By Dhrubahari Adhikary
Dhrubahari Adhikary (File photo)
Dhrubahari Adhikary (File photo)
People of Nepal, numbering nearly 25 million, continue to be trapped in a crossfire between the forces representing a feudal monarchy on the one hand and a 10-year-old Maoist rebellion on the other. Over 13, 000 lives have been lost in the process; agony of widows and orphaned children in indescribable. The economy, based on subsistence farming, would have already collapsed if the remittances sent by Nepalis working mainly as unskilled labor in the Gulf countries had not kept it floating.
But it is uncertain how long these Nepalis will find it wise to send money to a place where security of life and property is under constant threat. Media reports filtering into the capital city from outlying districts tell a message of a reign of terror in rural Nepal. The Kathmandu valley, which houses three of the country’s 75 districts, is a kind of island.
Units of the Royal Nepal Army (RNA), Armed Police Force and Nepal Police under the army’s “unified command” are heavily mobilized to salvage the palace and its paraphernalia.
How much positive difference has King Gyanendra’s direct rule brought to Nepal since he assumed state powers February 1? Almost all the ministers the king appointed to the government he constituted under his own chairmanship on February 2 keep telling the public that there has been a marked improvement in the law and order situation in the intervening period. But this is not a widely accepted claim, though Nepalis across the country cannot fearlessly express their voices on such issues in view of the censorship introduced on February 1. (The emergency was lifted after three months, but the authorities have not withdrawn gazette notices on censorship.) A culture of self-censorship is developing, to the dismay of Nepali intelligentsia and their well-wishers abroad.
Armed rebel groups keep attacking security forces, making fatal onslaughts on innocent civilians, recruiting children for their militia and extorting money from villagers to finance the “people’s war,” which the Maoists have promised will eventually transform Nepal into a people’s republic. Half of Nepal’s population is illiterate; this leaves them vulnerable to exploitation by both government as well as rebel forces.
Monarchy and Maoism are ideologically poles apart, but in present-day Nepal there is one agenda where protagonists of both sides share a common stand: they hate political parties. That is why some analysts suspect they have been working in tandem, and this perception is not without a basis. Senior Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai, for instance, once publicly claimed that his party had forged a “working unity” with King Birendra a few months before he was slain in a mysterious palace carnage, in June 2001. But he did not explain what such a unity would entail.
Another ground for speculation was provided by the present king’s incumbent foreign minister, Ramesh Nath Pandey, also during the reign of the late king. Pandey, who then was only a king’s nominee in the upper house of parliament, admitted in a newspaper interview that he had had secret meetings with top Maoist leaders – billed terrorists by the government of the day. Adding an element of curiosity, Pandey declined to disclose their whereabouts for the sake of the safety of Maoists. He also did not mention who authorized those clandestine meetings. Political developments of the recent past portend more complexities.
Circumstances have made Nepalis hostage in their own country, compelling them to seek help from those who possess capabilities to rescue them. They also appear in need of support from those who can stand up and say that questions of human rights and democracy are no longer issues of any other country’s concern.
To the international community, Nepal is a fragile state – on its way to becoming a failed state. And this has become a matter of grave concern to Nepal’s friends in the neighborhood and abroad. Together with India and China, Nepal’s two paramount neighbors, the United States, Britain and its other European partners are keen to prevent Nepal from becoming another Afghanistan, Iraq or Cambodia.
“One does not need to tell the people of Nepal that they are facing a very serious crisis,” said visiting UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi at a news conference July 15. He said return to constitutional order and multi-party democracy was one of the three elements on which a solution to the ongoing conflict rested. Brahimi, senior advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, said the UN remained available to provide necessary assistance.
Donald Camp, a senior US State Department official, was another recent visitor to Nepal who made it clear to King Gyanendra and his associates that restoration of democracy was needed to address the Maoist insurgency. “The world and the United States find unacceptable a return to pre-1990 Nepal,” Camp said, alluding to the absolute monarchy that Nepal was made to endure for 30 years after 1960. He referred to President George W Bush’s inaugural address in January reiterating American commitment to democracy around the world, and added: “This includes Nepal as well.” These remarks were made public less than an hour before Camp’s scheduled audience with King Gyanendra, on June 28.
His Majesty King Gyanendra (File Photo)
His Majesty King Gyanendra (File Photo)
Envoys of India and the United Kingdom are among those diplomats who also have publicly aired their views in favor of restoration of democracy. They, together with other partners within the European Union, believe that since there is no military solution to the Maoist insurgency, the king should restore democracy so that adequate and legitimate political strength could be built to deal with the rebellion. London, Delhi and Washington, the three capitals that have been informally but jointly taking initiatives on Nepal for some years, have put military assistance to Nepal’s army on hold since February 1. The Royal Nepal Army has received only non-lethal supplies in the preceding months. Several of Nepal’s important donors, including Denmark, have given indication that their developmental assistance to Nepal could discontinue unless democracy is restored. ( China, Russia and Pakistan consider the February 1 coup as Nepal’s internal affair.)
King Gyanendra’s government considers such a stand untenable, amounting to interference in Nepal’s internal affairs. Indian ambassador Shiv Shankar Mukherjee and British ambassador Keith Bloomfield were summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be told that their remarks went beyond the diplomatic duties they were supposed to fulfill. Bloomfield was given a second reprimand after he spoke to an academic group about the principle of rule of law. He said he picked up the issue because King Gyanendra himself had mentioned its importance in his proclamation of February 1.
Earlier, security men had turned away US ambassador James Moriarty from the entrance of the house where Nepali Congress leader Girija Prasad Koirala was placed under arrest. It was at the time the Foreign Office issued a circular to all Kathmandu-based diplomatic missions explaining the newly introduced conditions under which they could meet persons under house arrest and detention.
One of the royal advisors, retired army General Bharat Keshar Simha, once went to the extent of publicly demanding that the Indian envoy be declared persona non grata and expelled from Nepal. In one recent occasion, Kirtinidhi Bista, one of the two vice chairmen in the king’s cabinet, flatly brushed aside the idea of accepting external assistance or mediation in resolving the conflict in Nepal. Bista’s reaction that the royal government was capable of resolving “the Maoist problem ourselves” came right after his meeting with visiting UN envoy Brahimi.
The Maoist problem
How is it possible now? Why wasn’t it possible in the past years? If resolution of the Maoist problem is indeed as easy a task as Bista seems to suggest, then wouldn’t it let skeptics repeat their old argument that the Maoist movement was nothing but a creation of palace hardliners who were looking for a pretext to destabilize democracy and prove it unsuitable for a country like Nepal?
But if this is not the case, and what Bista was saying now was a genuine, spontaneous and innocuous expression of zeal and patriotism, then analysts believe that the government’s assessment of the current situation is not realistic at all.
How can one gloss over the stark scene where Maoists carry out armed onslaughts on both government as well as civilian targets? What specific measures has the royal government taken since February to prevent reckless deaths and destruction across the country? It is common knowledge that despite their best efforts and wide publicity, the RNA remains largely on the defensive. A common perception is that unless the army intensifies its offensive capabilities, the Maoists’ military strength is unlikely to be weakened, and rebel leaders won’t be forced to agree to sit for negotiations.
Here, the million-dollar question is, when can this situation be changed? How many more thousand lives will have to be lost before any credible initiatives begin? Can the UN or the international community afford to remain silent spectators while the spate of killings and damage go unabated? Kulchandra Gautam, a Nepali citizen currently holding a senior UN post, is one of those intellectuals who does not see any harm in accepting external assistance/mediation if the means available within Nepal cannot resolve the challenge. Gautam has told Nepali intelligentsia a number of times that a stage comes when the UN is compelled to take measures aimed at stopping the violence from spreading.
In fact, Brahimi’s trip to Kathmandu is being seen as meaningful in this context. Brahimi said Kofi Annan, who met the Nepalese monarch in Jakarta in April, had been watching developments in Nepal “with growing concern”. Annan, he said, wrote two letters to the king and spoke to him on telephone after the February coup. Nepal, a UN member since 1955, has already worked twice in the Security Council as a non-permanent member. Seasoned Nepali diplomats concede that by voluntarily giving a role to the UN, Nepal stands to make gains in these extraordinary circumstances. Besides, the UN is an organization that leaves the country once its assigned job is completed – like in Cambodia.
“Why should there be any hesitation to involve the UN if the government has nothing to hide,” wondered analyst Devraj Dahal, who is also associated with the German foundation, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
In the past, whenever the possibility of giving the UN a role came in public debate, India would oppose the idea for reasons never fully explained. This stand, however, has altered in recent times, especially after February 1. “None of these powers [India and the US] would oppose UN mediation, if it served their strategic or other important interests,” commented The Himalayan Times, a pro-Indian newspaper published in Kathmandu, on the eve of Brahimi’s visit to Nepal.
Britain, too, according to diplomatic sources, would support a growing UN role for Nepal. Americans have so far appeared less enthusiastic about the UN , because they think the UN is too soft on the Maoists. They might change this position once the Indians and British convince them about the UN’s usefulness.
In a way, the UN has already entered Nepal – through its human rights agency, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights – OHCHR. The royal government signed an agreement in April, permitting the agency to set up its office in Nepal, with a mandate to monitor violations of human rights. The new office, headed by former secretary general of Amnesty International, Ian Martin, is in the process of beginning its mandated work.
(Vice chairman Bista, who spoke against a UN role during Brahimi’s visit, might not have fully realized the implications of the agreement Foreign Minister Pandey concluded earlier with the human-rights chief who is based in Geneva.)
King Gyanendra , who has remained indifferent to internal political unrest, continues to ignore messages and appeals coming from the international front. Of course, he has granted audiences to a stream of international visitors in the past couple of months, and almost all of them have heard the king reiterating his commitment to democracy and human rights.
But those who believe that actions speak louder than words have found themselves thoroughly dismayed. “Yes, the deeds do not appear to be matching the words,” said a South Asian diplomat who did not want to be identified. The most recent example surfaced on the night of July 14, when the Narayanhity Royal Palace announced induction of a dozen ministers, within hours after the king met Brahimi. Most of the newly appointed ministers are persons known for their anti-democratic backgrounds.
A few days before, the king had surprised many through the appointment of retired army generals to important diplomatic posts. Loyalty is taking precedence over competence in matters relating to appointments and promotions. Nepal, which has not had a parliament or elected government since 2002, has become a country to be ruled through a string of royal decrees. And there is no plan for parliamentary elections in the foreseeable future. People who initially gave the king the benefit of the doubt for his February 1 move, have realized now that the royal proclamation was indeed a thin veil for a power-grab.
He did not take that action to resolve the Maoist insurgency, monitors of contemporary trends have concluded. Hence, it is preposterous to expect the king to restore democracy as promised. The alliance of seven major political parties has now understood that there is no alternative to a decisive, nationwide movement for the restoration of democracy.
To India, the world’s largest democracy, Nepal has become a test case. The US and the UK, too, known for their long democratic traditions, would not like to see Nepal sliding back to the medieval era of autocracy.
But how will US and other initiatives work to restore democracy in Nepal? Will it be through organizations such as the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was active in Kyrgyzstan “Tulip” revolution? Speculation abounds, especially in context of Nepal’s location: China, Nepal’s northern neighbor, is the US’s biggest rival.
Nevertheless, King Gyanendra can avert the looming disaster if he wants to. And the method is simple: he can preempt potential external moves by giving back power to the Nepali people. A prompt step along this line could still help retain a ceremonial role for the monarchy. All he needs to do is read the writing on the wall.