EVENTS
& ISSUES
New Delhi, 2 January 2006
Trouble For The King
Conflict in
Nepal
enters dangerous phase
By Dr. Syed Ali Mujtaba
The
conflict in Nepal
between the Monarchy, political parties and the Maoists has entered a dangerous
phase after the signing of 12-point agreement between the ultras and seven
political-party alliance. The agreement to dislodge the King who assumed absolute
powers in February last would undoubtedly trouble him in the days ahead; but at
the same time it seems taking the country to a political abyss from where
return to multi-party system looks abysmally dismal.
The big
question is whether the political parties were right in choosing the Maoists as
partners in their struggle for restoration of democracy in Nepal. It is
obvious they had a delicate choice between the ‘devil;’ ‘the autocratic
Monarch’, and the ‘deep sea;’ the Maoists, whose ideology of ‘dictatorship of
the proletariat,’ has become redundant in the 21st century.
To recap,
King Birendra assumed constitutional role in 1990, paving way for multi-party
democracy in Nepal.
However, in a span of ten years, as many as twelve governments came and went,
making a mockery of democratic governance. This led to the rise of Maoist
insurgency that strove to bring ‘people’s democracy’ implying ‘dictatorship of
the proletariat’ by ending the institution of monarchy in Nepal.
Meantime,
the palace massacre of royalties in June 1, 2001, brought Gyanendra, slain King
Birendra’s brother, to the throne. The new King since the beginning harboured
autocratic ambitions and showed displeasure towards the democratic government’s
inability to deal with the Maoists. He first dismissed the government and then
ruled the country through his hand-picked Cabinet, finally to assume the
absolute powers. This triggered a wave of anti-monarchy protest, culminating
into a 12-point agreement between the political parties and the Maoists.
There are
two fundamental issues that require attention in the agreement reached between
the Maoists and the political parties. One is the status of the Monarchy and
the other nature of democracy in Nepal. The political parties have
diluted their stand on Monarchy being ‘essential pillar’ of Nepali politics,
and now endorse the Maoist’s views of its complete abolition and establishment
of a ‘republic’ in Nepal.
They seem convinced that if the unarmed people of Iran
could uproot the autocratic Shah in 1979, why can't the ordinary people do the
same in Nepal.
This
hypothesis looks logical on paper but there is little similarity between Iran and Nepal over the question of
abolition of Monarchy. In Iran,
a religious order was tried to replace the Monarchy, while in Nepal, a
non-religious order is attempted to supplant the Monarchy that has a religious
halo around his throne.
The
Monarch in Nepal is not only
a fountainhead of the political power but also regarded as an avatar of the
Lord Vishnu, an embodiment of Rama, Krishna,
and Buddha, all encompassing. It is hard to imagine the people of Nepal
would whole-heartedly support the designs to end the Monarchy and see it being
replaced by the Maoists model of China that itself is shedding the baggages of
its past.
That’s
one of the reasons the cumulated anger of Nepalese people against their King
could not transcend beyond the realm of protest and is unable to generate the
kind of anti-Monarchy frenzy seen during the days of the Islamic revolution of Iran. The
conflict in Nepal
has thrown up many imponderables; conspicuous among them is the question of the
abolition of Monarchy. It is hard to imagine how this would play itself out. The fact remains. Even then it would not be
the end of the conflict in Nepal.
On the
question of democracy, there is little clarity in pact between the political
parties and the ultras, except that it mentions the establishment of 'absolute
democracy.’ This would mean restoration
of parliamentary democracy where the Maoists are co-opted in a multi-party
system. However, that’s not the goal of the Maoists who may like to establish
the 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' and that necessarily does not mean the
restoration of multiparty democracy.
In the
current situation what appears imminent is that both the Maoists and the
political parties want to maintain their respective positions on the nature of
democracy and would like to combine for an assault on Monarchy till its total
abolition.
The
strategy of the political parties is to first battle it out with the Palace and
then to think about dealing with the Maoists. The alliance with the Maoists has
given them a breathing space. However, it has also generated the fear that it
may entangle them in the cobweb of left ultra radical ideology from where it
would be hard to disengage.
As far as
Maoists are concerned, they seem to have developed a new political maturity at
this juncture of their struggle. They
have realized that they may not succeed in capturing the state power through
the violent means and therefore would like to try out the political route. It is
with this new strategy they have entered into an alliance with the political
parties, so that they may gain political legitimacy and build their own
inherent strength.
It is unclear how the Maoists would deal with the political
parties once their objective of dislodging the King is accomplished. This is a
fact that Maoists have been chary about the multi-party democracy right since
the beginning and their rise took place during the democratic era not against
just the same parties but the same individuals who have cut the present deal
with them. They have repeatedly made it clear that they would not compromise on
their ultimate goals, capture of political power and establishment of 'people's
democracy.'
Therefore,
it does not stand to reason why the political parties have opted to for an
alliance with the Maoists. The fear is that more the anti-monarchy protest
prolongs the more the political base of the Maoists would be consolidated, and
in such a scenario it would be the ultras that would call the shots and not the
other way round. The political parties then would be left with little option to
get co-opted into the radical’s ideals of
‘absolute democracy.’ That would mean destruction of the democratic
freedom and political pluralism in Nepal.
It seems
the alliance between the political parties and the Maoists is taking the
conflict in Nepal
to a dangerous phase. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|