsored by other nations. We need their blessing to survive as a sovereign country. Donor nations play a game of master-and-slave with their money, only feeding us if we obey and only helping us if we walk on the correct line. That line is in the middle; moderate.

The final kill in 1990, however, was made by our neighbor down south. India, at the height of the pro-democratic movement, declared an economic blockade of Nepal. By not extending the trade treaty and closing the 21 trade routes along the Indo-Nepalese border, India gave a clear statement to the Monarchy of its plans for Nepal. These countries made sure that no leader in Nepal, politician or King, could survive without their consent.

Similarly, after the moderate 12 year stint of “democracy”, foreign states feared that Nepal might be leaning far too right again after the February 1st declaration from King Gyanendra, in which he decided to handle all affairs of the country himself. With a similar “politically driven aid” tactic, all donor countries from Europe, Asia and the United States, went on a crusade to shift Nepal’s political path towards the moderate again by drastically denying Nepal and its King of much needed assistance. Without a choice the King went at it alone, as the donor nations sat back and watched, well aware that the King’s time was ticking without their cash.

At the same time, India, with the moral support of other foreign nations, gave Nepali Congress party leaders a safe place to operate from within their borders. The final assistance from India came when, in 1951, India masterminded and endorsed the three-system government, with King Tribhuwan, BP Koirala and Mohan Shumshere, finally shattering the 104-year regime and moving Nepal back into the temperate and non-extremist political cycle. Of course, we can never enfeeble the great strides made by the intrepid martyrs, who gave their lives fighting that regime, but without such foreign help the country would’ve found it much tougher to liberate itself from such an omnipresent and unassailable Rana clutch.

International “humanitarian” organizations, which are supposed to look after the starving and ill are often guided more by their political agenda than by their will to help. Time and again, various UN organisations and also the World Bank, have shown their political bias by denying the country, and its ailing citizens, aid because of the political situation. After February 1 st 2005 the World Bank stalled various projects in Nepal and announced that it will be taking back much of the aid used for humanitarian purposes. Although we should commend them for supporting democracy and also acknowledge their good intentions, they must also realize that the poor will be poor and the hungry will remain hungry despite any political changes in their country.

Nepal faces an overwhelming irony today. For donor nations, Maoism is similar to absolute Monarchy. For those giving us humanitarian assistance, one is far too right and the other is far too left. Either way, if it goes beyond a certain political spectrum, we will be denied aid once again. Unlike Russia or China, even Cuba or North Korea, as a Communist country we will have zero self-sufficiency. Thus, regardless of how honest this government is or how truthfully it is ready to help the people, without permission from places beyond our borders no government will survive.

History has taught us that moderate is always successful. In Nepal, the politicians that flourished the most were the ones that took the middle line. Personalities like Surya Bahadur Thapa, close with both the democratic parties and the palace, were far more successful in gaining office than his contemporaries. Even in the United States, we might not agree with the views of the Republican Party, but without them the “great” American democracy cannot function. To have any sort of political stability we will need the representation of both the right and the left. Similarly in Nepal, if we are to ever gain economic prosperity and political stability, we will need the representation of the entire political spectrum, instead of one government coming into power and simply punishing the last government.. We will forever need aid and be victims of foreign interests if we don’t balance our political representation. To put it metaphorically, unless we use both our legs, the left and the right, we will always need help walking.

In a country like Nepal, how long can an absolute Monarch last when his country is funded and held together by democratic forces? Likewise, how long will a Communist government last when the nation depends on “democratic cash”? Any farsighted leader would swiftly abandon extremist views in a country like Nepal, even if it were for his/her own political survival. Now this doesn’t mean we can sit back and watch, knowing that Nepal will eventually end up as a moderate democracy. The worrisome issue here is that the country might sustain too much damage, both political and economic, in this experimental phase in its history. Nepal’s voyage towards democracy is in its infancy. Like in an airplane, the take-off is always the most dangerous; very few things can go wrong when we actually reach the required altitude. For decades we have been veering in and out of the right democratic path in opposite directions. Donor nations are simply keeping us from taking the wrong path, reminding us with their aid-incentives that if we veer too much on either side, our plane will simply crash.

Since 1950 Nepal has had over 5 billion USD of aid. Even if an entire billion dollars was taken out by corruption, which is highly unlikely, the remaining 4 billion should have gotten Nepal somewhere. Instead Nepal’s Human Development Index has slipped steadily, falling at a rate of two positions per year. The ambiguous nature of foreign aid and the staccato and discontinuous means by which it has been implemented by foreign states has impeded Nepal’s chance at economic recovery. “Rich nations are rich because they keep the poor nations poor”, stated a controversial economist. Likewise, by giving Nepal enough to survive but not enough to prosper, donor nations harm rather than further Nepal’s long-range economic growth and political stability. The aid incentives are cunningly designed to contribute to the country’s economic development but also intended to advance the political interests of the sponsors.

There are many vested interests in Nepal, far more than what meets the eye. India, for instance, will always be concerned with Nepal’s Politics. A fire in Nepal will at the least burn India. For the United States, Nepal happens to be the geographic meat between the two pieces of bread it cares most about: India and China. Along with the American allergy to communism, establishing a moderate democracy against Monarchy in Nepal is a perfect way for the Americans to show that their mission to “spread democracy” around the world isn’t only aimed at Islamic states. Until and unless we obey these higher powers and do as they wish we will not get our food. We are literally a nation sponsored by other nations. We need their blessing to survive as a sovereign country. Donor nations play a game of master-and-slave with their money, only feeding us if we obey and only helping us if we walk on the correct line. That line is in the middle; moderate. If Nepal leans too right or too left, it simply slips and falls. Due to economic hardship, we must take what has been so kindly given to us. Yet, the questions remains, is Nepal consuming aid or is it the other way round?

Currently studying in La Sorbonne (Paris), Basnyat is a student at Harvard University. A senior editor for the Harvard South Asian Journal, his writing has been featured in an upcoming book with eminent author MBI Munshi. He can be reached at [email protected])

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to [email protected])