Poor fall for the web of lies
“In order to master the unruly torrent of life the learned man meditates, the poet quivers, and the political hero erects the fortress of his will” – — José Ortega y Gasset
In Part 1 we discussed whether it will be prudent to bring back the king. We shall now discuss what could be the possible scenarios to put Nepal on the path of progress, development, and happiness.
Political turmoil in any country makes it a fertile ground for external forces to influence and establish its presence. Wolf warriors become active, and Nepal was not untouched by the wolf in the latter part of 2020. The game politicians play has never resulted in progress or development and the people have suffered. They only care to increase their assets on the ground which shows around their potbelly.
Nepal is no exception. The country has been in political instability since Maoism caught the fancy of the people. People were stressed with the previous governments and the inability of the king to intervene helped Maoists to create deceitful promises of equality. The gullible people fell for the unreal world.
The game Communists played to achieve their aim was in the name of “secularism”. And an age-old institution of the king was removed. People of Nepal did not realize that history is witnessed that no country can be secular or democratic with the communist ideology. Mikhail Gorbachev of the erstwhile USSR tried to open the country’s economic policies and political thinking under his programme called “Perestroika” in the mid-eighties. His policy reforms under “glasnost” failed. And ultimately the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991 to fragment into 15 different countries.
China has already begun to crush big corporations which had flourished in the last three decades. Jack Ma of Alibaba was not allowed his IPO (Initial Public Offer) and his assets are being nationalized slowly. Hong Kong was under the British Government till 1997. When the transfer of the region took place, China agreed to allow Hong Kong considerable political autonomy for 50 years under a framework known as “one nation, two systems”. But China has not adhered to its international commitment and began to assimilate Hong in mainland China in 2019. What has resulted is well known to the world – how the democratic process has been undermined and pro-democracy activists are being jailed with sham court proceedings.
So, a question needs to be asked if there is a communist government in Nepal, will it ever deviate from its “core value”? It may allow token liberty and a slice of a plural-democratic system to begin with, but ultimately it will go the Hong Kong way: total takeover of the country under communist rule.
The communist ideology is to establish a society whose socioeconomic policies are so structured that common ownership of all national assets with a libertarian approach of management by the workers. If that be so I fail to understand why there be so many communist parties in a tiny country of about 4 crores. If it is not for greed, then what it is?
I am sure, the readers would have read that after the end of the Bolshevik revolution in 1919, what engaged the mind of Lenin was the economic development of his country and his priorities changed. It was no longer a revolution. He declared in 1922 that all party workers would engage in economic development. Lenin instructed the Russian delegation which was to meet in Genoa in 1922 to study “The Economic Consequences of Peace” by John Maynard and instructed that they should not be seen as “Takers-in-Chief”. Lenin was convinced that economic development was absolutely necessary and the idea of building a communist society is childish, absolutely childish. “I repeat: we are going to Genoa as merchants for the purpose of securing the most favourable terms for promoting the trade which has started, which is being carried on, and which, even if someone succeeded in forcibly interrupting it for a time, would inevitably continue to develop after the interruption.”
He goes on to say, “The vast majority of the peasants in our country are engaged in small individual farming. The items of our programme of building a communist society, that we could apply immediately, were to some extent outside the sphere of activity of the broad masses of the peasantry, upon whom we imposed very heavy obligations, which we justified on the grounds that war permitted no wavering in this matter. Taken as a whole, this was accepted as justification by the peasantry, notwithstanding the mistakes we could not avoid. Overall, the masses of the peasantry realised and understood that the enormous burdens imposed upon them were necessary in order to save the workers’ and peasants’ rule from the landowners and prevent it from being strangled by capitalist invasion, which threatened to wrest away all the gains of the revolution. But there was no link between the peasant economy and the economy that was being built up in the nationalised, socialised factories and on state farms.”
Have we taken any lesson from Lenin’s foresight for his country to accord the highest priority to the development of the country? Negative.