GP-ji and friends from Sajha and beyond,
Thank you for your concerns and emails.
At present, I am somewhere in South Asia and out of Nepal; so, I am as clueless as any one of you re: the real latest happening. Just managed to log in; hope this gets posted.
I just got this in from Kanak Dixit, who is in KTM.
Here it goes.
oohi
ashu
************
Royal Takeover in Nepal: Drastic and Ill-Advised
By Kanak Mani Dixit
When King Gyanendra sacked the prime minister and began direct rule
on 1 February 2005, he said he did so under a constitutional provision
which enjoins the monarchy to uphold and protect the Constitution. While he
repeated many times in the royal address his commitment to
constitutional monarchy and multiparty rule, the king?s drastic action on Tuesday
went patently against those principles.
Firstly, he was taking over as executive
monarch on the basis of a personal decision. Secondly, the royal
address was replete with castigating references to political parties, who are the
intermediaries for pluralism and democratic practice anywhere in the
world.
King Gyanendra?s antipathy towards the political parties is well
known and has been often-expressed, but by sidelining them completely and
planning to rule as well as reign, the king has removed a buffer between himself
and the rough and tumble of politics. To that extent, he has taken a great
risk and put the institution of monarchy in the line of fire. Clearly, the
king believes that the risk is worth taking.
Which brings us to the matter of whether Narayanhiti Royal Palace has
a trump card vis-?-vis the raging Maoist insurgency. If such is indeed
the case and there is rapid movement towards tranquility, with the
insurgents being routed or laying down arms, the royal palace may be able to
overcome the turbulence it has introduced into the Nepali polity. Peace and an
end to the insurgency would put the monarchy back on the pedestal as a
respected institution, but everything depends on how soon that would happen. At
one time, the Maoists did announce that they would negotiate only with
Prime Minister Deuba?s ?master?, so are we to hope that now with the king
directly in-charge the Maoists will extend a hand? We can hope.
Further, the Royal Nepal Army?s fight against the highly motivated
and increasingly brutal insurgents thus far has been lackluster. Will the
royal palace?s direct control of national affairs mean that the military
will now put up a spirited fight, and also that its human rights record will
improve from current levels? We will have to see.
What is clear is that this has been a radical step exposing the
institution of kingship to flak, when other approaches could have been tried.
Such as using the inherent powers of kingship to cajole the political parties
to work together and put up a political front against the insurgents.
But the king?s deeply held feelings towards the parties seems to have blocked
off this avenue towards resolution. The calls made since King Gyanendra
took over informally in October 2002 for an all-party government or
revival of the Third Parliament, all of which would have provided political
challenge to the Maoists on their home ground, are now for naught.
King Gyanendra?s announcement of a takeover for ?up to three years?
provides a long window in which Nepal?s highly successful experiment with
democracy of the last dozen years may be eroded. Unless there is a rapid move
towards resolution of the insurgency, it is also likely that the Maoists will
try to make common cause with the political parties. Although it is not
likely that the above-ground parties will go with the insurgents as long as they
hold on to the gun, it is certain that the royal action will add strength to
the insurgents? demand for a king-less republican constitution and
government, a call that has been taken up with alacrity lately by many politicians.
It is inexplicable how the royal palace plans to attend to the
criticism that is bound to erupt in the domestic political arena as well as in
the international community. In castigating the political parties, King
Gyanendra preferred to hark back to the Parliament dissolved three
years ago, while keeping silent over interim period and rule through
palace-appointed prime ministers. This is the period when the peace
and security of the country?s populace plummeted more than previously.
In the speech, King Gyanendra highlighted the great contribution of
the Shah dynasty to the creation of the nation and ventured that he was
speaking for the ?janabhawana?, i.e. the Nepali people?s feelings. While it is
true that the desire for peace overwhelms all other political desires among the
people, the question arises whether the royal takeover was the proper
way to address the ?chahana? (desires). Rather than remonstrate at the
political parties? inability to work together and opt for the takeover, it
would have been a much more popular and realistic move for the king to have used
his prerogative as head-of-state to bring the bickering parties together
at this critical juncture.
In the end, unless King Gyanendra is able to come up with the trump
card of peace vis-a-vis the Maoists in the near term, one can conclude that
his unprecedented action of the First of February has exposed the
historically significant institution of Nepal?s monarchy to the vissictitudes of
day-to-day politics and power play. Did the Nepali monarchy deserve
this at this late a date in history?
Endnote: As I write this on Tuesday evening, the significant
political leaders are all under house arrest, the media (press, television,
radio) is under censorship, the fundamental freedoms have been suspended, a
state of emergency has been announced, telephones (landlines and cellular) as
well as Internet are down, and the Tribhuvan International Airport is closed.
By Kanak Mani Dixit in Kathmandu
