| |
King-sized problems in
Nepal
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - King Gyanendra is encircled by
challenges, not all of which are of his making. Some of
them he inherited at the time of his enthronement in
extraordinary circumstances in June 2001, following the
palace massacre that claimed the lives of King Birendra
and Crown Prince Dipendra, among others. People expected
that the new monarch, younger brother of the slain king,
would use his shrewdness and intelligence to take Nepal
out of turmoil caused primarily by a violent form of
Maoist insurgency.
After a prolonged silence,
the king did eventually take a step on October 4 last
year, but instead of resolving the problems at hand,
that royal measure added a few more sticking points in
the country's murky political landscape. He allowed
himself, unwittingly perhaps, to be seen as a king who
loves to exercise absolute powers under the garb of a
constitutional monarchy.
Gun-toting Maoists are
killing civilians and security personnel on the streets
of the capital city, and the whole country is in the
grip of terror. To make matters worse, Nepal is without
a parliament and people continue to be deprived of an
elected government. The constitution, drawn up in 1990
after a successful pro-democracy movement, remains in a
state of suspended animation. Development projects are
stalled as donors fail to find a conducive security
environment in which to work. People's patience is
running out fast.
"If the king does not play any
role even in this volatile situation," wrote Arun
Sayami, a medical doctor, in the Kantipur newspaper on
Monday, "the institution of monarchy would be like a
white elephant that a poor country like Nepal can ill
afford."
October 4 marked the completion of one
full year since the king sacked the elected prime
minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, accusing him of
incompetence in not organizing elections for the
parliament prematurely dissolved in May 2002.
"The new government being formed now will soon
restore law and order and hold elections," said the
palace proclamation that the king himself read out on
official radio and television a year ago.
Today,
the chances of early elections are a distant
possibility. And the situation took a turn for the worse
on Tuesday last week when royal authorities announced
mass nominations to "re-activate" local-level bodies
whose five-year term ended in July last year. There is
no official timeframe as to how long these nominated
persons would stay in office.
Royalist Lokendra
Bahadur Chand, the person the monarch hand-picked last
October to head the nominated government, failed to
garner public support for him to form an all-party
government which was expected to resolve the
seven-year-old Maoist rebellion and hold parliamentary
elections.
Major political parties refused to
join the Chand government, which they said was
unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Chand was allowed to
stay in office as the palace conducted behind-the-scenes
negotiations with Maoists that led to a second ceasefire
on January 30. It lasted for seven months.
However, talks on substantive political demands
- mainly for an elected constituent assembly to write a
new statute - broke down at the end of August. (The
country is in the midst of a nine-day truce at present
to coincide with celebrations for Nepal's biggest Hindu
festival, Dashain.)
Over 500 lives have been
lost since the end of the ceasefire. Surya Bahadur
Thapa, whom the king appointed in June to succeed Chand
as "prime minister", has lately taken a somewhat tougher
stand, allowing the Royal Nepal Army to make some gains,
particularly in in the western hills, considered a
Maoist stronghold. About 8,000 have lost their lives in
as many years of the Maoist struggle.
Rebels, in
the meantime, have successfully intensified their
activities in urban centers, mainly in the Kathmandu
valley which houses the capital and two other adjoining
districts. Despite well-publicized security
preparedness, rebel guerrillas managed to shoot dead an
army officer, and carry out six explosions in the
capital within half an hour on one single day. Likewise,
Maoists' call for a three-day nationwide general strike
(September 18-20) successfully paralyzed the country;
people were unwilling to rely on the assurances of the
security forces, overall command of which is taken by
the army. (The Royal Nepal Army is a 65,000-strong
force, the Nepal Police has about 52,000 men and women
and the Armed Police Force is made up of 15,000
persons.)
The dismissal of the elected
government by a constitutional head of state was an
extraordinary act, but public reaction to the royal
action was not violent. It did not generate spontaneous
public demonstrations. The reason? There was an
expectation that the king's step was a well-meaning one
and would quickly end chaos and lawlessness in society.
People hoped that the corruption level would
come down and the efficiency of the administration would
be enhanced. Although there was some skepticism, Nepalis
across the country believed that the king would clear
the political mess piled up by the political parties who
rose to power in the period between 1990 and 2002. Men
and women in the street did not want to question the
sincerity of the monarch, whose address to the nation
contained an explicit commitment to a multi-party system
and a constitutional monarchy.
Political
parties, too, were not able to put up any resistance of
significance. Even those who collected some courage to
question the move refrained from making loud noises.
Some of the leaders were apparently hoping for an
invitation from the palace to form an interim
government. It took some time for them to realize that
such an invitation was unlikely to be coming by.
Subsequently, they decided to denounce the royal move as
a regressive measure. The incumbent "prime minister",
Thapa, was among those who opposed the royal step. But
later the right-wing party to which both Thapa and his
predecessor Chand belonged dissociated itself from an
informally-formed alliance calling for the restoration
of democracy.
Only five parties which had had
representation in the dissolved 205-strong House of
Representatives remained in the field to launch a
sustained - often alluded to as a "decisive" - movement
against the "grand design" to end democracy.
Octogenarian Girija Prasad Koirala, president of
centrist Nepali Congress, is the "commander" of the
current agitation, which is being conducted in a
phase-wise manner.
Leaders of the "agitating
five" first began to be suspicious about the king's
possible motives when the royal government headed by
Chand did not take the parties into its confidence and
went ahead alone for crucial negotiations with Maoists
that resulted in the ceasefire in January. Their second
bitter experience was recorded in early June when the
king refused to appoint Madhav Kumar Nepal, a prominent
opposition leader, as the head of an interim coalition.
He was the consensus candidate. The king himself had
recommended that one candidate be put forward. But when
the time of appointment came, the monarch threw aside
the party's nomination and gave the post to Thapa, who
is known for his past linkages with the palace.
"The five parties should not have been asked to
agree on one name in the first place," said
constitutional lawyer Ganesh Raj Sharma. "Each party is
supposed to have its own ideal, its own manifesto and
its own candidate for the post of prime minister. That
is what the multi-party system is all about. However, it
was good that leaders arrived at a consensus to
positively respond to the king's desire; the monarch,
too, should have reciprocated their gesture."
Analysts who share Sharma's view tend to
emphasize that while individual politicians are liable
to abuse authority and prone to making mistakes, it
would be illogical to find fault in the democratic
system itself. Party leaders feel that political
institutions are being systematically sidelined, and
they question the validity of any agreement between the
Maoists and a government that does not have any
constitutional legitimacy.
"It is an amazing
spectacle to see the Maoist leadership eager to conclude
a pact with the government, which also does not have any
popular base," said Dipta Prakash Shaha, a
constitutional expert and former lawmaker.
Even
if the palace-dominated government made concessions to
the Maoists to secure another ceasefire, would their
deal be endorsed by any subsequent elected government?
Shaha is among those who have serious doubts about this.
The constitution requires that a new parliament
must be elected within six months from the date of the
dissolution of the previous legislature. But this
provision has been ignored, and in the absence of an
elected law-making body (parliament), the country has
been subjected to "rule by decree" since last year. Even
the country's annual budget was announced through an
ordinance the king issued in July. Constitutionally,
such ordinances are valid only for six months; these
need to endorsed by parliament.
"In terms of
time it turned out to be a wasted year," wrote
commentator C K Lal in the latest edition of Himal, a
Nepali language periodical. Several others shared Lal's
conclusion, saying that the king failed to implement his
own five-point agenda announced on the day he assumed
state power - October 4, 2002. Those who had high
expectations from that royal initiative included Nepal's
neighbors. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, for
instance, described the step as Nepal's internal affair,
adding, "As a friendly neighbor, China is convinced that
Nepal will maintain peace and stability and enjoy
economic growth." The stark reality today is that none
of these conditions are to be found in the country.
Though not specifically listed in the October 4
agenda, the monarch has been seen taking interest in
modernizing the army, which in the changed context the
king's title of supreme commander-in-chief of the Royal
Nepal Army carries an important meaning. Rapid
militarization of the establishment has occurred in the
past 12 months, with resources for, and attention to,
the army appearing to receive top priority. A Kathmandu
Post newspaper report on September 27 said that the
Finance Ministry was already considering to divert state
funds initially allocated for holding national elections
to the Royal Nepal Army for meeting operational costs as
well as for implementing plans to increase its numerical
strength. Satchit Rana, a member of the king's advisory
panel and an ex-army chief, told a Kathmandu audience on
September 24 that the number of soldiers should be
doubled. Whether Nepal's poor, farm-based economy can
sustain a big-sized army can become a separate point of
discussion.
A practical alternative for the
army, according to some security analysts, would have
been to ask the Nepal Police to loan 10,000 men from its
ranks; train them, equip them and use them until Maoists
return to the negotiating table. Once the insurgency
stops, the army can return the policemen to their
organization. This approach would simultaneously help
the police to enhance their policing capabilities. Small
Nepal can't possibly keep an armed force big enough to
fight with China or India. Policy planners in Kathmandu,
however, do not appear to be worried about the utility
of an over-sized army once the insurgency is tackled.
And it has to be tackled politically.
"Yes, it
is not an issue which the military, howsoever big or
equipped, should be asked to handle," said Professor
Indrajit Rai, a military strategist.
In Rai's
opinion, the king should consider the option of electing
a constituent assembly to write a new constitution.
Since the king represents the traditionally-respected
institution of the monarchy, people's support to it is
sure to be forthcoming in the election for such an
assembly.
Nepal's international friends and
partners, too, hold identical views.
"We
continue to believe that there can be no acceptable
military solution to the conflict in Nepal," Sir Jeffrey
James, Britain's special representative for Nepal, told
a press conference recently at the end of his third
official visit to the country. "The only sure way to
lasting peace is through negotiations conducted with
good faith, goodwill and willingness to succeed," he
elaborated.
Sir Jeffrey, however, expressed
disappointment when palace officials refused to arrange
an audience with the king, saying that the king was
"extremely busy". In his previous visits, the British
envoy has not had any difficulty in meeting the king.
Those who view the British - and Western - cooperation
critical for Nepal's survival, said that they were not
happy at the way the palace turned down the request for
an audience, especially at a time of national crisis.
South Asia's political map requires Nepal to
maintain a balanced relationship with both China and
India, and it needs to be extra careful about India,
with which it shares an anachronistically-maintained
porous border running over 1,800 kilometers.
"India's historic, cultural and social ties with
Nepal continue to make it the most important outside
influence on events in that country," US Assistant
Secretary of State for South Asia, Christina Rocca, said
at a seminar in New Delhi last month.
But she
did not stop there, or else Indians would have
interpreted the statement to mean that they can
intervene in Nepal's affairs at will. "Working in
tandem," she added, "our governments can help Nepal
defeat the Maoists and re-establish democratic
institutions responsive to the needs of the people."
Rocca also mentioned increased US diplomatic engagement
with, and assistance to, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
The US agenda in the "war on terrorism" is
understandably stronger than others' - particularly
after September 11. The American stand, therefore, on
the Maoist-related violence looks firm and tough. And it
is in this context that the US has slightly increased
its assistance for the modernization of army and other
security agencies. However, military assistance must not
mean, insist US embassy officials, that their
government's policy is to condone human rights
violations and other excesses attributed to the security
forces. Provisions for a human rights cell in the army,
civil police and armed police organizations have been
made on American advice, Nepali officials admit.
The external dimension of Maoist insurgency, as
hinted by Rocca, takes the subject to New Delhi. Even if
the theory that big India wants weak and unstable
governments in its neighborhood is discounted, the
unregulated border provides Nepal a basis to seek
India's cooperation in tracing Maoist insurgents in
Indian territory. With initial hesitation, New Delhi did
concede that Nepali Maoists had been taking advantage of
the porous border to develop contacts with Indian Maoist
groups.
In fact, authorities in New Delhi have
already handed back some Maoists to Nepal, and,
according to Indian media reports, the search for others
continues. Whether such assistance would have been
forthcoming from New Delhi without a friendly nudge from
the British and American governments remains a matter of
conjecture.
That Nepali Maoists have received
some concessions from the Indian side right from 1996
when they launched their "people's war" is evident from
the change of their position on India's hegemonic
policies since its independence in 1947. At the start of
the movement, Maoists said that they were against both
Indian expansionism and American imperialism. Later on,
the resentment against "expansionism" disappeared from
their documents and statements. They also stopped
raising issues like border encroachments, construction
of high dams on the Indian side causing inundation on
the Nepal side, and the "unequal" treaty of 1950.
On the contrary, some Maoist leaders have given
press interviews pleading to maintain a cordial
relationship with India if they ever came to power in
Nepal. Once again, it is difficult to speculate on
whether or not a quid pro quo is involved for this
undertaking. While the perceived Indian connivance, if
not anything else, is on the decline, it is not easy to
conclude that concomitant hazards have been eliminated
once and for all.
Who is to be blamed for the
present state of affairs in Nepal? How can Nepal be
rescued before it becomes another international example
of a failed state? Politicians who have had close
encounters with King Gyanendra - both official and
unofficial - tend to believe that the monarch himself is
a part of the problem. According to them, the king's
excessive dependence on the wisdom and advice of close
relatives and old, discredited courtiers seem to have
prevented him from taking bold and timely decisions on
urgent political issues.
One sure way to resolve
the current impasse between major political parties and
the beleaguered king would be to restore the parliament
that was prematurely dissolved. But how can it be
revived when the Supreme Court has also endorsed the
dissolution?
Former chief justice Bishwanath
Upadhyay, the person who headed the panel that drafted
the present constitution, has a different assessment:
since elections could not be held within six months, as
assumed by the court ruling, the king had the
prerogative of restoring parliament on his own. But the
palace has not shown any interest in this proposition.
Neither has it found it necessary to respond to the
request by leaders of the five agitating parties for an
audience to present alternative suggestions for an
acceptable way out.
Supporters of active
monarchy defend the palace by arguing that elections and
other democratic processes can be restored only after
the Maoist insurgency is contained. This sounds logical,
but it has not satisfied the people, who want to know
from the king himself about the tentative schedule for
re-starting the political process.
The monarch,
in a festival message broadcast by Radio Nepal, on
Sunday simply called for peace, an end to the
seven-year-old Maoist insurgency and resumption of
development activities in the country.
"To
activate soon a form of governance based on popular
representatives, it is essential that all countrymen
unite, with patriotism as the focal point," he said.
"The country has been in the grip of violence, terror
and destruction for the past few years and every Nepali
desires to see an end to this situation," the monarch
added.
Maoist leaders, who have gone underground
since the end of the ceasefire, have publicly said that
the present demand for an elected constituent assembly
is not their final goal. Their ultimate aim is to
convert Nepal into a communist republic. Those who still
see a role for monarchy (not to be confused with
"palace", which includes vested interests) do not want
the king to believe in Maoists. They want him to work
with democratic parties and moderate leftists who have
already been working under the present democratic
constitution, promulgated in 1990. Continued hesitation
to work with these forces might create a difficult
situation before long. And the king will be further
isolated, analysts say, if some constitutional forces
become desperate and join hands with the Maoists. The
consequences of the ensuing disorder could be
devastating for the monarchy.
(Copyright 2003
Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
