Page 2 of 2 Time to step down, Nepali
king urged By Dhruba Adhikary
weaponry consisting of improvised explosive devices were not accepted by the UN
for registration, the Maoist guerrillas lost some of weapons in fire and by
floods while crossing mountain rivers.
Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal (aka Prachanda) told a meeting in the western
hills that his party retains weapons and combatants outside the UN cantonments.
A few days ago, one of
the Maoist members of the 329-strong interim legislature said he had a gun in
his possession while in the chamber and challenged the authorities to disarm
him. Henrietta H Fore, visiting US under secretary of state, singled out that
incident to express her country's worries about Nepal.
She recalled her colleague Richard Boucher's visit to Kathmandu last November
when he told reporters, "You don't walk into Parliament with a gun in your
pocket." In Fore's words, sadly - and incredibly - the Maoists recently proved
that statement wrong.
US Ambassador James Moriarty is one of the two foreign envoys to meet
frequently with Koirala and talk about Nepal's sustained transition to
democracy. The other envoy is Shiv Shankar Mukherjee of India, a country that
has also been facing Maoist insurgency. New Delhi and Washington have been
coordinating their Nepal policies in the past few years.
Although committed to engaging in competitive politics in a peaceful manner,
Maoists have not yet completely renounced violence, extortion and intimidation.
Their style does not depict Maoists as a mainstream political party. This is
one of the reasons there is palpable hesitation to accept Maoists as a member
of a coalition government.
The Maoist goal, as perceived by some analysts, is to "capture" power either
through the interim legislature, through the interim government or through
urban-based insurgency. They do not want to wait, or take part in long, winding
processes such as parliamentary elections. The existing atmosphere of mistrust
is hardly conducive to taking the transitional arrangements forward. That
probably was the reason Koirala wanted to issue a public notice for
surrendering remaining weapons within 15 days, so that all weapons found
afterward could be considered illegal, and seized.
Maoists have already entered the parliament (interim legislature); now they
must be encouraged to join the government. If prevented, they will go back to
the jungles and restart the insurgency. Political activists and analysts who
are firmly against the pretexts to keep the Maoists away from the power contend
that the former rebels themselves should be given an opportunity to prove their
sincerity as well as their worth. If they begin acting like a radical communist
party ignoring their public pledge to play by the rules of civility, then
democratic forces will spontaneously forge a front to fight the communists.
"When a need for a broader democratic alliance arises, parties across the
spectrum, big and small, will have a role to play," said an optimistic Kuber
Sharma, founder president of Hariyali Nepal Party.
Currently, Nepal's politics has been a monopoly business of the alliance of
eight parties, including the one consisting of Maoists. Four other parties that
have representation in the interim legislature are expected to follow the eight
to "help" developing consensus on crucial issues. The alliance of eight has
given those four only limited recognition. Those who are not in the interim
legislature are deprived of even this privilege.
Not only that, the interim charter refers to eight parties only and says that
anyone willing to start a new political party must mobilize at least 10,000
people. These provisions have been widely criticized, but the alliance did not
amend this stipulation when the charter underwent its first amendment within 60
days. It appears that the restrictions were inserted deliberately even if the
move depicted the alliance as undemocratic - both in spirit and style.
Insertion of undemocratic stipulations is one aspect. The other worrying aspect
is the manner in which the interim constitution was amended. The main clause of
amendment was in the form of a pledge that Nepal would have a federal system
demanded by a regional group, called Madhesis, who belong to the Terai region
that shares a porous (and unregulated) border with India. This has encouraged
other regional and ethnic groups, including those living in areas bordering
Tibet, to make identical demands.
The alliance has already announced that these demands will also be addressed,
ignoring the fact that frequent amendment of the charter, which itself is an
interim one, will not raise the level of public confidence in the leaders. In
fact, public concern has already surfaced in the shape of questions as to why
the alliance agreed to yield to some violent groups and took measures such as
the one to make Nepal a federal state, which would preempt the task of the
constituent assembly.
The other striking question is: Who gave the alliance and interim legislature
authority to take steps that could lead to separatist movements? In other
words, it is inconceivable to see a group of unelected persons sitting in a
transitional legislature make decisions that can shake the country's
territorial integrity.
The point related to territorial integrity is serious enough to attract
military intervention. By invoking Article 143 of the interim constitution, a
state of emergency can be declared should there arise a grave situation in
regard to the sovereignty or integrity of the country. Such a measure can be
taken if Nepal's security comes under threat by external aggression or armed
rebellion within or extreme economic disarray.
Of course, the Nepali Army cannot exercise this power on its own, and has to
obtain orders from the civilian government. In present circumstances, the
orders would have to come from the Koirala-led coalition. If the coalition
partners readily agree to give their consent to Koirala, the army could make a
move on the order of a civilian authority, as happened in Bangladesh in
January. Should this option be unavailable, the army might find it expedient to
go for direct intervention.
Increasing lawlessness across the country and government's failure to make its
presence felt even in the capital city provides another strong reason for the
people to look for an effective alternative.
How would the international community react should such a scenario come to
pass? It could be as mute or loud as it has been in the cases of Bangladesh and
Pakistan.
Continuing instability in Nepal is bound to affect rest of South Asia. And to a
degree, it may change the dynamics on which China-India relations are based.
Dhruba Adhikary, who has been a Dag Hammarskjold fellow, is a
Kathmandu-based journalist.
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
