Political developments in Nepal appear to be occurring at an extraordinarily rapid pace,and this impression can only have been accentuated by the resignation of Prime Minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand,and the appointment of another royalist, Surya Bahadur Thapa, in his place. In actual fact, however, politicshas remained at a standstill since King Gyanendra took over executive power and dismissed the caretaker DeubaGovernment on October 4, 2002, compounding the protracted crisis in the country.
Major political partiesrepresented in Parliament consider the royal action retrogressive, and have sought to resist it jointly.However, they waited for about seven months, hoping that the King would correct his action by bringing theConstitutional process back on track. The King, meanwhile, took steps to open a dialogue with the Maoists inorder to find a political solution to their seven-year old 'People's War'. The previous Deuba Government hadheld the first peace talks in August-November 2001, but these broke down suddenly in the last week ofNovember, following the Maoist attack on the militarybarracks at Dang and other places.
By the time the King's Government and the Maoists announced the cease-fire as a prelude to the second round ofpeace talks on January 29,2003, about 8,000 people had already lost their lives. As the cease-fire drags on,there have been reports of violations of the code of conduct in different parts of the country, and clashesbetween the Maoist insurgents and the security forces continue to occur during the present interregnum. Suchincidents appear to suggest that simultaneous preparations for war by both sides are underway.
The two rounds of talks held on April 27 and May 10, 2003, have yielded no results. The first round took placeonly after three months of the announcement of the cease-fire and was characterized by mutual distrust andwrangling. The Government and foreign donors wanted to concentrate on reconstruction of infrastructuredestroyed during the course of the Maoist People's War, and on humanitarian aspects, including therehabilitation of displaced persons. But the Maoists wanted to address their core political agenda,maintaining that the Government's proposal was only a conspiracy to delay the peace process. Later, retractingon some aspects of its position, the Government agreed to address all outstanding issues and procedures to befollowed during the negotiations.
The second round, held on May 9, was overshadowed by remarks made by the spokesman of the Royal Nepal Army,who said that the laying down of arms by the Maoist insurgents should be a precondition for the peace talks.Among many other issues agreed upon by both the negotiating teams, the confinement of the Army to a radius offive kilometers from their barracks was objected to by the Army as well as by some prominent politicalleaders.
Unfortunately, the Government team demonstrated that it had come to the negotiating table without any serioushomework. Conflicting opinions were expressed by two members of the official team, with one of the ministersstating that there was no understanding on restricting the movement of the Army, while other Governmentmembers dithered on the issue, lacking confidence in their own capacity as negotiators. The Maoist leadersthreatened that they would pull out from future talks if such decisions, supposedly agreed upon by the twoteams, were changed due to the pressure from the Army. Issues relating to disarming the guerillas and theirfuture management are likely to dominate upcoming negotiations, while the other core political demands - aninterim government, a round table conference and a new constituent assembly - are yet to be addressed.
The triangular conflict between the King, political parties and the Maoists has added complexity to Nepalipolitics. On the one hand, while the Maoists deal with the King, who is at the centre of power in the presentroyal dispensation, they also want to rope in other major parties represented in the dissolved Parliament inorder to secure a greater legitimacy in the negotiation process. Moreover, any final agreement between theMaoists and the King will have to be acceptable to major political parties, as their popular base cannot bedenied despite their marginalization since King Gyanendra's October 4, 2002, decision to take over power. Thepolitical parties, however, feel themselves betrayed by the King, as the latter has preferred to be an activemonarch rather than to conform to the spirit of the country's Constitutional Monarchy. The gap between theKing and the political parties has widened further since the King has twice rejected the collective demand ofthe parties to constitute an all-party government in order to put the Parliamentary system back on track. Onthe contrary, the King picked up both the former Prime Minister, Lokendra Bahadur Chand, as well as thepresent incumbent, Surya Bahadur Thapa, out of the ranks of those who had served the Royal (partyless) regimeprior to the restoration of the multiparty system in 1990. The Maoists and the Parliamentary Parties have,consequently, not accepted the appointments made by the King in contravention of the spirit of the country'sconstitutional monarchy.
Both the Maoists and the Parliamentary Parties have thus criticized Thapa's appointment on June 4, 2003, asyet another royal ploy to consolidate the monarchy. Political parties feel betrayed by the King, since thedemand of the six major parties to appoint Madhav Kumar Nepal - the leader of the Opposition in the dissolvedParliament, and one of the key members of the five-party coalition formed against the King's action - wasrejected. Instead, Thapa, whose party had only eleven members in a House of 205 representatives, was appointedPrime Minister, once again provoking all the parties to oppose the King's move.
King Gyanendra's choice of Thapa can be assumed to have been prompted by certain considerations. First, Thapalike his predecessor (Chand) was non-committal on reducing the powers and privileges of the King. He isconsidered a thoroughbred royalist, despite his liberal image during the 'partyless' regime. The King mighthave thought that his experience, his past image of a liberal and a manipulator would protect various royalinterests from both the Maoists and Political Parties who are bent on bringing about radical transformationsin the existing power structure. Thus, while the Maoists want to replace the present Constitution with a newone to be prepared by a Constituent Assembly; the Political Parties want to restore the dissolved Parliamentand then carry forward an agenda of qualitative reforms that would reduce the King's role. The crucial andshared agenda today, consequently, is to deal with an ambitious monarch from whom the new Prime Ministerderives his orders to function.
Advertisement
Professor Lok Raj Baral is Executive Chairman, Nepal Centre for Contemporary Studies (NCCS), Kathmandu.This appears here courtesy South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal.
