Imperialism in Nepal: Past and Present
A survey of imperialist intrigue in Nepal, from the British Raj to “global China”
Nepali soldiers known as Gurkhas fought the British East Indian Company in the Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814-16. Nepal lost the war in 1816 and signed a controversial treaty, the Sugauli Treaty, which resulted in the loss of big territories. Illustration: Fraser Album
Nepal, considered one of the oldest countries of Asia, also enjoys the privilege of never being colonized by another country or a religious group during its history. Nepal has remained a focal point for world powers (including the US, China and India) for mainly two reasons: (a) exploitation of Nepal’s resources like the Himalayan river waters, mines and biological resources, and (b) use of Nepali soil militarily to spread their power. Nepal, a non-aggressive and independent country, started to have tussles with imperialist powers (i.e., the British East India Company) about 300 years ago. After 1950, American and Indian political, economic and cultural influence became prominent in Nepal. Chinese political, cultural and economic influence is also growing gradually recently. Indian and American intrusions sometimes come jointly and sometimes independently too, while the Chinese one has been independent to date. Below I provide a brief history of imperialism, old and new, in Nepal and the resistance of Nepali people against the imperial powers.
Nepal before Empire
Since ancient times, Nepal has maintained economic, social, cultural and religious relations with both undivided India and China. The relationship with China started deteriorating after 1400 AD due to the fracturing of social relations between different rulers, and with the increasing hegemony of trade relations with India by the end of the 16th century owing to the rise in power of the British East India Company.
Nepal’s political-economic structure seems to have followed a Marxian model — primitive communism, slavery period, feudal period, capitalist period and socialism — throughout its history. The Rigveda, an ancient literature of Bharatbarsha (pre-Indian region) that supposedly originated from Nepali soil, contains descriptions of the primitive communist period in this region. Slavery existed since prehistoric times, and during the feudal period, it co-existed and blended in with feudal forms of labor — some slaves changed to peasants, some to semi-slaves and some others to household slaves, while many others remained bonded farm labourers. Slavery’s remnants officially continued until 1924 when a prime minister from the Rana dynasty, Chandra Shumsher, abolished it in totality. Other remnants of slavery like bonded labourers — Haliya, Kamaiya, Kamlari, etc.—were officially abolished just a couple of decades ago. In Nepal, feudalism has continued until today.
Prime Minister Chandra Shamsher, from Nepal’s Rana dynasty, abolished slavery in the country in 1924. Here he is in Dover, England in 1908. The Rana administration degenerated into a British puppet regime. Image: Vintage Nepal (Rare Historical Pics & Vids) @Vintage_Nepal
Until 1768, Nepal was divided into 54 small kingdoms. A king of the Shah dynasty of Gorkha kingdom of Nepal, Prithvi Narayan Shah, annexed these kingdoms to his own, establishing the kingdom of Nepal. During Prithvi Narayan Shah’s reign and the unification process after him, Nepal fought a number of wars with contemporary British India. Nepal defeated the militarily-strong British India most of the time and expanded its control in the neighboring areas currently in India that largely shared Nepali culture and languages. Nepal lost the 1814-1816 war with British India and signed a controversial treaty, the Sugauli Treaty, in 1816 which resulted in the loss of big territories including Gadhwal, Kumaon, Musouri, Dehradun, and Darjeeling. There is a controversy over whether the British decided to return those territories to Nepal when they left India in 1947. Naraharinath Yogi, a well-known historian of Nepal, has claimed that the British had signed a note on August 15, 1947 stating that concerned countries would use their respective territories. Yogi maintains that with the signing of the treaty of 1950, the Sugauli treaty expired.
Currently in Nepal’s rural areas, feudalism continues to prevail while capitalism is dominant in urban and suburban/peri-urban areas. However, there are debates whether Nepal is a semi-feudal, semi-capitalist country or is more capitalist now. Urbanization has significantly increased over time, especially during and after the Maoist’s Peoples’ War when poverty and joblessness pushed the poor to migrate to the cities for jobs.
The Sugauli Treaty: An Imperialist Trojan Horse
“The Sugauli Treaty also allowed the East India Company to bring about capitalist transformation to Nepal’s economy...”
Elements of a capitalist system started to manifest in Nepal with the entry of East India Company in the nineteenth century. Imperialist influence in Nepal started with its defeat in the 1814-1816 Anglo-Nepal war that resulted in the loss of almost a half of the territories. The Sugauli Treaty also allowed the East India Company to bring about a capitalist transformation to Nepal’s economy, and would allow for further encroachment of imperial interests into Nepal.
Before this war, when Prithvi Narayan Shah was trying to annex the Kathmandu valley, a king of the valley, Jaya Prakash Malla, asked for military support from British India. Prithvi Narayan’s force had previously defeated the British-Indian force led by Captain Kinloch at Sindhuli of Nepal in 1767. When the Mallas failed to get British Indian support, Prithvi Narayan was able to conquer the Kathmandu valley in 1769. Prithvi Narayan always adopted a closed door policy with the British India. Tensions between Nepal, led by Prithvi Narayan’s successors, and British India continued for several decades — the king enjoyed the support of his prime ministers from the Thapa dynasty and his military generals in his resistance towards British India. Within Nepal, however, not all were able to resist the British Indian aggression. When the Rana dynasty superseded the Thapas in administration, Nepal started to become heavily influenced by British India. The Ranas ruled Nepal for 104 years with the support from the British India until 1951, keeping the Shah dynasty kings merely ceremonial.
To stay in power, the Rana administration degenerated to a British puppet regime and kept Nepal isolated from any other international relations. The Ranas signed a Perpetual Peace and Friendship Treaty in 1923 with Britain to get international legitimation to their unfair rule. They were heavily involved in World War I and II, and provided Nepali mercenaries to the British army — a practice that still continues today. Nepal declared war on Germany on Sept 4, 1939, fought on the Burmese front in World War II, and made material and military contributions to the British. Democratic movements during the 1950s forced the Ranas to step down and a Shah dynasty king resumed power again with support from Indian rulers (historically known as the Delhi Agreement of 1950 between the king, the Ranas, and the democratic parties). Apart from the pressures from British India, Nepal did not experience any major imperialist intrusion until 1950.
After the fall of the Rana dynasty, Nepal has been largely influenced by the United States. It is only recently that Nepal is experiencing some political influence from China. As China is the biggest rival for the United States now, the US is giving high priority to use Nepali soil in fighting with China. As a reaction to those American steps, China has also been paying closer attention to Nepal recently.
British officers performing a kit inspection of a Gurkha unit in France in 1915. Under the Rana administration, Nepal was heavily involved in World War I and II, and provided mercenaries to the British army — a practice that still continues today. Image: Nepal Times
Anti-imperialism in Nepal: Pre-communists and Communists
Before the communists, who appeared in Nepal in the late 1940s, there were the Nepali patriots who resisted the imperialist intrigues in Nepal. After the political change of 1950, communists have taken the place of patriots as other patriots have not assumed a distinct shape. In Nepal, there are mainly three political streams: the communist stream (that fight against imperialist activities and for the rights of the general public), the non-communist liberal stream (that includes parties like the Nepali Congress that raises its voice occasionally for the general public and seldom against the imperialist powers) and the orthodox stream (the pro-monarchy groups that sometimes raise their voices against imperialist activities). Within each stream, there are various groups with some variations in terms of the interests they represent. So far, there are almost none that, in practice, represent the interest of the extremely resource-poor labouring groups (that make up almost 60% population) including the landless, the jobless, the Dalits (the “untouchable” groups), the aboriginal and tribal groups, etc.
The Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) was founded in 1949 by youths who were mostly educated in India or who participated in the Indian independence movement in one way or the other, and with the support from Indian communists based in Calcutta. The revolutionary nature of CPN was due to the founding members being influenced by the Russian, Chinese, and Indian liberation movements. Its first manifesto claimed that the party was a true representative of the labouring and oppressed class, and called for revolutionary land reform, revolutionary state power, and solidarity across various sections of people. The manifesto also opposed Indian, British and American capitalist and imperialist intrusion and intrigues, and appealed to the Nepali mercenaries to refuse fighting for imperialist powers. The manifesto shows that the party was aware of the fact that US imperialism had already intruded for the last 30 years (by 1949) by capturing some geographical areas in western Nepal for their businesses.
Pushpa Lal Shrestha, founder and first General Secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal, with his late wife and former Deputy Prime Minister (2007-8) Sahana Pradhan.
When King Mahendra removed parliamentary democracy in 1960, a few communist leaders supported the king’s decision, dividing the Nepali left . Around that time, Chinese and Russian communists were showing ideological divisions and this division also cropped up among Nepali communists. Those who supported the king’s step also supported the line of Khrushchev in Russia.
In 1968, comrade Pushpa Lal (the first general secretary of the CPN) organized a conference to adopt a Maoist line (policy of New Democracy) and a united front policy with anti-monarchy groups. In 1975, another group led by another CPN leader, Mohan Bikram Singh, organized a national conference (popularly called the Fourth Congress) to oppose Pushpa Lal group’s united front policy and adopt a pre-New Democracy constituent assembly consisting of non-monarchist patriots and democratic forces. Another group revolted against large landowners in Jhapa district, imitating Charu Mazumdar’s (Maoist) line from West Bengal. After about 20 years, this group dropped the Maoist line and took on the Russian line. Some leaders of Pushpa Lal’s group merged with those that waged a revolt in Jhapa district, while many other junior leaders of the group still operate small communist groups with their original political line intact. A faction of the Fourth Congress waged a Peoples’ War (PW) in Nepal from 1996 for nearly 10 years, which dug a foundation for a republic to be set up.
With respect to approaches to imperialist powers, some factions of the communist stream (including a faction of each of those who waged PW, who revolted against landlordism in Jhapa, and who favored the Russian line) favor Indian and American hegemony now, while others (including some factions of the Pushpa Lal group, PW group, and Jhapa group that still favor the Maoist line) are resisting imperialist intrusions. Most of these anti-imperialist groups are vocal about imperialist efforts to align Nepal with their military or political-economic objectives, and to impose treaties designed to control Nepal’s natural resources and exploit the peasantry and labouring masses. A few of those groups also oppose Chinese anti-socialist activities too.
Neo-imperialism in Nepal: India, China and the US
In Nepal, Indian imperialist activities are seen in trade blockades and hardships, disputes related to open border alignments and encroachments, flooding caused by dams on rivers at the border areas, unjust trade and transit treaties since the time of British India, the occupation of Nepali territories by India, micromanagement of Nepal’s internal affairs by the Indian embassy and Indian influences on Nepali citizenship policies for people of Indian and Tibetan origin. Unsurprisingly, such activities have resulted in a strong anti-Indian sentiment in Nepal. To exert its monopoly in Nepal’s political, economic and cultural matters, India pressures Nepal to get its permission before making any political or trade/economic or cultural deals with other countries, especially China. India is neither interested in reviewing the Sugauli treaty or the treaty of 1950, nor is it entertaining a report from the joint high level intellectual group (this intellectual group was formed about a decade ago by Nepali and Indian governments to explore areas either government needed to look into for the betterment of relations between these countries). Nepal is still facing difficulties to enjoy the international rights of access to the marine trade for landlocked countries. Since Nepal is a landlocked country, it needs to pass through Indian territories to reach the closest marine ports. There are several unjust treaties between India and Nepal on sharing water resources from rivers that span both countries. In the context of India annexing a sovereign country, Sikkim, Nepal also suspects something similar might happen to it. To prevent such annexation, the King of Nepal put forth a proposal called the “Peace Zone Proposal” in the UN. India has not accepted the proposal in the UN.
There are many occasions when India has arranged for the withdrawal of Nepal’s construction agreements with foreign parties and redirected them towards Indian contractors. Minor practices by the Nepalese government — like permitting China to fly directly through the Himalayan route, accepting some logistic and communication materials from China, proposing to invite China as an observer in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), keeping records of Indian workers in Nepal, accepting some military and political support from the West to fight Maoist rebellions during the PW — also bristled India. Interestingly, China stayed largely neutral during the PW in Nepal. However, it did support the government with military equipment to fight the rebels.
India’s paternalistic and condescending attitude towards Nepal is further seen in the attitudes of Indian leaders towards Nepal’s elected officials. For example, despite Indian Prime Minister Nehru’s speech in Indian parliament in 1959 that any attack to Nepal or Bhutan would be taken as attack to India itself, Nehru provided no support to Prime Minister BP Koirala, a liberal democratic leader and president of the Nepali Congress party, when he was removed from the prime minister’s office by King Mahendra in 1959 because of his statement that Nepal was able to protect herself. Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi then refused to cooperate with Koirala during his exile in India.
That said, some ordinary people, a few political parties, and some Nepalese governments have been resisting Indian hegemony. People at the bordering areas have been protesting the border encroachments, even becoming martyrs for the cause. During each trade blockade, people at the bordering areas had daily tussles with the Indian side. Artists and the general public have boycotted Indian films that insulted Nepal and Nepali culture. Many times, Nepali tradesmen have stoned Indian trucks loaded with farm produce that outcompeted Nepali produce price-wise. Some tradesmen have approached the government of Nepal several times to discourage the import of goods, services and farm produce from India. Some political parties (some orthodox, some Maoist and a few liberal democratic parties) have opposed the hegemony either in principle through propaganda, or by putting pressure on the government through street protests. Maoist party cadres not in power have joined ordinary people in their protests.
At the government level, the opposition to Indian hegemony is now very weak. During the Panchayat regime (autocratic rule of the Shah kings between 1960 and 1990), the opposition was relatively stronger from the Royal palace and their administrations (such as the case of strong opposition to the 1988 trade blockade as a result of which the monarchy became a constitutional one). During a period led by liberal left-wing in 2015, the economic blockade was strongly opposed. The same administration unilaterally published a revised map of Nepal by including the currently encroached territories.
“the Indian government actively mediated the suppression of the peoples’ uprisings in 1950, 1990, and 2006”
The Modi administration in India put pressure on Nepal not to bring out the 2015 constitution that declared Nepal a secular country. When Nepal did bring it out, it was met with a trade blockade, among other punishments. In fact, the Indian government actively mediated the suppression of the peoples’ uprisings in 1950, 1990, and 2006. India seems to have played dual roles during the Maoists’ PW. Some Maoist leaders were reported to be in dialogue with Indian intelligence while few others were imprisoned by Indian forces. All things considered, Indian hegemony is the greatest imperialist intrusion in Nepal to date.
The United States interferes sometimes through India. Recently, it has intruded independently too. American administrations have tried to bring Nepal under their security umbrella by investing in Nepal’s military strength, conducting joint military training between American troops and the Nepali Army at the Chinese bordering areas, attempting to make Nepal a member of the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS), bringing Nepal under the Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC) agreements, etc. However, the US’ efforts to bring Nepal under the State Partnership Program (SPP) still remains a matter of debate in Nepal.
China has increased its political activities in Nepal recently through its embassy and NGOs. Major Chinese activities to influence Nepal include its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to resume Silk Road trade. Pro-Americans in Nepal perceive this BRI as a Chinese counter to the Millenium Challenge Corporation scheme of the US. The Chinese embassy seems interested in micromanaging political affairs in Nepal lately to counter Indian and American intrusions. China is spreading its influence through idea-exchange activities, the instruction of Chinese languages, micro-scale development activities led by Chinese NGOs, and various people -to- people relation forums, etc.
The fight with China is subtle and has been little more apparent lately at the government level when China imposed an indirect trade blockade owing to the current Nepali government’s tilt towards the USA (reflected in its support for Ukraine). China signed an agreement with India for using the controversial Lipulek area as a trade outlet between the two countries. Nepal claims that this particular area belongs to Nepal and Nepal also needs to be involved in such deals.
In Nepal, protests against Indian forms of imperialism – from territorial expansion to trade blockades – have become more frequent over the last decade. Image: East Asia Forum
Conclusion
“The thesis that communists are the most patriotic in theory and practice has come true in Nepal.”
Nepal has remained a focal point for world powers (including the US, China and India) for mainly two reasons: (a) to exploit Nepal’s resources like the Himalayan river waters, mines and biological resources and (b) to use Nepali soil militarily to spread their power.
The history of Nepal shows that ordinary people have fought against imperialist intrusions. The magnitude of the fight, however, varied from one ruler to another, from one political leader to another, based on the support from ordinary people. Opposition was not as high with Prime Minister Jung Bahadur Rana (an autocratic leader) or post-1990 right-wing leaders as it was with King Prithvi Narayan Shah (a relatively pro-people leader) or the Maoist leaders (people-based leaders) during the PW.
The thesis that communists are the most patriotic in theory and practice has come true in Nepal. The communists in Nepal are in the forefront in the fight against imperialist exploitations. Even the communists in the right-wing either in power or outside (the Unified Marxist-Leninist group, a faction of the PW group, a faction of the Marxist-Leninist group, etc.) have not been supporting those imperialist powers directly. All the communists in the left-wing (especially the Maoists who are not in power) are resisting the imperialist intrusions in Nepal. On the other hand, all the non-communist parties in Nepal openly favor the comprador bourgeoisie in their domestic program and policies, who are leading them to support the imperialist powers.
Dr. Shambhu Prasad Katel is a researcher and convenes the Alliance for Marxist Movements (Nepal) and leads the Fundamental Rights, Peoples' Democracy and Socialist Forum in Nepal. He has researched and taught at universities in North America and Nepal.