Nepal's army marching to political beat
By Dhruba Adhikary

KATHMANDU - Nepal's political instability was the focus of disillusioned international aid donors this week as anti-monarchy protests, the Maoist insurgency and human rights abuses by the politicized military continued apace in this troubled Himalayan kingdom. Donors did not approve the king's request for aid, saying stability and democracy are the price tag for development assistance.

Members of the donor community, representatives of three dozen countries and agencies, assembled for a two-day conference, officially called the Nepal Development Forum (NDF), but a pre-conference statement prepared on the initiative of the European Commission called Nepal's current political situation "untenable".

Canada joined important European donors like Britain, France and Germany to reiterate their position that a long-term development partnership with Nepal was contingent on the restoration of democracy and the peace process. The United States, China, Japan and India are among non-European countries that are profoundly concerned about the landlocked Himalayan kingdom. And they are aware of the devastation caused by the bloody Maoist insurgency that began in early 1996.

The kingdom's request for US$560 million a year in support was not approved. "Representative democratic institutions and people's participation at the central and local level are key elements of a development partnership," the donors' statement emphasized, indirectly urging King Gyanendra to end the direct rule he began immediately after sacking the elected prime minister on October 4, 2002.

Thereafter, none of the two royalists he "appointed" prime ministers has been able to enlist the participation of organized political parties. Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa, the second royal nominee since last June, has failed to convince the public that his government is based on the democratic constitution promulgated in 1990. He is rejected even by his own party, the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party.

And in the latest twist, on Friday Thapa announced that he was leaving office. "I have decided to submit my resignation to His Majesty the King with effect from today," Thapa said in a nationwide broadcast. "I hope my resignation will pave the way for building a national consensus and help establish lasting peace in the country."

The arrival in Kathmandu of members of the donor community coincided with major protest rallies led by a front of five parties represented in the 205-seat parliament. That assembly was dissolved by the king in May 2002 - nearly two years before its five-year term was due to expire. On Monday, the royal government ordered the arrest of some top protest leaders, preventing them from addressing a public meeting near King Gyanendra's Narayanhity Royal Palace. The protest program was re-scheduled on Tuesday, and speakers urged the king to return sovereignty to the people, or else the monarchy could be swept away.

The ongoing pro-democracy campaign, which began in early May last year, has intensified since the beginning of April. Thousands of party workers and student activists have been injured in clashes with police in the capital. And the unrest is rapidly spreading to other parts of the country. University students nationwide are conducting "referendums" in their campuses, with the reported results favoring and end to the monarchy and the establishment of a republic.

Representatives of three dozen donor countries and agencies met separately with protesting political leaders in order to find out why they boycotted the forum aimed at assisting Nepal in its plans for poverty reduction, social uplift and economic development. "We told the donors that there is no point in having the Nepal Development Forum while an illegitimate government sits in Simha Durbar," said Ram Sharan Mahat, a leader of the country's largest party, Nepali Congress, referring to the central secretariat building located here in the capital.

But the donors, although supportive of the need for a representative government, said they could not ignore reports of the malpractice of the political parties when they were in power. In fact, widespread allegations of inefficiency and corruption of the party-based governments of the past had given the king a plausible pretext to assert himself initially, with the public willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But with the passage of time, Gyanendra, who became king in the aftermath of a palace massacre on June 1, 2001, thought it wise to seek a "constructive role" in state affairs. But the existing constitution, drawn up in 1990, does not have any room for such an assertive role for the monarch.

The king's public speeches have invariably expressed his commitment to the constitution and multiparty democracy, but most of his actions have failed to carry out his own pledges. His decisions to substantially raise fund allocations for the palace and draw an additional 142 million rupees (US$3.2 million) from the state exchequer to import luxury cars have sent negative messages to people.

Similarly, his preference for a particular person to head the national election commission attracted widespread public criticism, making people suspicious about the fairness of the parliamentary elections the king insists on holding by mid-April 2005.

But the atmosphere is not conducive to any major political exercise, such as parliamentary elections, in the foreseeable future. The agitating leaders last week declined palace invitations for an audience with the king - an unprecedented show of defiance by politicians. They said that as on previous occasions, the monarch would once again use these conciliatory gestures as a ploy to dampen the spirits of political activists.

In fact, pressure is mounting on the protest leaders not to fall prey to the palace bait. Another reason why their doubts persist is that the king began his latest round of "political consultations" last week by meeting leaders of new and tiny parties that are known for their loyalty to the palace. The larger and established parties such as Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) did not figure on the king's priority list. Then there is the regal style that the king may choose to adopt in dealing with subjects once they enter the palace. Some consider dress codes and traditional court manners intimidating and not suitable for a modern-day monarch.

Military might
The king does have strength, though. "The military strength is the source of his majesty King Gyanendra's power," wrote Pradeep Giri, a political leader with democratic credentials, in an article printed in Kantipur newspaper on April 28. Actually, Giri expressed prevailing public perception, based on the events of 1960. King Mahendra, the present king's father, had staged a royal coup dismissing the country's first elected prime minister and dissolving the parliament. The army, which is maintained through the taxpayers' money, was used to fulfill the king's political ambitions.

Nepal's army is called the Royal Nepal Army (RNA), with the king as the "supreme commander". While this title is considered a ceremonial one for a head of the state in countries like Britain and India, the king of Nepal has traditionally taken it as the symbol of real authority over the country's armed forces, numbering 78,000. The total has increased by more than 25,000 troops within the past few years, and an army spokesman recently told a newspaper about plans to add 22,000 more soldiers. Because of the ongoing Maoist insurgency, the royal government has placed the Nepal Police of 40,000 and the Armed Police Force of 18,000 under the army's "unified command", indirectly but unmistakably enhancing the king's power.

The army continues to receive substantial military assistance, mainly from India, the US, and Britain. The assistance, in the form of weapons, equipment and training, has significantly strengthened its ability to take on the rebels. The introduction of helicopters with night-vision capabilities have helped deploy troops even in the remotest parts of Nepal, a country of difficult, mountainous terrain.

Britain soon will provide two aircraft equipped with surveillance equipment. All of the assistance is certain to increase army efficiency, officers contend, improving Nepal's performance abroad in United Nations peacekeeping missions. Nepali soldiers are working as UN peacekeepers in Congo, Sierra Leone and Haiti, while Burundi and Sudan are next on the list for deployments. These opportunities supplement the gold and glory that the Gurkhas have earned by being combat members of the British and Indian armies.

Achievements are commendable. But, like monarchy, the Royal Nepal Army is not an institution free from controversy. Attempts of its leadership to keep it out of politics have not been successful. And RNA's tradition of loyalty to the monarchy, not an elected government, makes it appear anti-democratic. An incident at Holeri, in the western hills, shortly after Gyanendra became the king, is an example of how uncooperative the RNA can be toward elected governments.

Premier Girija Prasad Koirala resigned, complaining that RNA units refused to carry out his government's order to attack Maoist rebels there. Other complaints against the RNA include its look - an army dominated by the relatives of the king and his courtiers. There are comments on the allocation of the lion's share of the country's limited resources to the RNA. People at the policy planning level could look for alternatives - such as raising a militia made up of ex-servicemen from the armies of Nepal, India and Britain.

Instead, the RNA is bent on increasing its numerical strength, remaining oblivious of the trends elsewhere in South Asia. For instance, Pakistan has announced a plan to downsize its army by 50,000 men. India is also saying it is time to trim the army. "If more army and sophisticated weapons were enough to fight insurgencies of our scale, why then would Sri Lanka and Israel ... be licking their wounds after 20 and 40 years of relentless wars?" wondered Ameet Dhakal of The Kathmandu Post newspaper. In his view, it would be far more prudent to use savings to construct roads, open health care centers and set up drinking water projects in the insurgency-hit districts.

The RNA may not like politics, but the army's involvement in matters related to political events is too glaring to be glossed over. By taking the responsibility to lead the "unified command", the RNA is gradually assuming the duties which previously remained in the ambit of civilian authorities. For example, security committees formed at the center, regions, zones and districts are being effectively "guided" by army officers attending those meetings. Similarly, the ministry of defense, headed by a high-ranking civilian officer, has stopped issuing press statements and clarifications. This kind of job is now being handled at RNA headquarters, where army officers speak directly to the media.

Quoting Brigadier Rajendra Thapa, Nepal's official news agency, RSS, reported on April 27 that the objectives of the RNA were to disarm and bring Maoists into the mainstream and establish peace in the country. The concept of unified command has also become a moot point. "There is no provision of a 'unified command' in the constitution; hence this measure can be described as an unconstitutional concept," Dipta Prakash Shaha, a military expert and retired RNA brigadier, said in a recent interview to Tarun, a Nepali-language weekly.

Some of the Nepal-watchers in India and elsewhere observe that the US and Indian military assistance to Nepal have not been beneficial to the people of this country. "[ King] Gyanendra's ability to ignore popular opinion within his own country is based on the support he is receiving from abroad, especially from the US and Indian governments," wrote Jayati Ghosh in Frontline, an Indian magazine, last August. The US support strengthens the hand of the monarchy, she said, which relies on, and is "associated with the dominantly royalist military".

Ghosh's criticism of her own country's government, led by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, is equally stinging : "... the Indian government has been providing a substantial amount of military aid to Nepal, which tilts the scale in favor of the monarchy ..." However, the external approach to Nepal's current political crisis has begun to change lately, with the US, Britain and India saying that there is no military solution to the conflict. They appear to agree on the need of an all-party government which can obtain legitimacy to re-start the negotiation process, ultimately taking the country to the polls. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan issued a statement in March offering "to be available to assist the search for a solution in any manner the parties consider useful".

The issue of human rights is yet another area where the RNA is drawing flak from within Nepal and from the rest of the world. Cases of human rights violations and atrocities against the civilian population by the security forces are regularly reported in the media. Concerns of diplomats and visitors from European countries are more pronounced on this issue. A group of German parliamentarians, on a short visit in February, voiced their concerns over both Maoist violence as well as the "increasing trend towards violence and disregard of basic human rights by the security organs of the state". Though each of the state security organs has its own human rights cell, none of them prefers to promptly monitor cases of killing, abduction, rape and torture, observers say.

Persuasive media campaigns have often been helpful to unearth cases of human rights abuses. "Nepal in 2004 reminded me of Cambodia in 1974," said Kul C Gautam, a Nepali citizen who holds the post of an assistant secretary general in the UN system. In a paper he issued last month, Gautam explained the plight of the "people caught between Maoist and military atrocities".

Stung by a series of complaints and criticisms, RNA chief General Pyar Jung Thapa directed his men in uniform last November to be careful not to inflict harm on innocent civilians. "Each and every action that we take for the people's security should abide by the principles of human rights and governing laws," said General Thapa in the presence of media representatives.

But has the situation changed for the better since the time Thapa issued the directives? Not really, as these words from the editorial columns of The Kathmandu Post on Wednesday indicate: " ... the media and civil society will not support the army if they fail to respect basic human rights." This comment appeared as the RNA stood poised to sweep out the rebels from one of their strongholds in the mid-western hills.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)