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.
Nonsense. The Nepali right wing is the NDP/RPP, which is free market/democratic/nationalist.
It is also not fair to call the Congress Party "socialist." True, it has some socialists in it, but it's a broad coalition with a lot of free-marketers, and it is a strong supporter of democracy and a strong opponent of Communism. It's beyond ridiculous to pretend -- as you dishonestly do -- that the largest party in the country, which is legitimate and democratic, is indistiguishable from the Maoists.
The King and the Maoists are pretty much interchangeable. Kick them both out and restore the democratically elected government, which opposes them both.
They're traitors who think siding with terrorists is their path to political power.
Just a couple of years ago, the Nepalese Gov't was backed by India, China, Pakistan, and the United States -- literally by every major regional power. Today it is backed... by nobody. Why not? Because the king is a nutcase. Restore the elected government. Either you trust democracy (the people elected a large anti-Communist majority) or you don't.
The fact that India, Pakistan, China and the United States agree on anything is amazing. And yet they are unanimous: the Maoists and the King are both equally terrible and the only legitimate government is the elected one.
The parties are allies of the communists, not enemies. Are you even aware of the pact between them? If they Maoists and their useful idiot democrats succeed in overthrowing the monarchy these traitors will be the first to get lined up against the wall by the maoists and shot.
Wow, Pakistan, India and China. Yeah I really give their opinions great weight. I'm really glad we're in agreement with them. Not.
You can keep saying that until you're blue in the face -- an you can call the United States, India and Pakistan Maoist dupes ---, but the fact remains that in 1999, the people of Nepal elected anti-Communists by an overwhelming margin. And when the current King took over (under exceedingly suspicious circumstances, I might add) the first thing he did was throw those anti-Communists in prison.
Wow, some tinpot Nepalese feudal despot who has destroyed the economy and thrown the elected government in jail. I guess we should listen to him.
Total BS. Nepal is in a civil war and the king dissolved a weak legislature full of communists. Now these commies and communist sympathizers have signed a pact with each other swearing to overthrow the government. They're no different than the maoists and want to overthrow the government by force with riots and terrorism. Their violent revolt should be crushed militarily and that's what the king is doing. Good.
Monarchy may not be the best form of government but it is far superior to a communist "democratic people's republic."
Gee when has the moral equivalence argument been used to support communists and attack the ones fighting communists? Almost never.
The government has already been overthrown --- by the king.
Only in your bizarre fantasy-land are conservative free-market small-r republicans "communist sympathists."
I'm not supporting Communists. You must be thinking of someone else. The Maoists and the King are both bad.
And if you think that Maoists have a monopoly on evil, you are sorely mistaken.
If you don't want to be associated with communist terrorists you probably shouldn't sign and agreement with them swearing to overthrow your government.
False dichotomy. The status quo was an anti-Communist parliamentary pluralistic democracy.
"The Nepali right wing is the NDP/RPP, which is free market/democratic/nationalist."
They are the exception. When democracy was declared in 1990, cunning Royalists and former prime ministers Lokendra B. Chand and Surya B. Thapa started Rastriya Prajatanta Party(RPP). So, I wouldn't include them with the usual suspects(socialist congress and communists).
I'm afraid you're off the deep end. George W. Bush is a Communist for trading with China? I've heard it all.
"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."
LOL :D
What makes you think President Bush supported the normalization of trade relations with Communist China? I consider that a slander against the President. You are the one who just called the President a Clintonista and a Chicom sympathizer, not me.
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.