|
|
| |
|
Foreign influence formally entered Nepal after it lost the war with the British in 1816. The Rana rulers who came into power shortly after the war made sure that the British rulers in India remained in their favour. No foreign meddling over their unhindered control over the country’s wealth was their only concern. The country's foreign policy, which the British resident handled, was not something of their interest and control.
The 1951 agreement brokered by India was the first direct involvement of independent India in the country's internal politics. Sections of the independent Indian establishment were probably never convinced of the fact that Nepal should remain an independent nation while a large number of similar kingdoms were annexed to their new empire. This feeling is reflected in the expressions of some hard-line Indian nationalists even today.
It's a truth that the Indian establishment has made contacts with every possible player in Nepal's politics, and, at times, used one force against the other, to make sure that their influence remained intact. King Mahendra's ambitions suddenly soared after BP started looking for countries beyond India for friendship. There he probably saw avenues to garner tacit support from the southern neighbour for his direct rule. The ambitious Indira Gandhi probably never saw logic in promoting powerful elected leaders who could be more difficult to handle than the king, but her establishment never ceased to assure some form of support to the leaders who were waging war for democracy from the Indian soil.
Nepal's history after the 1951 movement is that of continuous power struggle between the one in power and the other outside it being backed by the Indian establishment. Foreign involvement, especially that of India, need not be doubted for the overall turmoil in the country in the later half of the twentieth century and the years that followed. It would be too naïve to assume that the frequent changes in government leadership after 1990, the unexpected rise of the Maoist strength, the complete elimination of forces that enjoyed popular support and could deny enactment of pro-Indian agendas, the political drama that unfolded during 2004-2006 etc. were the results of power struggle within the country alone. Gyanendra might not have tried to risk his entire credentials in 2001 without any active signal from some powerful elements of the Indian establishment. It was probably his wildest ambitions that made him see the possibility of success with support from such an unreliable center when history had already recorded several instances of such aspirations crumbling to ruins after a few years of dubious support.
The fact that our leaders never learn from history is the most regrettable thing. Nobody should have doubts that the support from Indian centers are for their own interest rather than for the interest of our nation. Leaders fail to see this fact when they find that things are in their personal interest or the interest of their parties or groups. The Maoists are probably the cleverest of political forces in the country but they do not want to see how their hands and legs are bound by the agreements brokered for their sudden rise to state power from the whirlpool of directionless crimes and killings.
Circumstances like this make one feel that the institution of monarchy is probably not as useless as it is perceived today. For a small country like ours which is bound to follow the direction dictated by a big brother, a permanent institution like monarchy could manage to become a resisting wall at times when every other institution finds it difficult to resist foreign desires. This was evident at times after 1990 when the king stayed away from day-to-day politics but could have a say on crucial matters because of his influence. This might, at times, have helped the political parties from escaping safe from controversial matters of foreign interest.
Obviously, a monarchy with real power creates more problems than a system without monarchy. It’s a fact that monarchy is a rapidly disappearing kind of institution. The major reason lies in the failure of the monarchs to see that power and wealth are not the factors that can keep the institution relevant but it’s really the support of the people that can give it a long life. The palace in Nepal has a history of neglecting the masses while making personal financial benefits from the resources of the state. The method of centralized rule through a handful of puppets who were never responsible to the people proved counterproductive to the institution of monarchy in the long run.
Now, with the state going through a prolonged period of uncertainty and chaos, and with no promising future leader being seen in any front, foreign influence is unlikely to dwindle in the near future. Resisting foreign involvement is becoming increasingly difficult for the country which now needs budgetary support even to run it day-to-day affairs. When the state’s internal condition is so messy, foreign hands always find soft targets to experiment with their interests.
-----
[ posted by
gemmi_auj @
09:12 AM ] | Viewed: 1093 times
[
Feedback]
|
|
|
| : |
|