By Rabi Raj Thapa

Any celebration by a pocketful of political cadres to attract their political vendetta cannot fool people all the time. Such biased propaganda may look good, but in the long run, it just damages national sentiment and encourages unhealthy democratic practices.

Since the political change of 1962 and 1990, there have been so many changes in Nepal. After the takeover of executive power by King Mahendra in 1962, the rule changed hands to King Birendra, multiparty democratic prime-ministers, and ultimately federal secular government rulers. His takeover lasted for seventeen years (1955-1872), but many rulers after him were not less despotic than King Mahendra. Today’s unprecedented multiparty democracy and secular and federal Nepal has been unable to match his rule with acumen in domestic peace, stability, development and enhancement of foreign relationships. Since his demise in 1972, many rulers have changed hands under three political systems that have not yet impacted to win the hearts and minds of the people as he had done fifty years back.

Therefore, it would have been far more prudent and appropriate for the new political stalwarts to focus on more constructive positive slogans and campaigns.  

It is unfair to ostracize 30 years of party-less Panchayet System as “Kalo Din” (Dark Day). Such practices will encourage other regional political parties based on ethnic and regional identity! For example, how would the federalist governments have reacted to the Madheshi Jajadhikar Forum’s declaration of their “Kalo Dibas” and burning the federal secular republic constitution on the day of its promulgation?

Political animosity aside, the 1960s and 1970s were the most fruitful years for Nepal as a sovereign independent nation. These two decades strengthened Nepal’s unity and feeling of nationality. It is only a feeling of nationalism that strengthens people’s hope and aspirations to challenge and equate with other nations both friendly and hostile.

It was the then Prime Minister Kirtinidhi Bista, who gave an exclusive interview to The Rising Nepal, on June 25, 1969, in which he demanded “immediate withdrawal both of the Indian ‘wireless operators’ from the check-posts on the Nepal-China border and of the Indian Military Liaison Groups and the withdrawal was completed by August 1970 (British General Sam Cowan on Essays on Nepal, page 225). Nepali people must appreciate that the then government had amicably completed the job without any animosity and bad feelings toward its good neighbor India. Now just compare that with the current imbroglio of Kalapani Limpiadhura and Lipulake. Therefore, let us teach and learn to call‘a spade – a spade’.     

Today, it has become too difficult to differentiate between authoritarian-democratic and democratic but one-leader authoritarian government in the last three decades is becoming almost a synonym and blurred day by day. 

Now, it would be prudent for the government to focus on current Nepali foreign relations with its major world powers China and India instead of getting bogged down in power-sharing in the government power and positions. Nepali political parties must shake off their old traditional rhetoric, the phenomenon of polarity causing its impossibility to govern such a peace-loving country Nepal.

Since Nepali PM K. P. Oli visited China, it has stirred suspicion and doubt about its important southern neighbor India. When any high-level US official like US Assistant Secretary Donald Lu arrives here, it must be understood that the purpose of his visit should not be taken as a pleasure trip.

NEPAL’S DEMOGRAPHIC CRISIS

On the domestic front, Nepal’s demographic shift is changing alarmingly. It is estimated that around six to seven hundred thousand Nepali people leave Nepal every year. There is an alarming trend of migration from villages to towns and cities and from cities to foreign lands. The paradox is that the government cares less and takes such negative trends as a national achievement.  

Therefore, it would be prudent and wise if the ruling government could think of the present rather than be euphoric about what happened just 62 years back. It would be worth worrying about the shortcomings of the past three “Dark Decades’ than one “Dark Day” of 1962.