Legacy of Lies: The Propaganda of Social Justice

By: Bikal Dhungel 

In the eve of Nepal going to be declared a Federal Republic based on ethnic identity, the credibility of those who struggled for social justice and equality seem to have had no base. The so called ‘Peoples War’ cost over 13,000 lives. It was in fact a war that was supposed to bring few master minds into power to build personal fortunes.  Nepalese living in rural parts who had no idea of justice and equality were brainwashed and forced to take part in armed struggle that left the country even more paralyzed. 

First of all, believing that Communism will solve the problem had been a great mistake. It is a failed model. It failed in China, it failed in the Soviet Union and it failed anywhere else. Not only it failed, it left an everlasting wound, that we will have to work hard for decades to come to achieve the state that would have been there if Communism didn’t exist. What the passionate communists hate to accept is also that Communism actually killed more people than World War I and II combined (Black Book of Communism). The killing fields of Cambodia, Stalin’s terror and the torture from the Mao’s hand still remains a fresh memory to many. Promising the dreams of equality and fairness, Communist leaders took the power in many countries, sometimes with violent means and once the job was accomplished, they eventually turned to a terrible dictator smashing the opposition, pressing human rights and freedom and created a political dynasty followed by their own family members. An example of this promising story can be seen today in Cuba.  

Maoist leaders in Nepal promised solidarity, equality, end of poverty, end of torture, end of the domination by ruling class and other principles of Communism in the Soviet Union and Mao’s China. However, if these principles are enacted, it is in fact not a bad idea. Soviet Union had an international national anthem which covered all soviet republics. Unfortunately, these principles are impossible to hold. This will finally lead to the collapse of whole system, as we have seen in 1991. 

The question is not either or not accepting Communism and Maoism in Nepal, the question is, if it is still a good model to lead a country. China itself rejected it and moved towards market economy almost three decades ago. Understanding the potential of growth and prosperity, the Chinese premier Deng Xiaoping brought market reforms, as a result of which China grew with double digit for over a decade. It has quadrupled its per capita income and today stands as the second largest economy in the world only after the United States and the largest in Asia. So, how rational is the idea of our Maoist and Communist leaders to go to back to Communism and Maoism? Is it their stupidity or is it just the only way remaining to come to the power? The latter seems viable. The recent clearing off of the dwellers around Bagmati River in Kathmandu justifies this fact. 15,000 people were forced to move after the bulldozers wiped off their houses. The interviews of these people conducted by local television verified that many of these dwellers had been Maoist fighters during the civil war. These people had political protection. They were used to bring the party leaders to the government but once their dear leaders were living in ministerial palaces; their homes were cleared off ignoring the struggle they did to make the Maoist journey to the government possible. 

Even more disturbing fact today is that Maoists and Communists can think of dividing the country into federal states based on ethnicity. Communism rejects any ethnic status, caste, religion and considers everybody as equal and perceives to inflict international solidarity in theory. Nothing has been heard from the well qualified leaders from Nepal. Additionally, the opinion of the majority, not to divide Nepal according to ethnic identity, has been ignored. 

Federalism itself is a fantastic form of governing. The most successful democracies in the world are ruled by this model. The United States, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Brazil, Argentina are some handful of examples. These countries are decentralized and are highly developed. Switzerland, despite its four official languages, German, French, Italian and Romansh, and slightly different culture in all the states, it has been successful in maintaining peace and become one of the most stable countries in the world. However, these countries mentioned above have been historically stable. They have a highly industrialized economical base, a robust economy, a large number of educated people and more or less homogeneous people with same language except in Switzerland. Nepal has none of these qualities. Nepal is a mixed hub of over one hundred indigenous languages; it has a complicated geography, relatively less number of literate people and even less number of highly educated people. Additionally, it has been encircled by problems of poverty, lack of health care and infra-structures. Bad governance has made the scenario look worst. In the given case, federalism based on ethnic background will definitely have a catastrophic end. Similar examples could be seen in countries that are in the same level of Nepal economically, namely Nigeria and Ethiopia. 

Ethiopian ethnic division has failed to solve the national issues such as poverty, unemployment and ethnic violence. In 2011, Ethiopia still had 50% unemployment rate. Defense expenditure and fiscal deficit has increased since the division. Rifts between ethnic groups throughout the nation haven’t improved. On the contrary, displeasure with the central government posses’ constant threat of jeopardizing the inter-state relations and the danger of further splits. The splitting of Eritrea left Ethiopia landlocked, hence worsening its potential of international trade. This also caused a war between two nations killing over 70,000 people. 

The defining question should go, why is federalism necessary? The ultimate goal of federalism is the fair economic growth of all territories of a nation. The tools for this growth are in fact not ethnic federalism rather a heavy investment in education and infrastructures. Ethnic States certainly provide some additional governmental positions to locals but it would hardly generate overall growth that makes substantial changes. In case of further dangers of split, the central government should increase the defense budget, as the scenario depicted in India. 

However, it is true that in present context, various ethnic groups in Nepal are stranded. The previous governments showed almost no efforts to raise their issues. As a result, there is growing tension among the few ruling classes. To solve these issues, Ethnic Federalism is a wrong answer. The right answer is, education for all, anti-discrimination laws to hinder further stranding of minorities and a sustainable investments in agriculture. 

In the political level, all political party’s aim should not be private gains, rather a service for the nation, to bring it up through sustainable development. Sticking to failed models and claiming to write history in the cost of human lives is indeed wrong and foolish. The promises of Maoists were meant to break and now it is already broken into many pieces that will certainly never be recovered. Hence, the motto of Nepalese people should be “No to Ethnic Federalism, no to Communism and no to Maoism “.