Page 1 of 2 Time to step down, Nepali king urged
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - Whenever he has a startling announcement to make, Prime Minister
Girija Prasad Koirala prefers to fly to his home town of Biratnagar in eastern
Nepal. On March 12, shortly before emplaning for the return journey, Koirala
sat for a question-and-answer session with journalists at his residence.
The most striking of his remarks came in the form of a piece of advice to
beleaguered King Gyanendra to abdicate, along with his immediate heir-apparent
and only son, Paras. "The king should
have already stepped down," Koirala put his thought in plain, simple words. If
he decided to leave the throne even today, said Koirala, Gyanendra would help
create a "better environment" in the country.
In fact, Koirala's latest opinion represented a U-turn from the position he
previously held on the monarchy. Indeed, it was Koirala, president of the
country's oldest democratic party, the Nepali Congress, who was in favor of
extending the monarchy a ceremonial role, even though it meant stinging
criticisms from political parties including his own.
He once appeared the major stumbling block on the road to make Nepal a
republic. What he has said now represents a remarkable shift in his attitude
toward monarchy.
But what prompted Koirala to change his mind? Obviously, he would not have
altered his traditionally held belief easily.
"Through his conduct and activities, the king himself has thrown door open for
a republic," said Koirala, indirectly alluding to Gyanendra's message on
Democracy Day (February 19) in which the king defended the royal coup of
February 1, 2005. Though the job of declaring Nepal a republic has been
reserved for the constituent assembly to be elected by mid-June, Koirala did
not rule out the possibility of completing the task even before that - through
a motion in the interim legislature.
But he thinks it is better if the king volunteers to abdicate before such a
need arises.
Earlier, the Koirala-led government had, at the behest of the interim
legislature, formed a ministerial committee tasked to initiate the process of
nationalizing royal properties, and in effect reducing the perks and privileges
that Gyanendra and his family enjoyed.
These and other measures are ostensibly taken to prevent the king and his son
from playing mischief ahead of the crucial polls to the constituent assembly,
which is to write a new constitution for Nepal.
Politics in Nepal continues to be unstable and murky. It is in this context
that Koirala's utterances are attracting a host of interpretations. One
analysis is that he is trying to kill two birds with one stone: placate the
Maoists as well as other pro-republican parties by saying that the Nepali
Congress too has now formally taken a republican line, and at the same time
churning out a message to the monarchists that the monarchy could be salvaged
if the incumbent king and crown prince vacated their claim to the throne. One
speculation is that Koirala is not averse to a frequently mentioned idea to put
Paras's son, five-year-old Hridayendra, on the throne with the prime minister
acting as the regent.
"Koirala has to make his stand clear on this," the Kathmandu Post newspaper
said. The paper editorially advised King Gyanendra to opt for a graceful exit.
"Will the current king and crown prince give up so easily?" This is one of the
questions posed by a columnist in the pro-monarchy weekly, People's Review. It
may be taken as an indication that Gyanendra is likely to make use of whatever
means are available to stay on the throne.
Chances of the national army coming to the rescue of a person representing a
feudal institution are not bright, as the new military law enacted after last
year's April uprising has removed the king as commander of the Nepali Army. It
is a matter of conjecture on what basis, or with whose help, Gyanendra can
remain king for long.
One clue was provided by Home Affairs
Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula, whose speech at a function in the Indian
Embassy on February 23 contained a specific request to India for its
assistance in removing Nepal's feudal remnants. Since the
ministerial statement came immediately after Gyanendra's controversial message
of February 19, it was quite obvious what Sitaula was alluding to. But what
will India gain by rescuing a king who is not popular among his own subjects?
Actually, India stands to lose whatever goodwill it has in Nepal, a country
whose other neighbor is China. Former prime minister Surya Bahadur Thapa, known
for his soft spot for the Indians, told Asia Times Online recently that some of
Gyanendra's past actions have visibly alienated the leadership in New Delhi.
While Koirala's changed views on the monarchy could offer some encouragement,
the Maoist leadership is unlikely to be fully convinced unless the process of
democratization moves forward smoothly. And the process at this stage can be
considered to have moved ahead, as agreed in the peace accords, only through
the formation of an "interim government" with Maoist participation.
"How can a caretaker government continue till now when the interim constitution
came into force as early as January 15?" Baburam Bhattarai, a senior Maoist
leader, raised this question in a comment published in a Nepali-language weekly
on Wednesday. He likened Nepal's prevailing circumstances to the situation in
18th-century France that led to bloodshed, and also the coinage of the term
"reign of terror".
The current spell of anarchy, according to Bhattarai, is primarily because of
the inordinate delay in constituting the interim government as promised and
getting his Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) invited to join that government.
The Maoist concern is related to the plan to hold constituent assembly
elections by mid-June, as stipulated in the interim charter. No date for the
polls can be fixed until there is the interim government in place, and the
Election Commission cannot expedite preparations needed for this massive
exercise.
Koirala, who appeared assured for his renomination for the premiership by
alliance partners and the Maoists, faces a dilemma. On the one hand, he is
confronting a majority of his party colleagues who are convinced that to bring
Maoists to power, especially when members of their People's Liberation Army
have not deposited with the United Nations all the weapons they possess, would
be to embark on a suicidal mission.
Sizable numbers in the Nepali Congress, the party headed by Koirala, also
believe that the Maoist rise to power would in effect mean a victory for
communists and thereby a defeat of democratic forces.
The other challenge is based on the concern of the international community. And
the concern is substantiated by the UN mission in Nepal, whose head, Ian
Martin, agreed that there was a "striking difference " between the number of
weapons registered, fewer than 3,500, and the number of combatants, which is
more than 30,000. The Maoist argument on this has been that while
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
