Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gyanendra’s time is up (the king is the main problem in Nepal)
The Indian Express ^ | Friday, April 14, 2006 at 0000 hrs | C Raja Mohan

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: china; gyanendra; india; mao; maoists; nepal; royals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: Alter Kaker

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.


21 posted on 04/14/2006 3:22:32 PM PDT by minus_273
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar

i second this. I have only heard of 2-3 people getting killed in rioting.


22 posted on 04/14/2006 3:23:59 PM PDT by minus_273
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: minus_273
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.

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.

23 posted on 04/14/2006 3:43:03 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
If the king falls the maoists WILL rule.

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.

24 posted on 04/14/2006 3:48:32 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
It is completely false that the maoists did not control the countryside before the kings "coup." You act as if the maoist revolt is a response to the king's dismissal of the legislature. The reality is the reverse. The legislature was dismissed because it was worse than useless and thoroughly infiltrated with communists and maoist sympathizers.

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.

25 posted on 04/14/2006 4:04:15 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; Tailgunner Joe; minus_273; Gengis Khan; LeoWindhorse
Nepal cannot afford to concede to the Maoists. Nepal conceding to the Maoists is similar to the US conceding to the terrorists. In fact, it is more. The US conceding to the terrorists and making Osama Bin Laden the President, Al Zarqawi the VP, and the entire cabinet made up of Talibans.
26 posted on 04/14/2006 4:26:11 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The Maoist insurgency was certainly in existence before the current king, but it wasn't anywhere near as popular or as strong.

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.

27 posted on 04/14/2006 4:34:35 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Nepal cannot afford to concede to the Maoists.

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.

28 posted on 04/14/2006 4:37:18 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
The second in command of the maoists recently visited New Delhi and met with the leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) which is part of India's governing coalition. This meeting was approved by the Indian government and the maoist leader was provided safe passage by Indian intelligence. India arranged the 12-point agreement between the terrorists and their "non-violent wing," the 'democratic opposition.'

'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.

29 posted on 04/14/2006 4:59:23 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
democratically elected anti-Communist government

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.

30 posted on 04/14/2006 5:09:06 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
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.

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.

31 posted on 04/14/2006 5:11:13 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

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.


32 posted on 04/14/2006 5:13:43 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
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.

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.

33 posted on 04/14/2006 5:30:27 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Gyanendra has his supporters in Nepal. Cheif Among them are the Royal Army of Nepal,

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...

34 posted on 04/14/2006 5:32:16 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

The 7 parties allied with the Maoists fall into two categories, communists, and the allies of communists.


35 posted on 04/14/2006 5:42:09 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Maoists weren't taking over before Gyanendra

Yes they were.

36 posted on 04/14/2006 5:42:45 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

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.


37 posted on 04/14/2006 5:59:33 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

"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.


38 posted on 04/14/2006 6:02:21 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sagar
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.

39 posted on 04/14/2006 6:10:53 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sagar

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.


40 posted on 04/14/2006 6:18:01 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson