The revival of the House of Representatives (Nepalese Parliament) and election of G.P. Koirala as Prime Minister of the interim government have paved the way for the restoration of normalcy in the Himalayan kingdom. But it is not roses all the way. The machinations of the Maoists are cause of great concern to pro-democracy forces in and outside Nepal. Initially, the Maoists rejected King Gyanendra'sApril 24 proclamation dismissing it as a ?betrayal? of the people of Nepal and accusing the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) spearheading the pro-democracy movement of committing a ?historic blunder? by accepting the King Gyanendra'soffer. They announced their intention to continue nation-wide demonstrations and blockade of Kathmandu and district headquarters. Realising that the masses are not with them as demonstrated by expression of joy over people'svictory by the masses in the national capital and other parts of the country, they changed track. They have blamed the SPA for unilaterally accepting the monarch'soffer without consulting the CPN-M and have announced a three-month ?ceasefire? (whatever it may mean), call off the economic blockade with the rider that the interim government should hold elections to a constitutional assembly ?unconditionally?. It is nothing short of a threat of renewed violence if the new government were to insist on decommissioning of arms by the ultras.
Although the Prime Minister-designate wants to hold negotiations with the Maoists with a view to take them on board and has reiterated his determination to hold elections to a constitutional assembly, he has made it abundantly clear that elections can'tbe held until the grave issue of management of arms in the possession of Maoists is resolved. The interim government has clearly articulated its view that renunciation of violence and decommissioning of arms are the pre-requisite of holding a free and fair election to a constitution assembly. That is as it should be. The international community, including the European Union, holds the same view. The Maoists can'tbe allowed to have their cake and eat it too. They want to hold on to their arms?smuggled from hostile countries and purchased by funds raised through extortions, levies and smuggling?so that they can terrorise people to vote for them or rig elections through other fraudulent means. Intelligence inputs that Maoists have acquired enough manpower and arms to storm Kathmandu to force the monarch to abdicate has strengthen the view that one of the top priorities of the new government should be to evolve a strategy to decommission arms in possession of the ultras.
The circumstances under which King Gyanendra ascended to the throne?no one in Nepal has forgotten the palace massacre and strong suspicions about the present King'shand behind the gory incident?severely undermined the public faith in the monarchy. Dismissal of three governments in quick succession and assumption of powers by the King further alienated the masses. The King and the Crown prince have brought disgrace to the institution of monarchy by their unacceptable activities. Recent events, including the mindless force used on peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators, have, further strengthened anti-monarchy sentiment. The royalty must take the blame for alienating the masses. This may be exploited by the Maoists to thrust ?people'sdemocracy??a fancy name by which they call the brute communist dictatorship?on the country. God forbids, if this were to happen, the democracy will be undermined and the governance of the country will only change hands from an autocratic and reckless King to the merciless Maoist dictatorship. It is in this context that a large section of public opinion in the land-locked country holds on to the view that constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy are the two pillars on which Nepal needs to build its constitutional framework. Such a system, it is argued, is in the best interests of the country and its stability.
However, no one can deny the ground reality that for whatever reasons, Maoists have emerged as a major factor in Nepal. They joined the pro-democracy movement and introduced an element of violence in the peaceful movement. Additionally, the CPM that influences and sometimes dominates UPA Government'spolicies is building pressure for the inclusion of Maoists in the interim government. Persuading Maoists to join the democratic stream is one thing, and to allow them to gatecrash into the power structure without giving up arms is quite another. In the event, democratic parties, weak and torn by internecine warfare as they are, may be helpless in the face of the Maoist who are not only well organised and have a single line of command but also have the power of the gun with them. Undisputedly, political parties in Nepal are weaker and more disunited than the Indian political outfits that came to power under the Janata Party banner in 1977. If the Janata experiment collapsed in just two and half years because of internal contradictions and clashes of ambitions, no one will be surprised if the SPA disintegrates and political leaders of Nepal are at each other'sthroat within a short span of time. It is to deal with such a situation that a constitutional monarchy can be some sort of guarantee against the collapse of the system and Maoist take over the country. The loss of faith in the royalty has made this task extremely difficult. One of the options available to the democratic forces is to put in place an effective constitutional mechanism to ensure that no monarch?present or future?will be in a position to undermine democratic institution as was done by the King in 2002 and earlier in India by Indira Gandhi in 1975. These provisions can be incorporated in the new Constitution that the new House of Representatives or the Constitutional Assembly is likely to enact.
Developments in Nepal have serious repercussions for India'ssecurity. We have open borders with Nepal and have age-old cultural, religious and political ties with the country that proudly calls itself a Hindu nation. Stability and normalcy in the Himalayan kingdom is in India'snational interests. Unfortunately, the Congress-led Government played too passive a role in the developments in Nepal thereby surrendering whatever leverage we had in the kingdom. If the Government was lazy, the Congress party slept over the issue and never bothered to articulate India'sposition on the serious developments in Nepal?a country of vital security concern to India because of its geopolitical location. Whatever his personal motives, former External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh'sindictment of New Delhi on the issue is worth repeating: ?We have let the people of Nepal down, lost the goodwill of the seven parties, earned the annoyance of the Maoists and received no kudos from King Gyanendra?. There is an element of truth in what Natwar Singh has said. It is most unfortunate that the space vacated by the Congress party that had intimate links with the Nepali Congress has been occupied by the likes of Sitaram Yachury. The CPM leader is already talking about a ?fresh look? at Indo-Nepal agreement. What are the party'sintentions? Does it want China to have more say than India in Nepalese affairs? New Delhi must not let Nepal fall in the Chinese lap.
Leave a Comment