By Jan Sharma

The 1 February Royal takeover did not create a realistic appreciation among Nepal’s friends and development partners. Was this because of diplomatic failure to explain that it was fundamentally different than the one in 1960?

Much of the initial reactions from world capitals seem to have largely failed to take note of the differences of the Royal Proclamations of February 2005 and December 1960, which seems to have been appreciated by China, Russia, the United States and Japan.

The Royal Proclamation on 1 February 2005 introduced the King’s direct rule for three years to restore peace and “meaningful democracy.” A state of emergency was clamped “in view of the serious crisis posed to the nation’s sovereignty, integrity and security.”

King Gyanendra fired Sher Bahadur Deuba, who was not even a Member of Parliament, which he himself had dissolved in May 2002 and refused to have elections held. King Mahendra in 1960 had dismissed B. P. Koirala, a popularly elected Prime Minister.

Second, King Mahendra wanted “an alternative political system” to replace the democratic structure established by the 1959 Constitution that provided for multi-party parliamentary democracy under a much more pro-active constitutional monarchy.

King Gyanendra, on the other hand, is seeking a solution within the framework of the 1990 Constitution that does not allow even such residual powers to the King as provided to the Indian president or any other head of State in a parliamentary democracy.

This is significant. King Gyanendra has repeatedly reiterated his unflinching commitment to multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. The latest was his 19 February Democracy Day message where he urged the political parties, among others, “to ensure a vibrant multi-party democracy through the conduct of impartial elections in an environment of peace and security.”

King Mahendra had described parliamentary democracy as “out of step with the history and traditions of the country” and wanted a “superior” alternative to democracy.

Third, King Gyanendra had no choice but to take over direct rule, an unpleasant step no doubt, to protect the sovereign independence and territorial integrity of Nepal, which had come under threat from terrorists with a well-established foreign connections.

King Mahendra had asserted that he would not “allow the country to go to ruins in the name of democracy” even if there was no such threat. This is not to suggest that people were not sick and tired, then as now, of the rivalries and infighting among politicians.

Fourth, King Gyanendra is critical (who is not?) of the role of the political parties, he has not imposed a ban on the political parties. King Mahendra, on the other hand, had outlawed the political parties, a ban that lasted until 1990.

Fifth, King Mahendra had waited for nearly two years before he promulgated the Constitution of Nepal 1962. In between, there was no constitution, as the King, invoking Article 55, had suspended the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1959.

In contrast, King Gyanendra is going by the books. He has been using all the powers enjoined to him by the framers of the basic law of the land following India-backed political uprising in 1990.

Last but not the least, when King Mahendra had taken over, most Kathmandu-based ambassadors including those from the United States, Britain and Soviet Union, were outside Nepal. Yes, Indian Ambassador was there but not in Kathmandu.

The Indian envoy together with the Indian Army chief General Thimayya, whom the King had decorated with the Honorary General of the Royal Nepalese Army, were guests of Nepal’s Commander-in-Chief on a hunting trip to Chitwan.

The C-in-C stayed back in Kathmandu, saying he had fever. But both Indian ambassador and General Thimayya were hunting tigers when King Mahendra made the Royal Proclamation in 1960.

A common element between the two proclamations is that both were the products of political bickering and infighting among the political parties, who are singularly responsible for instability in 1950s, 1960s as well as in 1990s.

In the light of this reality, most Western donors sympathetic to democracy are in a mood to wait and see how quickly the King makes progress in restoring law and order and return to democracy. They know they will help terrorism if they are not with the King.

The threat of Denmark and some other countries to cut development assistance to Nepal has already drawn criticism from civil society in those countries mainly because such cuts will certainly worsen the sufferings of the ordinary Nepalese.

The real worry among Nepal’s genuine friends is what will happen if the King is unable or prevented to make progress on two of his main promises – restore law and order and return to democracy – if Nepal’s friends do not stand by him.