The legacy of B.P. Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Man Mohan Adhikari, Madan Bhandari, and Sushil Koirala teaches us that political life is about public service—not self-service.
Janardan Subedi
Historical narratives often distil complex events into simplified moral tales. In the context of Indian independence, mainstream accounts disproportionately glorify non-violence and Mahatma Gandhi. While Gandhi’s civil disobedience undeniably played a critical role in mobilizing the masses and discrediting British colonial authority, reducing the achievement of independence solely to non-violence overlooks other vital forces. This selective memory risks substituting moral storytelling for historical complexity.
One such overlooked figure is Subhas Chandra Bose, whose Indian National Army (INA) mounted a serious ideological and military challenge to British colonialism. Bose’s daring international alliances and uncompromising call for complete independence inspired a nationalist fervour that went beyond negotiation and moral persuasion. Many historians argue that Bose’s pressure, particularly its impact on Indian soldiers in the British Army, significantly contributed to British anxiety over maintaining control. To marginalize Bose’s contribution is to omit a critical and radical dimension of India’s freedom movement—one that was perhaps less saintly, but no less patriotic.
A point of deep contention
Moreover, Gandhi’s acquiescence to the partition of India — rather than confronting Muhammad Ali Jinnah through electoral or political means — remains a point of deep contention. While presented by some as pragmatic, this decision resulted in catastrophic violence, the displacement of millions, and a legacy of hostility between two nuclear-armed states. Gandhi may have succeeded in becoming a saintly figure, but in doing so, he arguably left South Asia irreversibly fractured and destabilized.
This historical reflection holds powerful lessons for Nepal today. After the 2006 people’s movement and the abolition of monarchy, Nepal appeared poised for a fresh democratic chapter. However, the promised transformation quickly devolved into political stagnation and betrayal. The Maoist movement, which once inspired the dispossessed with its revolutionary vision, failed to honour its commitments. Instead of systemic reform, the Maoist leadership embraced the very political structures they had condemned — fuelling corruption, cronyism, and institutional decay. What was supposed to be a revolution for the poor became a political settlement for the powerful.
Pseudo-governance model
Meanwhile, Western actors — governments, INGOs, and donor agencies — rushed in under the banner of democracy and development. But their priorities often centered on visibility over viability. Instead of empowering local capacity, they created a pseudo-governance model dependent on donor funding and foreign frameworks. As a result, development became fragmented, ideological coherence dissolved, and the sovereignty of the Nepali policymaking space weakened. Nepal must learn this crucial lesson: Western powers are not moral custodians; they are geopolitical actors with strategic interests. Their advocacy of democracy, human rights, and federalism will endure only as long as these align with their foreign policy.
We cannot afford to blindly trust external narratives, nor can we outsource our development to ideologies that do not emerge from our soil. Instead, Nepal must turn toward its immediate neighbourhood and articulate a balanced, pragmatic, and confident foreign policy. Both India and China are not just neighbours — they are rising global powers. Nepal cannot afford to play them against each other or act as a geopolitical playground for third-party interests. Rather, it must position itself as a bridge of peace, not a buffer of conflict.
50-Year Trilateral Peace and Prosperity
To reassert sovereignty and ensure long-term peace and development, Nepal should propose a 50-Year Trilateral Peace and Prosperity Treaty between Nepal, India, and China. This treaty would rest on the following pillars: Key Pillars of the 50-Year Treaty: 1. Absolute Respect for Nepal’s Sovereignty: Neither India nor China may intervene in Nepal’s internal affairs or manipulate its domestic politics. 2. No Strategic Exploitation of Nepali Territory: Nepal shall not be used by any party to jeopardize the security of either neighbour. 3. Shared Development Responsibility: The development of Nepal’s infrastructure, education, and economy will be a common priority, coordinated through joint regional mechanisms. 4. Non-Aggression and Peace Framework: A clear commitment to peaceful resolution of any bilateral or trilateral disagreements through multilateral forums.
5. Joint Development Corridors: Coordinated transportation, energy, and digital infrastructure linking all three countries for mutual benefit. 6. Environmental and Himalayan Resilience Pact Collective: climate adaptation and sustainable development programs to protect the Himalayan ecosystem. 7. Cultural and Educational Exchange: Deepening of regional people-to-people ties through scholarships, youth programs, and cross-border academic collaboration. This treaty would symbolize Nepal’s shift from a vulnerable intermediary to a confident initiator of regional stability. It would also help reframe Asia as a continent capable of resolving its own conflicts — without external intervention. The fact is: Nepal has a constitution, elected leaders, and the appearance of a democracy.
Collective vision
The reality is different. Our sovereignty is compromised by geopolitical manipulation. Our democracy is hollowed out by political cynicism. Our development vision is not indigenous—it is donor-driven. As the Nepali saying goes: “उल्लु बन्नकालागि घाटी तन्काएर बस्नेहरूलाई साच्चै उल्लु बनाउन सक्नेहरूको मात्र देश हुने भयो !” (Only those prepared to be fooled become fools in a land ruled by manipulators.) And another bitter truth: “देश समृद्ध बन्न सबैभन्दा पहिले देशमा मानिसको बसोबास हुनुपर्ने रहेछ।” (A prosperous nation requires more than structures—it requires people with conscience and commitment.) We must move beyond slogans.
The legacy of B.P. Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Man Mohan Adhikari, Madan Bhandari, and Sushil Koirala teaches us that political life is about public service—not self-service. In contrast, today’s leaders often embody personal ambition over collective vision. Let us stop stretching our necks to look like wise owls, only to be made fools of by others. Let us stand upright, eyes open, and insist on a Nepali future shaped by Nepali minds and Nepali will.
(Dr. Janardan Subedi is Professor of Sociology at Miami University, Ohio, and writes on political sociology, democracy, and South Asian governance.)
