The Nepalese conundrum

Landlocked Nepal is located between China in the north and India in the east, west and south. Declining to comment on the King's actions Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman considered the developments as "internal affairs" of Nepal. Terming Nepal as "a close and friendly neighbour" the spokesman hoped that "Nepal will achieve social stability, economic development and national reconciliation". Given the current situation, the spokesman added that China respected the Nepalese choice of the road of development. Clearly China is unwilling at this stage to take any position critical of the King. Indian government, on the other hand, sees the developments constituting "a serious set back to the cause of democracy in Nepal and cannot but be a cause of grave concern to India". Reacting to reports that some of the prominent politicians have been put under house arrest India has stressed the need for their safety and welfare and hoped that the political parties would be allowed to function as provided under the Constitution.

According to Indian government multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy are "two pillars of political stability in Nepal" and the King by forming a government under his chairmanship has violated this principle. The latest developments in Nepal, apprehends the Indian government, have the distinct possibility of bringing the monarchy and mainstream political parties into direct confrontation with each other undermining not only democracy but also the institution of monarchy in Nepal. Evidently New Delhi which has been providing military assistance to Kathmandu to fight the Maoists, a policy supported both by Washington and London, and has been urging the Nepalese authorities to exercise caution and deal politically with the Maoists, is disappointed over the setback to the democratic process in Nepal.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Nepal did not have to suffer post-colonial trauma like other South Asian countries as it was never colonized, had mostly remained in anonymity and its borders had remained virtually closed to the world till the middle of the 20th century. But at the beginning of 1950 Nepal was at the point of becoming a buffer state between Communist China and the West. Beijing signaled its intention to take over Tibet on Nepal's northern border, which would have resulted in the formation of a communist state bordering India. This prompted Indian Prime Minister Pandit Nehru to declare that "a threat to Nepal is a threat to India" and "India cannot tolerate any invasion of Nepal from anywhere". In July 1950 India and Nepal signed a treaty of peace and friendship and a treaty of trade and commerce. Since then the two countries are enjoying a "special relationship" which India believes gives her the right to lead global intervention to stabilise Nepal. After the formation of the UPA government in India following the last general elections Indian Foreign Minister paid a visit to Nepal to demonstrate Indian government's proactive policy towards rebellion-ridden Nepal during which the Indian Foreign Minister pledged Indian support "that will help Nepal put down the insurgency" without abandoning Indian policy to resolve the rebellious situation through a combination of military and political measures.

At the time of Natwar Singh's visit to Nepal India is believed to have a three pronged strategy: (a) to ensure that elections are held in 2005, (b) to limit the influence of the Maoists by training the Nepalese army, and (c) evolving a multi-party government that would help create a situation for holding elections and also for tackling insurgency. Indian influence in Nepal can also be gauged by the fact that after the resignation of Surya Bahadur Thapa, Madhav Kumar Nepal the leader of CPN(UML), theÊ largest party in parliament following division in the Nepali Congress was not invited to form the government because his party wanted a review of the 1950 Indo-Nepal treaty which made it possible for the citizens of both countries to freely visit each other's country, get education, job or start a business and even acquire property. CPN(UML) wanted Nepal to become a secular state, hold peace talks with Maoists to draft a new constitution, and hold parliamentary elections under UN norms and procedures. Indian choice G.P.Koirala could not be appointed Prime Minister as he had lost the King's favour and Sher Bahadur Deuba got the job. But Madhav Kumar Nepal welcomed Deuba's appointment as he considered it his "reinstatement" and therefore arrest of "regression" in Nepalese politics that had set in when the King had sacked Deuba the first time for alleged incompetence though Deuba then enjoyed the confidence of the parliament.

Political analysts have blamed wrangling among political parties as being primarily responsible for the demise of the 1959 constitution, dissolution of parliament and introduction of partyless system of government by King Mahendra in 1960. For the next thirty years the implementation of top down donor driven development projects lacking in coherence, socio-economic justification or long range sustainability widened the gap between the rich and the poor, urban and rural population and eastern and western regions of the country. Number of people living below poverty line increased. Though Panchayat (partyless) system was replaced by 1990 constitution declaring Nepal "multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, democratic, independent, indivisible, sovereign, Hindu and Constitutional Monarchical Kingdom" multi-party democracy could not deliver prosperity to the Nepalese people. World Bank estimated that half of the population lived below US dollar one a day, GDP growth rate was below one percent, and the richest ten percent controlled fifty percent of the national income.

Jugal Bhurtel and Salim Ali (of ITT Kathmandu and Vermont University) ascribe endemic and persistent poverty, inequitable distribution of wealth and lopsided regional policies, social injustices and political disparity, as well as chronic failure of governance as the most visible factors responsible for armed insurrection in Nepal. A web conference at Harvard University identified political and legal, social and ethnic, economic and regional and international factors as most significant aspects of insurgency in Nepal. Nepalese scholar Nilambar Acharya considers the Maoist rebellion as basically a political movement created by extreme poverty in rural Nepal and sustained by organisational skill of the Maoists.

As it is the situation in Nepal is very complex and the latest move of the King is likely to compound the danger facing the country and its institutions. It is believed that the Maoist leadership dislikes King Gyanendra. As soon as the news of the royal massacre of King Birendra was made public the Maoists issued a statement that the "killing was premeditated and part of a conspiracy". Dr.Baburam Bhattarai, Mikhail Suslov of CPM(Maoist) had nothing but praise for King Birendra though the Maoists aim at abolishing the monarchy and establishing a people's republic in Nepal. It is estimated that armed insurgents number thirteen thousand and are spread throughout the country. It has often been questioned as to how the Maoists could have so many people under arms despite a report that from the start of the "People's War" in 1996 till the end of last year about eleven thousand people lost their lives out of which seven thousand were killed by the state. One reason was lack of unanimity among political parties about using the army to crush the rebellion and also their inability to decide whether the insurgency is to be treated as a political problem or as terrorism.

Despite inter-party differences several rounds of negotiations were held between the Maoists and governmental authorities on diferent occasions. Dr. Bhattarai once said that there existed two states with two armies in Nepal but three political forces -- the monarchical force, the Maoists and the political parties -- and there would be no peace if any of the forces were left out. The Maoists want a constitution in which people would be the sovereign power in totality; formation of an integrated national army by making structural changes in the Royal Nepalese Army and the rebel People's Army; immediate cessation of the presence and movement of any foreign army, military aid and of any pact which could adversely affect the current negotiations in the guise of fighting terrorism; right to education, health and employment to be declared as fundamental rights; land reforms to establish "right of the tiller" etc.

Like Sri Lanka Nepalese authorities may wish to associate the UN/EU or any other foreign entity as proposed by the Maoists several times in the past for a resolution of the conflict. Instability in any South Asian country can adversely affect peace and development in the regional countries. Because the causes of Nepalese insurgency is so deep rooted and the sense of deprivation is deeply engraved in the minds of such a large number of people the Nepalese authorities may consider that the Maoist rebellion cannot be put down by force alone and should be resolved through political dialogue. In the ultimate analysis the concept of power and law does not rely on command-obedience relationship but in a form of government where the rule of law, resting on the power of the people, would put an end to the rule of men over men. One hopes that the Nepalese conundrum would find a peaceful resolution where Nepalese of all strata of society would find opportunities to realise their potentialities to the fullest.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.