Just as one was about to salute the people of
Nepal for their victory over a dictatorial King,
few confusing developments occurred. It split the
opposition seven party alliance with Maoists:
traditional or mainstream parties accepted the
King’s haughty formulation while Maoists, the new
element in Nepalese politics, rejected it and
threatened it with reimposing the blockade on
Kathmandu Valley. But nimble-footed Indian
diplomacy soon restored it.
The main issues were: Future of King Gyanendra
alongwith the institution of Kingship was to be
put to popular vote by electing a Constituent
Assembly which would draft a new Constitution to
finally decide all issues. It is a fact that the
multi-party democracy, abolished by Gyanendra on
Feb 1, 2005, had failed to deliver. Meantime the
Maoist revolt against the King, Parliament (as it
was) and the system was succeeding. Since 1996
Maoists have acquired control over half to two
thirds of the country and their revolt against
the Royal Army was so effective that it could
enforce a blockade even on Kathmandu. People of
the capital have voted for Maoists with their
feet. Maoist sympathizers had made all the
difference to popular protests since February
last.
What the King has conceded is: (a) restoration of
the Parliament he had suppressed; and (b)
readiness to transfer executive power to a
nominee of the seven party alliance for Prime
Minister’s office. The Parliament met on Friday
(April 28). But new PM, veteran Girja Prasad
Koirala, could not attend or take oath of office
due to illness. Would this formula work? India’s
third successive emissary, CPM’s Secretary
Sitaram Yechury, succeeded in making the Maoists
reverse their boycott of the parliamentary road
for now; Maoists have given three months to the
Parliament to implement the programme they insist
on after which they will resume Khatmandu’s
blockade (and bring down the whole government).
How will the Parliament implement the crucial
programme remains to be seen.
Earlier the Indian Prime Minister had chosen two
’royals’ - Kashmiri ’Maharaja’ Karan Singh and
later ’Raja’ Jaswant Singh of the BJP party - to
go and persuade King Gyanendra to bend. (Choice
of emissaries made by Dr. Manmohan Singh shows
how well-adjusted America and India’s Congress
and BJP are who appear to think alike in trying
to save King Gyanendra; wouldn’t they cooperate
in fighting India’s own Maoists)?
The net result of the Indian diplomacy and the
action of King Gyanendra can still come unstuck
if the seven parties fail to implement the
Maoists’ demands: a newly elected Constituent
Assembly to give a new constitution. Maoists have
promised to give up the ’gun’ in favour of
democratic politics on the basis of the old
assembly doing what they demand: transfer of
effective power immediately to the seven parties
to implement their demands. The way mainstream
Nepalese parties, comprising the more or less
discredited politicians, have accepted the King’s
offer with alacrity might mean their reverting to
old games.
A break in opposition unity would please the King
no end. So far India and America had wanted the
King to survive. For them, it did not matter if
virtually the entire population of Nepal was
restive and had demonstrated against the King’s
continuance. The people want him out and insist
on a Constituent Assembly to draft a new
constitution, obviously a republican one, and
power to be taken from the King in the here and
now. That has been denied the people on the
promise that restored Parliament can do all that.
But the mainstream parties’-controlled Parliament
having three months to play power games, they
might collude with Indo-American designs,
including saving the kingship. The bottomline
would be to keep Maoists out. That will be QED
for the US and probably India.
But will that solve Nepal’s problems? What that
means is that parliamentary parties will betray
their own people. Popular struggle was not for
retention of King Gyanendra or keeping out the
Maoists. The King might again stage yet another
coup later, and assume total power, if he can get
enough foreign support and aid for his Army. The
Nepalese Army’s loyalty being to the King, the
revolutionary situation would resume. No section
of the Nepalese, including individual
bureaucrats, was King’s side. Recent
demonstrations had shown that there was no
significant popular support left for the King.
The writ of the King ran only where the troops
were present at any given time. At other times,
the writ of the Maoists ran. No great sagacity is
required to foresee what the Maoists would do
then.
They will resume the war against the King and
make life even more difficult for the King plus
the politicians who may govern with, if not
under, the King. The chances of that government
plus the King do not amount too much unless, of
course, foreign troops can be inducted or foreign
aid is truly massive to create new killing fields
in Nepal. Would or can India go on siding with
Gyanendra?
What the Maoists can do is known. Even more
importantly, the people of Nepal have also shown
that they no longer accept the King and that they
will willingly obey the Maoists. The recent new
enthusiasm in the opposition movement came
largely from the Maoists, it bears repetition. It
was Maoists’ contribution that had made all the
difference to the political struggle against the
King and his Army. Trying to take the people back
to square one is a perilous course. It is no
longer practical politics to ask the Maoists and
the country to go back to ancien regime.
Something will then have to give way.
The issue is not strictly local to Nepal. India
has its own Maoists and the two are in contact.
In the US perception, India’s own future is
involved. The US can be expected to lean on India
to go on supporting Gyanendra and to help him.
Much depends on the Congress (UPA) government in
New Delhi. If it continues to move into America’s
corner internationally and decides to crackdown
on its Naxalites, good and proper, it will try
and enable Gyanendra to wipe out his Maoists.
That is the worst case scenario.
There is another and more optimistic scenario:
Indian government has to do more damage
limitation and to avoid alienating the Left
altogether by being perceived as supporting the
tyrannical Gyanendra. It was this consideration
that made it send CPM’s Yechury to mediate
between the seven parties and Maoists so as to
arrive at the modus operandi he helped arrange.
Whether his formula for the unity of parties with
Maoists will work is an open question. What is
certain however is that the Maoists will not
settle for anything less than an elected
Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution.
Will the King and the hyperpower let a new
constitution, obviously a republican one, come
into being? Also, have second thoughts in New
Delhi gone far enough to accept the Maoists
demands? Only time will tell. What may be more
likely is renewal of the long war in which the
victorious side is likely to be the Maoists. The
parliamentary lot will have very largely
discredited itself conclusively.