|
|
|
|
King readies for a new game in
Nepal
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - "No news item, article or
other reading material shall be censored," reads
the first sentence of Article 13 of Nepal's
constitution, promulgated after the restoration of
democracy in early 1990. But this provision,
together with articles covering the right to
freedom of expression and the right to seek
information on matters of public importance,
currently stands suspended - through a decree King
Gyanendra issued on February 1.
Article
115 was invoked to declare a state of emergency,
suspending some of the other rights Nepali
citizens enjoyed, such as the right to property,
the right to privacy and the right to
constitutional remedy. Notifications subsequently
announced by the Ministry of Information and
Communications indicate that the restrictions are
initially valid for six months. Negative opinion
on the spirit of the royal proclamation of
February 1 is prohibited.
All ongoing
internal debates, hence, on the merits of King
Gyanendra's proclamation of February 1, placing
the kingdom under his direct rule, need to be
examined in a given context.
The
king's declared intention is to assume power for a
period of three years, and that is for
"reactivating multiparty democracy". Since this is a
commitment the monarch has made publicly, view some
analysts, it is unlikely to be withdrawn or neglected.
An alternative to a civilian-looking monarchy
could have been a move by the men in uniform
- something that happened in Pakistan in 1999, bringing
President General Pervez Musharraf into power.
Besides, the international community,
including Nepal's immediate neighbors India and
China, is closely watching political developments
here. And whether the concerns expressed by
Washington, New Delhi and London for the
restoration of democracy and human rights are
genuine still have to be tested.
Was
Nepal in dire need of such a drastic step as the
one taken on February 1? If yes, was it the
king himself who had to take the initiative? "I
think so," Kapil Kafley, editor of the Nepali-language
daily Raajdhaani, told Asia Times Online.
"Disunity among the leading political parties left
them too weak to stop the country from sliding
towards anarchy; Maoist rebels are not a
democratic group who could be trusted to run this
country. What else is available other than the
traditional institution of monarchy?"
A
commentator in the weekly People's Review
described the royal initiative as "shock therapy"
for a nation that had lain prostrate and bleeding
for years. Interestingly, this perception is
widely shared, mainly by men and women living in
remote and far-flung districts where the violent
Maoist rebellion has made their lives unbearable.
These rural folk are looking for a sense of relief
and security.
Statements welcoming the
king's step abound, although some of them have
come with caveat tags. The editor of Spotlight
weekly offered a comment on Friday advising the
king not to be carried away by sycophancy, "which
will hardly contribute to any substantive and
productive outcome except leading him astray".
The monarch himself now heads a 12-member
council of ministers, he announced on February 2.
Meetings of this council are conducted in the
palace and are chaired by the king.
The
king now needs to revamp his palace secretariat so
that it becomes first capable of offering public
services characterized by a high level of honesty
and efficiency. This effort could encourage
discipline among the officials responsible for
running ministries and departments located in the
Singh Durbar, the central secretariat building,
which houses the administrative offices whenever
an elected government is in office.
Last week, the state-run newspaper
Gorakhapatra published a report showing that the
secretariat inside Narayanhity Palace had yet to
make preparations for post-takeover requirements.
The report related to a crucial audience the
king granted to Indian Ambassador Shiv
Shankar Mukherjee last Wednesday, but the official
newspaper based its story on a press release
issued by the Indian Embassy. And the embassy, in
turn, based its release on a statement it received
from New Delhi.
Apparently, the
palace secretariat had not bothered to publish any
notice to that effect. Similarly, people in Kathmandu
and elsewhere in Nepal came to know about an
earlier meeting between King Gyanendra and the US
envoy, James Moriarty, from non-Nepali sources.
The frequency of visits to the palace by
some of the Kathmandu-based ambassadors has to be
seen in the context of their stinging reactions to
the king's action (Western media call it a royal
coup d'etat) on February 1. In the initial US
assessment, the royal initiative amounted to "a
step back from democracy". In its opinion, the
king's action would undermine the Nepali struggle
with the Maoist insurgency, a very serious
challenge to a peaceful and prosperous future for
Nepal.
Nepal's giant southern neighbor,
India, also saw the royal move as "a serious
setback to the cause of democracy". The European
Union's concerns revolved around the questions of
multiparty democracy and respect for human rights.
China and Pakistan considered the takeover as
Nepal's internal affair. Russia hoped Nepal would
be able to "independently solve the problem".
Politics, too, are globalized, and
concerns for democracy and human rights are
understandable. This becomes more pronounced when
civil rights are suspended and leaders of
political parties are detained or placed under
house arrest. Restrictions on political
activities, if imposed for an extended period,
could similarly create a political vacuum
depriving the king of the cushion needed to deal
with the Maoists, whose "People's War" entered its
10th year on Sunday.
At present, arrest
letters the authorities have issued refer to a
period of up to 90 days. Maoists, in the meantime,
have given their response negatively to the king's
call to give up arms "and return to the mainstream
of national politics peacefully". On the contrary,
the Maoists are encouraging democratic forces
(constitution-abiding political parties) to join
hands with them to overthrow the monarchy. Up
until now, political parties have not shown any
interest in launching any joint movement to scrap
the institution of the monarchy.
India's shadow looms
Is
India really worried for democracy in Nepal? As
the world's largest democracy, leaders in New
Delhi have to make it a point to oppose whatever
they see as a threat to the democratic system.
But their policy often lacks consistency.
Bhutan's monarchy and Maldives' presidency provide two
striking examples in the neighborhood. Unless New
Delhi introduces credible measures aimed at
putting pressures on these regimes to liberalize,
its concerns for Nepal are unlikely to be to seen
as real or farsighted.
It
is in this context that India is being
criticized in Nepal for scuttling a planned South
Asian summit in Dhaka early this month.
By denying King Gyanendra a forum to meet his
counterparts in the region, New Delhi lost the
goodwill it ultimately needs in a country with which
it shares borders, as does China (Tibet). After all, Gyanendra
already was the head of state of Nepal, well
placed to shake hands with Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh of India. It was but natural for King
Gyanendra to express disappointment about this
when he spoke to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz of
Pakistan by telephone.
The
postponement of the seven-nation South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
summit simultaneously annoyed Bangladesh and Pakistan, which
acts as chairman until the responsibility is
formally handed over to Bangladesh. The Sri
Lankan president, too, did not give any
positive impression about it during her visit to
Islamabad last week. "Visionless and sufficiently
arrogant" was how Seema Mustafa, an Indian journalist,
described the Indian decision and its foreign
policy in an article published in The Asian Age on
February 5.
What then prompted New
Delhi to act the way it did? If contemporary
Indian media reports, often attributed to official
and intelligence sources, are anything to go by,
the Indian establishment was primarily peeved
about not being told of the possible royal move
in advance. A front-page report in the Indian Express
on February 7 said the Indian ambassador and his
defense attache had met with Nepal's army chief on
January 31. But Royal Nepal Army (RNA) chief Pyar
Jung Thapa "did not say a word on the king's next
move". The Express news report also blamed Indian
intelligence agencies for not providing real-time
information on the king's plans for February 1.
Another possible reason New Delhi
issued a knee-jerk reaction to the royal takeover
is its perception that the Nepali monarch ignored
India and the West and staged the coup with the
blessings of China and Pakistan. In other words,
Nepal's king once again began to play the China
card against India. Some of these Indian news
reports even found something fishy in Nepal's
recent decision to shut down the office in
Kathmandu of the representative of the Dalai Lama.
New Delhi initially told Kathmandu
that it could stop supplying military equipment
for the RNA, which is in the process of
modernization. On the advice of Indian army
civilian authorities, it reportedly reviewed the
stated position, because of the possibility of
China and Pakistan stepping in. India, however,
has avoided reference to the United States, which
is the other main country to offer military
assistance to Nepal, in the form of sophisticated
equipment and training facilities.
New Delhi's latest stand on Nepal is being
debated within India as well. The failing situation
in Bangladesh and the destruction of democracy
in Nepal should not have been made the reasons
to cancel the SAARC summit, said Dr Geeta Madhavan
in a South Asian publication posted on a
website. Even if the king did not consult or heed to
advice from India, New Delhi should not have
reacted angrily, said Dr S Chandrasekharan, another
Indian analyst. "The official reaction has been
rather hard and unnecessary," he said in a
writeup on the same website. According to this
analyst, since the king has taken a big gamble, he
must not be allowed to lose, or else it could be
the end of the monarchy.
What comes next?
Can India afford to have a Maoist country in the
neighborhood with Naxalites (Maoists) in many of
its own states? But a section of India's
policymakers still appear to hold a view that it
is far easier to deal with one person (king) than
deal with several leaders representing political
parties with inimical ideologies. This assumption
would have gained weight if India was being
governed by one single party with a majority in
the Indian parliament.
Since this is
not the case, it is difficult to create a
consensus for this purpose among coalition
partners. Left-leaning parties may not particularly
approve a foreign-policy agenda that seeks to support an
executive monarchy for long. In fact, a change of
Indian stance was reflected in the official
reaction New Delhi gave on February 1 itself.
India's support to multiparty democracy and the
constitutional monarchy was based on the belief
that these were the "two pillars" of political
stability in Nepal. "This principle has now been
violated with the king forming a government under
his chairmanship," India's Ministry of External
Affairs said in a statement.
Does
post-coup Nepal
face a prospect of aid cuts from Western donors?
The answer is maybe, if one were to think
only about the restoration of human rights and
democracy. Suspension of military assistance, therefore,
by the United States, the United Kingdom and India
is unlikely as long as Nepal faces the Maoist
rebels and as long as the US sustains its "war
against terrorism".
As Ajay Sahani,
director of the New Delhi-based Institute for
Conflict Management, told the New York Times on
February 2, a Maoist ascension in Nepal would have
tremendous potential to destabilize the region,
where India and several other countries are
battling leftist insurgencies.
The larger
question, however, is: Is the Maoist insurgency in
and around Nepal something that can be tackled
only by military means? No, as it has been said
several times in the past few years. The social
and economic issues the Maoists have picked up are
helping them to prove that theirs is a political
movement. A political movement undoubtedly begs a
political solution. As US Senator Patrick Leahy of
the Foreign Relations Operations Sub-committee put
it: "After February 1, they [Maoists] can now make
the case that they are not fighting a democratically
elected regime, but an
anachronistic and repressive monarchy."
Now it is the king's turn to disprove such
observations.
Dhruba Adhikary is the
vice president of the Nepal Press Institute.
He has been a Dag Hammarskjold Fellow at the
United Nations.
(Copyright 2005 Asia
Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette South Asian Sex News
|
|
|
