Will 1960 Be Repeated?

The King of Nepal issued an order under Article 127 of the Constitution relieving Prime minister Deuba ofhis post on 4^th October and dissolved the Council of Ministers. The points made by the King were

• The Prime minister is being relieved for his incompetence in not being able to conduct the generalelections on the stipulated date.
  
  
• The general elections scheduled to be held on November 13 this year has been postponed.
  
  
• The King will exercise executive powers until new arrangements are made.
  
  
• A new council of ministers will be formed within five days, of persons who have clean images and who willnot be participating in the elections.
  
  
• The commitment to Constitutional Monarchy and the multiparty democratic polity will not be allowed to becompromised.
  
  
• The government so constituted will make arrangements for peace and security as soon as possible andconduct the general elections.
  

Earlier we had predicted that the King would take recourse to Article 127 of the Constitution: "Ifelections are not held the King has the option to take recourse to Article 127 of the Constitution andconstitute a ministry of his own for the interim period until elections are held.... "

The action of the King, though within the Constitution, will certainly be a set back to democracy andcoming from an active and an assertive King, there could be legitimate fears that he may perpetuate his holdon the country by this means.

It is not going to be easy to find political leaders with a clean image in Nepal just as it is difficult inIndia too.  What the King would get will be politicos who are totally pliable and would do whatever theKing wants them to.  One recalls the days between 1960 when the lawfully constituted democraticgovernment of B.P. Koirala was dismissed and the advent of multiparty democracy in 1990, the King was able torule the country through many leaders whose only qualifications were total and abject surrender to theKing’s wishes. 

It is hoped that the elections will be held as soon as possible by the newly constituted government and alawfully elected government takes over the reins of the government.

Some legal experts contend that in the absence of Parliament the King cannot use this provision to dismissa prime minister.  Section 127 reads as follows.  " If any difficulty arises in connection withimplementation of this Constitution, His Majesty may issue necessary orders to remove such difficulty and suchorders shall be laid before the Parliament.  "

There is no doubt that a constitutional crisis had arisen when the Prime minister had shown hishelplessness to conduct the elections within the stipulated period.  In the absence of a Parliament whatshould the King do? Reconvene the Parliament as some of the political parties suggested? The Constitution doesnot provide for such a provision.  Eggs scrambled cannot be unscrambled.

Deuba could have pre-empted the King by suggesting the formation of an all party interim government alongwith the recommendation of postponement of polls.  This he did not do. While the general consensus wasthat the elections could be postponed by six months, his cabinet decided to recommend postponement by one yearwhich was too long a period.  In the course of the Cabinet meeting in the morning of November 3^rd,Deuba met the King. 

At that time it was heard that Deuba was willing to resign.  In the afternoon, when Deuba met the Kingagain with the decision of the cabinet to recommend postponement by one year he perhaps did not indicate hiswillingness to resign.  What changed his mind and who? It is still not clear.  Deuba could haveavoided his own ignominious dismissal!

The first mistake Deuba made was in trusting the King and following his instructions in recommendingextension of emergency when his family- the party headed by G.P. Koirala was against it.

The second mistake was in seeking dissolution of the Parliament, paving the way for fresh elections withinsix months when he knew that the law and order situation in view of the Maoist menace was not improving butsteadily worsening.  He could not have conducted the elections within six months. 

Third, in the interim period as a care taker government, his mandate is limited and he should have kept theKing informed of all the developments.  This he did not do. 

Fourth, he trusted other political parties who gave a general and weak mandate to find a way out of theconstitutional crisis and contradictory advice to restore the parliament and defer polls!

Fifth, he should have accepted the schedule given by the Election Commission to have the poll in six phasesfrom November 13 till Jan 10, consulted the King before recommending formal deferment of polls!

Thus Deuba has been left in lurch by the King, his political allies and his friends.  There is nodoubt that he is a clean and a genuine person.  He did the same mistake B.P.Koirala did in the sixties.Koirala was over confident of himself and under estimated the powers of the King.  The result was thatthe nascent democracy was snuffed out within nineteen months and Nepal had to wait for thirty years after manysacrifices.  This time it is hoped that it will not be so.

There are a few points which India needs to think well in advance in dealing with Nepal.

Firstly, the Maoist problem that started in 1996 has only worsened with more than fifty five districts nowaffected.  It has ramifications for Indian security also and there is material and moral support fromacross the border for the movement from Bihar and West Bengal.  The Nepal government continues to beunder an illusion that the Maoist movement is only a law and order problem.  It has a social and aneconomic base.  The west central region is the most poverty stricken area and this is where the Maoistshad a stronghold and from where they started the movement.

Secondly, there is widespread anti Indian feeling in the urban centres and in the centres of power. One is the Indo-Nepal Friendship treaty which gives the impression of Nepal being a client state.  Nepalhas been demanding a review of the treaty and it is not restricted to any one or a few parties but comes fromall the parties.  The earlier it is reviewed the better.

Thirdly, Nepal, from the Panchayat days, has deliberately spread the wrong impression that India hascheated in the Kosi and Gandak projects.  No new project has since been finalised and none is likely inthe near future.  India should understand this and seek joint projects elsewhere.  There will onlybe frustration is trying to negotiate with Nepal on joint river projects.

Fourthly, in the current situation India should ensure that both multi party democracy and constitutionalmonarchy are preserved along with human rights and full freedom for its people. Unfortunately, in this crucialperiod, India does not have a full fledged ambassador there.

(Courtesy, saag.org)