Revolution

I do not advocate violence. That should be clear up front before you read the rest of this, because it may seem as if I do from what follows.

Things in Nepal these days are wild. Not in that special Kenyan way, but still: there is a lot of tension, cynicism, anger, and frustration brewing below that lovely Nepali smile that shines through the spring dust.

On April 10, things will be very different in Nepal one way or another, I reckon. Either the Constituent Assembly election is going to go well and there will suddenly be a clear path to a federal republic, national conciliation, and love among all; OR things will go to the dissatisfaction of many and there will be war again. [This is oversimplified and there is a lot in between, but you get the idea.]

Specifically, if the Maoists do not do well, there is going to be fighting again. This is bad.

In speaking with friends and random folks at the tea stand for the last couple of months I have noticed a distinct cynicism and deep doubt about the possibility for things to get better here in Nepal. This breaks my heart every time and each time I get up on my American high horse and give a potted lecture about how nothing will change in Nepal if each person does not make it change. There is no functioning government. There is nobody to do anything of make anything happen right. No disrespect to the various international and Nepali organizations trying to make the CA Poll happen: they are working hard, I hope to see that it does.

Then the conversation continues on a while and my interlocutor usually complains that there is an established elite based on caste, wealth, and religion that will prevent things from changing much in Nepal. They also often complain that the corruption that pervades the elite also reaches down into every local political and economic organization. As a very insightful student of Nepal put it today: the Ranas (former prime ministerial family who operated Nepal as their private fiefdom for generations) set an example for every Nepali to follow through the present.

At this point I bring up the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. Most seem to know what the first is but I wonder about the second. I spend a minute in amazement of the dual execution of Nepali education: mostly crap, but they teach the French Revolution. It being French and all, there is a good deal of respect for this revolution. After the pause, I explain the Reign of Terror as a time where French folks pulled the aristocrats and nobility out into the streets and killed them.

My conversation partner usually reflects on this for a minute. I imagine him/her thinking about what it would look like in Nepal if Nepalis pulled the aristocrats, elite, and inhibitors-general-of-progress out into the pot-holed streets of Kathmandu and killed them.

The Maoists were kind of on this path, but decided--thankfully--to join the government and pursue a political process with less violence to achieve their aims.

The thing is that the French revolution worked, or so mine and my partner's conception goes. And it worked in part because French peasants and bourgeoisie pulled the nobility into the streets and killed them.

Is that what it takes for real change? Is there another way to move past the seemingly intractable problem of profound corruption and general political malaise in Nepal? Do we really face a different situation in the United States?