Musharrafising a monarchy?

So much about Kathmandu is familiar – and in these days of political turmoil, even more so. Nepal has a robust media, and newspapers are full of the current crisis, as one found during a recent visit to this capital that coincided with a three-day ‘bandh’ called by Maoist insurgents fighting for a communist republic. Assiduously avoiding the Maoists, is a five-party political alliance engaged in a different struggle -- against a ‘regression’ to authoritarian monarchy and for a restoration of the constitutional process. Refusing to have truck with either, is King Gyanendra, referred to by opponents as showing personally ambitious “Musharraf tendencies” with the army’s help. The reference to Pakistan’s president goes further with allegations that the king will push a “guided democracy” even if he gives in to political demands for elections.

Kathmandu shuts down during these bandhs, which hit business hard in this tourist-dependent economy. Months ago, it would have been unthinkable for a Maoist strike to be successful in the capital. But political inaction against them for six years since they declared ‘war’ against the state in February 1996, allowed them to increase their areas of control. They have further gained from the vacuum resulting from the standoff between the king and political parties.

Meanwhile the police are reacting brutally to demonstrations by unarmed demonstrators, landing over a hundred in hospital last week after scenes reminiscent of the movement for the restoration of democracy (MRD) in Pakistan two decades ago.

Unlike Pakistan where no elected government has been allowed to complete its term, Nepal until recently enjoyed an uninterrupted spell of parliamentary democracy for about 12 years, after three decades of political struggle that culminated in the People’s Movement. In 1990, the pressure led to King Birendra agreeing to a multi-party democratic system, an interim government and a new constitution. “Nepalis in districts who had real representation in a full-fledged democracy have over these years learnt to speak out, and to challenge,” says respected political analyst and journalist Kanak Dixit. These traditions will make it difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. Nepal has never been under direct colonial rule and there is widespread support for a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch.

The process was interrupted by the royal palace massacre of June 1, 2001, which led to King Gyanendra taking over the reins of a multi-party democratic system that continued rather than collapsing after the murders. But in October 2002, he sacked the elected prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba – who had dissolved the elected parliament but reneged on his promise of holding elections. Nepal has since seen two king-appointed cabinets – but appears no nearer to general elections.

The 1990 Constitution also placed the army under civilian control with a National Security Council comprising the Defence Minster, Prime Minister
and Army Commander-in-Chief -- who is traditionally loyal to the King. Fears that the king could misuse his influence were proved correct after he called in the army to control the Maoist insurgency -- which had been allowed to operate unchecked until then, with the Maoists ‘arresting’ and ‘jailing’, even ‘executing’ opponents – and security personnel - and ‘taxing’ villagers (complete with receipt books). Initially fed by links to insurgents in neighbouring Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, the Nepali Maoists, unlike their Indian counterparts, were able to grow, becoming big fish in a little pond.

The state’s ultimate response was not political, but military, in a reprisal that is claiming innocent lives as well – justified in the post 9-11 world as ‘collateral damage’. The Nepali authorities’ fight against ‘terrorism’ is
supported not only by USA and Great Britain, but also by neighbouring India which has a stake in the matter – New Delhi has reacted furiously to a recent Maoist attack across the border that set ablaze 18 empty petrol tankers.

But as in Iraq, this is not an easy fight. Nepal’s army, used to being a peace-keeping force, finds itself pitted against an implacable enemy in terrain more difficult than Afghanistan or Vietnam. It is responding with disproportionate force, gorged with new guns and ammunition mostly obtained at subsidized rates from India. Lacking an air force, the army now has three times its previous count of helicopters, the latest acquisition being two new advanced light helicopters, manufactured in India and sold for the first time abroad.

It is the ordinary Nepali villagers who are caught between the army’s new firepower and Maoists’ brutality. Women are arguably the worst hit. Besides being left to pick up the pieces after Maoist or army strikes, they also find themselves the most expendable. A new trend emerging in response to insurgents’ demands for one person from each house in Maoist controlled areas is for families to send a daughter, rather than risk losing a son. Activists also testify to meeting women who joined the Maoists after being raped by security forces – only to find themselves being raped by the Maoists as well.

The situation is still salvageable, however, if the five main political parties, united after being out in the cold for the last couple of years, are mandated to choose a prime minister under whom elections can be held. “The logical choice to lead a caretaker set up is Madhav Kumar Nepal of the United Marxist-Leninist (UML-M),” says Dixit. “And even he is willing to agree to another nomination if there is any problem.”

A three-option roadmap for peace proposed recently by civil society groups includes elections, a referendum and constituent assembly, has been sent to the government, the political parties, and the Maoists. Ultimately, it is the cooperation of each of these entities that will lead Nepal out of the present quagmire and towards peace.