Main Page                                                 Archives

 

Emergency or no emergency, where does Nepal head from here?
by Ashok Dixit

     Kathmandu: Nepal King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev's decision on Tuesday to sack an elected government for the second time in less than three years has once again plunged the Himalayan state into a major political crisis, the outcome of which could have a telling socio-economic impact on its people, not to speak of the changes in regional political dynamics. By dismissing Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, the Nepal king has not only acted against the spirit on which the state's constitutional monarchy was set more than three decades ago, but pushed Nepal further into a twilight zone in so far as assuring the protection of civil liberties and the promotion of economic development and prosperity. In simultaneously declaring a state of emergency across the country and cutting off Nepal's access to and with the rest of the world, the king has paradoxically reaffirmed that there is no ambiguity about his "authoritarian and reactionary political agenda".

     For all practical purposes, the Government of Nepal's adversarial interaction with the rebel Maoists will continue, and now more than ever, it seems apparent that the country's political fate is most likely to be settled on the battlefield. This is borne out of the fact that a total of 2,105 persons, including 1,584 Maoists, were killed in 2003 alone, after Maoist insurgents called off the seven-month-old cease-fire on August 27, 2003. The cease-fire was originally announced on January 29, 2003. While the exact cadre strength of the Maoists is difficult to estimate, official figures as of early 2003, put their numbers at 5,500 combatants, 8,000 militia, 4,500 cadres, 33,000 hardcore followers and 200,000 'sympathisers'. In his address to the people of the Himalayan kingdom that has been wrecked by a Maoist rebellion for nearly nine years, the king by announcing that he was assuming all executive powers for the next three years, has exposed the hollowness of the present system of governance, and reaffirmed the Maoist claim that his rule is largely illegitimate. His charge that the Deuba government has failed to honour its commitment to hold talks with the Maoists and conduct parliamentary elections by April, may just give the required fillip to the long-term rebel demand for the establishment of a Constituent Assembly, stripping the monarchy of the sanctity given to it by the kingdom's largely fractious political parties.

     The politics of Nepal as it stands today gives credence to the view that the kingdom will continue to be seen as a conduit for terrorist and drug running activity, besides certifying itself as an almost irretrievable and lethargic economic entity. This has been exemplified mostly by the 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight from Kathmandu, resulting in the Indian Government's largely criticised decision to free three Pakistani militants to ensure the safe return of close to 200 civilian hostages from Kandahar. It also suggests that Pakistan's ISI operatives may just continue to rule the roost in Kathmandu for some more time, using avenues well known to them to promote activities of instability in the neighbourhood. How does Tuesday's events in Nepal pan out at a regional level? Well, for one, the 13th SAARC summit to be held in Dhaka this weekend has been postponed indefinitely following the Indian Government's decision not to attend it, citing both the poor security situation in Bangladesh and the anti-constitutional misadventure in Kathmandu.

     If official sources and previous analytical reports are to be believed, New Delhi has repeatedly warned the Nepal king not do anything that could precipitate political instability in that country and the region overall. Tuesday's move clearly suggests that Gyanendra is not prepared to accept ground realities or well-meaning advice. With the country's key politicians presently under house arrest, the options for the world's only Hindu kingdom are few and far between. Should it opt for an elected government, the bitterly divided political parties would only ensure democratic chaos. If the crown rules, it will always be at odds with its people, and should the Maoists emerge as a power to reckon with, the resultant scenario of governance could be both authoritarian and insular, and logically of no great benefit to the population. It is a well known fact that Kathmandu has already lost control of most of the country, and its only hope now effectively lies in conciliation and negotiation, and not in "ham-handed action" as one editorial opined. Only through unity and dialogue, can Nepal stand back from the brink that it is teetering on.