{"id":15705,"date":"2026-04-23T17:35:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T11:50:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=15705"},"modified":"2026-04-23T17:35:09","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T11:50:09","slug":"name-communist-but-moves-imperialist-the-reality-of-nepals-communists-and-leftists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=15705","title":{"rendered":"Name ‘Communist’ but Moves ‘Imperialist’: The Reality of Nepal’s Communists and Leftists<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u270d\ufe0f Prem Sagar Poudel <\/strong><\/p>\n

When one hears the terms ‘communist’ or ‘leftist’ anywhere in the world, a certain image arises in the ordinary person’s mind: opposition to imperialism, the end of capitalism, a society free from exploitation, international solidarity, and most importantly an ideology that places one’s own nation’s sovereignty and the welfare of its people above all else. But in the context of Nepal, this definition has been turned on its head. Here, the political forces that bear the name ‘communist’ have, at every major turning point in history, worked in favor of the United States, Europe, and India. They have maneuvered at every step to prevent China’s development and influence from entering Nepal, all while performing a continuous drama of portraying themselves as ‘progressive.’<\/p>\n

The Nepali people have now begun to see this irony clearly. But this is not merely Nepal’s story alone. It is a symptom of a larger post-colonial global phenomenon where the label ‘leftist’ has increasingly become an effective weapon for gaining power, striking compromises with foreign powers, and betraying the development agenda of one’s own people.<\/p>\n

Examining the international relations of Nepal’s leftist parties reveals a stark truth: they have never followed the path of the Chinese Communist Party. They have never internalized China’s revolutionary experience, its development model, or its international stance. Instead, they have consistently served and continue to serve as convenient allies of American, European, and Indian policy.<\/p>\n

The 2015 blockade is a glaring example. When India imposed an unofficial blockade on Nepal, not a single word of protest emerged from the mouths of these so-called ‘leftist’ leaders. They remained silent, treating India’s move as an ‘internal decision.’ Only after the situation became domestically unsustainable did then-Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, in a bargaining style, manage to secure a commitment from China to supply petroleum products. Yet Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who claims to be a peerless communist revolutionary leader, remained utterly silent fearful of angering India. Instead, a group of five former prime ministers issued a joint statement expressing concern over rising foreign interference. Even Oli’s own government failed to take concrete action; it went so far as to revoke, through a cabinet decision, the approval granted to Himalayan Gas and Petroleum Products Pvt. Ltd. to import petroleum from China. When China did extend critical fuel and supply assistance to Nepal in its time of need, these leaders responded with narrow accusations of a ‘strategic move’ by China and a ‘threat to Nepal’s sovereignty.’ The world watched this theater unfold. To this day, they have failed to open a viable route for petroleum imports from China, thereby keeping Nepal heavily dependent on India.<\/p>\n

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) affair is another telling example. The so-called ‘communist’ parties pushed through the MCC agreement, widely regarded as part of a US military-strategic plan, without any serious debate. Yet, they have never hesitated to brand every single Chinese-backed project as a ‘debt trap’ or ‘economic colonization.’ In contrast, they have dressed US loans and military-linked activities in the attractive garb of ‘development partnership.’ The entire government machinery was mobilized in a competitive, almost theatrical, manner to welcome American officials a spectacle of subservience dressed in nationalist garb.<\/p>\n

China’s policy of ‘reform and opening-up,’ pursued since 1978, has led to the largest poverty alleviation in world history, an infrastructure revolution, and remarkable technological advancement. China built its model of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ on the foundation of its own historical, cultural, and geographical realities. This model has opened a new path for developing countries worldwide.<\/p>\n

But Nepal’s communist and ‘leftist’ leadership did not wish to see this success. They declared China’s experience ‘inapplicable to Nepal’s context.’ Hiding behind screens of ‘difference,’ ‘contextual diversity,’ and ‘democratic values,’ they have kept the Nepali people distant from China’s experience.<\/p>\n

The truth is, the fundamental principles behind China’s success long-term planning, state-prioritized infrastructure, massive investment in education and technology, stable leadership, and a policy of placing national interest first are not uniquely ‘Chinese’ principles at all. Any developing country can adopt them according to its own national interest. But Nepal’s ‘leftist’ leadership could not do so, for that would have required honesty, commitment to the nation, and most importantly the courage to put ideology into practice.<\/p>\n

Another key characteristic of Nepal’s leftist parties is their unhealthy obsession with India. Whenever these parties have come to power, they have been compelled to place India’s priorities first. They have raised no serious voice on issues such as the open border, trade disruptions, or India’s structural influence over Nepali territory.<\/p>\n

China, by contrast, has never interfered in Nepal’s internal affairs. It has consistently expanded its relationship with Nepal based on the ‘Panchsheel’ (Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence). Chinese leadership has repeatedly affirmed that Nepal’s sovereignty and independence will be fully respected, and that Nepal’s development is intertwined with China’s own.<\/p>\n

Yet Nepal’s ‘leftist’ leadership has always interpreted this message as a ‘geopolitical strategy’ of China. They have viewed China’s assistance not as an effort to connect with Nepal, but as a move to weaken it. This mindset has kept Nepal away from China’s success and forced it into the role of a convenient partner for India.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most remarkable skill of Nepal’s leftist leaders is their ability to please all foreign parties simultaneously. On any given day, they can visit the American, Indian, and Chinese embassies, skillfully conveying the message that they are on each side’s side. But when Nepal truly needs support on international platforms or new development partnerships, they hide behind the veil of ‘neutrality’ and a ‘balanced foreign policy.’<\/p>\n

The purpose of this drama is singular: to preserve power, maintain smooth relations with foreign powers, and secure their own political futures. The development of the people, poverty alleviation, national self-respect all of these become secondary.<\/p>\n

The cultural meaning that the word ‘communist’ has acquired in Nepal is itself a profound anomaly. In the Chinese language, Gongchandang (\u5171\u4ea7\u515a) means a ‘party of common property’ or a ‘group dedicated to serving the people.’ The Chinese people understand this term positively; their history, philosophy, and ethical traditions have absorbed it.<\/p>\n

But in the Nepali context, the meaning of ‘communist’ has been inverted. It is understood to mean ‘rebel,’ ‘anti-culture,’ ‘spreader of anarchy,’ ‘violent,’ ‘one who destroys all tradition.’ The primary reason for this is that Nepal’s ‘leftist’ leadership failed to connect itself with the cultural and historical realities of Nepali society.<\/p>\n

Just as China integrated its ancient philosophy (Confucius, Mencius, Laozi, Sun Tzu) with socialism to craft the framework of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics,’ Nepal’s leftists could have integrated their own traditions, their Hindu-Buddhist syncretism, and their village culture of collectivity with socialism. But they did not. Moreover, their rendering of the Western term ‘proletariat’ into Nepali as Sarbahara a word that effectively functions as an insult only reinforced a negative perception, painting the communist party as an ‘uncivilized rebel.’<\/p>\n

Nepal’s situation is not unique. In many developing countries around the world, we see the misuse of the ‘communist’ or ‘leftist’ label to gain power and strike compromises with foreign powers. But there is one great exception: China. China demonstrated that being ‘communist’ does not mean ‘copying the West.’ Being communist means understanding the reality of one’s own society, connecting with one’s own cultural roots, and forging one’s own path while assimilating successful experiences from around the world.<\/p>\n

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many declared the ‘end of socialism.’ But China proved the opposite. In the 1990s, China rejected the ‘Western narrative,’ establishing a logical connection between ‘market economy,’ ‘national rejuvenation,’ ‘indigenous culture,’ and ‘socialism.’ It was during this period that the then-chairman of the Japanese Communist Party stated at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences: ‘Socialism has not collapsed; it is the Soviet state structure that implemented socialism that has collapsed.’ China accepted this truth and, standing on that foundation, continued its journey.<\/p>\n

But Nepal’s ‘leftists’ refused to understand that truth. They repeated the Soviet mistake: ignoring local reality, trying to copy another’s model, and failing. On the other hand, while raising the banners of Western ‘democracy,’ ‘human rights,’ and ‘media freedom,’ they have failed to solve the fundamental problems of people’s livelihoods, health, education, and infrastructure.<\/p>\n

A landlocked, resource-constrained country still in the early stages of infrastructure development, Nepal could gain much from China’s model: stable leadership, long-term planning, massive investment in infrastructure, prioritization of education and technology, and most importantly a path to development without foreign interference. But all of this requires honesty and the prioritization of national interest.<\/p>\n

Nepal’s ‘communist’ leadership placed their personal and party interests above the national interest. They used the support of the US, Europe, and India to preserve their power, but failed to assimilate China’s successful experience. This failure has become a long-running tragedy for the Nepali people.<\/p>\n

Being ‘communist’ means opposing imperialism, rejecting foreign interference, and prioritizing one’s own country’s sovereignty and the welfare of its people. But Nepal’s so-called ‘communist’ leaders have inverted this definition. They have become convenient partners of imperialism, invited foreign interference, and sacrificed the people’s interests to preserve their own power and pockets.<\/p>\n

The Nepali people must now learn to recognize this game. Being communist is not merely a name or a party label; it is a way of life and a genuine ideology. China demonstrated that ideology in practice. Nepal’s ‘leftist’ leadership failed to understand their own fundamental traditions, culture, and the sentiments of their people. That is why their party became a ‘sun,’ became a ‘star,’ but never became the ‘trust’ in the hearts of the people.<\/p>\n

What is needed today is not a communist in name, but a communist in deed one who can learn from China’s experience for Nepal’s development while preserving Nepal’s unique identity and self-respect. One who regards not the US, India, and Europe as ‘masters,’ but the Nepali people as the true ‘sovereign.’<\/p>\n

Nepal needs such a communist now. Otherwise, this history of deception and drama by those bearing the name ‘communist’ will continue to repeat itself for generations to come.<\/p>\n

Author: Prem Sagar Poudel is a senior journalist and international relations analyst from Nepal. He has studied Nepal-China relations, the geopolitics of the Himalayan region, and Asian security issues in depth.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t