Prime Minister Who Would Be King

Yubaraj Ghimire

G.P. koirala was arguably the most powerful prime minister the country ever had, going by the powers vested in him. For the past 16 months, he has been acting not only as the country's prime minister, but also discharging all the roles of the head of state. And King Gyanendra has become a political recluse.

Koirala has of late come in for sharp criticism for representing the state in various Hindu religious functions like the kings have been doing for a century in 'Hindu Nepal'. With the country declared secular in May 2007, it was expected that the government or head of state would maintain no direct link with such activities. On September 30, about half an hour after Koirala offered puja to Kumari, known as living Goddess, as head of the state and left the durbar square area, King Gyanendra arrived there without fanfare. He offered puja to Kumari, a tradition the kings have been maintaining for the past 250 years, and returned home. The crowd that booed Prime Minister Koirala when he visited there, greeted the king — something Gyanendra perhaps did not anticipate.

That clearly irked PM Koirala who not only sought an explanation from the chief of army staff a day later, but also ordered that half the army personnel currently deployed in the palace be removed. But many who supported the pro-democracy movement when King Gyanendra assumed absolute power are now fed up with Koirala and refuse to support him on the issue.

In fact, the crowd that hooted him delivered a simple message — Koirala is a prime minister and he should not be acting like a king, at least during religious functions. Nepali society with more than 80 per cent Hindu population, and the rest being Buddhists, Muslims and Christians, still remains a religious society and favours the king or any other individual's right to religion, something that the interim constitution guarantees as a fundamental right. Koirala has been denying that right to King Gyanendra of late.

Gyanendra, despite his unpopularity at the peak with absolute powers, was able to secure lots of sympathy, if not support from the people, when he was literally put under quarantine since February 18 when he issued a customary message in the name of the people on the occasion of Democracy Day. Since then, thrice in the past, the king was denied permission by the prime minister when he expressed his desire to be part of the tradition of the kings. Instead, Koirala took the king's role unto himself.

But what he apparently heard from the chief of army staff on the morning of October 1 must have added to that insecurity. COAS Katawal made it clear that while the Nepal army was a disciplined institution and willing to carry every order of a democratically elected government, it was worried about the complete surrender that the prime minister had made to the Maoists. He also made it clear that the army would honour each and every provision of the interim constitution and the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA), the basis of Maoists joining the interim government, parliament and announcing that they had renounced the politics of violence. The army is unhappy with initiating a deal with the Maoists to become a republic even before the election to the constituent assembly takes place, against the pledge in the interim constitution that the first CA meeting will decide the fate of the monarchy.

With elections unlikely in November given the present political impasse, Koirala not only loses the political but also the mass support that he enjoyed only 16 months ago. His imminent fall now seems triggered by the army's likely non-cooperation as well.

Source: The Indian Experss, October 4, 2007

Stalemate in Nepal

Padmaja Murthy, INFA

Nepal appears to be heading for turmoil once again, with the Maoists quitting the interim coalition Government led by Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and threatening to return to the streets if the country was not declared a republic immediately. The first casualty of the Maoists action seems to be the disruption of the year-long peace agreement between the CPN- M and the political parties. With the election process already on uncertainty now looms large on whether the 22 November elections to the Constituent Assembly will go ahead as scheduled. Given the Maoists threat to derail the poll plans. It appears that the Maoists action was dictated by the feedback that they may not get a sizeable share in the seats Assembly and they had started having second thoughts on the entire political process initiated in the last few months. In fact, the Maoists wanted some dramatic shift like the abolition of the monarchy to swing votes in their favour. With the ruling Nepali Congress unwilling to go along with this type of change it has resulted not only in a stalemate between the Party and the Maoists but also put a question mark on the election process.

The genesis of the problem has it roots in the Jan Andolan II of April 2006 which forced King Gyanendra to restore the House of Representatives, dissolved in May 2002.When the House met in late April, it committed itself to holding the elections for a Constituent Assembly and a Government under Prime Minister Koirala was formed. The HOR declared itself a 'sovereign,' 'secular' and 'supreme' body, brought the army under civilian control, dissolved the royal Privy Council and cut the power and privileges of the King. A 25-point Code of Conduct was also drawn up between the Maoists and the Government during the ceasefire period. In November 2006, the Maoist Chairman Prachanda signed a historic deal with the Seven Party Alliance (SPA). The SPA consists of the Nepali Congress, Nepali Congress (Democratic), Communist Party of Nepal (UML), Jan Morcha Nepal, Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, Nepal Sadbhavana Party (A) and United left Front. Among other things, it called for elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA). Having had their way, the Maoists had successfully changed the political agenda in Nepal. Thus began the transition process in Nepal. With a clear goal to hold the Constituent Assembly elections.

The CA so elected would then draft a new Constitution which would transform the socio-politico-economic structure of Nepal, making it both democratic and inclusive. Given the consensus, the CA would also declare Nepal a republic. Prachanda also signed the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement which declared the end of war that had been going on since 1996 between the Maoists and the Government. The tri-partite agreement on arms management of both the Nepali Army (NA) and the Maoist People's Liberation Army (PLA) was concluded between the UN, the Government and the CPN-(Maoist). In January this year, an interim Constitution promulgated by the SPA and the Maoists set-up a 330-member interim legislature which included 73 from the CPN (Maoist). The 22-member Cabinet which included 5 Maoist was headed by Prime Minister Koirala. From being branded as terrorists the Maoists were now partners in the Government.

The transition period, so far, has seen instances of great statesmanship and flexibility. Sadly, what stands out is the extreme violence, use of arms, abductions, extortions, killings and rigid stands taken by various groups. Resulting in serious reservations about whether the Constituent Assembly elections would be held at all as scheduled on 22 November 2007. Nepal, a country with a population of over 30 million has more than 100 ethnic/caste groups and over 93 languages. Post Jana Andolan II, many of these ethnic/caste groups - some old and some new are asserting for their rights once again. They believe that unless they have enough representatives elected in the CA, their political space will not be guaranteed which in turn will determine their economic and social space. While the interim legislative Parliament agreed on a mixed electoral system, they are now demanding complete proportional system for the CA elections.

The demand on the nature of federalism and autonomy and self determination varies from group to group. They want assurances on all these aspects before the CA elections are held. What has complicated matters is that these groups, like the Maoist insurgents, have adopted extreme violent means to put forward their demands. The agitations in Terai have become a major cause of concern .The Government held four rounds of talks with the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) but could not reach an agreement on key issues. It has called other agitating groups in the region for dialogue. The Janatantrik Mukti Morcha (Jwala Group) has ordered officials, hailing from the hills to leave the Terai plains, thereby vitiating the already tense atmosphere. Moreover, some of these groups have violent conflicts among themselves and also with the Maoist affiliated Madhesi groups. The Chure Bhawar Ekta Samaj has been demanding security and protection of rights of people of hilly region living in Madhesi region and an autonomous status for Chure Bhawar region.

The Government has held several rounds of negotiations with the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NFIN). It has also agreed to at least one representation of the 59 listed ethnic communities. The NFIN too has climbed down from its demand for a fully proportional representation based elections to the CA. The indefinite bandh called by Sanghiya Limbuwan Rajya Morcha and Khumbuvan Rashtriya Morcha (KRM) continue to paralyse life in eastern districts. There are agitations by the Dalit Civil Society Movement calling for 20 per cent reservation for the Dalit community in the Constituent Assembly. On the other hand the Maoist affiliated Young Communist League is engaging in indiscriminate abductions and torture. Going back on its earlier consensus, the Maoists now want a Republic declared before the CA elections. They are also demanding a fully proportional electoral system and not the mixed electoral system agreed to by them earlier.

The second round of verification of the Maoist combatants and arms by the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) is also facing problems due to non-compliance by the Maoists. In sum, all these issues need to addressed before the Constituent Assembly elections. The agitating groups need to realize that the CA elections will benefit them. For that law and order needs to be maintained. Importantly, the Constituent Assembly elections are a means to an end and not an end in itself. Only when the process of drafting a new Constitution concludes can Nepal be said to be out of the transition period. It is the only real chance of stability in Nepal. Between Jana Andoaln I and Jana Andolan II, the politico-socio-economic agenda of Nepal has permanently and positively changed. Whoever comes to power has to address the legitimate grievances of the marginalized sections of society. The CA elections will institutionalize the gains made so far and take the transition process further. If the civil society in Nepal is any indication, they will choose stability to anarchy. Further with the support from international actors, it is a task which needs to be accomplished.

Source: Central Chronicle, September 24, 2007

Q&A: Nepal's future

Former Maoist rebels in Nepal say they are pulling out from the interim government in protest over its failure to abolish the monarchy ahead of constituent assembly elections due to be held in November.

Why do the Maoists say they want to quit now?

The Maoists accuse Nepal's interim coalition government of failing to function in the spirit of the agreements reached earlier this year, when they say it was agreed that the monarchy should be abolished before the constituent assembly elections. Other parties in the interim government deny there was such an agreement.
In a list of demands submitted to the government, the Maoists called for Nepal immediately to become a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy. They also want the country to adopt a proportional representation system of elections, and for the vote itself to be delayed.
They have demanded that a commission should be established to investigate the disappearances of their supporters during Nepal's decade-long civil war, as well as better salaries for their former fighters, who they say are not being properly integrated into the country's army as agreed earlier this year.
Some observers say the Maoists have only threatened to withdraw because they fear they will not perform well in the 22 November elections.
So will they really leave the government?
The prime minister has not yet accepted the resignation of the four Maoists in the cabinet. Some analysts say that in tendering their resignations, the Maoists might just be trying to exert pressure on the prime minister and his allies to bow to their demands.

Are the Maoists likely to return to armed conflict?

The rebels have currently given no indication that they will return to arms, and have insisted that following last year's ceasefire with the government, they are committed to the path of peace.
Correspondents say that one option they may follow is to pursue a coalition agreement with the mainstream Nepal Communist Party (United Marxist-Leninist) - one of Nepal's mainstream political parties - and in so doing gain a significant share of power in the constituent assembly administration.

What is the point of the constituent assembly?

Under the terms of last year's peace deal, the future of the monarchy was supposed to have been decided by a democratically elected constitutional body, or constituent assembly, which will decide the country's future by devising a new constitution.
Critics of the rebels say that the issue of the monarchy was resolved in earlier negotiations with the rebels. At that time they said that their declared aim was for Nepal to become a communist republic, and that they would respect whatever the constituent assembly decided about the future of the monarchy.
All this comes amid a rise in ethnic and religious tension in Nepal, as different regional and political groups strive to assert their authority in advance of the polls.

Why did the Maoists suspend their armed struggle in November 2006?

The Maoists called a ceasefire after King Gyanendra ended his controversial direct rule in April 2006 and restored parliament.
The king backed down after weeks of strikes and protests against his rule which saw huge demonstrations against him.
Political parties who were then in opposition, and are now in government, had promised to work with the Maoists as a prelude to bringing them into government.

Why did the king back down and agree to reconvene parliament?

The short answer is the sheer size of the demonstrations against him - some of the biggest that the country has ever witnessed.
Faced with this vast display of people power, analysts say that the king had no choice but to back down or the country would have descended into anarchy.
Observers say with international pressure mounting on him and the mood among his opponents at home hardening, particularly after the deaths of a number of protesters at the hands of the security forces, the king had few other options.
The current parliament has now effectively reduced the monarchy to a ceremonial role. It has also ended Nepal's status as a Hindu state and turned it into a secular state.

Why did the king seize power in February, 2005?

He accused Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba's government of failing to win the support of the Maoist rebels for a deadline for peace talks and of failing to prepare the ground for elections in the spring of 2005.
However, analysts suggest the king might have been using these issues to strengthen his own role in Nepalese politics, perhaps seeking to create an absolute monarchy.
Whatever his intentions, his plans backfired and he finds himself in a much weaker position now, having in effect catalysed his opponents and the rebels into forging peace.

How strong are the Maoists?

At the height of their insurrection, the Maoists were virtually in control of most of rural Nepal, although the authorities disputed this.
They were frequently capable of launching enforced blockades of major towns and cities, showing they had the power to paralyse the economy.
As part of the ceasefire deal, both the rebels and the army agreed to put their arms beyond use under UN supervision, with former rebels confined to their bases at cantonments across the country.
Some analysts argue that the emergence in recent months of around a dozen armed groups in the south of the country - all extremely hostile to the former rebels - has meant that their hold over this populous part of the country has been weakened. In the cities, their support has never been strong.
But the rebels have remained capable of holding large-scale rallies across the country, and have threatened to use this tactic again on a large scale if their latest demands are not met.

Where do the Maoists derive their ideology?

The Maoists claim to be inspired by Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong and want to establish a communist state.
Their shadowy leader's name, Prachanda, is translated as "the fierce one". The group is modelled on Peru's Maoist Shining Path guerrillas.

What was the human cost of the conflict?

More than 13,000 people were killed in violence in Nepal when the insurgency began 10 years ago, many of them civilians caught in cross-fire with security forces.
Both sides in the conflict were frequently accused of carrying out human rights abuses.

Source: BBC NEWS: September 18, 2007

Maoists 'short of options' in Nepal

Dhruba Adhikary

Nepal's interim government faces its first major setback after former Maoist rebels announced their decision to recall their ministers from the cabinet.

The withdrawal of a major partner from the coalition comes just two months before the country goes to crucial polls to elect an assembly tasked with drawing up a new, democratic constitution.
The Maoist announcement, however, was neither sudden nor unexpected.
While Prime Minister GP Koirala was familiar with Maoist discontent, he and leaders of other political parties in the government did not actually believe that the former rebels would leave the team before the task was completed.

The rebels had, after all, ended a decade-long armed insurgency in order to be a part of mainstream politics.
When Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai announced that all four Maoist ministers had resigned from posts they had occupied since April, he accused leaders of other coalition groups of not taking their well-publicised 22-point list of demands seriously.
Maoist leaders have also been saying that two of their demands are important if the polls set for 22 November are to be a meaningful exercise.

Monarchy row

Their first main demand is that the feudal institution of the monarchy be abolished ahead of the polls, to be replaced by a republic.
The second is that the traditional first-past-the-post electoral system be changed to one of proportional representation.

The Maoists consider this essential to give space to traditionally marginalised groups in society.
Maoist leader Bhattarai sought to offer reassurances that, although the former rebels opposed the November vote, his party would not withdraw their commitment to the peace process.
He also said that Maoist combatants now sheltered in UN-monitored cantonments would remain where they have been living for the past few months.

The written understanding reached previously to work with the coalition of seven parties, Mr Bhattarai said, would not be cancelled.
But it is not clear how reliable such assurances are, given that the Maoist leadership has already issued directives to their comrades across the country to launch a "peaceful" agitation with a view to preventing the forthccoming elections - which from their standpoint would be a farce.

Maoist vote fears

Elections cannot be free and fair as long as the monarchy is allowed to survive with possible support from a loyal army, goes the Maoist theory. Independent political analysts suspect that the Maoists' decision to stay away from the polls is because they now realise that it is simply not feasible to expect to gain a majority of votes from people who were terrorised by them in the past.
But the Maoists do not agree with this viewpoint and say they have been forced to change their position in the context of growing conspiracies.
They accuse external powers (mainly India and the US) of not wanting a stable and prosperous Nepal with China as its northern neighbour.

Prime Minister Koirala and other coalition leaders appear disappointed by the Maoist attitude over the monarchy.
They say they have all publicly expressed their commitment to opt for a republican set-up after the November polls, and there was no need for the Maoists to cast doubt on the sincerity of other partners who worked together to bring about the political changes which ended palace rule in April 2006.

Left coalition?

Mr Koirala and other party leaders want the Maoist leadership to honour the agreements they signed - and say they face losing credibility as a political party if they do not.
Some of the leaders are angry with the Maoists for trying to deprive other parties of their due credit for having played a role in the continuing changes.
Analysts say that the Maoist have limited options.
The chances of their going back underground are slim in view of the sea change in overground politics in the past year.

Crossing the border into India is not easy either, especially in view of Delhi's changed policy towards the Maoists.
Indian authorities are also concerned over the growing Maoist menace that some of its states have been facing in recent years.
One possible way out for the Maoists would be to settle for some kind of coalition politics with other left-wing parties.
In fact, some of the smaller left-leaning parties have already started to receive feelers from the Maoists about forging an alliance.

Source: BBC, News, September 18, 2007

Red Army in the Dragon Kingdom

Deepak Adhikari

Another Maoist insurgency is going to rock yet another country in South Asia, if the statements made by the leaders of the Communist Party of Bhutan Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (CPM MLM) are anything to go by. “Preliminary preparations for an insurgency are over. We are going to launch it soon,” says Vikalpa, nom-de-plume of CPB MLM General Secretary.

Bhutan is holding its parliamentary elections in March and April 2008. But, prior to the election date, CPB MLM plans to launch its ‘People’s War’ in the Himalayan kingdom.
The goal: Abolition of monarchy and establishment of a republic.
Following the footsteps of Nepali Maoists who had submitted a 40-point demand to the then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba before launching a ‘People’s War’, CPB MLM faxed a 13-point demand to the Royal Government of Bhutan on March 22, 2007.

The letter stressed the need to “introduce people’s democracy in the place of absolute monarchy.” The party has asked for multi-party democracy, repatriation of the refugees to their original homes with honor and dignity, release of all political prisoners and to introduce the land reform act etc.

Vikalpa (literally, alternative) says that fulfillment of the demands would have paved the way for a peaceful resolution. “But, the government, rather than taking it seriously, has unleashed terror by arresting commoners, and this has prompted us to wage an armed struggle,” says CPB supremo Vikalpa.The Druk regime is yet to respond to these demands.

The unfolding events suggest that South Asia’s only active monarchy that is ruling the so-called ‘Last Shangri-La’ is likely to take the country into Maoist violence. The eruption of militancy in northeastern South Asia will not only push Bhutan into turmoil but the two biggest Asian power i.e. India and China will have to deal with yet another insurgency in their backyards.

Source: Toriganthe TV, September 25, 2007