India's mumbling policy

The scenario has changed after King Gynendra has conceded both the demands. The Alliance heads the government and parliament is in session. Once again, the centres of power have become three. Maoists have returned to their separate entity because they want the constituent assembly and abolition of the monarchy. The king does not recognise them. That was clear when he invited the Alliance to name a person for the post of prime minister to run the government. His was the same stance at the time of convening parliament.

Whether the king takes notice of Maoists or not is of little consequence. The ground reality is that they have almost half of Nepal under their sway. This bothers the Alliance as well. It has seen during the movement that the Maoists really inflamed the people's response. That the public came on the streets at the call of the Alliance was true. But the Maoists' support was crucial.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

How does the Alliance bring the Maoists into the mainstream of democracy is the real challenge before the country. People want both to join hands to establish a democratic polity. Although the Maoists have rejected the revival of parliament, people still believe that a rapprochement would come about because a constituent assembly is being convened.

Both the Alliance and the Maoists have been on the opposite side except when they were jointly fighting against the king. In fact, the Maoists raised the red flag in 1999, only after they felt that the Alliances' target of peaceful, parliamentary way would not bring about a socialist revolution. Can a violent approach fit into peaceful democratic structure? Unlike the political parties, the Maoists are fighting an ideological battle.

The monarchy is a sticking point. The Alliance wants the king to stay as a constitutional head. Prime Minister GP Koirala while leading the Alliance said during the movement: "We want continuance of history as we cannot survive without it." Most people are also emotionally attached to the monarchy. So are the armed forces which remain a stable institution. Nothing will work without their active cooperation and they do not look like jettisoning the king.

It is obvious that Dr Karan Singh, New Delhi's envoy who met the king on behalf of the government of India, obtained assurance from the Alliance that the king would continue. New Delhi's policy, as enunciated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, also wants the king to stay. Manmohan Singh has said that a constitutional monarchy and a multi-party democracy are "the two pillars of Nepal's polity." In the face of this, the Maoists demand to abolish the monarchy is difficult to meet. On the other hand, if the Maoists are kept out of the settlement, the country may return to the same scenario of unrest and insecurity. Unity of purpose is important for Nepal's peace and development.

Looking back, sending a former king to meet King Gyanendra was not a good idea. Nepal's political parties have been close to the socialist leaders in India. The Alliance would have preferred an envoy fromamong them. The Maoists too would have liked someone else other than Karan Singh to talk to the king. Their participation in any future set-up is important for peace in Nepal. Their violent methods have, no doubt, scared the people. But they would have to give up their arms. Otherwise, the Alliance would be forced to fight them.

India faces a dilemma. No doubt, it has changed its pro-king stand by announcing that it will abide by what the people of Nepal decide. The Alliance is too straining every nerve to persuade the Maoists to accept the parliamentary concept of government. Were they to do so, their fear is that they would compromise on the original demand for "overthrowing the bureaucratic capitalist class and monarchy." They might face the wrath from their own ranks which have been ideologically motivated: An armed struggle to establish a socialist government. They want to overthrow the parliamentary system which they believe comes into conflict with the Marxist-Leninist teachings.

New Delhi does not want a scenario where the Maoists are lionised. It can visualise the effect on the Naxalites in its own backyard. They have assumed a proportion which is already causing concern. According to official sources, the Naxalites have an upper hand in large areas of India's countryside, one fourth of 600 districts in 13 out of 28 states. The Naxalites in India and the Maoists in Nepal have also constituted a SAARC-like organisation: Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and organisations of South Asia

(COMPOSA). They want a socialist South Asia through an armed struggle.

It is true that the situation in Nepal would not have come to the boil if the king had listened to New Delhi. It tried its best to persuade him to give up power but failed. It should have been firm earlier. After all, the king yielded to India's pressure. Still, New Delhi has not emerged unscathed and is seen on the side of the king. The Nepalese who put their eggs in the Indian basket are disillusioned. They had to come to the streets themselves and face the bullets to get power. At best, India was a sympathetic spectator.

A constituent assembly is probably the best way out of the impasse between the Alliance and the Maoists. But the tough job is going to be the selection of members. No doubt, a free and fair election can throw up people's representatives. But how do you hold free and fair elections when the king stays in power, even as a constitutional head?

The whole thing is in a mess. The king did not realise the power of the awakened people. New Delhi cannot escape the blame. All countries except the military-ruled Pakistan and the Communist China were backing India. New Delhi just could not make up its mind, how far to go to put pressure on the king. At one stage, the fear was that Islamabad and Beijing would assist the king if challenged. They could not have done so in the face of the nation's unity behind the demand for the restoration of democracy. New Delhi's problem is that it opts for the least line of resistance. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes it doesn't. Nepal is one example where it did not. India may have to pay the price for its mumbling policy.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.