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.
you havent been to Harvard Square in the People's Republic lately have you? there is a huge amount of support here and there is a Maoist Bookstore raising funds at 1156 Massachusetts Ave (Revolution books). There are a lot of rich liberals here and business is brisk.
i second this. I have only heard of 2-3 people getting killed in rioting.
Let me clarify. No government (not even the Chinese) is supporting the Maoists, because they're brutal and crazy. But Gyanendra is doing his best to try to make the Maoists look good, which isn't easy.
The king will fall, all right, but I don't think the Maoists will take over -- not if something is done now.
They are already the only authority in most of Nepal, only Katmandu is left to fall
But they weren't until Gyendendra set up his little cult of personality.
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.
Gyanendra sure can't beat the Maoists. He made it his top priority and he's lost badly. He's completely discredited. The only opponents Gyanendra's beaten are newspapers and democracy activists. The small-d democrats are only allied with the Maoists in the sense that they're both opposed to Gyanendra's dictatorial rule. But the opposition doesn't want the Maoists in power by any stretch of the imagination.
These so-called "democrats" who refuse to participate in local elections are in open and official alliance arranged by a hostile foreign power, India, with terrorists for the express purposes of overthrowing the government. They're traitors.
The reason the king cannot beat the maoists is because their cause of overthrowing the monarchy is supported by the government of India.
The legislature was dismissed because it was worse than useless and thoroughly infiltrated with communists and maoist sympathizers.
And the result has been to make the king about as unsympathetic as he can possibly be for the overwhelming majority of Nepalese. It's amazing sometimes how much the little people cherish their democracy.
These so-called "democrats" who refuse to participate in local elections are in open and official alliance arranged by a hostile foreign power, India, with terrorists for the express purposes of overthrowing the government. They're traitors.
Do you consider the United States to be a hostile foreign power as well? It seems nobody supports the king, even though everybody would like to, because his tyrannical megalomania is so supremely counterproductive and as ineffective as it is unjust.
The reason the king cannot beat the maoists is because their cause of overthrowing the monarchy is supported by the government of India.
You have any evidence whatsoever that the Maoists are supported by India? Didn't think so. Your attempt to erase any difference between the legitimate domestic opposition and the Maoists is laughable and unpersuasive.
Good, it looks like we're on the same page. The Nepalese Maoists are scum of the earth. But while we're at it, can we agree that Nepal cannot afford to continue to have Gyanendra as king? This is a man who threw the leaders of the democratically elected anti-Communist government in prison because...well I guess they represented a threat to absolute dictatorship.
'India to blame for Maoist attacks in Nepal' - "The attacks could take place because of the Dilli daur (run to Delhi)"
Some part of the opposition may have at one time had some legitimacy, but that was before they signed an agreement with terrorists responsible for the murder of thousands.
LOL! Most of the political opposition you refer to are in fact Communist Parties. The parties which have cemented an official alliance with the maoist terrorists include the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), People's Front Nepal, Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, and the United Left Front amongst others.
In Nepal, the opposition is everybody other than Gyanendra. That would include anti-Communist former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. Support for the Maoists has traditionally been very limited.
Gyanendra has his supporters in Nepal. Cheif Among them are the Royal Army of Nepal, the only thing which stands between the maoist animals and their impending Khmer Rouge-style genocide.
Ok, so there are leftists in Nepal. No surprise there
You forgot to mention the anti-Communist parties, which are together much larger, and which include: The Nepal Congress Party, the RPP and the Nepal Sadbhavana Party. The idea that the only opponents of the King's are the crazy Maoists is completely ridiculous.
Don't bet on it.
the only thing which stands between the maoist animals and their impending Khmer Rouge-style genocide.
Funny, the Maoists weren't taking over before Gyanendra...
The 7 parties allied with the Maoists fall into two categories, communists, and the allies of communists.
Yes they were.
True. In fact, the "right wing" of Nepal is the socialist Congress party. So you can imagine what the rest of the parties are. It is depressing.
"Don't bet on it"
It is very unlikely that the Army will abandon the King. And even more unlikely is that Kathmandu falls to the Maoists.
And what's the likelihood that the King of Nepal will declare himself an absolute monarch and eliminate democracy, throwing the leaders of the elected government (including the anti-Communist Prime Minister) in jail, abolishing all civil rights, and using the bogeyman of "Maoists" to try to eliminate all political opposition, including from the anti-Communist majority? I'd say it's slim... except it already happened.
I don't think the Army with continue to support the King... I frankly don't think he'll be alive at the end of the year. This is a guy who shares a lot more in common with Kim Jong Il than he does with a legitimate anti-Communist, except he lacks Kim's social skills and charm.
What is it with the useful idiots comparing the king to Communists when he is actually the one fighting communists? First he's Pol Pot now he's Kim Jong-Il. Next they'll compare him to Mao himself. They sound like Nation magazine or something savaging Chiang Kai-Shek or Fulgencio Batista. Delusional parlor pinks always have to twist the enemies of communists into the bad guys to try and justify their communists sympathies. When the maoists start building their pyramids of human skulls in Katmandu, it will still be all the kings fault, though, not theirs.
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.