| |
Monarchy at a
crossroads
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - Shouting slogans against the
reigning king is forbidden by law. Making disparaging
remarks about the monarchy is also a punishable offense.
Attempting to spread hatred against members of the royal
family, too, amounts to sedition. Persons convicted on
these charges attract sentences of up to three years in
jail, and are required to pay a modest fine as well.
This is what government prosecutors wanted
Kathmandu's special court to impose on three student
leaders arrested by police on December 16 on charges of
raising "objectionable" slogans against King Gyanendra
and his heir apparent, Crown Prince Paras. The student
rally had also voiced a demand that Nepal - in theory a
constitutional monarchy - be transformed into a
republic.
The authorities, however, changed
their mind shortly before the court sat for a
preliminary hearing. The judges were requested to grant
permission to withdraw that high-profile case. Officials
did not give any reasons, but student leaders affiliated
to mainstream political parties claimed that the
prosecutors were afraid because they did not have
evidence to substantiate the allegations.
Instead, the incident made the students popular
among protesters for their bold demand. December 16, the
day the students chose to publicly register their
protest against the dismissal of the elected prime
minister on October 4, 2002 and assumption by the king
of political duties, was also aimed at refreshing the
public memory about the royal coup of 1960. It was on
December 16 that year that King Mahendra, the present
king's father, dissolved parliament and dismantled the
country's first elected government on bland charges of
corruption and incompetence. Subsequently, Nepal was
placed under an autocratic monarchy, which lasted for 30
years.
Despite past bitterness, though, major
political parties remain committed to support the
constitutional monarchy, as provided for in the
constitution written in the aftermath of the 1990
pro-democracy movement. But some of the country's
prominent politicians have lately come out in the open
with expressions favoring a republic. "Our party's
current position on the monarchy [pro] is just a policy,
not a principle," argues Narahari Acharya of the Nepali
Congress, a party with centrist credentials.
"The policy can always be reviewed and changed
in the context of emerging trends and requirements," he
explains.
The palace carnage of June 2001 that
claimed the lives of King Birendra and Crown Prince
Dipendra, among others, and King Gyanendra's
unconstitutional step of October 2002, are frequently
mentioned in public platforms as the two main incidents
to dent the monarchy's credibility. As The Economist (of
London) wrote on January 17, the present king's
preference for a hardline approach on Maoist rebels
"cost hundreds of lives and led to a steep erosion of
civil liberties. This is bound to inflict additional
backlash against the monarchy from the alienated
population. Western donors have already said they are
reluctant to keep the aid flowing unless Nepal's human
rights situation is visibly improved."
Left-leaning parties have never been supportive
of the monarchy, describing it as a feudal entity. That
is why the leaders of these parties are quietly
welcoming the process of re-thinking within the Nepali
Congress, the country's largest political group.
Congress is one of the five parties now in the forefront
of agitation launched to force the king to revert state
powers to elected representatives.
"Our party
does not have a republican agenda," says Madhav Kumar
Nepal, leader of the main party in the opposition, the
Communist Party of Nepal (UML). "But if this country
becomes a republic one day, it will be the direct
outcome of the king's behavior," adds the UML leader.
Although Rabindra Nath Sharma belongs to a right-wing
party, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, and is close to
the incumbent (nominated) prime minister, he concedes
that most of King Gyanendra's initiatives since he
ascended the throne in 2001 have harmed the interests of
the monarchy. After assuming executive powers in 2002,
the king has appointed two prime ministers, but neither
has succeeded in forming an all-party government capable
of holding fresh elections. So the king still rules.
Political parties have publicly complained that
the king has not been sincere to his own commitment to
multi-party democracy. According to them, he has not
been faithful to his role as the constitutional head of
the state either. Some leading politicians have openly
expressed displeasure at the way the king plays games
through the royal audience he has been granting to the
leaders of agitating parties. These meetings, they
claim, are used to bide time with a view to
marginalizing the importance of political parties.
Expressing dissatisfaction, Ameek Sherchan, who heads a
left-leaning front, declined to accept an offer of an
audience with the king - an almost unthinkable act.
Another reason why politicians are suspicious
about the king's motives is his well-publicized interest
in playing a "constructive" role in national politics.
This royal desire was inserted in an interview the king
gave to Nepal, a fortnightly news magazine, last August.
Experts are amazed because the present constitution does
not leave any room for the king to play any creative or
constructive role. Like the British sovereign, he is
expected to perform only ceremonial duties as Nepal's
head of the state. Nothing more.
Spreading
discontent
But while frustration among
politicians can be dismissed as an expression of their
unfulfilled desire to get back into power, it is
difficult to brush aside the views of enlightened
citizenry as a thoughtless utterance. Constitutional
experts, human rights activists, academics, media
professionals and other members of civil society, too,
appear fed up with the arbitrary rule of the king. The
number of people subscribing to the divine right theory
is in rapid decline.
"If 'popular' late King
Birendra was so unpopular, you can make a guess about
the popularity rating of King Gyanendra, who wants to
have a strong say in state affairs," former chief
justice Bishwa Nath Upadhyaya told The Kathmandu Post
newspaper recently. Upadhyaya was head of the experts'
panel which drafted the 1990 constitution. "Knowingly or
unknowingly, we are heading towards a republic," he said
during a separate conversation with this writer.
Krishna Pahadi, a human rights activist
representing a younger generation of Nepalis, does not
have any reason to differ with Upadhyaya. "The
traditional structure of the monarchy collapsed on the
day King Birendra was killed in the palace in mysterious
circumstances," Pahadi says, alluding to the carnage of
June 1, 2001. Ganga Bahadur Thapa, professor of
political science at Tribhuwan University, points to the
steady erosion in the traditional belief that the
monarchy represents the country's nationalist force.
"The king appears to have found it expedient to seek
support from external sources, ignoring the popular base
inside the country," says Thapa, obliquely referring to
media reports about moral and material support that King
Gyanendra and the royal army are receiving from India,
the United Kingdom and the United States. (Norwegian
Johan Galtung, a professor of peace studies, bills these
countries as a "gang of three" in the context of their
initiatives to contain the Maoist insurgency.)
"One man or one party must not be the arbiter of
its [country's] destiny," writes Madhav Kumar Rimal in
the Spotlight newspaper he edits. Rimal's remark
represents the opinion of elderly people who
traditionally have considered the monarchy essential for
providing a symbol of unity to Nepal's ethnic diversity.
Changes being noticed in public thought are also
based on the growing perception that the monarchy is
gradually becoming an expensive institution. Although
the number of royal family members dropped after the
palace massacre, budget allocations for King Gyanendra's
family have risen several fold. According to a Kathmandu
Post report of January 18, the palace recently drew 14.2
million rupees (approximately US$313,000) to import
three luxury cars to add to its existing fleet of costly
vehicles. The irony is that at $238, Nepal's per capita
annual income continues to be one of the lowest in the
world; and about 40 percent of its 23 million people
live under the poverty line - with earnings of less than
a dollar a day.
Measures on Maoists
Meanwhile, the measures that King Gyanendra has
taken thus far to address the country's ongoing Maoist
rebellion have yet to yield encouraging results. This
has made many Nepalis apprehensive about the real motive
of the king, who also has the title of supreme
commander-in-chief of the 70,000-strong Royal Nepal
Army. In activist Pahadi's analysis, the king and his
coterie are not in favor of resolving the issue. "He
will remain powerful so long as the Maoist problem
remains," a newspaper recently quoted Pahadi as saying.
Former chief justice Upadhyaya highlights
another aspect of conspiracy to prolong the battle
between the Maoists and the security forces. It is
possible that "India wants ... treaties signed by Nepal
in the light of the Maoist problem," he tells a
newspaper interviewer. Though Indian authorities have
not reacted to reports of extorting favorable pacts and
agreements from Nepal, they have publicly admitted that
some of the Maoist leaders have taken shelter on Indian
soil, taking advantage of the porous border between the
two countries. Indian foreign minister Yashwant Sinha
himself told Nepal Television recently that Delhi was
"embarrassed" to learn that a senior Nepali opposition
leader managed to meet top Maoist insurgents in the
Indian city of Lucknow last November.
Not all
speculation is bereft of credible basis. Media reports
that hardline elements within the palace might have had
a hand in initially mobilizing an armed group in the
form of Maoists may not be mere conjecture. Robert
Gersony, a US expert on conflict studies, expresses
surprise as to why no efforts were made to stop the
activities of the insurgents for six long years once the
rebels launched their "people's war" in February 1996
from a village in mid-western Nepal. Gersony, who
concluded field-based research last October, poses a
valid question: "Why did the government, particularly
the palace, which has substantial authority over the
armed forces, not mobilize the RNA [Royal Nepal Army] to
combat a threat far greater than any the establishment
had faced before?"
Gersony's report also
contains references to some of the conspiracy theories
he came across during his study tour of Nepal's western
region. One of the theorists reportedly said: "To
disrupt the multi-party system, the palace allowed the
Maoist movement to flourish into a serious challenge
which that system would be incapable of addressing."
A counter question logically arises here: if
this theory is correct, who or what prevented the men
and women elected to run the multi-party system from
taking appropriate measures for foiling the royal ploy?
Nobody but themselves. In the period after the
restoration of democracy, in 1990, politicians belonging
to two major parties wasted precious time in
power-grabbing games, while the third party, the
royalist RPP, did all it could to help the palace to
stage a comeback. This is not all. Leaders of the ruling
parties failed to utilize even those powers which are
guaranteed by the constitution. The constitution, for
instance, contains a provision for the National Defense
Council to deal with army matters. The prime minister
heads the council, which has two other members: the
defense minister and the army chief.
Obviously,
this provision gives a majority to the civilian side of
the council, but most of the prime ministers in the
intervening years never cared to appoint a separate
minister to look after the defense portfolio. Usually,
the premier kept the portfolio with himself (perhaps
considering it a prestige), thereby effectively reducing
the council's strength to two persons. Needless to
emphasize, on military matters, it was always the army
chief's words that became decisive. For this kind of
negligence, prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala paid a
heavy price in July 2001 when the commanders of army
units deployed to take on Maoists at Holeri village in
Rolpa district refused to carry out the orders issued by
civilian authorities. The commanders reportedly said
they would not make any move unless authorized by their
supreme commander-in-chief: King Gyanendra.
But
rebel leaders have consistently rejected allegations
that they are helping the palace hardliners to
destabilize the democratic system or are conniving at
India's interference in Nepal. If these claims are to be
taken at their face value, Maoists have to be accepted
as a political force to be reckoned with. As they
represent a radical leftist group, Maoists describe the
monarchy as a feudal institution, and hence would like
to replace it with a people's republic.
India,
which shares Nepal's southern border, is a democratic
republic, and its northern neighbor, China, too, is a
republic, albeit of a communist kind. The point to
ponder here is that neither of these two countries in
Nepal's neighborhood is under a system which bears a
semblance of feudalism. Yet they are the ones who have
made enviable economic achievements. Should Nepal choose
to maintain the status quo - and continue to depend on
an economy based on subsistence farming? These are some
of the questions that have begun to seriously exercise
the minds of many in the country.
After all,
what is the harm in transforming Nepal into a democratic
republic? Well, there is no harm per se, but the issues
that this proposition entails are delicate. Would King
Gyanendra, for instance, volunteer to relinquish the
throne he inherited in extraordinary circumstances
two-and-half years ago? If not, the country's
traditionally loyal army is there to vigorously work to
defend the royal regime. And even the best efforts to
avoid bloodshed in such a situation are unlikely to be
effective.
Then there is another set of analysts
who prefer to examine the emerging scenario at a
different level. What happens if the king suddenly
chooses to abdicate and clear the way for making Nepal a
republic? These analysts are worried because fragile
Nepal does not have any alternative, ready-made
apparatus to hold the country together. The country's
independence itself, they fear, may come under external
threat. "It is a great challenge to sustain a republic,"
agrees former chief justice Upadhyaya, who does not,
however, concur with the view that Nepal's very
existence would be threatened in the absence of the
monarchy.
But some Nepalis still hold a hazy
idea about the viability of a republic in a traditional
society like Nepal's. This is perhaps the reason why the
educated - and privileged - class think it wise to
distinguish the institution of the monarchy from one
particular king. In the words of the Nepali Times weekly
(January 16) "... people still appear to be drawing a
distinction between the institution of monarchy and the
intention of the monarch."
Young students in
university campuses, however, possess a different
concept of the monarchy in the 21st century ... people
don't need it any longer ... but if the king is eager to
salvage his throne, he should be the one to come forward
for negotiations.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times
Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
