A Watchdog’s Growl Of Good Sense

The sanest voice on the latest developments in Nepal has emerged from the Asian Center for Human Rights (ACHR). Condemning the arrests of five ministers in King Gyanendra’s cabinet, the New Delhi-based watchdog has urged Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala's government to uphold the rule of law and not abuse preventive detention laws.
To the newly empowered Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and its supporters, the five ex-ministers -- Kamal Thapa, Ramesh Nath Pandey, Tanka Dhakal, Shrish Shumsher Rana and Nikshe Shumsher Rana – collectively represented the worst face of the royal regime.
Therefore, in the eye-for-an-eye… exuberance gripping the kingdom, it must be gratifying to the SPA that such prompt and decisive action has been taken against their former tormenters. The failure to act against the Panchayat leadership after the political change of 1990, we are told, allowed the “cancer of regression” to return to the body politic.
Countless SPA supporters, however, must be disappointed by the purported leniency shown by the government to the former ministers, security chiefs and bureaucrats. No justice is swifter than a lynch mob's.
The detainees themselves probably were not surprised by the Koirala government’s harshness. Having signed off on the incarceration of almost the entire SPA leadership more than once, the ex-ministers must have pondered the consequences of a reversal of roles amid the volatility of the country. Former home minister Kamal Thapa, for his part, had defied the SPA government to prove he had done anything unlawful in ordering the crackdown on the April protests, adding his readiness to face any consequence based on due process.
It is becomes easy to dismiss criticism of the SPA government’s purported gallantry as despicable defense of the indefensible. But here’s the news. During King Gyanendra’s direct rule, the ACHR was perhaps the most consistently ferocious critic. It was among the first organizations that had called for sanctions on the monarch and his ministers.
In his latest statement, ACHR Director Suhas Chakma is still unforgiving. He pointed out: “[A]ll illegal acts and human rights violations have been done under the leadership of King Gyanendra as the chairman of the council of ministers. Therefore, the commission must investigate the chain of command accordingly.”
The operative reality here is that the ACHR and, oddly enough, Kamal Thapa are on the same side as advocates of due process. The organization made a distinction between the detention of the former ministers and the suspension of nine security officials. It said the suspension of the chiefs of Nepal Police, Shyam Bhakta Thapa, Armed Police Force, Shahabir Thapa, National Investigation Department, Devi Ram Sharma and six other security officials was indispensable to prevent destruction, tampering of evidence and misuse of official powers. Chakma also urged the government to suspend Royal Nepalese Army chief, General Pyar Jung Thapa, in the interest of a “fair inquiry”.
The ACHR, however, considered the arrest of the ministers under the Public Safety Act as unwarranted. “The government should have waited for the conclusion of the Justice Krishna Jung Rayamajhi commission of inquiry before making any arrests for alleged violations of human rights,” Chakma said.
Recalling that the Public Safety Act or the Public Offences Act were dreaded instruments used by previous kings to suppress pro-democracy uprisings, Chakma urged Prime Minister Koirala government to repeal the two draconian laws.
The ACHR is entitled to its own interpretations of the intentions and actions of the royal regime and it is difficult to agree with all of them, considering the wider malaise gripping the nation. What’s less difficult, though, is to commend the organization’s ability to zero in on the finer points to uphold the cause of due process. And more so at a time when Nepalese politics has lost even that fragile base of constitutionalism the royal regime stood upon.

Eight-Party Dalliance

Rarely must have politics so brazenly outpaced constitutionalism as is being witnessed in Nepal. An elected legislature dissolved by an elected prime minister in keeping with his constitutional prerogatives has been revived through royal proclamation – that, too, two years after the expiration of its natural life. Technically, the upper house of parliament is still alive. No one seems interested in bicameralism.
The Supreme Court had validated Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba’s decision to dissolve the lower house of parliament in 2002. The justices had not considered the eventuality of fresh polls not being held within the stipulated six months. If anything, the apex court should have been allowed to revisit the case. Instead, the monarch whose absolutism the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) claimed it was fighting against ended up reviving the legislature by decree. With Article 127 always on his side, King Gyanendra’s 15-month rule was a model of constitutionalism compared to what is going on now.
It was assumed the House of Representatives would meet briefly to formalize the SPA roadmap to bring the Maoists into the political process. Now Madhav Kumar Nepal, the general secretary of the Unified Marxists and Leninists (UML) wants the legislature to continue functioning until the ambiguous goal of “total democracy” is achieved.
What’s more, the leader of the opposition in the dissolved house is now threatening to pull out the UML from Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala’s multiparty government unless the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) is immediately rechristened and brought under the control of parliament.
The RNA generals must be dying to say what they have to say on the matter. There must be different versions under consideration, conveying the same core message: Sorry, gentlemen, but we enjoy being under the king.
The Maoists, who have made noises about the irrelevance of the legislative proceedings, must be privately relishing the spectacle being enacted at the “butcher’s store palming off dog meat as mutton” they once derided. They must be biding their time for the total victory the heavily indoctrinated wing of the rebels has always desired.
The assumption, of course, is that the royalists are a spent force. But are they? Dr. Tulsi Giri, the much reviled senior deputy in King Gyanendra’s government, wants to give the Koirala government the customary honeymoon period before making any comment. That is a view shared by Shrish Shumsher Rana, King Gyanendra’s communications minister and the government spokesman.
Former home minister Kamal Thapa rejects the suggestion that the royal government responded with unwarranted harshness to the burgeoning protests. Thapa, moreover, has indicated he would come out with a detailed explanation on why he thought the royal roadmap failed.
And then there’s retired general Satchit Sumshere Rana, who as army chief in 1990 urged King Birendra to militarily suppress the foreign-inspired unrest masquerading as the People’s Movement. Satchit Rana, considered a close adviser to King Gyanendra, says he will open his mouth in about a month and a half’s time.
On the surface, the Koirala government has sought to assert its authority by recalling 12 ambassadors the king had appointed and by rehabilitating senior bureaucrats marginalized during palace rule. Several royal decrees have been annulled and more drastic decisions are expected. It’s intriguing why the government hasn’t sacked RNA chief Gen. Pyar Jung Thapa and the three heads of the security agencies under the Home Ministry?
The Maoists and certain sections within the SPA are disappointed in the government’s laxness. They want an interim constitution leading up to a constituent assembly. Strike while the iron is hot. Surely, the last four years must have been cathartic for SPA leaders. After all, they had been projecting the current constitution as one of the best in the world proclaiming that it didn’t need to be amended for at least 30 years.
True to its reputation, the “dependent” media has been hyping the imminence of an Indian “Marshall Plan.” With issues of economic security being addressed with such promptness, could political and strategic imperatives remain in New Delhi’s back burner?
Why not save much time and energy by building on UML general secretary Nepal’s proposal. Our honorable legislators should formally request the Maoists to nominate 205 representatives to the august body. The expanded institution should then be designated the constituent assembly.
Having resolved to draft a republican constitution, and cleared the monarchy out of the way, the legislators could then spend the rest of their lives working out the articles, clauses and schedules. At least, the next generation of Nepalese impatient for radical change would have precedent on their side.

(Counter)Revolutionary Command Counsel

It must be a testimony to our twisted times that, in a matter of a fortnight, Nepalis have graduated from discussing a nebulous “total democracy” to deliberating on the threat of a “counterrevolution.”
On the surface, things are moving according to the Seven-Party Alliance + Maoist (SPAM) plan. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and the reinstated House of Representatives are taking all kinds of confidence-building measures to woo the Maoists. His Majesty’s Government will soon be known as the Government of Nepal. If the Unified Marxist-Leninists have their way, the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) is increasingly likely to shed its regal prefix.
Maoist Chairman Prachanda thinks the speed at which the country is heading toward a constituent assembly is too good to be true. He’s started wondering why hardcore royalists like Pashupati Sumshere Rana have suddenly become the most ardent champions of a body conceived to formalize the abolition of the monarchy.
The general atmosphere, however, still seems so conducive that Prachanda feels it may be time to emerge from two decades in the netherworld.
Beneath this rosiness, cautionary notes abound. At a recent program, military experts warned of a military coup should the legislators further delay the rechristening of the RNA. All kinds of conclusions, moreover, are being drawn from King Gyanendra’s resumed religiosity.
The mood in India, too, seems to have turned a little somber on at least three dimensions. Some analysts have started speculating on how long Nepal’s squabbling political class can expect to sail smoothly between two armed institutions – the monarchy and Maoists.
Others close to the ruling alliance in Delhi are wondering how Kathmandu’s newly empowered politicians could end up trusting Indian Marxists more than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Yet another group of Indians seem embittered by the greater faith the Nepalese political leadership has placed in the United Nations on the question of monitoring the emerging peace process. (Surprise, surprise.)
The recent visit of Karan Singh, the son of the last maharajah of Kashmir, underscored the influence “Nepalese feudalism” continues to wield in India. It’s getting better. Pratapsinhrao Gaekwad, the 35-year-old son of the youngest brother of Baroda's last ruler, will be tying the knot with the daughter of RNA chief Gen. Pyar Jung Thapa. (No disrespect to Gen. Thapa’s upbringing and background; the political vocabulary permits the interchangeable usage of the terms monarchy and the military.)
It’s another Thapa who has sounded the most ominous warning, at least in Maila Baje’s view. Former prime minister Surya Bahadur Thapa’s Rastriya Janashakti Party (RJP) is concerned by the spate of political decisions the government and the legislature has been making. No prizes for questioning decisions of an executive and legislature of questionable constitutional standing. The RJP goes a step further.
Fearing that such a trend might lead to anarchy, the party has urged the government to prioritize the “genuine” Maoist issue to guarantee security and unobstructed movement to the people.
A meaningless rant from yesterday’s man? Of the three ex-premiers who have served Kings Mahendra, Birendra and Gyanendra, Surya Bahadur Thapa is the only one who stood against the palace’s 15-month direct rule. (The other two, Dr. Tulsi Giri and Kirti Nidhi Bista, served as the executive monarch’s deputies.)
More important, though, is the perception that, among all the principal politicians in Nepal, Thapa commands the greatest respect across the southern border – and thereby enjoys the full aura and privileges that come with it. It would be prudent to mark his words.

A Royalist Rues SPA Recriminations

Some time around 2000, when Nepalese politicians were being derided and deprecated as inefficient, corrupt and power-hungry, a newspaper interviewer gave Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML) leader Pradeep Nepal an opportunity to respond.
Our articulate comrade was almost defiant in his defense of his tribe. Politicians were the only accountable people alive in Nepal, he said. “If we crave the gates of Singha Darbar, we do so knowing that the doors to Nakkhu are very close by.” Or something of that order.
Maila Baje was struck by the power of this Pradeepism. When King Gyanendra dismissed Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba’s elected government on October 4, 2002 and began hiring and firing prime ministers, the political class was blamed for the resurgence of royal assertiveness. Nepali Congress President Girija Prasad Koirala, the man widely reviled as the symbol of Nepal’s democratic decay, was instantly at the helm of the anti-palace front. There could have been no better illustration of the fact that allegations of corruption cannot diminish one’s allegiance to core principles.
As a staunch supporter of an active monarchy from the Panchayat days, Maila Baje disagreed with Koirala’s equation of royal activism with right-wing autocracy. If monarchy were to remain relevant in Nepal, the palace and the parties would have to devise some formula for sharing political powers. King Gyanendra, in Maila Baje’s humble opinion, would be able to contribute more to the country as an ordinary citizen than as a titular monarch. Still he was marveled at the way the octogenarian Koirala traversed the country to advance his cause.
When King Gyanendra took over full executive powers on February 1, 2005, placing much of the political class in detention, Maila Baje recalled Pradeep Nepal’s words. Despite their tattered public image and enticements from the palace, the political class stuck to its vision for a democratic Nepal.
Now that the people have voted with their feet against King Gyanendra’s direct rule, royalists are on the run. Maila Baje supported the royal takeover because of a set of shared beliefs. In essence, they related to issues concerning Nepal’s sovereign existence between its two giant and increasingly assertive neighbors and its place in the larger comity of nations. That is something Nepal will continue to confront under a republican set-up. Let’s leave that for another day.
For now, achieving equilibrium among the triumphant political forces has become the overriding priority. It’s here that Maila Baje feels Pradeep Nepal is being unfairly hounded. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala’s government has yet to strengthen itself sufficiently for the mammoth task ahead. Drawing the Maoists into an interim government is vital to holding the constituent assembly elections with any degree of credibility. For one thing, the rebels must directly participate in an endeavor they have pressed at such great human and physical cost. Moreover, such participation is essential to ensuring their enduring commitment to the outcome.
Before that, however, the SPA constituents must be able to reconcile themselves to a proper and equitable sharing of responsibility. If the UML is seeking some of the vital portfolios like home, defense, communication, then that cannot be construed as greed for power. The SPA was an alliance constructed for a specific undertaking. Once the House of Representatives was restored and the SPA felt satisfied enough to take over governance, serious internal deliberations were bound to follow.
If the UML is uncomfortable with its role in the common endeavor the SPA is embarking on with the Maoists, then the effort may be doomed from the start. If the Nepali Congress believes the UML is unnecessarily throwing up roadblocks but cannot persuade its ally to see things its way, then the weakness of the alliance must be acknowledged for remedial action.
Multiparty democracy will continue to throw up a multiplicity of issues and ideas that need to be reconciled. If homogeneity could be a successful policy premise, then every Nepali would probably have been a happy pancha today.
Civil society, non-government organizations and all the other folks admonishing the politicians should bear one thing in mind. Their participation to the anti-palace movement may have been critical. Without the Nepali Congress, UML and other parties at the helm, the movement would not have received the legitimacy it has. The democratic process is capable of resolving its contradictions and must be allowed to do so. Governing requires much more strength than does hollering slogans on the streets.
In castigating Koirala, Nepal and all the other people for conducting deliberations that are central to the quality of the overhaul Nepal desperately needs, care must be taken not to undermine the endeavor. And, remember, this is a word of caution from a diehard royalist.

Monarch, Monarchy And Moral

The eKantipur.com headline screamed out on the screen: “Martyrs' families have no heart for monarchy.” After all the country has gone through, one would have thought such a sentiment was a given.
What impelled Maila Baje to continue was the desire to know how badly these hapless relatives felt the king was really bad for the wellbeing of Nepal and Nepalis. They were killed, after all, by security forces mobilized by the king in his capacity as head of government.
During the 1990 movement, the family of Nirgun Sthapit could at least blame Prime Minister Marich Man Singh Shrestha for their grievous loss. (Niranjan Thapa, the junior home minister in that government was a member of the royal regime. He’s out of the hate list probably because his portfolio was not directly related or responsible for the crackdown.)
By the second paragraph, Maila Baje was stunned by the real story. “Among members of three martyrs' families, two were in favor of a republic while one said monarchy could be granted a ceremonial role. Similarly, among five persons injured during the recent pro-democracy protests, four wanted a "democratic republic" without a king.”
Wasn’t this the equivalent of the relatives of Dharma Bhakta Mathema and Tanka Prasad Acharya rooting for Sree Teen Juddha Sumshere Rana provided he returned the panjapatra to Narayanhity?
How could these people reconcile themselves to the monarchy? The same way the respondents in a recent Himal Khabarpatrika poll came out? Two thirds of those polled, one recalls, blamed King Gyanendra for Nepal’s crisis, while almost half said they believed the country still needed a constitutional monarchy.
If one out of four victims’ families and one out of five injured protesters can draw a distinction between the monarch and the monarchy so soon after their loss, is there a moral or three here?
Can Nepal set an international example in truth and reconciliation?
Can a country gripped by ancient hatreds dating back to King Prithvi Narayan Shah’s national unification campaign really lay down its burdens and move ahead?
Can we even pretend to predict the outcome – vis-à-vis the monarchy – of a constituent assembly election who knows when will be held?