KATHMANDU - Madhav Kumar Nepal's image as a moderate communist leader was
helpful in getting him elected as prime minister. The Maoist party led by
former prime minister Prachanda is still perceived as capable of reviving armed
insurrection.
On May 23, over 350 members of the nation's 601-member constituent assembly
extended their support to Nepal, 56, hoping he will be able to steer the
country, a republic since last year, through a state of transition which is
scheduled to end by May next year.
He served as deputy prime minister, handling the Defense and Foreign Affairs
ministries, in the short-lived government formed
after the 1994 parliamentary elections. His well-wishers also find it a
pleasant coincidence to have a new head of government with the surname "Nepal".
The non-Maoist coalition led by Nepal is made up of 22 of the 25 larger and
smaller parties in the constituent assembly (which also works as a parliament).
This appears an incredible feat for someone who last year lost elections in two
constituencies, leading him to quit his powerful position as general secretary
of the Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) party.
His party, nonetheless, retained him by creating a position of "senior leader".
A couple of months later, the UML made him a nominated member of the house by
forcing an earlier nominee to vacate the seat. It is through this route that he
has become the prime minister of democratic Nepal.
Nepal, who took oath on May 25 along with two ministers from his own party, has
struggled for weeks to form a government. Despite internal squabbling, two
major coalition partners, the Nepali Congress and the Madhesi Rights Forum,
sent their nominees to the new cabinet. It was Nepal's own party, the UML, that
was unable to send in members to be inducted as ministers.
Countless meetings were held at the party's office, together with dinner
parties at the prime minister's official residence. The real reason for the
delay appears to be differences among three major parties, with each having its
own list of potential ministers. One senior UML leader told Asia Times Online
that Nepal's hold on leadership was now firm and he could handpick some of his
ministers and distribute ministerial portfolios at his discretion.
He was ridiculed for his inability to form a team, a step which would have at
least reassured the agitated public. His supporters in the party concede there
is a visible lack of enthusiasm from the rank and file towards the leadership
level.
The Maoist-led group of parties is the biggest obstacle to the new prime
minister, who is keen to implement the common minimum program (CMP) - which is
supposed to form the guidelines of the new Nepali government - that the ruling
coalition agreed on shortly before the appointment of the new prime minister.
The Maoist members and their supporters have threatened to boycott parliament
until President Ram Baran Yadav reverses his move to reinstate the head of the
army, General Rookmangud Katawal. This is a formidable challenge to Premier
Nepal, who has invited the president to begin addressing the assembly on
Tuesday with an outline of policies and programs for the next fiscal year.
Other important work to be done in the next few weeks is the national budget
for the year 2009/10 and other legislative functions. But how will it proceed
without any cooperation from the Maoist-led opposition?
Prachanda and other top Maoist leaders have publicly described the new regime
as a "puppet" of foreign elements, primarily referring to New Delhi. This first
surfaced in a long televised address Prachanda delivered on May 4, the day he
announced his decision to resign.
"We are committed to make amicable diplomatic relations with all our
neighboring and other friendly countries," Prachanda said, "But we absolutely
reject any intervention in our internal affairs."
The internal affair Prachanda was alluding to was the case related to General
Rookmangud Katawal. When the Prachanda-led government began legal procedures to
sack the recalcitrant chief in April, the authorities were said to be
monitoring the "visible" and "invisible" activities of external forces. (See
Nepal's Maoists cry Indian foul play, Asia Times Online, May 14)
Indian ambassador Rakesh Sood met Prachanda several times to convey New Delhi's
veiled warning of unpredictable consequences in the event of the removal of
Katawal. Sood, according to former minister Pamfa Bhusal, went to the extent of
mentioning that as India had bestowed Katawal the title of honorary general,
New Delhi would perceive any action against him as an unfriendly gesture
towards India.
But these caveats did not produce any effect, as Prachanda, with solid backing
from senior leaders, decided to remove the army chief at any cost and Katawal's
deputy, General Kulbahadur Khadka, was appointed interim army chief.
A series of dramatic events unfolded, with 18 parties jointly submitting a
petition to the president. He then issued a controversial letter to Katawal,
ordering him to remain in the job and ignore the government's action.
Bureaucratic India was calling the shots as the top politicians were away from
New Delhi taking part in election campaigns that lasted for several weeks.
Basically, Prachanda's resignation came in the form of a protest against the
president's step, which the Maoists dubbed "unconstitutional". While the case
has reached the court, experts have expressed divergent opinions on the issue.
Some agree with Prachanda, with others defending the president's initiative.
The interim constitution depicts the president as the custodian of the
constitution, and the supreme commander of the army. So how could Prachanda
remove the commander without giving prior information to the president of the
country?
The Maoist leadership does not have a straightforward answer to this, but their
unofficial contention has been that the president always shied from being
cooperative, possibly because of the influence from Nepali Congress chief
Girija Prasad Koirala. Yadav was previously a senior member of the Congress
party.
There is no empirical basis to believe this contention. What is clear, however,
is that the Maoists do not appear to be in a mood to extend their cooperation
either to the president or to Premier Nepal. The situation in parliament is
unlikely to change until the president makes a reconciliatory approach.
In the views of some analysts, the president is unlikely to amend his decision
as this would be political suicide. But he could retract his earlier decision
and resign if that would help to install Koirala as the head of state. In such
a scenario, Koirala's desire to be at the helm when the constitution is
implemented would be fulfilled. One of his other desires was addressed last
week when Nepal appointed his daughter, Sujata, as the country's foreign
minister.
Will the octogenarian Koirala's dream to be the source of Nepal's new
constitution come true? The problem is that the actual process of writing the
statute has not begun in the assembly elected for that very purpose. To make
matters worse, the main drafting committee has lost its chairman, who has been
catapulted to the post of prime minister. The speaker, Subas Nembang, has yet
to identify a new person to chair the panel.
If contemporary media reports are to be believed, the first draft of the
constitution is already being written somewhere in a neighboring country. This
speculation has reminded the public of a statement to this effect made by a
member of the Koirala family almost immediately after the April 2008 election.
Shashank Koirala, who won a seat in the poll, is the son of legendary B P
Koirala, who became Nepal's first elected prime minister in 1959.
That the Maoists are out of power now is a hard fact, but to assume they are
gone for ever would be a mistake. While they might not have been able to help
the deprived and downtrodden segments of the population, the Maoists have
palpably raised the level of mass awareness that the nation has been subject to
unjustified interference from its southern neighbor for too long.
Prachanda's televised appeal to "patriotic sisters and brothers" has already
started to get widespread attention across the country. Leaders of ethnic as
well as regional groups, such as the Madhesis in the southern plains, have
begun to understand how external forces have been misleading them.
Recent reports of border encroachments at over 50 places along the porous
border that runs to over 1,800 kilometers have added reasons for Nepalis to be
wary of a "grand design" to which Koirala himself once alluded.
A June 5 press release issued by the Embassy of India rejected allegations of
encroachment of Nepali territory and concomitant displacement of populations,
but the pathetic condition of hundreds of people with horrifying stories are
too heartrending to be dismissed as "baseless and motivated by vested
interests".
Nepal's new foreign minister gently echoed the embassy's contentions, but her
remarks have not greatly helped to remove doubts from the minds of the public.
Nepal's earlier gesture of welcoming ambassador Sood at his private residence
even before he took his oath as prime minister had already made people
suspicious, prompting them to raise points pertaining to diplomacy, protocol
and reciprocity.
Dhruba Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) 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
