Foreign hands
Adam Smith, an 18th Century Scottish philosopher and economist, propounded a theory of “invisible hands” in economics. As politics dominate economics in Nepal, what we have here is the theory of foreign hands. Unlike Smith’s invisible hands, foreign hands operate here both ways - visible as well as invisible.
Take any contentious issue in Nepal and you end up with an explanation of foreign hands. Let it be real or apparent, covert or overt, one will find the workings of the foreign hands.
Statement by former prime ministers
Very recently, with the five ex-prime ministers issuing a joint statement, the foreign hands theory is back into circulation. Basically, the statement was meant to bash Oli Government. However, the last line in the statement read “Nepali people need to be cautious of, direct and indirect, interference and involvement of external forces in Nepal’s internal politics”. This has raised lots of eyebrows. Who do you mean by external forces here? In what way they are involved in Nepal’s internal politics? Why was the issue been raised now and not before?
One should remember that a couple of months back, Comrade Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda posited the idea that the next government will be “comfortable” to India and China. He also lamented “democratic countries” maintaining silence over unfolding of political regression in Nepal. Dr Baburam Bhattarai’s vague warning that country is facing an eminent danger or cosying up of two diametrically opposite forces – Oli faction of UML and Thakur-Mahato faction of JSP – have helped to bolster the circulation of foreign hands theory in Nepali politics.
Foreign factor
There is no dearth of ideas explaining current political imbroglio to be a part of broader external design. Depending upon one’s conception and perception, it could be an outcome of MCC vs. BRI, China vs. India, EU vs. India or simply Indian idea. The last idea speaks India having inherent interest in Nepal’s political instability. But there is none to explain why India is having this interest?
Once, PM KP Sharma Oli accused Comrade Prachanda of courting India to topple his government. When the five ex-PMs talk about external forces, they are referring to tacit or silent support extended by India to the Oli Government. It is ostensible to everyone that without the support from India, no major political changes can happen here. Even the extreme rightist forces like rajabadis hitting nationalistic chords, expect direct or indirect support from hindubadi BJP in India.
Double standard
When it comes to external forces, we keep double standard. If our goals and objectives are supported, we either appreciate foreign forces or, given the sensitivity of the issue, simply prefer to keep quiet, pretending lack of knowledge or information. If they are against us then we strike the chords of nationalism, sovereignty and independence. Simply put, the brave Gurkha blood inside us starts to boil.
When a team of Chinese diplomats were having broad daylight brisk meetings with our party leaders to patch up simmering dispute within the governing CPN, the issue was immaterial to us or we just kept our eyes closed. But when RAW Chief Mr Samanta Goel made a midnight meeting with the PM at his residence it became a political hotcake.
In 1950s, when King Tribhuvan sought asylum inside Indian Embassy in Kathmandu and was later flown to New Delhi, the incident is simply referred in history text books as a brave move from the King to evade Rana autocracy. It, in fact, is the single incidence that gave India an upper-hand in Nepali politics. Same goes with 12-point agreement signed in New Delhi. We tend to keep double meaning, double interpretation on foreign interventions. We keep simultaneous love-hate relationship with foreign powers.
Basically, there are a couple of factors behind this love-hate attitude. First, we are very much dependent on foreign things – this could range from foreign aid, foreign trade to foreign employment. We are manic to foreign things. We also love anything that is foreign.
Second, when you point fingers at foreign forces, there will be none to challenge you – both from inside or outside the country. This gives an impression that you are speaking the truth or at least close to the truth. Even if you name a country, the country in question will rarely bother to respond to your ideas. Moreover, their response will give you additional mileage.
Take the recent case of the PM’s interview with the BBC. Seeking vaccine support from Britain, PM Oli is reported to have said that Britain should acknowledge sacrifices made by Gurkha soldiers. Any sensible British politician will not have time to respond to such a ludicrous comment. A native refuting your ideas of external forces will risk being labelled an “anti-nationalist”.
Third, by blaming external forces, it essentially helps you to hide your inefficiencies, divert public attentions, and helps to attain intellectual height that is, you know the unknowns. If you say palace massacre to be the works of the CIA and the RAW, who will dare to refute your theory?
Therefore, theory of foreign hands will continue to exist as an indispensable part of our politics. We definitely need somebody external to blame for our failures. The theory of foreign hands provides indefensible rationalization process. I can bet: Once PM Oli is out of power, he too will point his fingers at foreign hands.
Published on 18 June 2021
Interview
Covid-19 management: A herculean task for Nepal
Read More
"We are in dire need of a comprehensive legislation to deal with pandemics"
Read More
'National unity' led Qatar's resilience against the blockade imposed by neighbors - Yousuf Bin Mohamed, Qatar's Ambassador to Nepal [Interview]
Read More
Comment