Strategy is to polarize Nepal

June 11, 2003
3 MIN READ
A
A+
A-

Kathmandu: Two consistent themes voiced by the political sector in reaction to the appointment of Surya Bahadur Thapa as Prime Minister deserve analysis. The first is the charge that India openly manipulated the system in Thapa’s favor. The second is to do with the raised anti-monarchical pitch of the parties disappointed by the rejection of their prime ministerial candidate Madhav Nepal.

Thaps’s appointment is the closest option to that of Lokendra Bahadur Chand. He was appointed under article 127. Like Chand, he is the “leader” of the RPP party which is the largest in the parliament outside the agitating Congress and the UML. The RPP considers His Majesty’s use of article 127 as constitutionally legitimate.

The vociferous criticism of the monarchy by the agitating parties and its reflection in the partisan media forgets the fact that Madhav Nepal’s appointment is a constitutional impossibility since the agitating parties unwittingly boxed themselves in with the twin demands of the revival of the now dissolved parliament and the implementation of the redundant article 128. The King can do neither under the constitution. He can merely activise article 127 to remove hitches in the constitution.

Where the India hand comes in as a factor favoring Surya Bahadur Thapa is a mystery known better to the agitating parties since the current constitution is a product of their agitation launched 14 years ago amidst an Indian economic blockade of Nepal. It is not forgotten also that the agitating parties had announced their people’s movement hosting Indian leaders at the moment.

The slide towards an openly India conscious politics ever since has hardly escaped notice in Nepal and abroad and that the Thapa appointment is deemed to have been the result also of open Indian preference is of little surprise to most Nepal watchers. What is surprising is that the agitating parties should now cry foul on this account. Also noteworthy is that this is more outspokenly stated in the partisan media while our party leaders would prefer the more vague charge of “foreign hand at work” surreptitiously charging the British and the American interests and ignoring the India factor.

The second theme has to do with the more anti-monarchical standpoint Thaps’s appointment has generated. Clearly, a polarization process that divides the issue of the monarchy into pro and anti monarchy forces is underway.

In 1975, one might recall, Sikkimese democracy was also polarized thus prior to the Indian hand swinging it towards republicanism and finally merger with India.

In the background of these two things, it is possible now to analyze the coming course of events in Nepali politics. Thaps’s government will not be cooperated with and the agitation will raise its pitch. Government will be formed of minor parties and elections will be announced. The agitating parties who brought this constitution to the current chaos on account of their need to form electoral governments will probably continue the agitation and consider elections without their participation fraudulent. Thus the polarization will continue.