Page 2 of 2
Nepal's royal road to disaster
By Dhruba Adhikary
question that has been exercising the minds of the intelligentsia is: who is
there to fill in the vacuum to be created after the departure of the king? The
prospect of quarrelsome and selfish leaders leading the country's influential
political parties is a disappointing factor. Even Koirala, though his
supporters want himto receive the Nobel Prize for Peace, is not a personality
who can be an undisputed guardian of the nation as a whole.
"This is one of the reasons why I hesitate to support the idea of
jumping to a republic in one go," said Bishwanath Upadhyaya, former chief
justice who headed the panel which wrote the present constitution in 1990 - in
the aftermath of a successful pro-democracy movement. Upadhyaya is one of those
Nepalis who tend to think that intervention (and interference) from outside
becomes a real threat when internal political forces are unable to fill the
void during political upheavals.
Former prime minister Surya Bahadur Thapa, who is trying to put together
smaller rightwing groups into a credible front against communists, told this
correspondent recently that misdeeds of one or two individuals must not be
allowed to make a revered institution suffer. "The monarchy can continue to
play the role of a unifying force in Nepal, which is known worldwide for its
ethnic diversity." There is a school of opinion that the monarchy may not
necessarily lose the referendum if it were conducted without fear or Maoist
intimidation.
Those who fear a ruthless communist rule by Maoists are already looking into a
dark future. Despite the peace accord and pledges to engage in competitive
politics, Maoists have yet to match their words with deeds. Their guerrillas in
the countryside have not shown signs that they are abiding by the directives
issued by the central command or are heeding the calls and appeals of the
United Nations, which has been entrusted with the responsibility of confining
combatants and their weapons to designated camps and stores.
The Maoist leaders have not yet offered a clear and unconditional apology to
the people for the deaths and destruction they inflicted since the time they
launched their "people's war" 10 years ago. And their "revolutionary" messages
churned out through public platforms have left plenty of room to be skeptical
about their ultimate goals. A speech by top Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal,
aka Prachanda, delivered to an audience in New Delhi, is one more example to
prove the point.
Addressing a Hindustan Times leadership summit on November 18, Prachanda
described parliamentary democracy as "farcical" as it was based merely on
formality and elections. In other words, his views in New Delhi did not tally
with his promises in Kathmandu that the Maoists would soon transform themselves
into a political party and involve themselves in peaceful political processes.
Some Maoist sympathizers praised Prachanda for having boldly expressed his
conviction against parliamentary democracy right in front of the leaders of a
country which claims to be the world's largest democracy!
Prachanda alluded to Maoist preference for "real" democracy and socialist
democracy, but has not said much about how such a democracy could be
accomplished. Besides, there is no dearth of people who are appalled at the
manner in which Koirala and other leaders of the alliance have yielded to the
pressures unleashed by Maoists.
According to them, the Maoists have had several of their demands fulfilled
without having to make any matching contribution. Armed Maoist cadres across
the country continue to terrorize people by resorting to extortion, abduction
and intimidation.
Meanwhile, the Maoists have ceased to be seen as the nationalist force they
once were. Their vocal objection against "Indian expansionism" has become a
part of history, and their perception that the Nepal-India Friendship Treaty of
1950 was an unequal pact has also changed. While in New Delhi, Prachanda's
demand for its review was expressed in a distinctly muted voice. Back home, the
Maoist leadership kept quiet when Home Affairs Minister Krishna Sitaula pushed
through a highly controversial citizenship bill in Parliament, claiming that
Maoists, too, had extended their support to that government initiative. And in
the process, Sitaula ignored some of the important provisions of even that
unequal treaty.
Reciprocity, for example, required the Nepali side to seek assurances from
India that Nepali nationals born or living in Indian territory before April 13,
1990, would also be granted Indian citizenship. It unilaterally passed a law
granting Nepali citizenship to several million aliens. Not only that, Maoist
and other leaders overlooked a stipulation in the letter exchanged along with
the 1950 treaty. The letter explains why Nepal needs "protection from
unrestricted competition".
By adopting contradictory principles and sending conflicting signals in the
intervening months, Maoists have provided a basis for suspicion about their
intentions." They have only changed gears," a high-ranking officer of the Nepal
Army told Asia Times Online. He said it was unfortunate that the politicians in
power did not understand their strategy and got carried away by their hollow
promises.
Senior army officers believe that the Maoists have succeeded in browbeating
rival leaders belonging to the Seven Party Alliance; the next Maoist target is
to weaken the army, which is currently commanded and mobilized by the civilian
government. Commanders of the army do not appear happy with their civilian
masters, who did not find it necessary to share the contents of the peace draft
before it was signed into an accord on November 21.
Men and women in the army would have tried to convince the civilian authorities
to avoid inserting words and expressions like the "Maoist Army", because once
they are accepted as an army there would then arise a need to address their
schemes and accept their hierarchies. The army appears equally disturbed by the
fact that it, too, has to reciprocate by placing an equal number of soldiers
and weapons under UN inspection. To them, to equate the national army with a
rebel force seemed untenable.
Nevertheless, a new army law, enforced a few weeks ago, has effectively severed
the Nepali Army's traditional loyalty and links with the palace. The "Royal"
prefix was instantly removed, and the Ministry of Defense placed directly under
the prime minister. The new army chief, General Rookmangud Katwal, is on record
expressing commitments to a democratic order.
Ostensibly, there is no immediate threat of an army takeover in Nepal, which
has not happened in recent history. Still, the Maoist leadership does not
appear fully confident about the situation. Had that not been the case, top
Maoist leaders, including Prachanda, would not change his shelter every day. If
a visitor has seen Prachanda (or his deputy Baburam Bhattarai) coming out of a
tourist hotel today he or she is likely to find him at a relative's home the
following day. Armed security personnel drawn from their People's Liberation
Army are seen escorting their comrades round the clock.
A section of the mainstream media extends, unwittingly perhaps, priority
coverage to Maoist statements and speeches, especially when threats of a coup
are mentioned.
Chandra Prakash Gajurel, one of the two senior Maoist leaders released from
Indian jail last week, is the latest person to raise the coup issue. In a
public program on Friday he alerted "revolutionary forces" about another
possible takeover by the embattled king with the support of the army, which
remains loyal to him. Coincidentally, a prominent newsmagazine, Himal, carried
a writeup on Saturday in which the editor did not rule out a royal attempt to
regain the powers lost since April. The Koirala-led government is advised to
remain ready to immediately send the king into exile if he is found to be
engaged in undesirable activities.
Dhruba Adhikary, who has been a Dag Hammarskjold fellow, is a
Kathmandu-based journalist.
