New
Delhi, 09 February 2005
“What
motivated him to take such a bold step? It is still
a mystery. India and China both have taken a
pro-democracy stand. This is not a pragmatic and
mature diplomacy on part of India. India like any
other country must promote its national interest
first, and then ensure peaceful centres of power in
its vicinity. The containment of the Maoist
insurgency by strengthening the hands of the King
and the Royal Nepal Army will always be in the great
security interest of India.”
Recent
Developments in Nepal –– Should Democracy
Prevail or Monarchy?
By
Dr. Alok Kumar Gupta & Debomita Ghosh*
The
Himalayan Kingdom of Nepal is again in the midst of
political turmoil. King Gyanendra has once again
sacked the Deuba government and transformed the
constitutional monarchy into an absolute monarchy.
The Monarch has promised elections and restoration
of democracy in three years and to restore peace,
law and order and economic development. However, the
people are not sure what lies ahead in the future.
The anti-democracy act of the King, makes it
imperative to explore the reasons behind such a
drastic step.
Reasons
provided by His Majesty:
-
The
resurgence of the menace of Maoism has held
hostage both the spirits of democracy and
governance in Nepal. According to the King, the
Deuba Government failed either in reining in the
Maoists or in bringing them to the negotiating
table for peace talks.
Consequently, the Nepali people were
doomed to a world of insecurity and uncertainty.
-
Corruption
is widely rampant amongst the Government and the
system as a whole. Nepal’s experience with
democratic governance since 1990 has been anti
people as there has not been any socio-economic
development. The political modernization also
could not take-off. There was massive abuse of
power by political leaders. The King has ensured
that a royal commission shall be constituted to
investigate corruption and to seize and
nationalize property amassed through
exploitation and smuggling.
-
According
to the King, he adopted the only available
alternative in the interest of the country and
the people of Nepal. He did it to ensure welfare
of the people and protect ‘Human Rights’.
Reasons
that led to the Usurpation:
-
Maoists
as Direct Threat to the King –– Maoists
are directly attacking the institution of
monarchy hence it is of utmost important to
check them. Since the Deuba government failed,
the direct rule was probably the only option
left to the King to deal with the crisis. There
was an ever-increasing pressure from the
international organizations like the UN High
Commission of Human Rights, Amnesty
International, etc., implying that there are
serious threats to “Human Rights” in Nepal
owing to Maoist insurgency. Maoists’ refusal
to negotiate with Deuba denouncing him as the
King’s puppet and insisting on direct talks
with the King himself had created a crisis of
legitimacy for the government. The Maoists,
apparently, seemed to consider Parliament to be
insignificant. The King sacked all the
constitutional forces to concentrate all the
parliamentary and democratic powers against
Maoism in order to deal with the security crisis
of the country, which had risen from the
political differences.
-
The
Hegemonic Intentions of the King — King
Gyanendra’s democratic intentions are however,
doubtful. The extraordinary and dramatic
situations under which he became the King was
followed by his declaration that he would not
prefer to be a quiet King like his brother and
he would play a more active role in Nepali life.
His involvement in the state affairs opened up a
three-way power struggle — a powerful Maoist
rebel movement; Nepal’s parliamentary parties;
and the monarchy. His antipathy to democracy is
evident from the fact, (as reported in many
newspapers) that “the King himself did not
want the elections”. It is true that if the
date for elections had already been announced,
it would have made it harder for the King to
justify his decision to rule directly and impose
a state of emergency.
-
Gyanendra’s
Suspicion and Insecurity — The
three-pronged power system provided enough
reasons to King Gyanendra to be suspicious and
insecure against the political parties as well
as the Maoists. He perhaps anticipated that the
political parties might establish some sort of
working relationship and try to get rid and
overthrow the King himself. So, he crippled the
Parliament, further declaring it corrupt and
inefficient. The only other contestants were
already on a negative stance due to their
recourse to violence and avowed aim to oust the
monarchy. The popular support is against the
Maoists as they intimidate rural people to
garner their support. The King furthered his
goal by calling the rebels, in his speeches, as
not “Maoists” but, “criminals and
terrorists”.
-
His
Existence Depends on His Triumph — With
the two other premises of power at his neck and
the restoration of power to Mr. Deuba last year,
i.e. having empowered one of his enemies
himself, Gyanendra might have realized that he
stood on the edge. He had to sideline one and
suppress the other. Sidelining the political
leadership was much easier. And if he was now
able to at least bring the Maoists to the
negotiating table, leave alone the on-going
violence, it would definitely stage him to the
pedestal of victory and political security. In
other words, despite the hue and cry over the
breakdown of democracy from the external world,
the King realizes that if he is able to bring
significant changes in safety and security
situations, all the external criticism will fade
away and general public will support him
greatly. Thus his action is but a gamble with a
high risk factor because if he loses, he will
end up inviting more causes for worry and would
not only loosen the institution of monarchy but
may also perpetuate a social, economic and
political crisis in the country.
-
Maoist
Ideology Against Monarchy — The Maoists
have announced their ultimate goal to establish
a socialist state by declaring Nepal as
“communist republic”. It calls for a
complete socio-political change. The very fabric
of Nepalese monarchy is, thus, threatened. With
the increasing power of the Maoists, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to bring them
under control. Given the present scenario in
Nepal, containing the rebel movement by
democratic means seems next to impossible but
they can be taken into cognizance by military
means and total subjugation. King Gyanendra
seems to be more concerned to protect the
Nepalese monarchy, even if it is at the cost of
depriving his people the privilege of democracy.
-
Ambition
to Create his own Lobby — Gyanendra along
with declaring an emergency and dissolution of
the Parliament has also put some prominent
political leaders under house arrest. It is a
hard fact that Gyanendra was installed on the
throne under extraordinary circumstances when
there were no other options left, and he still
does not enjoy the confidence and blind devotion
of the people. Not even the Parliament. Under
the pretext of filtering the Parliament of
corruption, the King might open the
Parliamentary doors to his own people under the
masks of different Commissions for
investigations. At least this is apparent by
seeing him unveil a ten-member Cabinet under his
leadership.
-
To
Overcome the “Crisis of Legitimacy” —
Gyanendra became King under unusual
circumstances as mentioned above. Hence, even
the neighbours in the South Asian region and
other countries of the world have not been able
to digest his assumption of power. The SAARC
summit which was scheduled on February 06, 2005
at Dhaka would have provided him the opportunity
to overcome the erstwhile ‘crisis of
legitimacy’ tag, where he would have
represented the head of the state of Nepal along
side the heads of six other South Asian
countries. Thus, February 01, 2005 was the most
opportune moment for the King to sack the
Government and establish his rule.
Democracy
or Monarchy — Which Favors India’s National
Interest
Democracy
has its own pitfalls. A multiparty democracy has
proved a nuisance for Nepal and has led to a more
complex political system. Monarchy ensures a single
center of power hence is easier to deal with. A
democracy would demand far more advanced and careful
diplomacy on the part of India as any negotiations
get protracted for nothing. Yet it announced that
democracy should be re-installed in the Nepalese
country for the following reasons:
-
A
diplomatic step keeping in mind the eye of the
world — India is the largest democracy in the
world and a power to be reckoned with in the
proximity of the South Asian region. Since India
is a strong contender for a permanent seat in
the UN Security Council, it cannot afford to
support anti-democratic endeavors. It has to
support democracy in Nepal even if it is against
the national interests of India.
-
Border
insecurity — Maoist literature speaks of
creating a “Compact Revolutionary Zone”
stretching from northern Andhra Pradesh through
central and eastern India to Nepal. It is a
constant source of threat to the Indian border.
Indian government worries that with the advent
of one-man-rule, the revolt could spin out of
control and Nepal may become a breeding ground
of terrorist groups and drugs trafficking. This
theory is strengthened further by the fact the
Maoists have control over 73 of 75 districts of
Nepal. They are virtually running a parallel
government in rural Nepal.
-
Unnecessary
Expenses —
India shares around 1,600 kms of its border with
Nepal. There are apprehensions that the monarchy
in Nepal might not be successful and the
vibrancy of the rebel movement may be stimulated
with the downfall of democracy in the country.
If this happens India will have to invest on
ensuring the security along the long border.
Presently the Indo–Nepal border is a porous
one.
-
Economic
Prospects — Nepal
has a potential of 80,000 to 1, 50,000 MW of
renewable non-polluting hydel power. Both
countries had already entered into the Mahakali
Project Agreement. But the negotiations were
mainly with the Nepali political leaders. The
relationship with the King has not reached the
stage of maturity, which was reached by
prolonged interaction with the Nepalese
Democrats. King Gyanendra made no
attempts after he assumed power in 2001 to groom
his relationships with the Indian government.
India may suffer in terms of its exports, as
42.3% of Nepal’s chief imports comprise of
goods and services from India. India, thus, has
a high economic stake in Nepal, which it cannot
afford to loose.
-
Indian
perceptions of the King are distrustful as he
has proved to be unpredictable. Consequently, what
India fears most is not the monarchy but the
probability of an understanding and compromise
between the monarchy and the Maoists. If that
happens, the entire situation will go out of the
hands of India in the following ways:
-
Maoism
supported by anti-India groups –– there is
enough information in the newspapers that there
are established linkages between the Maoists and
the LTTE, some Islamic Fundamentalists
organizations, through the ISI of Pakistan. All
such organizations work against the interests of
India. Therefore, the increasing insurgency in
Nepal would have enough potentiality to increase
anti-India activities.
-
Strong
Anti-India Stand of Maoists –– one of the
strong bases of Maoists popularity is their
anti-India stand. This makes it quite obvious
that the rebel group can never be taken into
confidence if India ever tries to provide its
good offices for negotiations and peace.
-
A
deterioration in Indio-Nepal relations means
enhancement in Sino–Nepal and Pak–Nepal
bonds — Nepal is a buffer-state between the
two giants, China and India. Growth of hostility
between India and Nepal would provide an
opportunity to China to intervene and wean away
Nepal, which would further invite strategic
disadvantage to India. China is eagerly waiting
to enter the Indian sub-continent via Nepal. It
would obviously be fatal to the Indian security
matrix.
Indian Diplomacy — The Task Ahead
The
Indian government immediately after the political
upheavals in Nepal took a strong step by denouncing
the acts of the King and asked him to restore
democracy as soon as possible. The Indian step
appears as though the diplomatic community within
the country did not achieve much. Hence, it is not a
well thought out reaction. India needs to think more
pragmatically. It is because democracy in the tiny
state of Nepal has always been unstable, volatile,
and vulnerable to outside manipulations. It creates
multiple centers of power hence carrying out
negotiations on any relevant issues of concern to
both countries also, becomes a cumbersome process.
Monarchy
means, just one center of power. Negotiation and
striking a rapport and dealing with one center of
power will be a much more stable, easier and less
time consuming process. Hence, given the immense
economic opportunity between the two neighbors, and
common concern about containing internal conflicts,
the long-term prospects of hydroelectricity, India
requires to groom its neighbor in the right
direction so that cooperation is maximized and
conflict is minimized. This makes it imperative that
there be a stable polity within Nepal, the chances
of which are higher when there is one center of
power i.e. monarchy.
The
various problems and apprehensions of India, which
have been enumerated above could be well taken care
of if there is one stable center of power. The pace
of progress also will be faster than it is now or
would be under democracy. The problem becomes more
complex when both the countries are experiencing
democratic governance and frequent changes of head
of the government. Indeed this is the bane of a
parliamentary democracy.
Moreover,
the spontaneous reaction of India is contradictory
in itself. This is because India has been supplying
arms and other logistical support to the Royal Nepal
Army, knowing fully well that it is totally
controlled by the King. Thus, strengthening the
hands of the King on the one hand and speaking about
furthering the cause of democracy in Nepal is
antithetical to each other.
The
inevitable interest of the international Islamic
fundamentalist organizations in the Maoist
insurgency of Nepal (primarily seeing the only Hindu
Nation of the world in jeopardy and using it as a
corridor to India) has already been established
through various newspaper reports. These
organizations are also providing funds to such
insurgents. The small insurgent groups have become
the dumping grounds of LTTE’s obsolete weapons.
Knowing this, Gyanendra took the decision to contain
the Maoist terrorism on one hand, and cut the
chances of any kind of support from the Nepali
parliament on the other.
What
motivated him to take such a bold step? It is still
a mystery. India and China both have taken a
pro-democracy stand. This is not a pragmatic and
mature diplomacy on part of India. India like any
other country must promote its national interest
first, and then ensure peaceful centres of power in
its vicinity. The containment of the Maoist
insurgency by strengthening the hands of the King
and the Royal Nepal Army wil always be in the great
security interest of India.
*(Dr.
Alok Kumar Gupta is a Lecturer, Faculty of Policy
Sciences at National Law University, Jodhpur and Ms.
Debomita Ghosh is a student at the same University).
|