|
Uncertainty in Nepal
By Dhruba Adhilkary
 No
other country except India has so much at stake in the affairs of Nepal.
Stability there is of utmost importance as turbulence and growing
influence of the Maoists there has direct bearing on the Naxal movements
in India. Add to it the woes in the north-east and continued uncertainty
in Kashmir. However, the challenge before Indian diplomats is to dispel
any suspicion of meddling in the internal affairs of a proud people.
It was hoped that all things being equal, as many as 17.6 million Nepali
voters could conceivably to go the polls on November 22 to elect a
Constituent Assembly to draw up a new constitution. However, this hope
has now been belied amidst the tussle with the Maoists over the issue of
abolishing the monarchy to pave the way for a republican federation.
Till the other day, members of Nepal's Election Commission were busy
making preparations so voters throughout the country could make educated
decisions at the polls. "So far our efforts have been concentrated on
educating voters about the distinct differences between the upcoming
polls and the [traditional] parliamentary elections," chief election
commissioner Bhojraj Pokharel had said.
Much preceded before the postponement of the elections was announced.
Whether voters, a good percentage of whom are illiterate, have been
fully able to understand the importance and objectives of the pending
polls was also certain. One primary issue has been the decision to use a
mixed system instead of a proportional system of election.
But Maoist chairman Kamal Dahal (aka Prachanda) after meeting Prime
Minister Girija Prasad Koirala not only threatened to quit the
government and boycott the polls if his party's 22-point charter of
demands was not met but eventually carried it out too. The most
important demand was abolishing the monarchy and declaring Nepal a
republic before the November 22 election and scrapping the mixed system
in favor of a proportional election system.
However, two other major Nepali political forces, the centrist Nepali
Congress and moderate leftist Unified Marxist Leninist (UML), have
rejected the Maoists' demands, saying that a new amendment to the
present interim constitution would be needed and there is not enough
time to do so before the November elections. But Maoist leaders have
said the interim coalition government is empowered to make
constitutional changes, even this late in the game.
The Nepali Congress and UML leaders also charge that the Maoists are
trying to find an excuse to stay away from polls because of their
rapidly declining popularity. The Maoists' history of violence and
intimidation, particularly in Nepal's rural areas, isn't likely to give
them a sizable number of seats in the proposed assembly of about 500
members.
Their alternatives are then either to wait for the political situation
to shift or go back to the mountains and try to revive the violent
insurgency they carried on for 10 years. Since their prospects for
immediately reviving the rebellion are not bright, Prachanda also has
publicly called for rescheduling the election for next April or May.
India's interest in seeing the polls happen on time and without wrinkles
is also muddying the waters. Indian Ambassador to Nepal Shiv Shankar
Mukherjee's remarks at an Indian Independence Day ceremony at his
embassy on August 15 are being cited frequently in Nepali media.
Mukherjee's statement that "no excuse can be given for not holding the
elections, except perhaps by an act of God", sounded to many Nepalis
less like friendly advice and more like a royal command from the likes
of the embattled Nepali King Gyanendra, who lost his status as head of
state in April 2006.
A "secret" audience between Mukherjee and Gyanendra, wherein the
ambassador reportedly "offered [unknown] assurances" to the king, has
also drawn the ire and speculation of Nepali media.
A prominent editorial writer, Madan Mani Dixit, referred to Mukherjee as
someone sounding like a "second king". In another article published in a
pro-Maoist weekly, former Nepali Army general Kumar Fudong referred to
reports that claim more than 1,600 persons in Nepal are on the payroll
of India's external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing
(RAW). How consistent, effective or relevant RAW can be is another
matter.
Whether New Delhi stands to make any sustainable gains by getting too
deeply involved in Nepal's affairs remains a matter of conjecture. It
already has the Kashmir problem and there are separatist movements in
the northeast. The movement to create independent Khalistan in Punjab
led to tragic events, including assassination of Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi. In more recent times, India's own Maoist insurgency has spread
like wildfire. Telangana, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu are some of the
India's other trouble spots. If not
stopped straight away, of all these challenges to New Delhi, Nepal's
would inevitably be the biggest one.
In any case, how meaningful would Nepali elections be if Maoists indeed
boycotted them? Not very, in the opinions of local analysts. "Holding
polls without Maoist participation won't be an easy task," said Ameet
Dhakal of the Kathmandu Post newspaper. Indeed, if Maoists cannot be
included in the elections, the entire peace process based on pacts and
agreements signed in the past would be meaningless.
As a consequence, issues Maoists took up on behalf of poor and deprived
sections of the society would thus remain unattended, leaving room for
more discontent and resentment. Another dimension of the problem is
related to fear emanating from Maoist plan to "actively boycott" the
polls - which many take as code words for disruptions that could
endanger the safety of candidates, poll officials and voters alike.
However, Prime Minister Koirala says he is fully committed to the
November 22 polls. He also keeps assuring Kathmandu-based ambassadors as
well as visitors from the United Nations, Washington, London and Beijing
that the existing transitional phase will not last for long.
But the immediate question is: What happens if the authorities fail to
hold the polls on November 22? First, the legitimacy of both the
coalition government and interim legislature would be questioned and the
chief of the Nepali Army, General Rookmangud Katawal, has already
broadly hinted that the armed forces might be the first national
institution to raise the question.
One emerging scenario is a Bangladesh-style military coup with a
civilian face. A "neutral" government would be set up and requested to
conduct elections to produce a legitimate government that, in turn,
would complete the peace process that the present coalition began last
year. Whether the army would leave any space for Maoists to compete in
electoral politics in such an arrangement is unclear because of their
history of combat between 1996 and 2006. In any case, if it is required
to mount a "rescue mission", the Nepali Army is likely to delay, if not
scuttle, the process to the abolish the monarchy.
The other possible alternative is for the United Nations to take a
larger role, as it has done in a number of trouble-torn nations. The
present UN mission in Nepal was established last year through a Security
Council resolution and in the context of peace initiatives. In a
worst-case scenario, New Delhi could dispatch its "peacekeeping force"
as it did in Sri Lanka in 1987 - though that proved a fiasco after India
lost more than 1,100 soldiers.
Should New Delhi begin to take steps for direct action, it would be seen
to have been done through tacit understanding with its "strategic
partner" - the United States. The US administration would not discourage
measures as long as these appeared aimed at encircling China. What would
be Beijing's reaction to such a maneuver? It depends on its priorities,
either further thawing of its relations with New Delhi or defending
Nepal in exchange for safeguarding its interests in Tibet.
(Dhruba Adhikary, who has been a Dag Hammarskjold fellow, is a Kathmandu-based
journalist.
|
