Drifting Into Anarchy

Besides violence, corruptionand non-governance have registered significant growth during direct rule, a factborne out both by Transparency International and the ordinary Nepali citizenswho met the king during his visits to various regions. The institution of monarchyhas never been as unpopular as it is today, with the king, his cronies and hisdesperate attempts to legitimize his direct rule through the elections for localbodies, now being lampooned and insultingly caricatured in the Nepalesemedia. 

The monarch and his politicalantics have distanced him farther not only from the common people but also fromhis erstwhile loyalists as well as the international community, save China andPakistan. If anyone deserves credit for bringing the political parties closer tothe Maoists in their movement for the restoration of democracy, it is the kingand his obduracy.

With the Maoists withdrawingtheir ceasefire on January 2, 2006, violence has escalated and the securitysituation has deteriorated further, pushing Nepal each day into the dark pit ofanarchy and chaos. Yet the king has not hesitated to pat his own back on thefirst anniversary of his direct rule. Camouflaged under the rhetoric of dubious‘achievements’, the king nevertheless admitted that, wherever he went in thecountry, people were asking for peace. Where then are the signs of‘improvement’ in the situation?

The king’s continuedconfidence in the merits of direct rule, despite mounting evidence to thecontrary, comes from three sources: First, his control over the army and a firmfaith in the efficacy of force and repression in securing his desired politicalgoals; many Nepali watchers of Palace politics recall his displeasure with hisslain brother, king Birendra, during the 1989-90 crisis when the latter‘surrendered’ the Panchayat system when confronted with the democracyagitation, without resorting to strong methods and ruthless use of force. 

Gyanendra is trying todemonstrate that the use of force can deliver his political ambitions. Secondly,he is taking advantage of the weak and indecisive political leadership of thedemocratic parties, which have still not been able to build a formidable popularresistance to his direct rule. And thirdly, the king knows that, despite theirdispleasure with his rule, the international community stands divided onspecific aspects of the Nepalese situation, where key countries like India andthe US have not been able to reconcile to a republican political order in Nepalin which the Maoists may emerge as major shareholders in the post-monarchy powerstructure.

The indecision of the politicalparties emerges from two concerns. One is that even if the Maoists may not useforce during the proposed elections for the Constituent Assembly, who will forcethem to surrender arms for eventual political mainstreaming, when the RoyalNepalese army is demoralized in the event of the collapse of monarchy? Who willprotect the political parties from the Maoists’ arms, and possibly influence,in a situation where the king is removed from the scene? The truth, however, isthat such fears and concerns are untenable, inspired (by the king’s cronies)and highly exaggerated. 

The Maoists have accepted tofollow the lead of the political parties and committed themselves to havingtheir arms monitored by independent international agencies such as the UN. Theyhave also agreed to merge their armed cadres into the army, when it comes underthe control of the representative Government. Thus a reformed Nepalese national armywould be capable of dealing with recalcitrant Maoist sub-groups, if any, underthe leadership of a multi-party dominated interim or full fledged Government.There would also be international support in this respect, to ensure thatMaoists did not violate their commitments. A fact that the political leadershipneeds to understand is that the Maoists have forged a joint front with them onlyafter being convinced that they cannot overwhelm the Nepali state by themselvesand militarily.

The second of the politicalparties’ concerns is the more serious, though far less acknowledged. Thepolitical agenda of the present anti-monarchy movement is the restructuring ofthe Nepali state where marginalized and excluded groups like the janjaties(tribal and ethnic groups) and the Terai dwellers (madheshis) are giventheir appropriate place and share in the new power structure. The prevailingorganizational structures of the political parties are not conducive to eveninternal inclusive democracy. They have no consensus yet on the road map to aninclusive democracy either internally, within their respective organizations, orfor the country as a whole. That is why these marginalized groups, while theyare alienated from the Monarch, remain, at the same time, skeptical of being ledby the present party leadership in their struggle against the king’s directrule and his ‘Hindu kingdom’. The political parties have to come to termswith the challenge of an inclusive democracy and a truly representativepolitical order. They can avoid this question only at the cost of their struggleagainst an ambitious and autocratic king, and must fully understand that this kinghas no respect either for their leadership or democratic institutions andpractices.

The international community,though united on the issue of democracy, faces a dilemma on the future ofdemocratic institutions. India and the US, in particularly, are concerned aboutsorting out the political vacuum and chaos that would result from the sudden andviolent collapse of the monarchy. Their preferred course is to have a negotiatedresolution of the Nepalese crisis in favour of democratic governance under abenign or constitutional monarchy, but king Gyananedra is not willing to oblige.The Americans, alarmed by the rise of popular extremist forces in Lebanon (Hezbollah)and Palestine (Hamas) are worried by the prospects of an assertive Maoistpresence in Nepal’s political order. The fear of the Maoists has been apersistent theme in the US approach towards Nepal in recent years and this wasagain evident during the latest visit of the US Pacific Fleet Commander AdmiralFallone. Notwithstanding its stated preference for democracy, there is a degreeof discomfort in the US approach towards the rise of independent grass-rootpopular forces in Asia.

India seems to share some ofthe American concerns in this respect. More so because a section of the securityagencies (including the premier intelligence organizations) apprehend thelink-up between the Nepal Maoists and the Indian Naxalite (Maoist) groups to thedetriment of India’s internal security. King Gyanendra is exploiting theseapprehensions in the Indian decision-making core and has also mobilized many ofthe diverse but influential constituencies within the Indian political space,including Hindu fundamentalist groups and Indian ‘royal families’, to ensurethat India’s indecision on his fate persists. 

He has also been flashing theChina and Pakistan cards to deter India and its defense establishments from takingany precipitate action against his political survival. There are also reportsthat the Indian defense forces are apprehensive of too much isolation of kingGyanendra, lest he drives Nepal fully into China’s and Pakistan’s lap in hispursuit of political survival. Consequently, while India’s stated policystands in favour of democracy, there is a serious and persisting dilemma on therole to be assigned to monarchy. This dilemma has sustained the king in hisobduracy, since the US, UK and EU also steadily await a clear and firm Indianinitiative on Nepal.

Notwithstanding the dilemmas ofthe Nepali political parties, the international community and India, the popularsupport for a republican democracy is spreading through Nepal, slowly butsurely. Nepali youth and grass-root cadres of the political parties areincreasingly committed to a republican Nepal. The king will, of course, continueto focus his energies and attention on diffusing and dispersing this momentumthrough the use of force and political maneuvers to keep the parties and theinternational community confused. His prolonged and ruthless repression however,will only bring his monarchy closer to a violent end in a manner and at a timethat may even take India and the international community by surprise, if thelatter continue to hesitate in responding to the unfolding situationconstructively and decisively.

S.D. Muni is Advisor, Observer Research Foundation and Editor, IndianForeign Affairs Journal. Courtesy, the South Asia Intelligence Reviewof the South Asia Terrorism Portal.