A person's state of mind is determined by four aspects - geography, history, economy/production system, and culture. A person's state of mind runs on these four wheels. It is natural for it to run and change. There is no need to keep looking for change. What needs to be looked for is the speed and direction of change.

From a perspective, we have to start from the time of Prithvi Narayan Shah. Kathmandu was established through conquest in the late 18th century, and whoever has power gets to run the system of governance that suits them. That belief has not gone away from Nepal even now.

In the mid-19th century, the principle of power, ‘whose sword, his court’, became strong, and our history has shaped our mentality. After the Sugauli Treaty, it was said that now it will be done according to some rules. But Jung Bahadur established that, on the geographical line drawn with the bayonet of Prithvi Narayan Shah’s gun, the edge of the sword determines the right of the one who kills the government (Jung Bahadur).

When we come to the 20th century, during the reign of Chandrashamsher and Juddhashamsher, through the role in the Second World War and the rebellion of the Praja Parishad, we can see that the kind of Nepal that was envisioned as a state that went towards stability, reaches a state of economic stress. At that time, there may be cultural, economic, geographical or natural reasons, but the very first desire for change begins with protests. If the state is strong, it can suppress the protests. However, if many protests are suppressed, they explode. A ‘revolt’ occurs. ‘Revolt’ tests the power of the government.

Even after the protest turns into a ‘revolt’, if the state cannot manage it properly, it turns into a rebellion. Complaints alone are not enough for a rebellion. The ability to assess the situation is needed. Leadership is needed. Organization is needed. The rebellion can last for a long time. The rebellion can be peaceful. It can also be violent. If the rebellion fails, then the dissatisfied and change-seeking people have no other option left. And then preparations are made for a revolution. Revolution cannot be made. Revolution can be prepared.

Political entrepreneurs are needed for a revolution. Just as what is the demand in the market, what is the situation to meet that demand? Where will the goods be brought from, is the market ready or not? Just like the distribution and communication conditions, after a long preparation for a revolution, it takes its own momentum and the revolution moves forward.

Let us look at the events in Nepal after 1951. The 1951 revolution was being prepared. Its background dates back to around 1940/41. There was an organization called Praja Parishad. Instead of addressing its rebellion, widespread repression took place. The state had a large mechanism and the international situation was also favorable to suppress the rebellion.

Although the revolution seemed natural, extensive preparations were being made internally. Preparations were being made in Banaras, Kolkata, Assam and Darjeeling. An ideology was being created for this.

Those living abroad have love for their country. Benedict Anderson introduced the term ‘long distance nationalism’ in English, ‘true nationalism’. What happens in this is that you don’t have to take the risk, if you succeed, you can take the credit for it. ‘true nationalism’ talks more directly about revolution than rebellion/protest. The preparation for the revolution began on Indian soil. It happened in 1951. We know it as the 2007 revolution. It ended the rule of the Shah/Ranas. The effect was visible. But the biggest problem of revolution is that the agenda and capacity building of alternative management are not well-developed. When that is not there, it becomes difficult to handle.

It has been seen after many revolutions, either the revolutionaries themselves become like the old regime, they end up becoming dictators. In some places, the revolution ends up being replaced by counter-revolution. The second happened in Nepal. The first was not seen. In Bangladesh, at some point, Mujibur Rahman began to have a desire to become a strong ruler himself after the revolution. That led to revolution/counter-revolution. Nepal was a little different from that. Although there was no role for revolutionaries for counter-revolution, counter-revolutionaries had become active. The Indian revolution was seen from a slightly different perspective, in that the practice of elections/self-government had been coming since the 1930s. Because of the sacrifice of a person like Mahatma Gandhi and the trauma of partition, there was a feeling that this would never happen again, and there was a strong leadership for institutionalization, that is why counter-revolution was not seen in India. We had a counter-revolution in 1960.

Now let's come to 1979/80. It was called the student movement and referendum. It was not that there were no banned organizations behind it. It was a kind of explosion. The change of power in Iran/Afghanistan, the crisis in India and the situation of protest that was developing. Due to these geopolitical reasons, the then agitating forces, who were banned but active, handled the revolt. The then ruler, who was a dictatorial man, had a kind of foresight, and if the movement could not be handled, the explosion/movement would last longer and a revolution would arise.

Even though it was called the student movement, it was an anti-government explosion. In the forefront of which were students. Behind were the agitating political parties. The people's movement took place in 1990. In the background of that, the political parties had become active after the referendum by writing 'P' in brackets for banned. The warrants of some of their people were removed. The opportunity to reach every village had come for the party leadership. That is why it was a people's movement. The necessary leadership, ideology and organization were there for this. There was also an immediate reason. It was also known what had to be changed visibly. It was also known what the alternative would be, so the situation for a people's movement was created.

It restored multi-party democracy. It brought a constitutional monarchy. But King Birendra did not have the experience of a constitutional monarchy. Some leaders of the multi-party system did, during the period of 1958/60, of the first parliament. However, most of them had neither the knowledge and experience of parliamentary politics, nor did the constitutional monarch have knowledge about constitutional monarchy. Because of this, there was no situation to handle it.

There is no shortage of political entrepreneurs in any society. Some political entrepreneurs adopted a 'brand name'. This is not my vocabulary. Manmohan Adhikari said this when he went to Delhi. When the Indian said, ‘You are communists, Marxists/Leninists’, he said, ‘Just as Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola are brands, ours is also a brand called ML/UML.’

Whatever the slogan of the Maoists after 1996, it was basically a ‘brand name’. They launched an armed rebellion for change. It could neither be called a movement nor a revolution, it was a rebellion, it was a rebellion, as they said, the Maoists did not call it a revolution, it was called a rebellion in the beginning. The status quo is unacceptable to us, so we started by saying we will rebel against it. If the rebellion could not be suppressed, if it could not be managed, what would the ruler think? I could not show cruelty, so the rebellion spread. In the meantime, we saw King Gyanendra’s royal military ‘coup’.

Then comes the second people’s movement. This is a movement, not a revolution. Political parties that are attached to all four wheels join it – ideas, organizations, civil society, and the guns of the Maoists. If there are guns and people who use them, people do not take them lightly. What is the point of saying that guns are not used in a people's movement? If there is an elephant in the room, people talk about it by looking at the elephant. The mere presence of the elephant arouses an emotion. That emotion was created by the guns of the Maoists. To some extent, the then Royal Nepali Army was also forced to obey the United Nations and lay down its guns. However, that movement also went on hold, ended in an agreement. Almost the entire Terai/Madhesh fell outside the agreement.

The first Madhesh movement, which was not a movement, started with a protest. The protest that was held because we did not get a place in the interim constitution was suppressed. It exploded. After going into a peaceful rebellion, the rebellion was managed due to the foresight of the then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. After the second Madhesh rebellion, the Constituent Assembly elections were held.

After the promulgation of the new constitution, the third movement took place in Madhesh because all the forces of Madhesh were behind it. Since the general public came, it was both a protest and an uprising. Violence is not just about using guns, stopping traffic is also violence. Forcing someone is also violence. There was a bit of rebellion in it, there was an explosion, and ultimately it ended with brutal repression. Its achievement cannot be said.

The ability of the state determines whether any protest, explosion, rebellion or people's movement is successful or not. There were also big international powers behind the state power after 2015. In which the entire Khas Arya society, the entire hegemon, there was no opposition in the military power. There was no opposition in the administration either. The economic mechanism was with it. The media had become the media, the puppet of the state mechanism. The owner was carried on a puppet, the media. Therefore, it ended with brutal repression. It does not seem to have achieved much.

Finally, let's talk about the past movement. Just as Maoist was a brand, Marxism/Leninism was a brand. Nepalis love brands very much. It seems that brands should be taken in political matters too. Gen-G is not a Nepali brand. It started with the protests of young people. There was no capacity to manage it. When this could not happen, it exploded. And the state and geopolitical power came together and managed it well so that it would not lead to rebellion, movement or revolution. Because, like in the situation of 2015, many forces came together to manage it. That is why it could not go ahead with the explosion. 

One is a slogan, another is an agenda. The movement of young people began with a slogan, not an agenda. Therefore, the question of what the agenda was, what was achieved is meaningless. There can be many reasons for dissatisfaction. Sometimes you do not know yourself. Therefore, there was an explosion of dissatisfaction because there was no agenda. However, if there had been a political party to address the dissatisfaction, it would have come up with an agenda, mobilized the organization, had leadership. Who could have controlled it, controlled the pace and made the direction positive. However, it ended with an explosion of dissatisfaction. Therefore, there does not seem to be much possibility of achieving anything from this immediately.

How to assess the future?

First, what kind of crisis will come? If there is a systemic crisis, we have to move towards revolution. No, if there is only an agenda, it can be in the form of rebellion. Who will be the perpetrator? Political parties, which have a long history, at least 200 years of history in the world, political parties do not immediately resort to violence. But if they fall into the hands of political entrepreneurs, violence can erupt. What is the form of the organization? If people from all age groups are in the organization, then it has a controlled speed/direction, if it is of the same age group, if it is only the old and the young, it ends with an agreement, no matter what, if it is only the young, there is no agreement, it just moves forward. In that too, how much participation of women, how much participation of men? How much participation of different cultural groups? That also determines.

We have not been able to assess the crisis caused by climate change. It is not in the public debate. Our economy is becoming a remittance-based economy. Just as the climate is beyond our control, the economy and remittances are also beyond our control and management. भूराजनीतिक तनावको परिवर्तन पनि छ ।

अब कुनै एउटै ठूलो आन्दोलन र क्रान्तिभन्दा माइक्रो मुभमेन्ट र लोकलाइज्ड रिभोलुसन हुन्छ । जुन चीज सम्हाल्न कठिन हुन्छ । त्यसका लागि केन्द्रीकृत राज्य संरचनाको क्षमताले भ्याउँदैन । एउटा पाठ भारतबाट सिक्नुपर्ने के हो भने भारतले केन्द्रीकृत क्षमता सँगसँगै आफ्नोभित्रको विभिन्न माइक्रो रिभोलुसन/मुभमेन्टलाई सम्हाल्ने क्षमता निर्माण गरेको छ, यो नभएको हुनाले सोभियत संघको अन्तस्फोट भएको थियो । चीनको चुनौती पनि सायद आउँदा दिनहरूमा माइक्रो मुभमेन्ट र माइक्रो रिभोलुसनलाई कसरी सम्हाल्ने नै हुने सम्भावना धेरै देखिन्छ ।

मुख्य पात्रहरू अब को हुने ? अवश्य पनि प्रविधिमैत्री युवाहरू नै होलान् । अब त ह्याकरहरूले संसार सम्हाल्न सक्छ । शासन/सत्तादेखि बैंकको अकाउन्ट र न्युक्लियर आर्म्स नै छोड्दिन सक्ने अवस्था छ । परम्परागत राजनीतिक दलहरूको कि त रूपान्तरित हुनुपर्‍यो, नभए पतन हुन्छन् । डिजिटल र वातावरणीय मोड, राज्यको शक्ति कसरी निर्माण गर्ने ? एकता, संगठन, यी पक्षलाई ध्यानमा दिनुपर्छ । क्रान्तिहरू नैतिक घटना होइनन्, राजनीतिक शक्तिहरूको परीक्षण हो ।