Page 2 of 2 Nepal's 'republic on
paper' By
Dhruba Adhikary
pronouncements, the Americans have
been saying that they would respect the verdict of
the people of Nepal on the issue of monarchy.
Ambassador Nancy Powell said in an interview
published on December 11, that US policy has been
that the fate of monarchy is "something for the
Nepali people to decide".
The Shaha
dynasty is jinxed. But how is Gyanendra
watching
Nepal
entering the club of republican states worldwide?
There is no direct way of knowing his reactions
because his palace secretariat does not issue
statements as it once did. But it would be
preposterous to assume that he is expressionless.
"The king has been quiet but not passive,"
said International Crisis Group's report released
in May 2007. It appears that there is no need to
change this perception even at the start of a new
year. He continues to resides in the Narayanhity
palace with security provided by a 3000-strong
guard drawn from the Nepal Army. Koirala, who is
also defense minister, could have replaced these
army troops with a contingent from the police
force, but he has not done that. And despite
occasional noises, nobody has prevented Gyanendra
visiting Hindu temples and attending wedding
receptions hosted by relatives and well-wishers.
And, according to knowledgeable sources, he keeps
meeting men and women who he thinks are useful,
influential.
"Politicians can afford to
think only for five years, but I need to go far
beyond that," a recent visitor to the palace
quoted the king as saying. In short, in the face
of further cuts to his status and privileges,
Gyanendra has not shown any signs of a defeated
royal.
If it is not the divine power what
else could have made Gyanendra an undisturbed
personality? One of the two reasons often
mentioned in intellectual circles is his
calculations that mutual bickering among party
leaders for selfish interests would intensify in
coming days, compelling them to cancel the CA
polls for the fourth time. As a result of this,
their present plan to get the republic declaration
implemented would fail, and he would have to take
back the reins of power.
Secondly,
secessionist movements would further worsen the
law and order situation forcing authorities to
defer the elections one more time. In either case,
politicians would lose both legitimacy as well as
credibility. Sources close to the palace also
claim that Gyanendra is aware not only of the
strengths but also of the weaknesses of most of
the leaders who have become revolutionaries in
recent times. He can, in a sense, spill the beans.
The Maoist leadership has perhaps correctly read
his mind, or else how could they draw this
conclusion as early as November 2005: "The party
should never, and will never, fall prey to the
fantasy that the monarchy can be easily ended
through the CA and a republic will appear just
like that."
The third amendment with
proclamation on republic and concomitant measures
came as an outcome of a 23-point understanding the
coalition partners reached earlier. Interestingly,
it was promptly welcomed by both New Delhi and
Beijing. "This is an encouraging development in
the right direction," was how an Indian spokesman
reacted to the understanding. A Chinese official
gave his country's reaction in these words: "China
welcomes the progress of the peace process in
Nepal." Statements from either capital refers to
importance of stability. In other words, both
India and China are keen to see a stable Nepal.
But the jigsaw puzzle remains: why is then Nepal
subjected to a protracted phase of instability?
"My hunch is that security interests of both China
and India collide here, leading to an enhanced
level of mistrust between them, thereby subjecting
Nepal to a perennial phase of instability," said
analyst Ganesh Raj Sharma. The basis of Sharma's
observation is not markedly different from the
perception of a former foreign secretary of India,
Salman Haidar, who talked about "entrenched
suspicions" between China and India, in a recent
article in The Statesman newspaper. Haidar also
referred to a "belief " that the two countries are
strategic rivals, not partners.
Contradictions abound. New Delhi, for
instance, hailed agreement to appoint Maoists as
ministers in Nepal, but takes a tough posture when
the question arises about Maoists in India. Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh's recent directive to
officials of 13 Maoist-affected districts is a
case in point. Alluding to Maoist violence he told
government functionaries to "crush the virus of
terrorism" and restore order in the country, thus
providing a clear example of double standards.
Washington has not yet removed Nepali Maoists from
their terrorist watch-list, but it has failed to
persuade one of its strategic partners, India, to
adopt a realistic and humane foreign policy
towards its smaller neighbors.
Another
paradox pointed out by disgruntled politicians and
legal experts alike is that the action on the part
of the seven-party alliance to amend the
constitution came 13 days after it became
unconstitutional. "Each and every decision made
after midnight of December 15 is
unconstitutional," said Rabindra Nath Sharma, who
heads one of half a dozen pro-monarchy parties,
called RPP Nepal. The morning shows the day,
Sharma said, expressing disbelief that CA polls
would be held by April 12. In his opinion, those
who believe in the Maoist promise of participation
in democratic polls would find themselves deceived
before too long. Why would Maoists enter into
electoral games if the political power comes out
of the barrel of a gun? Although some of the
prominent Maoist leaders and writers keep
publishing articles in newspapers, they have yet
to offer convincing explanations or allay public
fears about themselves. They also need to raise
their ability to absorb and tolerate criticisms.
China, of course, has moved a long way
after Mao died in 1976.
But his modern-day
followers in Nepal have yet to fully realize that
cruel, violent and discredited methods cannot
produce positive changes in the society. And an
abruptly imposed change cannot sustain for long.
"Contradictions," said Mao Zedong, "have
to be exposed before problems can be solved."
Haven't Mao's Nepali disciples already made their
share of contributions on this count?
Dhruba Adhikary, who has been a
Dag Hammarskjold fellow, is a Kathmandu-based
journalist.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times
Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us
about sales, syndication and republishing.)
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
