Posted on 04/13/2006 10:23:12 PM PDT by Gengis Khan
That he has managed to get Marxist leader Sitaram Yechury, former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra and US President George W. Bush on the same side of the debate on Nepal reveals all you need to know about King Gyanendra’s ham-handed power play in the Himalayan kingdom.
Since a shocking regicide put him in charge of Nepal’s destiny in June 2001, Gyanendra’s burning desire to restore royal absolutism has consistently outpaced his judgment on the prospects for his own survival or the collective interests of his country.
Most authoritarian rulers extend their rule either by mobilising valuable external support or by dividing their domestic opposition. However, the ambitious but inept Gyanendra has few friends left in the world or at home.
Much like President Musharraf in Pakistan, Gyanendra was betting that the Bush administration might separate itself from New Delhi and back him in the presumed fight between Palace and Maoists. The Bush administration, however, is also for promoting democracy. Unlike Musharraf, Gyanendra is not in a position to tilt the scales in Washington in favour of the status quo by citing the great war on terror. Further, the Bush administration appears to have taken a political decision to follow the Indian lead in Nepal.
Gyanendra has also sought to play the China card. Beijing, which initially played along in the hope of expanding long-term strategic influence in Nepal, now seem to be having second thoughts. When Chinese State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan was in Nepal in March, he found time to interact with opposition political leaders. This in spite of Tang visiting the kingdom as a state guest.
Meanwhile, domestic backing for Gyanendra has long evaporated. As he sought to dominate Nepal, Gyanendra was faced with two opponents — the political parties who wanted restoration of constitutional rule and Maoists who demanded abolition of the monarchy. By trying to divide the political parties and playing the fool with the Maoists, Gyanendra achieved the impossible of getting both opponents together on one platform.
Even the most elementary survival strategy on the part of the Palace demanded peace with one of the opponents. As he shunned repeated advice from India that he make up with the political parties and strengthen his hands vis a vis the Maoists, Delhi played a part in bringing the other two elements in Nepal’s power struggle together.
Gyanendra’s crackdown is yet another reminder that India should not labour under any illusions about Gyanendra’s ability to follow either his own enlightened self-interest or that of Nepal as a whole.
Yet, New Delhi seems paralysed in taking the next steps on dealing with the Nepal crisis. Forget for a moment the talk of big bully India intervening in Nepal’s internal affairs.
It is Gyanendra who is mobilising different groups within India to keep Delhi’s decision-making on Nepal off balance. Despite Brajesh Mishra’s warning that Gyanendra is digging the grave of the monarchy in Nepal, the RSS and VHP continue to fawn upon the only Hindu king in the world.
If Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi have criticised the communist parties for “communalising” India’s foreign policy on Iran, they should be giving no quarter to the Hindutva crowd on Nepal.
In India, the BJP is only part of the problem. The Palace in Nepal retains enduring political links to India’s own princes and thakurs, some of whom have considerable clout in the Congress Party. Above all, the Ministry of Defence and the Army have been among the strongest opponents to any policy that antagonises King Gyanendra.
Both cite concerns about the need to keep the Royal Nepal Army in good humour and keep in mind the reality of Nepali Gorkhas serving in the Indian Army. There are others who point to the Maoist threat to India.
None of these reasons justify India’s masterly inactivity on Nepal. While questions remain about the sincerity of the Maoists in joining the national mainstream, for the moment the target of India’s policy energy must be the king.
By his reckless actions, he has made himself the main problem in Nepal. An Indian failure to put Gyanendra immediately on notice would have a number of dangerous consequences.
In the last few years, much of the world, including the United States and the European Union have waited for India to take the lead on Nepal and agreed to coordinate their policies with those of New Delhi. If India holds back, other powers would soon begin to act on their own.
If India does not act immediately, the ground situation — worsening by the day — would compel India to consider more drastic remedies in the future. That could include military intervention to prevent state failure in Nepal.
New Delhi continues to hope that Gyanendra would come up with a new political initiative, which could come as soon as Friday. If the king, however, makes a half-cocked move, the temptation to postpone hard decisions would be irresistible.
Resisting that temptation, India should make its bottomline clear. Restoration of parliament, formation of a national government, peace talks with the Maoists, and a schedule for elections to a new Constituent Assembly that would write a new political future for Nepal.
If Gyanendra falls short of that framework, India should be prepared to impose new sanctions against the king. India rightly recognises that any such sanctions should not hurt the ordinary people in Nepal. But it is entirely possible for India to move quickly towards a comprehensive arms embargo and a set of “smart sanctions” targetting the key functionaries of the regime — especially their assets abroad and their right to travel.
If Gyanendra comes to terms with reality, a purely ceremonial monarchy might yet have a place in Nepal’s future. If he can’t, India must be prepared for a republican Nepal.
Ping!
India is/has been fighting Maoists using the following means:
1. Land/labour reforms
2. Police action and better law enforcement machinery
3. Economic development
4. better governance (self governance)
And with these India has been largely successful in handling the Maoists rebellion. Although their hasn't been much economic development in places affected with Maoists rebellion, still the support base for the Maoists has been diminishing. In the seventies large areas of Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh were almost completely run by the Naxals.
Today although the terror attacks from the Maoists have increased in number, there own numbers have dwindled considerably.
In Nepal's case most of means adopted by India are missing. That the King has chosen a Tianmen square like crack down to wipe out every opposition is the cause for Nepal's eminent doom. He is preparing Nepal for a blood bath that has now gone way past just the issue of Maoist violence.
Border policing (even though necessary) is hardly a solution. It is humanly impossible to man every inch of the several hundreds of kilometers of mountaneous Indo-Nepal-Bhutan border to prevent ingress and egress. Nepal has to find a political solution to their problem, it is their creation.
Nobody supports the Maoists: not India, not China, not the US. The Maoists would obviously be terrible for Nepal, but the only reason they have support at all from the people (and, amazingly, increasing support) is because the government and the king are so amazingly godawful. Gyanendra is the Nepalese Robert Mugabe -- anyone at all would be a better ruler.
"Gyanendra is the Nepalese Robert Mugabe -- anyone at all would be a better ruler."
So, the Maoists would be better rules?
"India is/has been fighting Maoists using the following means:
1. Land/labour reforms
2. Police action and better law enforcement machinery
3. Economic development
4. better governance (self governance) "
Yeah, and what a great job India is doing to stop Maoism. /sarcasm
That feel good list isn't working at all. In fact, Maoists(within India and in Nepal) are getting stronger. Thanks to the Indian Marxists who are in power, and partly to the lax attitude of the shielded journalists from Indian Marxpress.
No, but the Maoists aren't going to rule. The overwhelming majority of Nepalese oppose both Gyanendra and the Maoists. Let the democratic opposition take over and let them fight the Maoists.
You throw around the word "genocide" around pretty liberally. Any basis for that?
The basis lies in the King's Tianmen square style terror that he has unleashed. Pick up the newspaper and read about the situation in Nepal and you will know the basis.
It's good to be the King..
If the king falls the maoists WILL rule. They are already the only authority in most of Nepal, only Katmandu is left to fall
Let the democratic opposition take over and let them fight the Maoists.
HAHA! What a ludicrous joke! Even if the maoists and the "democratic" parties weren't on the same side, which they are, nobody even imagines that the democrats could beat the maoists. They just fantasize that the terrorists, having achieved one of their main goals and consolidated their power will somehow transform into peaceful democratic citizens. Wait and see how that moronic plan works with HAMAS and then get back to me. You can test your terrorist appeasement on your own nation first.
Singh warns of Maoist threat to India - April 14 2006 - “The challenge of internal security is our biggest national security challenge... There can be no political compromise with terror. No inch conceded. No compassion shown.”
Nepal Naxals worry CMs - April 14, 2006 - Admitting that Naxals from Nepal posed a serious threat, the government agreed to revamp the deployment of paramilitary forces along the border. The ministry, which till now had been hinting at 'ideological links' between CPI (Maoist) and CPN (Maoist) cadres, admitted the two outfits provided training, arms and finances to each other.
Well isn't that special.
You mean the "People's Republic of Nepal."
Are you suggesting that India should move to depose the King, if he doesn't restore democracy?
Bwhahahahaha!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.