Not just a palace coup
Nepal is cauldron of mass rebellion
By Sara
Flounders
The spectacular assassination of most of the royal family of
Nepal on June 2 is an extension of a social crisis that has
turned feudal Nepal on its head.
Millions of workers and peasants in one of the poorest
countries in the world have shaken off centuries of feudal
oppression and have been in open revolt.
Just days before the royal assassinations, the capital city
of Katmandu was paralyzed by a three-day general strike
demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Girija Koirala on
charges of corruption. The Communist Party of Nepal--United
Marxist-Leninist called the general strike in a bloc with five
other left parties. Together they hold almost half the seats in
an unstable parliament and have been deadlocked against the
Nepal Congress Party on every fundamental class issue.
Distribution of the land to the peasants is the fundamental
question in a country where 80 percent of the people are
engaged in subsistence agriculture. The small but powerful
landlord class has blocked any parliamentary solution to this
burning issue. On May 30 The Telegraph of Nepal predicted that
the overwhelmingly successful general strike "signals sudden
collapse is imminent."
Large parts of the rural areas are in the hands of a
communist insurgency. An armed struggle began in February 1996
led by the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist. This revolutionary
upheaval is a cause of great concern to the Indian bourgeoisie
and to the British and U.S. ruling classes.
According to an article in the Asia Times that appeared May
25, a week before the royal assassinations, "35 districts in
the country are affected by the insurgency ... in some areas
the Maoists run a parallel administration.... To date, the
insurgency has directly affected the lives of roughly
two-thirds of Nepal's 24 million people. The rapid expansion of
their activities has raised concerns that the Maoists might at
some point be able to overturn the government."
A palace coup
The explanation of the assassinations first put forth in the
Indian media is that 29-year-old Crown Prince Dipendra, after
an argument with his family over his marriage choice, killed
his father, King Birendra, his mother, Queen Aiswarya, and six
other member of the royal family before turning the gun on
himself. The official explanation is that an automatic weapon
"exploded."
These stories are not believed by the masses of people. This
is because it is widely known that the entire government was
collapsing in a political crisis, not in a marital dispute.
Over the past 50 years the feudal landlord class in
Nepal--backed by the British, U.S. and Indian
bourgeoisies--have again and again used the monarchy to
dissolve a weak, advisory parliament in times of crisis. The
monarchy or royal court, as in other feudal societies,
represents and is tied to the interests of one or another
contending faction within the ruling class and is entangled in
alliances with competing outside forces.
A rising chorus of the propertied elite was demanding
repressive action against the mass movement and the
parliamentary impasse. However, the decaying royal court seemed
indecisive, out of touch and unable to defend the property
interests of the ruling class as a whole.
Some other member of the royal family--such as the brother
of the king, Prince Gyanendra, who conveniently was not at the
ill-fated Friday night dinner and is now the new king--may have
the backing of powerful internal or international forces.
According to Nabun Sapkota of the Revolutionary
Anti-Imperialist Forum of Nepal, the reactionary forces, both
foreign and internal, are behind this old maneuver to play one
part of the royal family against the other. King Berandra is
reported to have been closer to the U.S. Other forces at the
royal court, including Prime Minister Koirala, have been closer
to the Indian bourgeoisie. A debate was raging among them over
whether or not to use the army in addition to the police to
suppress the insurgency.
Delhi is deeply concerned because the guerrilla movement in
Nepal is linked to several guerrilla wars in India.
King Birendra was eulogized in the corporate media as a
gentle, enlightened monarch, beloved by his subjects. Nepal is
described as a constitutional monarchy.
Whatever his personal characteristics, King Birendra
ascended to the throne in 1972 as an absolute monarch of an
impoverished, backward feudal state. He did nothing to change
this situation. He dissolved parliament and closed all dissent.
All political parties were banned. Limited elections were
allowed for what was only an advisory government.
Among poorest in the world
Although King Birendra was educated at Harvard and his son
Prince Dipendra was educated at Britain's Eton College, he
ruled as an absolute monarch over a population that is more
than 65 percent illiterate. The life expectancy of 51 years is
among the lowest in the world. Nepal has one of the highest
levels of infant mortality and malnutrition, with 72 percent of
the population living within the United Nations definition of
extreme poverty.
As the peasant insurgency has grown, it has impacted on the
lucrative international tourist trade and expeditions to Mount
Everest.
Wealthy international tourists trekking in Nepal are charmed
by the quaint traditional life of villagers in the Himalayan
Mountains who live without electricity or plumbing.
These peasants are tied to and indebted to the landlords.
Charms and prayers are their only protection from disease.
Society is divided by a rigid caste system. Illiteracy and the
lack of a national network of roads intensify rural isolation.
Deeply cut valleys divide ethnic groups. There are 25 different
nationalities and seven major languages along with 125 recorded
languages. Only 14 percent of the people have access to
electricity.
In 1990 militant street protests in Katmandu grew into an
explosive mass movement, finally forcing the king to abdicate
power and accept a constitution that made the royal family a
mere constitutional figurehead.
Political parties were legalized. Militant communist
organizations, mass organizations and unions recruited hundreds
of thousands. The masses had taken the stage.
British and U.S. role
Nepal had been a semi-colony since the British invasion of
1816. The mountainous terrain made total subjugation not
practical for the British, but they used the highly organized
Gerker troops from Nepal as mercenaries to subjugate other
peoples throughout the British Empire.
As an anti-China threat, the U.S. government has for over 40
years pumped in millions of dollars to maintain the Dalai Lama
of Tibet and his whole entourage in exile in India, including
an office in Nepal. The Central Intelligence Agency spent many
millions training a Tibetan contra army. It spent nothing for
the development of Nepal.
While the role of the U.S. government in Nepal's present
turmoil is not clear, it is important to note that Nepal is a
buffer state sandwiched between China and India. As the British
Empire has faded, U.S. imperialism has assumed the role of
preventing revolutionary upheaval.
Royalty and class stability
In its early, progressive period, the bourgeoisie in
countries like Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and
Japan overthrew the old feudal order but then found it useful
to reinstate and keep on retainer, at great public expense,
utterly worthless royal families. A similar effort was made in
Nepal.
The feudal landlord class and old nobility in Nepal, along
with the Indian bourgeoisie and U.S. and British imperialism,
have all had a stake in preserving the archaic royal family in
Nepal. It is a powerful bulwark in maintaining class divisions
and private property.
All the weight of tradition protects the right of
inheritance and sanctifies the gross inequality in society.
Both British and U.S. imperialism have protected, equipped and
trained the military for utterly corrupt dynasties throughout
the Middle East and Asia, from Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia
to Thailand and Afghanistan.
However, when such an outmoded ruling structure is in danger
of being swept away by a genuine people's revolution, the
imperialists may act to remove the most hated figures and
install carefully chosen "reformers" in order to stave off an
upheaval that would threaten their interests.
But there is another road. If the revolutionary workers'
movement in the cities, led by several different communist
parties, and the communist insurgency in the countryside can
find common ground for collaboration, that would be a huge step
toward battering down all the reactionary forces that are
holding back social and economic development in Nepal.
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page