Uncertainty of CA Elections and the Republic Question

Dr. Bal Gopal Shrestha

It is bizarre to see the failure of the ruling eight parties to meet even a month after the deferral announcement of the elections to constituent assembly. A country in transition cannot afford such a delay in the political process. In addition these parties are also openly accusing each other for the deadlock. Especially, the head of the state and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala proved himself most irresponsible by not taking the initiative to end the uncertainly.

We know that the sole basis of the present eight-party interim government is the 12-point agreement that they signed in November 2005. The first and foremost agenda of the agreement was to bring to an end to autocratic monarchy and to establish absolute democracy. To institutionalize this purpose the agreement proposed to hold an election to a constituent assembly. The massive people's movement in April 2006 forced king Gyanendra to relinquish his power, which paved the way to implement the road map of the seven-party alliance. A year has passed since the seven-party alliance came to power, but it failed to hold constituent assembly elections as they had agreed with the Maoists. Already it was very late when they announced the interim constitution and interim parliament on 15 January 2007. After that, things could have moved more rapidly if the parties had shown sincerity and realized their responsibility, but apparently they miserably failed in this regard.

The Maoists' demand to let the interim parliament announce Nepal a republic did not come all of a sudden. The eight parties agreed to held elections to a constituent assembly on 20 June 2007, but the postponement of elections came amidst heavy national and international pressure. Especially, we saw James Moriarty, American envoy to Nepal, extremely reckless in his wish to postpone the elections. Until the last minute, he tried to use his influence to postpone the elections and to keep the Maoists out of the interim government. For a year, the Maoists waited patiently for the elections. When the deferral announcement came, the Maoists' outburst can be imagined.

The chief election officer (CEO) said that he needed 120 days before he could prepare the elections, but his announcement came only when he had less than a hundred days. Why the CEO did not come with this fact when he still had more than 120 days is unexplained. Since he failed to hold the elections in a stipulated time, it is but logical that he himself and his team had resigned but that did not happened. The prime minister also did not feel it necessary to hold an urgent meeting of the eight parties to find an amicable solution without delay. Given the uncertainty that prevailed after the deferral of the elections, the Maoists’ move to declare Nepal a republic from the parliament is not unreasonable.

At present, there is no party in Nepal that can speak in favour of any form of kingship, except Kamal Thapa's National Democratic Party, which supported king Gyanendra's February 2005 coup. Now and then, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala talks about retaining a ceremonial king, but he could not stand firm on his words as a large section of his own party, the Nepali Congress appeared against retaining the monarchy. We also noted even Prime Minister Koirala himself advised king Gyanendra and his son Paras to voluntarily abdicate before declaring Nepal itself a republic. On 7 May 2007, Prime Minister Koirala, though, managed to pacify Congress district presidents, and had to tell them that by gradually stripping away all the powers of the king then would Nepal be finally declared a republic. Not only members of civil society but also a vast majority of people are in favour of declaring Nepal a republic straight away. Family members of the martyrs of the April 2006 people's movement and those injured in the movement have also been demanding Nepal to be declared a republic immediately.

During the April 2006 people's movement, defying brutal suppression, hundreds of thousands of people spontaneously took to the streets of cities and villages throughout the country for 19 days chanting slogans against the autocratic king Gyanendra. More than two dozen people sacrificed their lives and thousands were injured. Their single demand was to declare Nepal a republic by ending the monarchy instantly. On 23 April 2006, however, the leaders of the seven-party alliance hastily agreed to let king Gyanendra reinstate the parliament instead of removing the king himself. The Maoists who also actively participated in the people's movement denounced that act of the seven-party alliance, but yielded at Prime Minister Koirala's persuasion of holding an early election to a constituent assembly. Already the general people blamed power hungry leaders of the seven-party alliance for deceiving the people by ending the movement in a secret compromise with the king. Now with the deferring of elections, they feel that these leaders are conspiring to retain the redundant monarchy in Nepal.

In fact, the relevance of the monarchy in Nepal was lost after the 1 June 2001 palace massacre. The palace massacre was the death of monarchy as it wiped out the traditional line of succession to the throne. Although, the official prove-commission put the blame on crown prince Dipendra, who himself was killed in the incident, nobody in Nepal is ready to accept it. Of course, there is no evidence since no proper investigation was carried out, but the Nepalese people have openly been blaming king Gyanendra for staging the palace massacre to achieve the throne. The Nepalese people never gave the same respect to king Gyanendra as to his late brother Birendra because of Gyanendra's image as a notorious businessman and his scandalous son Paras. On top of all this, his autocratic acts against democracy made him the most detested king in the history of Nepal. The February 2005 coup was his final step, which left the people with no option than to take to the streets against him.

Soon after the success of the April 2006 people's movement, the House of Representative (HoR) stripped the king of all powers. On 18 May 2006, it declared Nepal a secular state and scrapped the Supreme-Commander-in-Chief post of the king, and changed the Name of the Royal Nepalese Army to Nepal Army. The 2007 interim constitution again completely deprives Gyanendra of any administrative rights and rejects his rights to the properties of the deceased royal family members. Further it also declares to nationalize all properties he obtained by virtue of being king, such as the palaces, forests and national parks, historic important heritage sites, etc.

At present, the king holds no formal position. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala himself is working as the head of state. Practically the country is already functioning as a republic without declaring itself a republic. If the present interim parliament can strip the king of all powers and passes so many important bills, it can declare Nepal a republic at any time. Rightly, the speaker of the house Subhash Nemang said that he was ready to declare Nepal a republic a minute after the leaders of the eight-party agree for the same. Only we have to see if they will indeed be able to come to an agreement or remain undecided on the issue. It is needless to say that the people are eager to see Nepal declared a republic at the earliest.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, May 16, 2007

Maoist Report Card

Uday Bajracharya

The 40-point demand of the Maoists before they took up arms in 1996 didn’t call specifically for the abolishment of the monarchy. However, Prachanda said in his interview to the BBC soon after Jana Andolan-2 that the combined effect of the forty points was abolition of the monarchy. Therefore, the Maoists will be judged on the basis of only one thing, i.e. whether or not they will be able to abolish the monarchy. Their demand for a constituent assembly can be seen as a means, not an end, to achieve other goals such as making the people sovereign and restructuring the state.

Although the Maoists started their ‘People’s War’ against an elected government, they joined hands with the ‘democratic’ parties in 2006 to launch Jana Andolan-2. True, this action resulted in making the monarchy almost powerless, at least temporarily, but it also catapulted the extremely weakened ‘democratic’ parties, especially Nepali Congress, to new heights, allowing them to claim full credit for the success of Jana Andolan-2.

The Maoists’ persistent demand for a constituent assembly resulted in the interim constitution including a clear deadline for an election to the CA. However, it is now clear that the deadline can’t be met. The Maoists had agreed to decide the fate of the monarchy by the CA, knowing full well that regressive forces would try to stop the election as they had done before when a CA promised in 1951 never materialised. The whole thing has now been thrown into uncertainty, including the fate of the monarchy.

It is interesting to note that the Maoists started their ‘People’s War’ soon after the US became the sole superpower following the collapse of communism in the former Soviet Union and other European countries. Similarly they ended the hostilities, locked up their arms and put their combatants in cantonments in 2007 when the US Empire is crumbling, mainly due to the war in Iraq, and when there is a lame duck president in the White House. They tried to negotiate a peace in 2001 and 2003 in view of the ‘global war on terror’, which was probably reasonable, but it is hard to understand the timing of their starting and ending the war.

Due to their starting the war at the wrong time and the ‘global war on terror’ following the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001, the Nepal government could gather tremendous material support from the US, India and other countries for ‘their’ war on terror. Consequently, the (Royal) Nepali Army was transformed from a weak force focused primarily on earning money through international peacekeeping operations to a well-equipped 95,000-strong army. The Maoists are indirectly responsible for this. Even with weaker armies, the palace had staged coups before and had suppressed democracy for 30 years during the Panchayat regime. A strong (Royal) Nepali Army can be a constant threat to democracy if the monarchy is not abolished immediately.

The Maoists insisted on UN assistance in the peace process. Although the UN was created by the victors of World War II and has often been used by the US as a tool to dominate world politics, it has legitimacy in the eyes of most nations. The UN often uses a ‘one model fits all’ approach and can be inflexible in its working procedures. As a result, the people of Nepal have to watch helplessly as the UN representative declares that Nepal has to fulfill certain requirements before the elections can be held or that it will be no disaster if the elections are delayed. One can denounce the naked intervention in Nepali politics by the US or the Indian ambassadors but one can hardly defy the UN. This action of the Maoists has made Nepal dependent on the UN, which may be very hard to shake off.

The Maoists raised the disadvantaged people’s awareness of their rights, which is great. However, they also promised them ethnic and regional autonomies including the right to self-determination. This might have helped them recruit large numbers of party cadres but it also raised the expectations of various communities unrealistically, resulting in the on-going agitation by these groups. The Terai problem is particularly serious. Terai has a potential of seceding from Nepal. Should this happen, Nepal is going to be not only land-locked or India-locked but also Terai-locked, with disastrous consequences.

Different people see the end of hostilities by the Maoists differently. People like Girija Koirala and the ‘international community’ consider this as a case of bringing the ‘terrorists’ to the mainstream. The Maoists claim it to be the beginning of a new phase in their movement. However, recent activities of the Maoists have led most people to believe that the Maoists have realized the futility of the war and have now been trying for a safe landing into mainstream politics before achieving the main goal of abolishing the monarchy. A recent statement by Prachanda that they could end up with the fate of the Shining Path of Peru if they are not careful reinforces the above belief.

The Maoists have made mistakes but they can correct them by helping abolish the monarchy, that too before the CA elections. They have raised awareness for a republic to an unprecedented level. Having squandered the chances for abolishing the monarchy several times before, the people of Nepal know that they won’t get another chance for a long time if they don’t succeed this time. True, the republican forces face a tremendous challenge both from within and outside the country, but they can still do it because the people are with them on this issue like never before. Therefore, the Maoists have two options: Do whatever it takes to lead the republican forces for abolishing the monarchy and earn a place in history, or fail on this and face the punishment for raising false hopes of a republic and for immense social, political, economic and human costs, including the death of 13,000 people. The choice is entirely theirs.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, May 31, 2007

India's silent war

Jack Leenaars*

Nepal's Maoists are known throughout the world for their liberation war. But who has heard of the 'red battle' being waged by their Indian comrades?For 40 years, Maoist guerrillas, or Naxalites as they are called in India, have been using dense jungles and forests as a base for their operations against the New Delhi central government.

The struggle is centred in Chhattisgarh state, one of India's poorest states, where a violent campaign against the Naxalites was launched in June 2005. Both sides are guilty of human rights violations, and with more than 50,000 refugees, precious raw materials to exploit, and the local tribal population the biggest loser, the conflict has all the ingredients of a dirty war.

In the line of fire

Between police troops and paramilitaries on one side and Maoist insurgents on the other, the Maraiguda refugee camp has been on the frontline of this silent but raging war in the tribal heartlands of India.

Sauntering past the barrier of the Maraiguda camp is 22-year-old Dharma. He has a rifle slung over his shoulder and a small radio in his hand. The sweet sound of Bollywood soundtracks seems out of place amidst the estimated 1300 villagers who have sought refuge here.Although this morning's patrol was quiet, the dark nights can be quite a different story if the Maoist guerrillas in the adjacent forests decide on a surprise attack, as was the case last Saturday.The road to the nearest village, Golapalle, about 25 kilometres away, runs along the camp's watchtowers. "It's very dangerous. The area is held by Naxalites," says Dharma, who has been in the anti-Maoist civilian militia for a month. He was born in the area but anyone who remains there is considered a Naxalite.

Rebellious beginnings

The name used for India's Maoist rebels refers to Naxalbari, the place where a local rebellion against landowners broke out in 1967. The insurrection was put down in the 1970s but splinter groups remained active. In September 2004 the most important groups fused to form the Communist Party of India (Maoist), an underground political movement that advocates an armed struggle to free India of all feudal and imperialistic influences.The rebels' strength lies in the weakness of the state. In areas where the government is noticeably absent, the rebels fill in by setting up their own administrations based on Maoist principles.

Security service sources say a maximum of 15,000 revolutionaries are active in 13 of India's 29 states. They form a 'red corridor' stretching through nearly one quarter of India, from the far north to the south.Contented paramilitary fights backThe explosive growth of the Naxalites has led to increasing confrontations with the security forces. The fighting in Chhattisgarh is more intense than anywhere else. It is here that the 'Salwa Judum' (peace mission), an anti-Maoist campaign, began two years ago. In June 2005, local people spontaneously joined the Salwa Judum to combat the Naxalites. The leader of the movement, Mahendra Karma, explains, "it's a people's campaign".

Opinions in Chhattisgarh are divided as to whether the campaign began of its own accord or not. Opponents of the Salwa Judum say that the police and local elite, who have been hard hit by the Naxalite insurgency, strategically established it in order to gain control of Chhattisgarh's natural resources (iron ore, coal and bauxite), which remain as yet unexploited. However, the Naxalites are against the utilisation of these resources, arguing that the local tribal people will be cheated in the process.The government, however, has gratefully adopted the Salwa Judum as a paramilitary force. It is about 5,000-strong and its members are termed 'special police officers'. For the most part, they are young men like Dharma who, after a short period of training, are armed with rifles, knives or traditional bows and arrows and deployed against anyone that could be termed Naxalite.

More than 700 villages have been deemed Maoist and 50,000 villagers have been forced from their homes into camps. The Salwa Judum works on the principle that those 'who aren't with us, are against us,' and, thus, a Naxalite.

Enduring conflict and corruption

A journey along National Highway 221, a sand road pitted with craters, shows the effects of the Salwa Judum campaign. Overflowing refugee camps alternate with ghost villages, whose residents have fled for fear of reprisals. Human rights organisations have condemned the Salwa Judum. The Asian Centre for Human Rights says that 363 people were killed last year in the violence and 101 people were killed in Chhattisgarh during the first quarter of this year.The Indian Supreme Court joined human rights groups this month, calling on the state government to review its support of the campaign against the Naxalites.

"In human terms, the situation is a tragedy," says activist Ilina Sen, whose husband was arrested last week on charges of having suspicious links with the Naxalites. "But the backing of the Supreme Court is incredibly important. The government must listen to its advice and change its policy."The question remains, however, as to whether the Supreme Court's decision will provide a solution for the civilian population caught up in the conflict. For the time being, it seems they will remain in the line of fire.

Source: Radio Netherlands Worldwide, May 30, 2007

Nepal leaders fix poll time, rescue parliament

Nepal's deadlocked peace process inched forward again after the leaders of the ruling alliance agreed to hold the stalled polls in November and persuaded dissenting MPs to allow parliament to sit after remaining disrupted for nearly six weeks. The constituent assembly election, which will decide if King Gyanendra loses his crown, will now be held by the second week of autumn month of Mangsir, anytime between November 24-30, MP Amod Prasad Upadhyay said after the chiefs of the eight-party ruling coalition met at Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala's residence.

The decision was taken after the international community began expressing concern at the delay. A delegation of the European Union ambassadors in Nepal recently met both Koirala and Maoist chief Prachanda. The Indian ambassador to Nepal, Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, and his American counterpart, James F Moriarty, also met Madhav Kumar Nepal, whose Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist was said to have been holding up the coalition meeting.
The Maoists, however, had a note of dissent. While welcoming a fresh poll date as a positive step, the party, whose office was targeted with a attack earlier this week, said it feared that King Gyanendra, who could be dethroned by the poll, would try to sabotage it.

Reading out the note of dissent, Maoist MP Dinanath Sharma said since free and fair polls were impossible as long as the institution of monarchy remained, the eight parties should abolish the 238-year-old institution and declare Nepal a republic through a parliamentary declaration. The meeting also persuaded the MPs who have been stalling parliament since mid-April to call off their protest. First the Maoists and then the MPs from the Terai plains began disrupting the house. Though the Maoists later backed down, the plains legislators kept it up, demanding scrapping of a controversial commission formed to delineate new constituencies for the election. As a compromise, the eight parties agreed to review some of the contentious recommendations made by the panel.

However, though the house reconvened on Thursday, the opposition parties remained on the warpath, accusing the government of heeding only the demands by its own partners. The biggest opposition party, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, is demanding a commission to investigate the killing of its sitting legislator, Krishna Charan Shrestha, in the Terai plains. The law and order situation has been worsening alarmingly in the Terai, where armed groups have mushroomed, spreading violence and terror. At least two of them have said they would oppose the election, just as the Maoists did in the past.

Another serious drawback to free and fair polls is the increasing flexing of muscles by the Maoists, whose sister organisations have been carrying out extortion, violence and other unlawful activities with impunity. The RPP and its splinter, RPP-Nepal, that is pro-palace, have had their public meetings attacked by the Young Communist League, the dreaded youth wing of the rebels. Earlier this month, when RPP-Nepal tried to hold meetings in Pokhara city, the administration told it in writing that it would not be able to provide security in view of opposition by the Young Communist League.

Source: The Hindustan Times, May 21, 2007

Nepal: Bhutanese Refugee Tensions Erupt Into Violence

(Washington, DC, May 31, 2007) ? Violent clashes this week resulting in two deaths in Nepal's Bhutanese refugee camps underscore the need for the Nepali police to protect refugees from mob violence and ensure their right to peaceful expression, Human Rights Watch said today. The death of a third Bhutanese refugee in a confrontation with Indian police forces this week indicates that all sides must exercise restraint before tensions escalate further with even more loss of life.

Human Rights Watch is concerned about the escalation of violence in the refugee camps in eastern Nepal and along the Indian border, which some refugees have been attempting to cross in a march to Bhutan.

On May 27, a group claiming to be members of the Bhutanese Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) attacked refugees who have voiced support for a US offer to resettle Bhutanese refugees. The attackers beat at least one refugee leader and destroyed his and several other huts in Beldangi II camp in eastern Nepal. Similar attacks occurred in another camp, Beldangi I, where several huts, including the camp administration office, were also burnt down.
In response to the violence, a contingent of the Nepal Armed Police opened fire on the mob and reportedly killed a teenage boy. By some accounts, police shot a second teenager on Monday who died later that day in hospital.

"Nepali police need to protect the Bhutanese refugees and their right to peacefully express their views on resettlement or return," said Bill Frelick, Refugee Policy director of Human Rights Watch. "Factions of Bhutanese refugees divided over the resettlement issue should reflect on the tragic loss of these young lives and conclude that fighting each other will not solve their plight."
Refugees or others who resort to violence and attack refugees with whom they disagree must be arrested and prosecuted by Nepali authorities, Human Rights Watch said. At the same time, the police should avoid excessive force in maintaining order.

While a US offer to resettle 60,000 or more Bhutanese refugees has given hope to many of the 106,000 refugees living in Nepal, some refugees see the resettlement offer as undercutting the prospects for repatriation and have increasingly resorted to threats and violence to prevent other refugees from advocating for solutions other than return to Bhutan. In a report published earlier this month, "Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in India and Nepal," Human Rights Watch warned that tensions in the camps are growing.
"Although there is no question that Bhutanese refugees have a right to return, they also have the right to make choices on essential issues like resettlement without threats, intimidation or violence" said Frelick.

In a related development, a group of Bhutanese refugees this week attempted a march to return to Bhutan. Bhutan and Nepal are separated by a strip of land belonging to India. Indian police forces clashed with the refugees at the Mechi River bridge that serves as the crossing with Nepal. Refugees pelted the police with stones, and Indian police fired on the demonstrators, killing one and injuring others. The standoff ended after local leaders talked with Indian authorities who have agreed to forward their demands to the relevant officials in New Delhi.
Repatriation of Bhutanese refugees must be accompanied by the restoration of rights, and should include monitoring and assistance from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. At the present time, none of the conditions that would allow them to return safely and in dignity have been met, Human Rights Watch said. "Groups of Bhutanese refugees should not resort to violence in exercising their right of return, and the Indian police should also act with restraint and compassion for the refugees," Frelick said.

The Bhutanese refugee crisis began in 1991 when Bhutan started to expel ethnic Nepalis, a policy that resulted in the expulsion of one-sixth of the country's population. So far, in complete violation of international law, Bhutan has not allowed a single refugee to return. Consequently, the refugees have endured years in cramped camps with no prospects for solutions, conditions that have led to domestic violence and other social problems that have come after protracted periods in closed camps. Before any solutions can be achieved, Nepal must provide sufficient security in the camps to enable refugees to express their opinions and exchange information freely, Human Rights Watch said.

At the same time, the United States and other resettlement countries should expand an information campaign in the camps to reiterate that the choice of resettlement is voluntary and does not in any way extinguish the right of return. The countries offering resettlement need to provide detailed information about the rights and benefits for refugees that choose to resettle in their countries. Together with the rest of the international community, particularly India, these countries should bring pressure to bear on Bhutan to permit the refugees to return home in safety and dignity and to end discrimination against its ethnic Nepali citizens.

Source: Reuters News, May 31, 2007