Politics of Death and Destruction in Nepal

By Hari Uprety

Politicians in Nepal have found an uncanny romance in death. It is not just the Maoists who take killing and destruction as the backbone of their strategy to declare a proletariat dictatorship in Nepal. Even mainstream politicians have always seen it pay off dividends.

That party politics has seen more in the deaths of people than anything to do with providing them a better life was proved during their rule when politicians would surround corpses to drape them with their respective party flags. Even scuffles would ensue between parties to prove that the dead was a martyr belonging to their party and not the other's. Such dirty scenes did come in the way of the extensive mourning rituals by the relatives as is customary in Nepal. But politics was paramount, and in the end it did prevail.

Similar political capital was found in the case with destruction of property. They found not just breaking picket lines, but uprooting roadside railings and smashing telephone exchanges to bits as a valid form of political protest. It might not have mattered for many countries around the world because great political causes do inflict some minor costs. But in the case of Nepal, there are very few telephone lines to talk of and fewer streets that actually have railings to protect walkers from road accidents.

No sooner had multiparty rule been restored in the country, some had already started counting the number of people killed under the new regime. In the very first few years, the number had already surpassed those killed during the entire 30-year Panchayat era. Later, when the Maoists came up with their own killing strategy to propel themselves to power, the number shot up quickly making it the bloodiest era in Nepal's history.

Killing and destruction are not just part of internal politics of Nepal. They also have far reaching implications.

In the immediate aftermath of the Nagarkot shooting incident several days ago, watchers of the political scene had predicted a full exploitation of the folly of a stray soldier in the bright glare of a full moon. The political aficionados came out full force into the streets alleging that it was the military that was at fault. Protests went on for days, blocking streets and creating havoc as if they would cow down the national army into wiping out its own existence.

Seeking to wipe out the military's existence? This may look like an extreme form of speculation for an outsider as no such form of demand has ever come to the fore from the agitators. But look again and the strategic connotation of the protests starts becoming clearer; and also how the shooting could prove to be a potent agenda for the agitation, where anything goes in the name of politics.

History is proof that openness in politics has almost always coincided with political moves to curtail the strength of the Nepalese military. Just go through the exhortations by influential politicians during crucial times of history and you see that it is the military that they find their main enemy, not the challenges that surround them once they are shot up to positions of power. It is another matter that the present size of the army itself would hardly match the needs of a country in conflict or a country straddling a strategically volatile region, not to speak of one which happens to be both.

During the openness of the 1950s, the number of the force had been brought down to less than 10,000, apparently with an intent to show that as far as politics goes, the army was a redundant institution. But the expose came when the Indian military was quickly brought in to fill the vacuum. So, people know that when the military is projected as a gratuitous institution, it actually means the Nepalese military, not the militaries of other countries on Nepalese soil. One may argue that such history has no place in the post 1990s politics. But no. The 12-point agreement between the political parties and the Maoists has recently proved that history has a very long life indeed.

The challenge for the government, committed to multiparty politics, therefore goes beyond a one-time patch-up of the military's image. The need here is for a comprehensive package that deals with civil-military relations at times of extreme difficulties for the country.