Poll environment

There are only 117 days left for the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections slated for November 22. However, the election fever is conspicuously absent in the air. A period of four months is insufficient for the preparation of an election of such a great magnitude, which will not only form a new parliament but change the fate of this country as well. To our utter dismay, no party has pulled its socks up for the elections yet. Both UML and NC have initiated some sort of subtle poll campaigns. Neither the tea stalls are abuzz with election talks, nor are the political cadres anywhere close to their expected busy schedules. The forthcoming CA polls demand much more energy and enthusiasm because it is much more different and complicated than the general elections. In addition to electing one candidate from a constituency, this time, we will also be casting our vote for the party of our choice in the second ballot paper which will be dropped in a different ballot box. The second vote will ensure proportional representation.

The lack of enthusiasm for the forthcoming elections, it seems, is due to the fact that many are unconvinced that the CA polls will be held on schedule. Mainly, the slow pace of the Maoist transformation from gun culture to peace are making people worried about the future of the CA polls. Besides, they are apprehensive that the monarchists might poke the elections, and that the Madhesi trouble might swell into too hot an issue for the state to handle. That the Maoists might not fare well in the ballot is also a reason to be suspicious of the coming elections. People are asking, will they allow free and fair elections seeing the writing on the wall?

Now, the onus lies on the shoulder of political parties and the Maoists to win the confidence of the people. The political parties should swiftly spread their tentacles to the hinterland and the Maoists should expedite their transition to peace. The lull in YCL's behavior in recent days has shown some appreciable changes. On the part of the government, it has to maintain law and order, ensure peace and generate enthusiasm for holding free and fair elections. As Chief Election Commissioner Bhoj Raj Pokhrel has said, it is the duty of the political parties and the government to create an election-friendly environment for the upcoming CA polls. In addition, everyone should acknowledge the fact that it is a testing time for Nepal. All the Nepalis should join their hands to make the CA elections a big success, and prove the world that the Nepalis are always for democracy, justice, peace and the economic prosperity.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, July 27, 2007

Nepal: experiencing pangs of transition

S.D. Muni

The challenge to Nepal’s peace process comes from political vested interests, Maoist activities, and the gradually spreading turbulence in the Terai region.


Nepal’s peace process is passing through a delicate phase. The core objective of this process is to integrate the Maoists into an inclusive and fully democratic political order. This process of transiting a 238-year-old feudal state into a vibrant and responsive democratic order has been reasonably smooth and speedy so far. Since the success of the peoples’ movement in April 2006, led peacefully by the Maoists and the democratic forces, much progress has been a chieved. The Maoists have committed themselves to non-violent and democratic politics under a Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed with the government on November 2001. Following this, the Maoists have registered their arms and armed cadres under United Nations supervision. An interim Constitution, interim parliament, and interim coalition government of an eight-party alliance (of Maoists and seven mainstream political parties) have been put in place. The King has been stripped of all his powers raising the prospects of establishing a democratic Republic. The culmination of the peace process, and thereby the prospects of a stable and prosperous Nepal, now depends upon the sincere implementation of assurances and commitments by the Maoists and other political parties and the drafting of a Constitution by a Constituent Assembly scheduled to be elected in November 2007.

The challenge to the smooth advancement of the peace process and the holding of the Constituent Assembly elections comes from three sources: political vested interests, Maoist activities, and the gradually spreading violence in the Terai region. The royalists, both around the palace and within the political parties, have no interest in the elections as a Constituent Assembly in its very first sitting is expected to abolish monarchy and establish a Republic. There are sections of royalists who may settle for a ceremonial monarchy. However, King Gyanendra, unaware of the shift against him of the popular mood since 2005, has not accepted the option of ceremonial monarchy and continues to scheme to regain as much of his powers as possible. He wants to drive a wedge in the ruling coalition and disrupt the election process. His failed birthday bash on July 7, 2007, was a clear indication of this.


Some of the political parties too do not seem to be ready for elections, having lost political ground during the 10 years of Maoist insurgency. The Nepali Congress (NC) is awaiting the reunification of its breakaway group under Sher Bahadur Deuba. The royalists as well as smaller left parties are not too sure of their electoral prospects. There are assessments that even the Maoists may want to delay elections as they have lost much of their goodwill in the post-peoples’ movement (Jan Andolan) period, though their top leaders are of the view that the more the elections are delayed the more their political ground will be eroded. Uncertainty in the minds of these political stakeholders has seriously daunted their enthusiasm for elections. The Chief Election Commissioner has complained of the government’s delay in filling the vacancies in the poll panel.

All those who want to delay the elections are seeking shelter behind the prevailing violence and lawlessness in Nepal. The abductions, extortions, and use of force by the Youth Communist League (YCL) created by the Maoists from their erstwhile Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) cadres invite considerable flak from various sources, including the Prime Minister. The Maoists’ inability to return properties seized during the insurgency period are also cited as examples of their bad faith vis-À-vis joining the mainstream. The Maoists are partly using YCL strong-arm methods to pressure the other coalition partners but, on the other hand, there are differences in the Maoist leadership on this issue. There are clearly two lines on the degree and extent to which the group should integrate in the prevailing multi-party politics. Many in the Polit Bureau feel that they are walking in a trap to be gradually marginalised and eliminated, as their cadres are killed in the Terai and their image is tarnished in the rest of the country. Therefore, an organised YCL is required to deter their enemies, mobilise political support, and garner votes if and when elections take place. For them, YCL is their youth wing as in all other parties.

The Terai is in a state of virtual anarchy on account of the unrest in the Hindi-speaking Madheshi community. Long neglected and discriminated against, the Madheshis are demanding proper representation in the new Nepal. Royalists backed by Hindu extremists from across the borders in India fanned the initial sparks of violence, caused by Maoist blunders, to discredit the interim government. Initially, even some of the major political parties and sections of the international community tried to turn the Madheshis’ ire against the Maoists to erode the latter’s support base. The Madheshis have a genuine issue but in the absence of a credible leadership, a number of criminal, self-serving and narrow-based political groups are taking undue advantage of the situation. In the forefront of violence and disruption are three splinter Maoists factions of Jai Krishan Goit, Jwala Singh, and Bisfotak Singh, the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum of Upendra Yadav, the Sadbhawana Party, which is a part of the ruling alliance, and lastly, the Terai Cobra and the Terai Tigers led by unknown Robin Hoods. Some Terai political activists are still waiting to float new leadership platforms. The royalists continue to indirectly support and encourage some of these groups in the hope that a disordered Terai will mar the prospects of smooth elections. Slow and uncalibrated responses from the government as well as the eight-party alliance have worsened the situation. The Maoists’ proposal to raise an eight-party front to politically deal with the Terai violence has yet to take off. If the Terai situation has to be brought under control, the government must move fast to seriously engage with the genuine Madheshi groups.


Behind all this confusion and persisting conflict in Nepal is the fact that the old mindsets are finding it hard to come to terms with the new challenge thrown by the peoples’ movement. The political parties and the Maoists had perhaps forged only a tactical alliance to deal with the autocratic King. It is doubtful if this alliance is based on a shared grand strategic vision of building a new Nepal of popular aspirations. This is reflected in the divergence among the eight parties on the questions of the monarchy’s future status, inclusion of hitherto marginalised sections of Madheshis and ethnic minorities, restructuring of the Nepalese army, and of priorities of socio-economic transformation. Such divergences have worsened the trust deficit between not only the Maoists and the other political parties, but also among the non-Maoist parties in the ruling alliance. Maoists continue to grumble about being discriminated against, be it the question of ambassadorial appointments or allocation of funds for their registered cadres or resources for the ministries allocated to them. One wonders if India and the rest of the international community, which are deeply engaged with Nepal’s peace process, have also not been afflicted by the old mindset problem. The outspoken and outgoing American Ambassador, James F. Moriarty, made it amply clear in a number of his departing statements. All those who are engaged in restructuring a new Nepal need to understand clearly that the continuing alliance between the political parties and the Maoists, and election of a Constituent Assembly are the basic requirements for peace and stability in Nepal. There is no alternative except chaos and disorder.

After receiving the shock of popular disenchantment with King Gyanendra’s April 21, 2006, proclamation on the peoples’ movement, India has tried to push Nepal’s peace process in a positive direction, both through diplomatic persuasion and the allocation of generous financial resources. There are, however, elements in the Indian political and policy establishments that would still like to see a ceremonial monarchy and the marginalisation of the Maoists. They want India to be prepared to pick up the pieces and deal with the debris if Nepal were to fall apart due to the Madheshi issue and the ethnic tensions. One hopes Indian policy steers clear of such elements. While continuing to support the peace process, India must throw its weight behind a constructive engagement between Kathmandu and the Madheshi people. Many of the Madheshi groups have in the past thrived and prospered on Indian doles. They must be prevailed on by New Delhi to desist from the path of violence and seek a just but negotiated resolution of their grievances with Kathmandu. If the Terai violence is allowed to delay or disrupt the election process in Nepal and its peace process collapses, India will be the worst affected by its extensive negative spillover.


Source: The Hindu, July 27, 2007

INTERVIEW WITH UPENDRA YADAVc

Excerpts of an interview with Upendra Yadav, chairman of the Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF) from Nepal magazine.

Q. You secretly went to the US and returned at a time when the Forum is suspected to have American support. Why?

Yadav: I was not invited by the American government. I went there on the invitation of an organization of Nepalis residing there. I could only arrive there a week behind the scheduled date as the (US) Embassy did not issue the visa on time. As far as the Madhes agitation is concerned, it is an agitation launched by the Nepali people, and not by America or India.

Q. Who did you meet in America?

Yadav: I met with the local leaders of the Democratic Party, that too, on the initiation of the Nepali diaspora.

Q. You used to meet US ambassador James F Moriarty here. What issues were discussed?

Yadav: What he used to say publicly, I also said the same thing. He had said he wanted to see the Constituent Assembly elections held in a peaceful manner, and the Loktantric/ democratic process move ahead, successfully.

Q. Why does America perceive Maoist advancement in Madhes as a threat?
Yadav: To state that America senses a threat from the Maoists is like saying a rabbit poses a threat to a tiger. Is there any reason for America, which is bracing for Star Wars, to get intimidated by the Maoists wielding a few weapons?

Q Don’t you think that the Forum is being used against the Maoists by someone?
Yadav: When there is an agitation, different types of people try to take advantage of it. Those elements tried to instigate the Maoists. We have to learn from such incidents. The Maoists, we and all other democratic forces must try to protect ourselves from that, lest the country suffers a negative fallout.

Q. What is your take on the Maoists’ argument that the plot was hatched, considering the threats a Maoist advancement in Madhes poses to India?

Yadav: Nepal poses no threat to India.

Q. It is even suspected that the Madhes agitation was launched at India’s behest to destabilize Nepal. What is the link between the Forum and India?

Yadav: Had the Madhes agitation been staged on India’s behalf, Nepal’s geographical structure itself would have changed by now. Secondly, the people of Madhes were ready to lay down their lives for their rights in the course of that agitation. Could they have been ready to die in that way had the agitation been prompted by America, India or China? Leaders ranging from the Nepali Congress to the Maoists had lived or taken shelter in India due to adverse situations. Then, why are our intentions being questioned just because we stay in India?

Q. Don’t you feel that the Jantantric Terai Mukti Morcha, which is conducting armed activities, is getting shelter in India?

Yadav: One’s policy, what one is up to, is more important than where one lives. A lot of criminals in Nepal have settled in India and a lot of Indian criminals have settled in Nepal.

Q. Prior to your US visit, you convened a joint meeting with the JTMMs in Patna and discussed the agenda about separating the country. Are you involved in politics of disintegration?

Yadav: Someone could have a policy of dividing the country. But, it is our belief that the problems dogging the country need to be addressed without hurting national sovereignty and integrity. We have sought federal governance and autonomy within Nepal, and not by separating from Nepal. We can’t even imagine a division of the country. We also do not accept the policy of the organization waging an armed struggle in Madhes, including the JTMMs. The discrimination in Madhes needs to be address peacefully. It is futile to look for the answer outside the country.

Q. At the Patna meeting, Jwala Singh even said ‘Now we can't expect (anything) from Upendra, hence Ramraja Prasad Singh needs to assume the leadership’, right?

Yadav: Much like the way the JTMM does not expect anything from us, we also cannot expect anything from the JTMM. We don’t think the JTMM can lead the Madhes agitation, positively. Our paths are separate.

Q. Then, how do you define the relationship between the Forum and the JTMM?

Yadav: The relationship does not exist. Many organizations in Madhes were formed after dissociating from the Maoists. It is unknown where the other organizations came from. We also do not know the purposes behind the formation of such organizations.

Q If the relationship does not exist then on what basis do both the factions of JTMM take the responsibility for the attack on the Maoists using the Forum activists as their “cover”?
Yadav: We do not want such organizations to attend our programme. Even if they have to organize a programme, let them do it separately. Let there be no infiltration. However, accidents do occur despite our wishes. Many organizations take responsibility for them for cheap popularity. A trend to release press statements owning up to such incidents to garner publicity is on rise in Madhes.

Q. What can you say about the Gaur carnage?

Yadav: Since Jwala Singh has taken up the responsibility for the incident, one can see that the MPRF was not responsible. To summarize, the Gaur incident was a conspiracy against us by those who wanted to defame the MPRF as a group committed to violence, like JTMM prohibiting us from coming to the mainstream.

Q. You were scheduled to address the Gaur mass meeting. But you didn't attend it despite the fact that you were present in a nearby area. Later, the killings of the Maoist cadres took place. Doesn't it give the impression of the picture being preplanned by the MPRF itself?

Yadav: When the incident took place, I was not there- I was here in Kathmandu. At the time of the Gaur incident, there was a gathering of thousands of people. How could we know what kind of people were hiding in the crowd? If the Maoists had not made the decision of attacking the MPRF, the incident would never have taken place. Second, the administration is also responsible. Because, the administration already knew that such an incident was going to take place.

Q. What do you say then about the MPRF activists from a royalist background?

Yadav: There is no place for royalists in the MPRF. Our andolan is for a federal democratic republic.

Q. Talks with the prime minister's daughter Sujata have become frequent these days?

Yadav: She is a Nepali Congress leader. I know her personally. She also knows me. We used to meet occasionally in the past.

Q. So the MPRF's demand that the Home Minister should quit is the result of those meetings?
Yadav: It is also the demand of two-thirds of the people within the NC. Girija (Prasad Koirala) has himself confessed during our meetings that there isn't any purpose of carrying (Home Minister Sitaula) while walking forward. Personally, he would be a good and honest person, and he may have played a good role in the peace process too. However, as a Home Minister he tried to suppress the Madhesi agitation and failed to maintain law and order. So that's why, we have asked for his resignation.

Q. Do you think that the demand to put a ban on the YCL (Young Communist League) is logical?

Yadav: They have also demanded that the MPRF should be banned. Under these circumstances, if we also make a similar demand then it's not such an unusual demand. Today, even the head of the state has christened the YCL as the Young Criminal League. The "Criminal League" should either reform itself or stop its activities. If the Maoists continue to move forward in this way, then the Constituent Assembly elections won't take place- even democracy can’t be sustained. That's why the Maoists must truly democratize themselves.

Q. Why don't you make a similar demand regarding the JTMM as well?

Yadav: The JTMM should also reform itself. The manner and the way of their struggle haven’t had a positive impact on the Madhesi andoaln. However, their activities have defamed the agitation. The Madhesi people are tired of armed groups like the JTMM. Every group should enter the political mainstream.Q. Do you think the MPRF is itself in the political mainstream?
Yadav: We are in the political mainstream. The proof is that we've already registered the MPRF as a political party to take part in the upcoming CA polls.

Q. Why do you think many old MPRF activists have left?

Yadav: Earlier, there were people of various political parties in the MPRF. However, the MPRF has become a separate party today. If those friends want to do politics for the parties they belong to, then there is no point in continuing with the MPRF.

Q. How many of your demands have been fulfilled by the government?

Yadav: We've reached consensus on a few demands, but they are yet to be implemented. Like- providing compensation to the families of the martyrs, medical treatment to the injured, a dismissal of all legal complaints, and proportional representation of Madhesi, indigenous, and ethnic people.

Q. From the MPRF perspective, do you think that the CA elections are possible on November 22?

Yadav: Today, neither has the government shown any real activity to hold the CA polls, nor have the necessary preparations been made. A sense of peace and security is crucial for the CA polls. Besides, the government should hold talks with various agitating groups to create an amiable environment for the CA polls. However, these things are yet to be done.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, July 17, 2007

Reforms that CA polls call for

Hari Bansh Jha

At this time, no issue is more talked about than election and electoral reforms. This is to be expected in a country where successive governments have been postponing CA polls for over five-and-a-half decades on one pretext or the other. But the momentum for CA elections gained ground only in the aftermath of Jana Andolan II, with CA polls proposed for June 2007.Even though the date for CA election has been fixed for Nov. 22, 2007, doubts persist considering the deteriorating law and order situation. Amidst such speculation, the Centre for Economic and Technical Studies (CETS), a research organisation, organised a two-day seminar in the Kathmandu Valley recently on “Issues and Challenges of Electoral Reforms in Nepal” in cooperation with Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), a research wing of the Social Democratic Party of Germany.

During the deliberations, participated by over 90 personalities, including politicians, journalists, academicians, and women, plus representatives of Janajatis, Dalits and Madheshis, nearly everyone agreed that election was the only non-violent method for societal transformation. They noted that the most difficult part of election was to ensure inclusiveness while at the same time addressing the pressing demands of various agitating groups and defeating communal and reactionary elements.It was felt that low turnout of the voters might denote people’s lack of commitment and trust in the electoral system and apart from the FPtP system, the adoption of proportional system was suggested. It was also felt that low level of understanding among the people about the mixed electoral system was a big challenge. In this context, the EC needs to initiate awareness programmes to help people understand the mixed electoral system and the technicalities involved.

Likewise, the Election Constituency Delineation Committee (ECDC) was viewed as a stumbling block to CA polls for lack of experts in the panel. The EC itself isn’t free of blame for its lack of transparency. Statistics reveal that the cost-per-vote in elections had been increasing. From a meagre Rs 10 during House of Representatives (HoR) election in 1991 the amount jumped to Rs 20 in 1994 and finally to Rs 27 in 1999. For the CA polls, the cost-per-vote is likely to shoot up to Rs 107.Apart from EC, candidates and foreign agencies too spend a lot of money in the name of voters’ education. With the growth in election expenses, it is difficult for the poor, honest and deserving candidates to fight and win the elections as they cannot afford to pay for 3 G’s: Guns, gold and goons. The EC needs to monitor the flow of money during the election and devise strategies to punish those who do not follow the code of conduct. The seminar concluded: CA polls, conducted in free and fearless manner, could give a new lease of life to the nation; while failure to do so at the scheduled date might invite a larger catastrophe. The CA election is also important for its role in institutionalising the gains of the people’s revolution.

Source: The Himalayan Times, July 27, 2007

Maoist foreign policy based on Panchasheel: Gajurel

Kathmandu, July 25: Except for some timely modifications, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) does not have any immediate plan of making a major shift in the existing foreign policy of the country. The major thrust of the CPN-Maoist's foreign policy is based on the five Principles of Panchasheel.However, fraternal relations with the Maoist forces across the world will be continued on the basis of 'proletariat internationalism', said C.P. Gajurel, chief of the Foreign Relations Department of the CPN-Maoist. Since we entered into a new political phase, we have made some changes in our foreign policy. Now we represent in the parliament and we are a part of the interim government. We are aiming at forming our own government after the elections of the Constituent Assembly. So we must have certain policies to deal with different states and different governments Talking to The Rising Nepal on various issues relating to foreign relations, he said Maoist foreign policy will not deviate from the major international practices. "We have to work in such a way that our policy should not contradict with the existing international practices. We think we can do it. "Responding to a query as to how the Maoist would develop its international relations without active support of the United States of America and India, Gajurel said, "First of all, we do not want to single out any government for developing relations. We don't want to exclude any country. We are open and want to develop amicable relations with all."

So far as the US is concerned, it has not been supportive to this process from the very beginning when the CPN-Maoist and seven parties entered into a 12-point agreement. The US was against the negotiations between the seven parties and the CPN-Maoists. The basic policy of the US was to make an alliance between the monarchy and seven parties and exclude the Maoist from that alliance and ignite suppression against the Maoist. But it utterly failed as the alliance between seven parties and the Maoist took a concrete shape. It is very unfortunate that the US has not taken any concrete decision to remove our party from their list of terrorists, he affirmed. So far India is concerned; it is very important part of our foreign policy. Nepal and India are very close neighbours in every respect. Relations with India are very important. But we will have 'equi-proximate relations' with both India and China, said Gajurel. "We don't think our relationships with revolutionary forces in different parts of the world should jeopardise the relations with these two neighbours." Despite 'unpleasant response' of the US, are you still hopeful about patching differences with the world's superpower? In response to this question Gajurel said that people should not be worried about the relations with the US. "There are countries in this world which are doing well without US assistance. Nobody should worry about that our development activities would suffer due to bitter relations with the US. There are countries, which are doing fine, even without US assistance."

Gajurel further said, "We are surprised as to why the US is so critical about us. It was fine when we were a rebellion force, but now we are in the parliament and we are also a part of the government. It looks funny that they recognise the parliament, they recognise the government, but it is quite surprising that they do not recognise our party." Because of this erroneous policy, the Bush administration has been isolated from other parts of the world as well. Jimmy Carter, former president of the US while he was here had a meeting with our leaders and told them that the US should not have continued the previous policy, Gajurel added. ''They should have removed the terrorist tag' this is what Carter told our leaders. Former US president Carter was very positive about our democratic transformation. Even the United Kingdom, the close ally of the US has taken our move very positively. So are you optimist about the Democrats in the US? Gajurel in response to this question said "Though their basic foreign policy is not going to be changed, but we are very hopeful that the victory of Democrats in 2008 US elections will definitely review the previous government's policy," he said. It is said that the activities of the Young Communist League (YCL) have been counter-productive to the process of democratisation of your party. Do you agree with this observation? In response to this query he said ?"We don't agree with such remarks because they are totally biased and baseless.Whoever makes such comments they do not have any evidence when and where the YCL violated the democratic norms. They (YCL) are supporting the administration or police force." We always welcome healthy suggestions. The other political parties blame the YCL for bullying, but they do not comment anything over the incidents of kidnappings and killings in the Terai. Such violent activities will be a real problem for holding the elections of Constituent Assembly, he added.

Regarding the Maoists' chairman's Europe visit he said, "We have had very positive experience. We are really encouraged by their overwhelming response." Responding to a query about the possible deviation from the principles of Marxism, Leninism and Maoism while moving towards the path of democratisation, he said ? "No we are not deviating. We are trying to adopt those philosophies according to the changed context, but without any obliteration in the spirit of those philosophies. Instead, we are enriching Marxism, Leninism and Maoism. But one has to understand that Marxism is not a dogma. It needs to be modified as per the changed context. In fact it is a guide to action, he said. What about CPN-UML's transformation to new democracy? As far as the CPN-UML is concerned, it has basically deviated from Marxism and Leninism. Because they are not in favour of class struggle, but for class-coordination. And they have given up new democracy. But you are also moving towards the path of CPN-UML. Aren't you? He said "No we are just in the process of applying Marxism and Leninism in the changed context."Our political rivals have spread a rumour that we are not democrats. But we can prove that communists are the real democrats, because we represent the will of 90-95 per cent people across the country. We are not against any democracy and democratic forces. Regarding globalisation and Nepal's entry into the World Trade Organisation, he said " "We are not against it, but it should be adopted according to the financial strength of a country. We should be in a position to reap benefits out of globalisation."


Source: The Rising Nepal, July 26, 2007

Nepal's monarch awaits his fate

Damakant Jayshi

Nepal's monarch awaits his fateBy Damakant Jayshi KATHMANDU - The republican wind that swept King Gyanendra from power last year continues to blow strongly through Nepal. The king has been publicly humiliated three times in the past two weeks. His highly publicized three-day diamond-jubilee birthday celebration on July 7 fell flat, with the government, top bureaucrats, even the once loyal Nepali army, and diplomatic corps staying away. Some 700 well-wishers did turn up, most of them loyalists. But it was a far cry from the days when thousands of people lined up outside the palace gates to salute their king. The next day, nearly everyone who had been invited was present at the traditional bhoto jatra function for the Rato Machhindranath deity presided over by Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala as head of state. Until this year the duty had always been the privilege of the Nepali king.

Last week, outgoing US Ambassador to Nepal James F Moriarty appealed to Gyanendra to abdicate if he wished to save the monarchy. During the pro-democracy struggle, the US ambassador was openly pro-king. He had put pressure on Nepal's political parties to work with Gyanendra although the king had usurped absolute power in February 2005. Addressing his last press conference in Kathmandu on July 13, Moriarty said: "If he wants to save the institution of monarchy, he has to take a dramatic step." This was within days of Koirala's call for the king to abdicate in favor of his grandson, who turns five years old on Monday. Nepal's influential military also supports the idea as Gyanendra's son, the unpopular Crown Prince Paras, has a reputation for drunken, angry behavior. Only two years ago, with the army behind him, the king and Nepal's monarchy seemed invincible. Now hardly a day passes without media reports calling for an end to monarchy. Not all of them are from Maoist supporters. According to a recent survey, those who want monarchy in some form - constitutional, ceremonial, or "reformed" - are currently outnumbered.

And Nepal's 240-year-old monarchy has not recovered from the tragic massacre in the royal palace in June 2001. A majority of people do not believe the verdict of a government-appointed probe team that the then-heir to the throne, Gyanendra's nephew, killed nine members of his family before shooting himself. Krishna Khanal, professor of political science at Tribhuvan University, said the reasons are very obvious: "Monarchy and democracy can never go together in Nepal, and our history post-1950 is proof of that." Krishna Pahadi, a respected human-rights defender, minces no words when it comes to expressing his views on monarchy. The monarchy has no place at all in new Nepal, he insisted. Pahadi, who was named a prisoner of conscience by the international human-rights group Amnesty International during the king's absolute rule, said: "The Parliament, which has been reinstated on the strength of the popular movement against monarchy, should set up a tribunal to try King Gyanendra for his crimes against the people as the head of the government." Pahadi argued that this would result in the king (and his family) either fleeing or being convicted, and would give Parliament an opportunity to abolish the monarchy.

The Nepali army, which privately spoke of holding a referendum on the monarchy, has now grudgingly accepted the idea of a Constituent Assembly, chosen in a free and fair election (without intimidation by Maoists), deciding the fate of the institution. A Constituent Assembly election is scheduled for November 22. But right-wing Hindu groups and parties close to the royal palace insist that only a referendum, if required, can decide the future of Nepal's monarchy. "Since there is such a concerted and calculated hate campaign against monarchy, let us go for a referendum," said Kamal Thapa, leader of the pro-palace Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP-Nepal). However, Pahadi, who is against the idea of a referendum, calling it a meaningless exercise, feels that as long as the king remains unpunished there cannot be a Constituent Assembly election, "let alone a free and fair one". "The mood of the nation is for a democratic republic, and unless the king is punished for his obvious crimes against people, this will not be possible. Moreover, he will try to prevent the Constituent Assembly election," he warned. Like Pahadi, Thapa does not believe that an election of the Constituent Assembly could be impartial because of threats from Nepal's powerful Maoists. The RPP-Nepal leader has put his weight behind a "reformed" monarchy. He has argued that it would serve as a cushion for democracy against the ultra-left and provide unity and stability in the country. Significantly, the army, still suspicious of Maoist intentions, would also be happy to have a monarchy in some form, according to most political commentators. While the debate on monarchy rages on, all eyes are now on the Constituent Assembly election. That is, if it is held as scheduled. Or held at all.

Source: Asia Times, July 27, 2007