Nepal’s ‘republic on paper’

It is a situation which leaves neither here nor there. Nepal is being declared a republic and yet the monarch remains and is likely to continue with his allowances and privileges for some time more. Not surprisingly there is no rejoicing in the streets and the communists blame the Nepali Congress for this. The air is thick with suspicion and many political leaders admit of a foreign hand in the affairs and turmoil of the country.

by DHRUBA ADHIKARY

KATHMANDU - There was a time when an approaching Friday would scare Nepal’s Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, as he publicly admitted once. His first term as prime minister began after the political changes of 1990. Steps taken by the reigning king on Fridays in intervening years usually heralded some kind of political upheaval. In recent times, however, Fridays have begun to be fateful to the monarch - and the monarchy.

The first Friday of June 2001 is remembered as the day when the king, queen, crown prince and seven other members of the royal family lost their lives in a palace shootout which remains a mystery even today.

Last Friday, December 28, Nepal’s interim legislature passed a constitutional amendment which is a matter of grave concern to Gyanendra, crowned king seven years ago. The amended interim statute has categorical words to transform the country into a “federal democratic republic”.

The voting on the agenda went overwhelmingly in favor of this landmark change: 270 to three with 48 abstentions (321 of 330 members were present on that day). In an article published on Sunday, Baburam Bhattarai, a senior leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), described the amendment as “an achievement of historical significance” and claimed a lion’s share of the credit for having spearheaded the resolution, even if it was a joint move of the seven-party alliance government.

In fact, the monarchy has been sidelined since the April uprising of 2006 when King Gyanendra was forced to face a mass agitation which was built up against a royal coup he staged in February 2005. His proclamation, on April 24, 2006, revived the Parliament he had dissolved earlier. The restored Parliament then issued its declaration stripping Gyanendra of all state powers and privileges he enjoyed until then.

And in January last year, when the interim constitution was promulgated through a newly-convened interim legislature, it contained a provision saying that the first meeting of the democratically-elected Constituent Assembly (CA) would decide whether or not the institution of monarchy should be retained. Now the third amendment goes a step further and declares Nepal a republic, requiring the CA to “implement” this decision.

One of the amended provisions also stipulates that the country could be instantly made a republic if the interim Parliament found Gyanendra creating “serious obstructions” to the CA polls. By way of explanation to the media, the interior minister said that Gyanendra would continue to receive authorized allowances and facilities until the declaration of republic came into force. This conditional phrase prompted some editorial writers to conclude that Nepal has become a “republic on paper”.

To the men and women in the street, this is an irony as well as an anomaly: the king remains in the palace but the country has been declared a republic. That is why there were no spontaneous public expression of joy or reactions to the announcement. Maoist leader Bhattarai appeared disappointed about the lack of public enthusiasm for this historic achievement. After all, the feudal institution of monarchy is gone, so goes the official line of argument, but one individual king remains until the time the resolution is implemented. Even the Maoist mouthpiece, Janadisha Daily, likened the status of the monarchy to a leaf which is neither on the tree nor has landed on the ground. And it blamed Koirala’s Nepali Congress for deliberately keeping the process incomplete.

Pro-monarchists, too, did not come out in the streets in large numbers to express their anger and resentment as expected. It is believed that an ensuing climate of confusion left them in a state of uncertainty. Otherwise, they would have demanded retention of the monarchy at least in a ceremonial form.

Traditionalists believe that since the monarchy is an age-old institution serving as a symbol of Nepal’s unity, the interim government should have organized a referendum to decide its fate. They cite some of the media polls which have shown the monarchy as a stabilizing factor. Their persistent claim is that one stubborn king must not be mistaken for the institution of monarchy. But for the fear of being booed and jeered, these people stayed away from the Maoist-dominated political atmosphere. Nobody wanted to be seen as someone supporting regressive elements. Members of the Young Communist League (YCL), the Maoist outfit for the youth, continue to be active.

One important contention put forward by the opposition during the debate on the third amendment pertained to the judicial acceptability of the entire process. What is the source of authority for this entity of 330 “nominated” deputies to issue a mandatory directive - to implement a republic - to an assembly which will consist of “elected” members? How can the CA be reduced to the status of an implementing body? How far can the popular mandate derived from the April uprising take the seven-party alliance in deciding issues with far-reaching consequences? Constitutional experts have raised serious objection to this proposition.

Politically, the idea has attracted considerable criticism. Surya Bahadur Thapa, a former prime minister and an incumbent leader of a smaller party which is not in the seven-party alliance, took up the issue at the House in a striking manner. How can the alliance decide to snatch the people’s right to elect a sovereign body which alone has the power to take a decision on a matter of national importance? Some of the deputies also raised questions dealing on the “federal” aspect of the resolution, fearing that it might invite secessionist tendencies similar to the ones seen in the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. As if to prove this point, a leader of the Koirala-led Congress quit that national party and formed a new regional party on the very day the legislature decided to proclaim a republic. “We have a Right to declare independence,” Mahantha Thakur, the man who heads newly-formed party based on the region adjoining India, told a newspaper interviewer this week. Until he quit, Thakur also held the post of a senior minister.

About a week before he was re-appointed minister, Maoist spokesman Krishna Bahadur Mahara admitted before an audience in the western Regional town of Daang that all seven parties in the coalition were heavily influenced by foreign powers. As long as they have to remain in the grip of those powers, he said, CA polls can’t be held; nor can there be any guarantee of fundamental rights to the citizens.

Despite such a perception, media reports that New Delhi has a hand in ongoing turmoil and instability in Nepal might be dismissed as sheer speculation. But what is beyond mere conjecture is the fact that actions - including the formation of a new party in the southern flatland, known as Terai, the declaration of a federal republic, and the plan to find a new date for CA polls before the current Nepali year 2064 (mid-April 2008) – are out and the re-induction of Maoists in the government as ministers was taken immediately after what was intended to be a secret visit to Kathmandu by Ashok Chaturvedi, chief of India’s external intelligence agency’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

That he met leaders of all leading political parties, including those from the Maoists as well as Nepal’s top officials associated with the security apparatus, has not been denied either by the Indian Embassy or by the Koirala-led interim government. It is not clear what magic formula Chaturvedi brought to Nepal to resolve the challenges it is facing in the forms of growing violence, ethnic disputes and deteriorating law and order. Is New Delhi still following, albeit discreetly, its twin-pillar policy on Nepal based on constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy?

One minister in the interim coalition, Girirajmani Pokharel, alleged that India and the United States were working in tandem to salvage the monarchy in some form. Like official Indian 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”.

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?