The king's Last gambit

Two days of a successful bandh called by the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and Maoists cripple the hill kingdom of Nepal, and a brutal curfew is imposed to stymie what looks like a gathering storm of protest against the monarchy.

But a former Nepali diplomat, who has survived all regimes, is confident: "Kathmandu 2006 will never become a Saigon 1975."

His reference is to the year when the South Vietnam ruler abdicated power voluntarily — a step that led to the creation of unified, modern Vietnam. What the ex-diplomat ruled out was the possibility of Gyanendra abdicating. This and more.

After saying that democracy and civil rights were all very fine, he said none of this would have any meaning without the king. Why? "King is the religious and spiritual head of our country. Who would you look up to even with such rights?"

The long and short of his nervous rambling was he couldn't visualise Nepal minus the monarch. He couldn't visualise a system other than the monarchy either. And he isn't alone — courtiers, diplomats, king's ministers and traditionalists felt only two weeks ago that the king was ordained to be there.

Two weeks later, the moth-eaten monarchic paraphernelia looks shakier than ever before. Gyanendra's haughty defiance of the popular mood has led to a steely determination in the SPA and Maoists to overthrow the regime and bring in multi-party democracy.

Meantime, world opinion, too, has weighed in favour of democracy, leaving Gyanendra a very lonely man. It was hardly surprising that his offer of elections has been spurned by the opposition.

Both SPA and Maoists have said the offer is nothing but a desperate man's effort to clutch at straws. It came, after all, when on Thursday, one lakh anti-royalists congregated at Chitwan. In other words, Gyanendra was dealing from a position of extreme weakness.

Change, political analysts say, is a foregone conclusion in Nepal. Apart from the highly visible and voluble protest by ordinary citizens and professionals, what could be the death-knell for the present regime is that even the bureaucracy has slowly started turning against it.

On Thursday, junior bureaucrats of the home ministry struck work for two hours. The bureaucracy is always the last to switch sides and rarely is it wrong in figuring which way the wind is blowing.

How the future unfolds will depend on the games the two sides — the monarchy, on one hand, and SPA and Maoists, on the other — play.

Take the king first. He has already played the election card. Even when the King was away in Pokhra, his loyalists in Kathmandu were forcefully arguing that announcing elections would help restore order.

In fact, much of what King said in his speech has been articulated several times by former PM Surya Bahadur Thapa, considered close to the king.

When TOI met Thapa last week in Kathmandu, he had said: "I want the raja to first announce elections and talk of people power. He should remain a constitutional monarch which is beautifully delineated by our Constitution.

There is no need to have a new constitution." He felt "the present complication" has aggravated due to the understanding between the Maoists and SPA.

"I know SPA leaders cannot take an independent decision now. There is pressure from Maoists," he said. Admitting that Maoists cannot be shunned, Thapa wanted them to be disarmed before their demand for a constituent assembly was met.

"Otherwise, they will dominate the constituent assembly," he said. Bhekh Bahadur Thapa, former ambassador of Nepal in India as well as former foreign minister, is a votary of a liberal monarchy and wants the country to go back to pre-2002 position: a happy co-existence of multi-parties and the king.

He argues that of the two sides, one would have to stop acting tough. The king's poll announcement, he felt, was the way out.

What did he think of the Maoists? "First, let there be restoration of civil rights, followed by election. Only then should the combined constitutional force have a dialogue with Maoists," Bhekh Bahadur Thapa said.

He felt "there is room for everyone, including Maoists, in the political space" but efforts to salvage the situation should take place fast.

Bhekh Bahadur Thapa also thought that SPA'spoll boycott would be bad for the country. "We have already become an international outlaw," he said. His fear is that refusal would lead to more repression from the state.

Contention of the two powerful Thapas is contested by Kanak Mani Dixit, editor of the pro-democracy fortnightly, Himal. "Parties with a highly radicalised cadre now cannot co-exist with the king.

Gyanendra has not only shunned parties but has a contempt for people," he told TOI. "The more he delays in agreeing to the demand of SPA and Maoists, the more difficult it will be for him to continue as king.

If he restores the government which he dismissed in 2002 and allows election, he still has hope of continuing as a ceremonial king with power to control palace affairs and rituals."

Many in Kathmandu claim the king was being egged on by the Royal NepalArmy (RNA) to resist democracy at all cost. Said an European diplomat: "Votaries of royalty are constantly telling him that he should not give away since he is in control at least of the kingdom of Kathmandu, RNA, bureaucracy and the business class."

Dixit differs. "The army has not covered itself in glory and fought a dirty war, complete with disappearances of civilians. It has been unable to engage the Maoists. Moreover, the top echelon of RNA is corrupt and arrogant.

Their role model is the Pakistan army, while the king's model is Burma: no matter how shrivelled your society, carry on regardless."

Cracks are appearing even among the king's support group. On Thursday, business chambers of 60 out of 75 districts declared support for the democratic movement and decided not to pay taxes to the government.

What about the relative strength of SPA and Maoists? SPA comprises a motley group of parties that have in the past flirted with the king and co-existed with him.

But since the 12-point agreement with Maoists, SPA has kept its distance from the monaachy and even the poll carrot has not helped in weaning it away.

SPA-Maoists are still fixed on their basic demand: restore the Sher Bahadur Deuba government which was sacked in 2002 and hold a free and fair election to the constituent assembly under the interim government.

Dixit maintains revival of parliament would be the most humane way since it could lead to 205 points (strength of parliament) of revival in the country.

On their part, the Maoists have largely lived up to the promise they made in the 12-point agreement that was followed by a four-month ceasefire which ended in January.

Top Maoist leaders like Baburam Bhattarai have not only termed the agreement with SPA "historic", but also indicated in an exclusive interview to TOI that the Maoists were prepared for a multi-party democracy and shunning violence.

Like them or not, Maoists are easily the most important political formation in Nepal today. And the fact that they are moving away from their hardline "revolutionary" position and willing to co-exist with other democractic parties shows that they sense the endgame in near — it's no longer useful now to keep up positions that will deter the world from dealing with them.

All in all, changes are taking place in Nepal at a truly bewildering pace. Something has to give — and right now it looks like that will be the monarchy.

???? WTF????

More like divisions of well supplied communist troops poured over the border violating a signed peace agreement that plunged the nation of Vietnam into darkness. Millions fled the country, hundreds of thousands were executed and millions more were sent to reducation camps...

Gyanendra's actions have been such that the people now see the Maoists as their only saviour and the only opposition capable of bringing down the government. Gyanendra's brutal repression has created a dangerous situation in Nepal. He has completely isolated himself and local support for the Maoists is increasing.

Still, once the communists have power, the Nepalese will discover that they have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. That has been the case in every nation they have taken power without exception. Look at Czarist Russia, Czar Nicholas's government may have killed several thousand or tens of thousands, which made him look like a piker in comparison to the tens of millions Lenin and Stalin killed. Ditto the comparison between Kuomintang China and Mao's China, Ditto Bautista's Cuba and Castro's Cuba, Ditto Cambodia, Ditto Laos, Ditto Vietnam, Ditto Korea, Need I go on????

I don't care how bad your current government is, communism has always made the situation worse. Any passing familiarity with history will show that in stark terms.

Gyannedra is heping the cause of Maoists in your country by his actions. There is no denying that the support for Maoists is increasing especially in the rural and remote areas. There have been several media reports (and I mean both Indian and US media) to that extent.

Only the Kings and his little pets like you are blind to that reality.

The reason why the Maoists have any local support at all is bacause this deranged King makes them look so good in the eyes of common Nepalese people. There is a large silent majority in Nepal that wants neither this King nor the Maoists. There voices have been brutally supressed by both the King and the Maoists. For a country that is dirt poor the royal family (including Price Paras) have been splurging government money on personal luxury while the rest of Nepal wallows in extreme poverty.

http://insn.org/?p=1471
http://66.116.151.85/?p=1471

Meanwhile bankrupt Nepal seeks foreign aid.
http://insn.org/?p=1476

According to some FReepers here, if you are not supporting the King's reign of terror and killings then you must be on the side of the Maoists which is plain ridiculous. The first priority for Nepal has to be the restoration multi-party democracy.

Yeah, right just like Bush helps bin Laden by invading Iraq. We are only creating more terrorists by trying to fight them. What we should do is give them all our money and property and then they'll be happy and peaceful and renounce terror and we'll all sing Kum-baya.

Wrong analogy.

Bush "invaded" Iraq to overthrow another brutal dictator (whose brutality exceeds that of Gyanendra by miles) who has ruthlessly strangulated any move towards democracy and has been killing his own people for decades. His entire regime along with the supporters of his ruling establishment (i.e the Bath party) are terrorists. And they are actively supported by a neighboring terrorist state Syria.
Another terrorists state Iran is supporting the Shia's in the South.

In stark contrast to Gyanendra, Bush is actually trying to restore democracy by carrying out elections in that part of the world where democracy was unheard of. Far from conducting elections Gyanendra has dissolved democracy, imprisoned democratically elected members of the Parliament and had clamped down on individual rights. Gyanendra's actions are more in line with Saddam Hussein's (miniature Saddam Hussein).

The terrorists were always there long before Bush came to the scene. The libel that Bush is creating the terrorists is similar to your accusation that India is creating the Maoists in Nepal.

"If you support the violent overthrow of the monarchy of Nepal (and you do)"

Yeah right.

I suppose your micro brain cannot comprehend the fact that there can be a vast majority including me who are against both the King's tyranny and the Maoists killings. (And ultimately our side will win. The latest I hear is that India is making a move to come down hard on the King)

I dont support the violent overthrow of the Monarchy (although it would be good to have the anti-Indian Monarch overthrown) but in the war between Totalitarian autocracy and democracy if the Monarchy has to die, then be it!

The main goal in the War on Terror is to kill evil-doers. Spreading democracy is only a consequence of the greater global war, not it's cause.

The libel that Bush is creating the terrorists is similar to your accusation that India is creating the Maoists in Nepal.

The difference is that India is not fighting the Maoists but supports them. They put an arms embargo on the Royal Army of Nepal. They gave the second in command of the Maoist terrorists safe passage to New Delhi to meet with the leader of the Indian Communist Party. Then they arranged an alliance between the Maoists and a coalition of mostly communist Nepali parties swearing to overthrow the Monarchy. At home the UPA passed the responsibility for dealing with Naxalites to each state. The corrupt communist ministers called ceasefires with the insurgents without insisting they disarm.

All these weak appeasenik pro-terrorist policies have led to massive increases in terrorist attacks within India and a state of paralysis and chaos throughout Nepal.

India must not only change its policies towards its own internal threat, but must acknowledge the links between the Indian and Nepalese "people's wars" and cease its hostile policies toward the nation of Nepal.

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.