All eyes on Nepal

Changes in Nepal should attract our attention too, because the happenings of the month of March and April in Nepal bears strong similarity to the tumultuous period of Dec 1990 in Bangladesh, where the government of the day had too stoop to the might of the people's power just as King Birendra had to in the face of the mass upsurge of the Nepalese people. And we should also take special note of how the parties, both in and outside the normal political spectrum in Nepal, have come together to see that the gains achieved through the coordinated efforts, that brought politically disparate elements on the same platform against the monarch, did not go waste.

Some important, vital and brave decisions have been taken by the reconstituted Parliament under GP Koirala, that are not only landmark decisions in Nepal's long national but short democratic history, they are bound to have long term consequences in Nepal's venture on the path to democracy, which, one hopes would be lasting and beneficial for the country.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

All will agree that perhaps the single most important step, and which has been made even more remarkable by the sheer boldness, is the decision of the parliament to declare Nepal, the only Hindu kingdom in the world, a secular state. Of course, such a policy is not without its detractors, and critics, both inside and outside, have questioned the prudence of such a move.

Nepal parliament's proclamation declaring the world's only Hindu Kingdom as a secular state has evoked a mixed response with the majority Hindu groups saying the decision has hurt the community. In fact Arun Subedi, Shiv Sena Nepal President, sees an international ramification of the decision of what he terms the 'so-called Parliament', which he says has hurt the faith of 'the 900 million Hindu populace across the globe and brought about possibilities of a religious crusade in Nepal.' Others of the same ilk feel that the parliament panicked and moved faster than it ought to have in declaring the only Hindu Kingdom in a world -- where 52 countries are Christian and 46 Muslim -- secular. The move though has the support of some minority ethnic groups who have welcomed the decision suggesting that this declaration would move the nation towards ensuring social justice and harmony. But it must be put on record that declaration or no declaration, religious tolerance had always prevailed in Nepal. It is not important whether secularism is written into the constitution, what is important is how its spirit is carried in the hearts of the people. When secularism comes to mean tolerance of other religions there are very few that can match the Nepalese, a very deeply religious and God-fearing people indeed.

The other aspect that draws our attention is the way political acumen has guided the policy of the Nepalese leaders. What had worried many observers, particularly its neighbours, is the manner and means of accommodating all the parties in any future political arrangements, post April 2006. And the role of the Maoists in any future negotiations was an unknown factor in the political landscape of Nepal. Although the realisation that neither the government nor the Maoists could gain strategic superiority to dictate terms might have been the compelling factor to shun the path of violence, it must be said that both the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists have displayed tremendous farsightedness in this matter too. In spite of the position of some in India, whose concern of the Maoist insurgency in Nepal and how it is handled stems from its own Maoist movement that has infested several of its states, some of which border Nepal, the government has agreed upon a landmark deal with the Maoists that most predict will move the country in a new direction.

The Maoist deal has demonstrated two important things. One, that national interest should be the main criterion in addressing national issues, and two, one-time enemies can shun stated positions and concede grounds for the sake of national unity and national interest. And the parties have done more than concede grounds. For the Maoists, to give up a position of strength that they had gained and displayed through the control of about seventy percent of rural Nepal is an enormous compromise as is their abjuring the path of violence and putting their faith in the people's choice of government. They no longer believe that power i.e. establishment of a communist from of government in Nepal can come through the barrel of the gun. The government, similarly, in reaching the accord and agreeing to not only dissolve the present government but also make the Maoists a part of the new interim government that will oversee the election to the constituent assembly, has acknowledged the indispensability of the Maoists in any political arrangement.

Not only has not the ten-year long insurgency been brought to an end with one stroke, the Maoist rebels have been brought into the political mainstream, from where it will be difficult for them to revert to their old position. What makes the matter significant is that while the Maoists have dispensed with their underlying political philosophy the Seven-Party Alliance has taken the Maoists on board, in spite of outside pressures, particularly of the US, to renounce any link with the rebels.

The government has also taken the bold step of shearing the monarch of all executive authority including the control of the army; inevitable one feels if the road to a republican Nepal were to be reached quickly.

However, one recognises that there are several issues that need to be ironed out by the parties. The most significant of which is the future of monarchy. Not only the Maoists have rejected Mr. Koirala's preference of a ceremonial king, even some of his party colleagues have also denounced his remarks. But this, and other small issues, overseeing of which has been reposed on the United Nations, will not prevent reaching agreements, given the demonstrated intention of the parties to resolve the issues.

What is worthy of note also is the way that the parties concerned have decided to proceed with sagacity and statesmanship that has kept the interest of the nation in the forefront. Even more noteworthy is the display of maturity and self-respect by the politicians that did not brook the intervention or even the friendly suggestion of any 'Monday,' 'Tuesday' or 'Wednesday' groups or intercession of the head of any supra national organisation for mediating between parties that were once up in arms against one another.

One hopes that the developments in Nepal have not escaped the eyes of our politicians.

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.