Nothing could be farther from the truth. What the Panchayat nationalism tried to do was to create a Nepali identity as the post-1960 rulers understood it quite well that although the physical unification of Nepal was completed some 200 years ago by Prithvi Narayan Shah, there was no real unification, which made the people all over Nepal identify themselves as Nepalis and as such it was necessary to go on a nation-building phase.
And as many theorists of nationalism agree, to ascertain one´s identity it has to be contrasted with the other. To create a nation, there has to be a significant “other” to contrast the “self” with. The self and the other are relative, and there is no self without the other. Japan went through a similar phase in the Meiji era (1868-1912) and contrasted itself with China. Similarly, to distinguish itself from its Arab neighbors, Turkey, under Mustefa Kemal Attaturk´s leadership in the 1920s and 1930s, went on a similar nation-building phase by discarding the use of Arabic script and adapting a more liberal version of Islam.
Given our many similarities with India and our close relations, we had to contrast ourselves with India. There was no other choice for us. Nepali currency notes had to be used, Nepali language had to be promoted and various national symbols had to be invented so that the people living in the physical space called Nepal could identify themselves as Nepalis. To contradict an otherwise nicely-written article by Post Bahadur Basnet (India in Nepal, June 7), there was no negative or malicious nationalism involved in the Panchayat´s promotion of Nepali identity as the then rulers understood it quite well that although it was necessary to invent a Nepali identity, it was quite stupid to be on the bad side of India.
And unlike in many countries, where hatred toward the other forms the core of nationalism often referred to as "outward-directed nationalism" or xenophobic nationalism, the Panchayati rulers were quite intelligent not to promote this type of nationalism and in the textbooks —one of the main mediums to promote nationalism—India was always referred to as a good, helpful neighbor that aided Nepal in many ways. Indian movies were screened in the movie theaters all across Nepal, Indian movie songs were played by the government controlled Radio Nepal and high-level visits were exchanged. And there was no tolerance of criticism of Indian leadership in the bureaucracy.
Like I had written in my piece for this daily a year ago Rethinking anti-Indianism in Nepal (April 25, 2010) more than the Panchayat rule, the post 1990 leaders are to be blamed for inciting anti-Indianism in Nepal. In the absence of clear economic and foreign policies, the new leaders found it easier to exploit the people´s nationalist sentiments as a tool to gain votes in the elections. Until 1990, we did not care much about the 1950 and other treaties as the Panchayat rulers had learned to operate within the parameters and constraints of the treaty and were quite skilled at what they did. Nepal followed its own independent foreign policy quite successfully and despite the occasional tensions that are natural in relations between two independent nations, Nepal and India got along quite well.
Panchayati rulers were quite intelligent not to promote xenophobic nationalism and in the textbooks —one of the main mediums to promote nationalism—India was always referred to as a good, helpful neighbor.
Another reason why Panchayat gets blamed for something that it did not do has to do with our scholars. Independent researches are rare in our academia and the lure of lucrative jobs, be it ambassadorships and vice chancellorships of universities, make our scholars come up with papers and arguments that only corroborate what the leaders say, no matter how stupid and far from the reality they be—quite natural in a heavily politicized society like ours. Since the post-1990 leaders had to contrast and differentiate themselves with their predecessors, it was necessary for them to appear critical of everything the Panchayat regime did.
Otherwise, a natural process adapted in many countries would not have been intertwined with our relations with India and mislead the people in believing that Panchayati rulers instilled anti-Indianism in the minds of Nepalis. Even if we suppose that anti-Indianism is a Panchayati invention, then it has been more than 20 years that we bade adieu to it and if Panchayat in its 30 years could instill virulent anti-Indianism in Nepali minds, how come the post-Panchayati leaders have not been able to instill pro-Indian sentiments in our minds even after 20 years of democracy?
Therefore, the present surge of anti-Indian sentiments in Nepal is by and large the contribution of the post-Panchayat rule, and its handling of affairs with India. Actually, the post 1990 leaders appear more anti-Indian than the Panchayat leaders when they need to exploit the nationalist sentiments of the people, and they appear pro-Indian when they need India´s favor. If our leaders are consistent and be mindful of India´s legitimate concerns and refrain from double talks, India would not be meddling in Nepal´s affairs the way it is doing now—or, in other words, India would "shut up" without us having to say so.
Instead of blaming the Indian politicians and bureaucrats for playing hardball when it comes to Nepal, their Nepali counterparts should be learning from them on promoting national interests! To conclude, wouldn´t it make more sense for our writers and scholars to look at our own inconsistencies and shortcomings that let India dictate Nepal, than only blaming our southern neighbor for promoting its national interests?
trailokyaa@yahoo.com
Related story
Mainstream Nationalism vs. Regional Nationalism
_20191222200001.jpg)
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
