The creation of space

TKP 2/3/2010

There is an ideological vacuum waiting to be filled on the right of Nepali politics

If there is any party to be admired for consistency and sheer doggedness against all political trends, it has to be Kamal Thapa’s Rastriya Prajatantra Party — Nepal (RPP-N). When it has become conventional to blame all of Nepal’s ills on its feudal past and rulers who sought only to plunder the state, it believes that the monarchy should be restored. When even the orthodox have been forced to accept that the state’s reliance on Hindu symbols caused the marginalisation of other cultures and religions, it demands that state be once again be declared Hindu. And when even those greatly troubled with the proposed federalisation of the nation acknowledge that there is no alternative to radical devolution of powers and the granting of provincial and local autonomy, the RPP-N remains committed to a unitary, centralised state. And so the party staged a banda last week demanding a nation-wide referendum on all three of these issues.

In order for these demands to gain ground, it is necessary for the polarisation within the mainstream — between the Maoists and the non-Maoists, between ethnic/regional groups and the parties at the centre — has to become so extreme that there is no possibility that the peace process as conceived can continue. The traditional parliamentary parties have to feel that the only way to outplay the Maoists is by forming a front of all non-Maoist groupings and adopting rhetoric in sharp opposition to that of the Maoists, thus forcing the entire nation to choose between two sharply polarised sides. It is only in such a situation that a referendum on the issues that Kamal Thapa has been raising can take place.

In other words, it is impossible that the broader political class will accept the RPP-N’s demands in the near future. Members of the Nepali Congress or the CPN-UML will neither allow committing publicly to the values of the extreme right, nor will it serve to expand their popular bases. Even Kamal Thapa’s old allies, even though they may desire the same things as the RPP-N, feel that it would be foolhardy to follow the path that he has taken. Panchayat stalwarts like Surya Bahadur Thapa appear to have thought it best to let causes such as the restoration of the monarchy lie and publicly accept the legitimacy of all the changes that have occurred over the past few years. Rather, the effort, in his view, should be to form a “democratic alliance” of all non-Maoist forces that will co-opt aspects of the socio-economic agenda that the Maoists have raised, thus creating an alternative to them that has real political potency.

And yet there is a case to be made regarding the wisdom of Kamal Thapa’s path. For, there is an ideological vacuum on the right of Nepali politics that is waiting to be filled. As of now the first stirrings of a reaction to the current discourse of inclusion and autonomy have started to become visible — in the formation of Bahun and Chhetri political organisations for instance, or in their demands to be considered “indigenous nationalities” by the state. This process has a long way to go. It requires, for one, better ideological articulation. In its current form, it has simply adopted the manner of organisation and rhetoric of assertion of all the other marginalised groups. As such, it appears fraudulent — notwithstanding the poverty of Bahuns and Chhetris in the Far West, it is difficult to convince that these groups have been victims of historical injustice. Also, lacking any idea greater than allegiance to a particular caste or ethnicity, it also appears tribal. This is one of the reasons why many upper caste political leaders in the traditional parliamentary parties, while willing to admit some sympathy for these movements in private, are unable to come out publicly as their supporters or leaders.

As the process of consolidation of political groups opposed to the current trend in Nepali politics continues, there will come a stage when they will have to form alliances with each other and devise symbols and ideas that give their movements ideological coherence. It is here that the current efforts of Kamal Thapa, if strategic enough, can pay dividends. He may have to give up the demand for a monarchy. But the demand for a centralised state and for state recognition of the symbols and values of Hinduism, in alliance with more grassroots conservative movements currently underway, can still be potent.

If efforts to revive Hinduism as a political tool and utilize it for purposes of mass mobilisation are to succeed, however, its radical reinvention is necessary. So far there have been very few people willing to use the religion as a political instrument; this is partially because of its association with the monarchy. It is also because while the monarchy used Hindu symbols to gain legitimacy, it never used the religion as an ideology with which to mobilise large numbers of people. The character of Nepali Hinduism has remained decentralised, practiced by the faithful in whatever manner they see fit. To become an ideology of the right, Nepali Hinduism needs to be reinvented along the lines of Indian Hindutva, where a central socio-political authority has built a mass organisation that seeks the active participation of people in activities ranging from religious training to physical exercises.

Again similarly to Hindutva, the utilisation of the religion of a political tool will require the redefinition of the religion to make it inclusive. One of the reasons Hinduism has not reemerged as a political tool after the 2006 Jana Andolan is because everyone recognises that so far, the religion has been used as an instrument of exclusion. Of course, it would be foolish to think that all of the country’s diverse groups would seek entry into the religion once its self-proclaimed leaders claim that their participation is welcome. But this is not to say that the foot soldiers for a Hindu political movement would be limited to relatively poor Bahuns and Chhetris without great access to state power. While they are obviously the ones most likely to be attracted to such a movement, it is quite likely that highly marginalised groups that will not benefit much from federalism will also be willing to join the fold. The Dalits are an obvious example. Dispersed across the country and thus as fearful of federalism (and of the dominant groups in the provinces) as the upper castes, it is likely that some of them would be attracted to a political-cultural movement that offers them a sense of belonging. This strategy has, of course, already been utilised in India by Hindu nationalists to attract tribals and other dispossessed groups.

It is not yet clear whether Kamal Thapa wishes to take his party in this direction, or is capable of doing so. If he plays his cards right, however, and is willing to stay in the game for the long haul, there is a chance that his efforts will someday bear fruit.