Yubaraj Sangraula
Until about five to seven years ago young people used to call “politics a filthy game.” Youth were in the hands of party professional organizations. They had to live in fear. Sometimes they would lock six padlocks on a single door. Nobody spoke against that.
In 2082 BS (2025 AD) suddenly the Genz movement arose, against corruption. But this movement failed to give voice to a whole range of other pressing problems: the unhealthy state of the country’s foreign policy, the crisis in agricultural production, the slow expansion and modernization of industry, the decline in the quality of education, the flight of students abroad, the encroachment on culture, and the emergence of new forms of neo-colonialism in every aspect of life. Elements that hijacked the movement became dominant. The movement focused only on changing those in power. Among those who joined the movement there was only “rebellion against leadership.” That rebellion did not come with any plan about “what kind of society to build.” Those who came into the movement did not issue requests to everyone nor did they have any strategic thinking. Perhaps as a result, the movement was heavily infiltrated, and now even foreign magazines write that “the destruction was not spontaneous.”
1. Despite all the destruction under the name of rebellion, I was glad that young people had entered the political field. I felt, “The country’s future leadership is forming, and tomorrow the country will move forward under the guidance of advanced-minded people.” But where is that? The country is in confusion. All one sees of the Genz groups is a “race to find ministerial positions.”
2. The psychology on display is that “the country is only Kathmandu.” Further, the only thing thought necessary to build the country is “rebellious audacity.” Building a country requires thought and planning. There are several complexities, for example:
(a) how to balance relations between the two neighboring powers that have become world powers,
(b) how to revive an import-dependent, non-productive economy,
(c) how to replace a political system steeped in bad practices, and
(d) how to reform an education system that produces people alienated from culture and civilization and leaves them unemployed—among many other questions.
But the current Genz movement has no dialogue or concern in these directions. Everyone only shouts “we want direct elections.” In other words, somewhere there is a plan to “establish a single directly elected prime minister.” On the other hand, look: Genz has no organization anywhere, and what we see is a crowd of “members of foreign-established organizations” scattered about. One thing is already clear: there is a competition among forces in Nepal to create “managed instability.”
3. The question is about the country’s sovereignty. But on the surface the fight is about “whether to bring back the king or not” and “whether there will be leadership change within the political parties.” This struggle is merely talk about “whether to restore the monarchy or keep the party kings as they are.” Party kings prefer not to give up their thrones until they die. Regarding whether the monarchy will be restored, the movement has only “discussions” and no plan for dialogue or national unity. Even if party kings are displaced, or if others come and the monarchy is restored, Nepal will not automatically address the dangerous “geo-politics” it is now suffering from. Therefore, the core question is the country’s sovereignty. Is that question being voiced anywhere — for example in the way journalist Diwakar Sah is raising it?
In this complicated situation, the unorganized Genz movement risks fracturing among itself and becoming, through its own arrogance, a pawn of foreign interests. It does not seem that the movement wants to bring intellectuals and other social sectors into its fold. Inside and outside the movement everything looks like an attempt by some power to establish itself, and “that is certainly not Genz.” Making Genz people prime minister or ministers will not solve the problems. What the country is looking for now is:
a) Unity among patriots, progressives, and social liberals;
b) Public-sector management that supports production and trade, citizen investment in business, and the expansion and protection of a private economy and goods market;
c) The upliftment of agricultural production and protection of farmers;
d) An end to the neo-colonialization of education and the development of its productive quality; and
e) Freeing the country from political malpractices and corruption.
Who will explain to Genz that fulfilling these strategic objectives and protecting the country’s sovereignty is the real role the movement should play? Who will have the courage to tell them? If this question remains unanswered, the country will see another rebellion arise—one that could bring the nation into dependency.
