Politics of people's war and crisis in Nepal

The stakes were raised last year with King Gyanendra taking over absolute power. This step has since been reversed in the face of popular demonstrations; civic disobedience and urban upheaval for 19 days, participated by all sections of society. What started as symbolic defiance ended with the King losing control over the law and order maintenance agencies. Eventually, after the re-convening of the House of Representatives, the King's powers have been clipped and the ethos of monarchy itself seriously reduced to a figurehead status. This has included popular measures like the King from now on having to pay tax and his actions being questionable in the House of Representatives as well as the Court of Law.

All executive powers exercised earlier by the King in accordance with Article 35 (2) of the Constitution now solely vests in the Cabinet. The King is also no longer a part of Parliament or Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The Himalayan kingdom has also been declared to be a secular State. From now on, the House will exercise all legislative rights, the Prime Minister can convene-sessions and the Speaker can conclude sessions on the advice of the Prime Minister. It has also been agreed that the politicians will henceforth decide on the matter of succession to the throne. Consequently, it is now no longer assured that Crown Prince Paras, who has already become controversial, will become the next King.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The decisions of the House of Representatives under the leadership of octogenarian Prime Minister GP Koirala has been received till now with a great deal of euphoria by the population at large. Within the domestic political arena, in addition to constituting a Cabinet, recalling several Ambassadors appointed by the King and initiating charges of corruption against some senior government officials, the Nepalese government has also initiated steps to find a solution to the Maoist insurgency that continues to affect the rural areas of that country.

In this regard, a three-member dialogue team was formed on behalf of the government-headed by the Minister of Home Affairs, Krishna Sitaula. It also included the Labour Minister Ramesh Lekhak and Tourism Minister Pradip Gyawali. As a confidence building measure and also in recognition of the Maoist support to street demonstrations, the government released 467 Maoist detainees from the jail. This step was also taken to persuade the Maoists that the government was willing to discuss other areas of concern for both parties.

Krishna Bahadur Mahara lead the Maoist group to the talks instead of Prachanda (their unquestioned leader). After intensive discussions, both sides agreed on a 25-point of conduct that would guide future relations (for the moment) between the two parties. It was agreed that both parties would cease all types of military activities during the period of ongoing ceasefire. It was also decided that though the Maoists would not call general strikes or transport strike during the ceasefire period, they were permitted to organise rallies and street side meetings. Both sides also significantly agreed not to create any obstructions in the movement of medicines, food, and construction materials meant for development programmes and for daily consumption. It was similarly approved that no donations would be collected, whether cash or kind, through coercion. This last measure was obviously with reference to allegations that the Maoists were doing exactly that in the countryside. Indicators also surfaced that national and international teams (the United Nations) could be associated and involved in 'monitoring' the ceasefire on the basis of mutual consensus.

The Maoists, on paper appear to have agreed to many things but at the same time they have also underlined that they were still firm on the question of elections to a new parliamentary constituent assembly that would rewrite the 1990 constitution. This of course connotes the dissolution of the current House of Representatives.

The USA, UK and India have all followed developments in Nepal with great caution. For USA in particular, it is an important listening post for China. Similarly, for India, there is a lot at stake, both in terms of security as well as energy (through hydro-electricity). All these countries do not want instability in Nepal.

How the question that arises now is whether the simmering problem in that country has been resolved or whether there is just going to be a period of lull before the next storm?

I was in Kathmandu a few days ago to attend a meeting on water management and used the opportunity to discuss the prevailing situation with some of my Nepalese friends, diplomats stationed in Kathmandu, academies journalists, senior officials of the Nepalese government, members of their House of Representatives and entrepreneurs. I tried to understand from them not only about the background of the Maoist movement but also whether the steps that had recently been taken would eventually unravel through disagreement.

Everyone agreed that the popular demonstrations that had led to the curbing of the royal role in the process of governance was here to stay. In this context they pointed out that this time round it was unlikely that the political and democratic gains achieved would be snatched away as had been done earlier in 1960 (by King Mahendra). They felt that for the first time since 1951, there was a definite possibility of real democracy continuing in Nepal.

At the same time, some politicians and educationists expressed their worry over recent statements by Prachanda and Mahara who have hinted that the final task is not yet complete. They have underlined that the declaration by the House of Representatives had been silent 'over the issues of growing foreign interference, restructuring of the state, self-determination, regional and ethnic autonomy in relation to the federal system, revolutionary land reforms (redistribution of land ownership among landless peasants in the rural hilly areas), fundamental rights regarding education, health and employment opportunities. This, anyone will agree, is a broad agenda that contains in it seeds of turmoil in the future.

Two other aspects of latent disagreement also surfaced.

Constitutional experts pointed out that there were doubts about the effectiveness and the anomalous nature of the recent proclamations made by the House of Representatives. They stated that under the current Constitution no parliamentary bill could become law until the King signs it. On the other hand, some officials argued that the proclamation, by itself, overrides the Constitution and 'reflects the will of the people and therefore cannot be challenged.' Some went on to cite the French revolution as supporting evidence.

Another area of debate was apparent in the decision to declare Nepal as a secular state. It was clear that there was quite a bit of resentment and disapproval in this regard. Some asserted that this was probably done to remove the God-King status of the Crown, but yet it was unfortunate because it suggested that Nepal had not given equal rights to other religions compared to the Hindu faith in the past. They claimed that this was 'totally wrong.'

Nevertheless, one aspect of future, Nepalese politics is unambiguous. Till today, Nepal and its political dynamics has been controlled by an elitist urban feudal class. This configuration is unlikely to continue. From now, the rural stakeholders who have been associated with the Maoist philosophy will play a more significant role in decision-making.

Professor Bishnu Pathak in his book 'Politics of People's War and Human Rights in Nepal' has made an important observation. He has clarified that the CPN (Maoist) is involved in a new kind of insurgency that 'follows the principle, strategy and tactics of revolutionary warfare.' After reading this book I am tempted to assert that this latest stage of negotiations between the government and the rebels is consistent with the Maoist philosophy of 'protracted war.' In more ways than one, the on going process also reflects the Maoist concept where Prachanda appears to have undertaken a strategic defensive approach to gain time and to re-consolidate his options. He wants to see whether the present government (consisting of the 'elite') can consolidate itself on the euphoria generated by the recent demonstrations in Kathmandu, or whether they fail in living upto people's aspirations.

People on the streets in Kathmandu, particularly tour operators, small grocers and shopkeepers, indicated to me that they were happy that the unrest on the streets had ceased. They expressed hope that the newly constituted Cabinet would be able to take their nation forward. At the same time they agreed that the Maoist influence was no longer confined just to the rural areas but also now included a growing number of sympathisers in the urban area. One sensed disquiet and concern in their assessment.

I am afraid that these are difficult times for Prime Minister Koirala and his cabinet colleagues. They have to find solutions and discover ways and means as to how to ensure democratic rights for the people of Nepal without being seen as having given in to the 40-point demands put forward by the United People's Front on February 2, 1996, that have now become the core content of the People's War in Nepal.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at mzamir@dhaka.net