A Technocrat's "Uprising":
A Critical Analysis of Balen Shah's UN Address
Senior Advocate Dr. Khimlal Devkota
CA Member
.jpg)
Balen Shah’s address
at the UN, which criticized
the disparities in the global system by stating
"efficient logistics for war but disrupted supply chains for food," had a clearly
anti-imperialist undertone. However, from a Maoist perspective, it represents
merely a technocrat's ethical condemnation within the capitalist system; the vagueness
of his class roots and the lack of a revolutionary trajectory reveal the deep shortcomings
of Nepal's "Gen Z" political movement.
Shah's ascent is a byproduct of the decline within Nepal's
legacy party structure. The Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre)—which previously challenged the semi-feudal system
through "People’s War"—declined after entering parliament, becoming just another participant in a "political retirement home" that alternated in power and divided benefits with the
Nepali Congress and the UML. For more
than eighteen years and under fifteen administrations,
corruption has thrived while youth unemployment has stayed persistently elevated. Shah emerged as a rapper and engineer, powerfully executing a
"dimensional strike" against this stagnant
system. Maoists need to recognize an undeniable
reality: when the established Maoist
parties abandoned the mass line,
the people's frustration inevitably found a new expression—even if that expression was a technocrat labeled as "professional yet
anti-establishment."
The issue, however, is that Shah's criticism stays solely ethical.
At the UN, he expressed being "hurt by conflicts we did not start," and the powerlessness of small countries ensnared in the politics of major powers; however, he avoided addressing a critical
point: the fundamental reason for Nepal’s poverty and reliance is not due
to technical shortcomings in
"global logistics," but rather in the inability to fully eliminate semi-colonial and semi-feudal production relations.
India’s extensive dominance over Nepal—from
the unequal treaty
of 1950 to
the 2015 border
blockade—cannot be reversed merely by
"transparency" or "evaluating project efficiency." Although Shah’s "hardline nationalism"
toward India is
indeed praiseworthy, without land reform,
the militarization of the populace,
and a confrontation
with comprador capital
and feudal land
rents, any "Nepal
First" slogan will inevitably be
confined to mere
diplomatic rhetoric.
Even more troubling is the uncertainty surrounding
Shah's social status. He challenges
the "debt sustainability" of significant
infrastructure projects but does not address the appeal
of Nepal’s inclusion in the global
capitalist system. The Maoist agenda promotes the
dismantling of oppressive production
relations, rather than establishing a more "transparent" type
of dependency within the current
system. A mayor with an engineering background may clear
riverbeds and dismantle unlawful constructions, yet local governance cannot
tackle the underlying issues that drive 40 percent
of Nepal's young population to look for jobs
overseas. The heartfelt story presented at the UN General Assembly conceals the lack
of a revolutionary agent: the united
ranks of laborers and farmers.
Certainly,
it would be negligent to just label Shah as a "bourgeois politician."
His mass support is authentic, and
the intense fury of the protesting youth is sincere. Maoists should
not simply observe and mock from
the sidelines; they must ask an important question: if
"Generation Z's" anger isn’t focused on
the socialization of the means,
if it doesn’t unite with the rural
impoverished, and if it does not
uphold autonomous class organization beyond the parliamentary
framework, then this "upheaval" will eventually be co-opted and tamed by the existing state structure—or might even perpetuate the same exploitation under a different appearance.
The grievances voiced
from the UN podium deserve to be heard, but Maoists must ask a further
question: who will transform these grievances into a revolution?
.jpg)
