The crisis in Nepal

Nepal emerged as a nation-state in 1768 when the Gorkha King expanded his dominion by conquering the Katmandu valley. His ambition for further conquest was stopped by the East India Company in 1816, which forced the King to sign a treaty. Though in theory the monarchy retained absolute power, effectively Nepal was ruled by a fractious royal family and a few elites. In 1846 a member of a noble family (adopting the title of Rana) established hereditary Prime Ministership for more than a hundred years. This was possible because of the support extended to the Ranas by the East India Company which continued to receive uninterrupted supply of Gorkha recruits into the British Indian army.

The Rana regime collapsed in 1950-51 due to the unwillingness of the newly independent India to support their autocratic rule when India itself was trying to bring its own princely states under the control of the Republic of India. Besides, at that time when communist China signaled its intention to take over Tibet on Nepal's northern border which would have resulted in the formation of a communist state with only Nepal as a buffer, India became concerned. It prompted then Indian Prime minister to declare that "a threat to Nepal is a threat to India" and "India can not tolerate any invasion of Nepal from anywhere." In July 1950, India and Nepal signed a Treaty of Peace and Friendship establishing a "special relationship" interpreted by India as giving her the right to lead a global intervention, if needed, in Nepal.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

According to Brussels-based International Crisis Group, Nepal's civil conflict has three interlocking elements: Maoist insurgency, struggle between the Palace and the mainstream political parties over executive authority, and challenge to the marginalisation of ethnic and caste cleavages. Armed struggle by the leftist parties is not a novel idea for the Maoists. They got their inspiration from the Naxalite movement in neighbouring West Bengal, in which land reform was the core issue and "class elimination of the bourgeois" was the battle cry. Given the poverty and disenfranchisement of large number of Nepalese poor coupled with pervasive illiteracy, the Maoist vision for a utopian and egalitarian society was particularly appealing to the Nepalese ultra-poor.

The idea of starting a people's war might have been hatched in a joint meeting that took place in July 1995 between Indian Communist Party (M-L) (People's War) and the Nepalese Communist Party (Maoists), in which they strongly criticised the parliamentary system and decided "to eliminate the counter-revolutionary confusion of the parliamentary system and lead the people towards People's War." Since then, surprisingly the Maoists have been reasonably effective in almost all areas, and the state has retreated to towns and district headquarters that have large military establishments.

In this armed conflict, as in most others throughout the history of the world, the main casualty has been the innocent people caught in the crossfire between the combatants. The US State Department's report on human rights blamed both the rebels and the army of human rights violations. According to Human Rights Watch: "Both parties have engaged in systematic human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law with impunity." Amnesty International described Nepal as being "on the verge of human rights catastrophe." Added to this is the tendency of the Nepalese army to be economically independent by engaging in commercial activities and thus running the risk of entrenching the army as a state within a state.

In the present situation, human rights violations by the Maoists can hardly be checked by the army, which itself stands accused of similar crimes. Army excesses cannot be checked by elected officials (there is no parliament) nor judicial officials. A high judicial official told the 11th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia Pacific that as the judiciary is incapable of judging the threat to national security "it should have respectful deference to executive wisdom." In response the International Crisis Group observed: "If the King's recent interview with Time magazine is an indication, current 'executive wisdom' does not appear to have much respect for legal niceties." Though the Nepalese situation has not reached the proportion of Darfur, Sebrenica, or Rwanda, the reported ineffectiveness of the judiciary to deal with excessive human rights violations leads one to wonder whether the "duty to protect" cannot be invoked to encourage the UNSC to investigate and prosecute both government and Maoists suspected to have escaped punishment.

Naturally this would bring in the thorny question of interference in the sovereignty of an independent state. But then if the international community has made negotiation possible in Sudan between combatants who had been fighting one another for decades, and Milosevic and Rwandan criminals can be tried in an international court of law, then it has to be assumed that the international community has agreed upon a uniform code of conduct for all states, regardless of religious, ethnic, and cultural differences, and that impunity cannot be granted to criminal behaviour under the cover of inviolable sovereignty.

But then again, the international community cannot be expected to jump into every fray where injustice has been committed. Obedience to law and institution of the rule of law cannot be legislated. It has to be part of the culture of the people who have to feel moral obligation to respect law. German philosopher Jurgen Habermas contends that law is better understood as a functional complement to morality. Equally the society of sovereign states is a club of civilised people where there is no room for barbarians.

In Nepal's case the monarch's repeated use of an ambiguous article of the 1990 Constitution has brought the country to a precipice. Though the constitution included an extensive set of fundamental rights, it was ambiguous on the questions of sovereignty and control of the military. It has been alleged that throughout the 1990s, the Palace exploited this ambiguity in the exercise of executive power. In the present case, both the Maoists and the political parties apprehend that the true goal of the Palace is a return to the Panchayat system of government promulgated by King Mahendra in 1962, which was basically a party-less four-tiered structure of Panchayats from village to town, through district to zonal to national level.

The present King on different occasions has spoken of democracy where political parties are conspicuously absent. His focus is on economic development and not on democracy as is generally understood by the term. In short, if the King's aim is to have a party-less political system like President Ayub Khan's Basic Democracy of the sixties in Pakistan, then it will be an anachronism in the 21st century. When the battle cry of the West is to have democracy even in countries where "democracy deficit" was once tolerated due to reasons dictated by the Cold War dynamics, it is difficult to visualise a situation where an aid-dependent poverty-stricken country will be allowed to reintroduce a charade of administration centered around the Palace which would effectively be an absolute monarchy.

About sixty percent of the Nepalese favour democracy with a constitutional monarchy, as opposed to only two percent who believe in absolute monarchy. Another poll found that two-thirds of the Nepalese believed that democracy was preferable to any other form of government, and three-quarters believed that democracy was suitable for Nepal. But now the monarch's insistence on a clear reference to exclusive power for the King, like the one he has exercised repeatedly to marginalise the political parties, has brought these parties closer to the Maoists who want abolition of the monarchy. Today, reference to constitutional monarchy is conspicuously absent in the current rhetoric of the mainstream political parties. Even moderate political leaders are now demanding that the King choose between democracy and republicanism.

It is, however, inconceivable that India and the western world would allow a Maoist revolution to succeed in Nepal. India would be most directly affected, as developing links between Maoists and Indian insurgent groups threatens domestic security. The huge arms cache intercepted at Chittagong in April last year, Indians believe, was headed for Nepalese Maoists. India was also reluctant to agree to the US grant of weapons to Nepal because of the possibility of these guns finding their way into the hands of Indian insurgents.

Abolition of monarchy is not an unknown event in modern history. In Europe, both the Yugoslav and the Rumanian monarchs lost their throne. More recently, King Constantine of Greece and the Shah of Iran were dethroned, albeit under different circumstances. In this case it is the triumph of Maoism than the exit of another monarch which is more frightening. ICG unhesitatingly dubbed Nepal: "A failing state in no shape to reverse a violent insurgency on its own. The international community needs to help the country to reverse the set backs and put it in a position to negotiate a viable long term settlement."

One hopes that the Nepalese King would heed the Indian and the western warning that a comprehensive settlement of the crisis in Nepal cannot be achieved by military means alone, nor by insubstantial changes in the political structure of the country. All concerned parties, mostly the King and the Maoists, must be willing to amend their extreme positions and return the country to peace and prosperity which ordinary Nepalese so badly need.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.