WASHINGTON
The stunning subversion of democracy in Nepal is a calculated challenge to aworld celebrating the first vote in Iraq and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine.It came just as President George Bush’s freedom song was beginning to soundmeaningful. The Middle East began its experiment in democracy but King Gyanendraexterminated Nepal’s.
The democracy deficit in South Asia is now alarming.
The king, whose ascension to power was a result of a gruesome royal massacre,has used the ongoing Maoist insurgency as an excuse to dismiss the government ofPrime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, arrest political activists and clamp down onthe press. Nepali journalists are sending emotional e-mails from foreigndiplomatic missions, asking human rights organizations to ask their governmentsto pressure the king. Editors have taken to writing in euphemisms to portray thereality on the ground -- a silent, dark and extremely quiet landscape where anycriticism of the king can result in that ominous knock on the door. Human RightsWatch has warned of "disappearances" in a repeat of what happened the lasttime an emergency was declared.
King Gyanendra’s move to use the Maoists as a shield for his power grab ata time when fighting terrorism is the world’s topmost priority is a boldgamble. He calculated that India, which is torn by many an insurgent movement,and the United States, which has taken Terrorist Inc. head on, cannot butsupport him when it comes to making a stark choice. As for China, the communiststhere can always be counted on for discretion. Closing down the office of theDalai Lama was a sickening nod to China. He is also playing the oldest game --setting China against India -- to break the barriers of isolation.
But Nepal’s two big neighbors must not allow the king to play them soeasily. They can and must work out a strategy which moves the region forwardrather than backward. They must be clear in their message and their means. Theking’s march back in time has huge implications for India, the largest and theregion’s most powerful and only real democracy. How India handles the crisiscan establish it forcefully as a regional player to which others, mostimportantly Washington, will look for leadership when the next dam bursts. Acontact group of sorts is already in place with India, the US and Britainconsulting closely on the crisis in Nepal.
Initial statements from India were strong and unambiguous, denouncing theroyal coup as a major "setback" and calling for a return to democracy anddialogue. Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Shiv Mukherjee, finally met the king thisweek to urge him to return to "democratic processes at the earliest."Mukherjee emphasised the "importance of bringing political party leadersinto a broad national consensus to enable Nepal to overcome the political andeconomic challenges confronting it."
But of late a policy rethink in New Delhi seems in the works. DefenceMinister Pranab Mukherjee has reportedly called the developments in Nepal an"internal" matter. If true, it would be the swiftest turnaround in recentmemory. He also said on the sidelines of the Aero India 2005 that India will notscale back military assistance to Nepal because it’s needed to fight theMaoists. "If the security situation in Nepal deteriorates as a consequence ofthe Maoists enhancing their influence, this will heighten our internal securitythreat," Mukherjee told journalists. Bottomline: if the Nepali army can’tfight the Maoists, the Maoists will start moving in droves to India and join inwith Indian leftist guerrilla groups.
This is just the line of reasoning the king anticipated and forced the worldto swallow hard his daring move. He has plenty of company in the region --Myanmar where a military junta rules, Pakistan where a general brazenly andsystematically sidelined political leaders and got acceptance from both the USand India and Bangladesh where opposition leaders face bombs at rallies whileradical Islamists gain currency. But the king’s attempt to "do a Musharraf"and follow the general’s path to "enlightened moderation" will failbecause he doesn’t have the political skills required to subvert and sell hiswares. Besides, unlike the Pakistani army, the king’s army has shown nocapacity to control the Maoist insurgency given its lack of training and thedifficult mountainous terrain. More than 10,000 people have died in the process.
But the Nepali people still favour talks, according to surveys. They want thecauses of discontent addressed. They do not support Maoists’ idea ofestablishing a socialist republic in Nepal (does China?) but they do wantredistribution of land, better education and health services. The king has givenMaoists more currency because they can now say they are fighting a brutal"monarchy" not an elected government.
