Nepal: Why I Support The King

12-14-2005, 09:40 AM

Nepal: Why I Support The King
Thursday, 15 December 2005, 11:27 am
Opinion: Sagar Mani Lamsal
Nepal: Why I Support The King
By Sagar Mani Lamsal

A supporter of King Gyanendra's seizure of absolute powers on February
1, 2005 is inevitably criticized as being at least one of the following:

- A scion of the Rana-Shah oligarchy ï¿½ genealogical or other wise --
congenitally bent on subjugating the vast majority of impoverished and
underprivileged Nepalis;

- A superstitious misfit who still sees the king as an incarnation of
the Hindu deity Vishnu;

- A beneficiary of the palace payroll aiding and abetting the
restoration of full feudalism;

- A remnant of Nepal's palace-led authoritarian past seeking to regain
powers and privileges lost in the democratic upsurge of 1990.

As someone who does not fit into any of these four categories, I have
decided to create a fifth: a foot soldier in Nepal's war of
independence. It is in this spirit that, despite all the gloom and
doom hovering over the kingdom, I detect something positive is about
to happen regardless of how the conflict plays out.

The tripolar conflict between Narayanhity Royal Palace, mainstream
opposition parties and the Maoist rebels is essentially a struggle for
the future of Nepal. (I'm sticking with the term "tripolar" because
I'm not sure how far the political parties and the Maoist rebels have
actually bridged their differences.)

I certainly cannot claim to imagine the horrors those caught on the
frontlines of the conflict have experience for no apparent fault of
theirs. I can only hope and pray that the sacrifice of the murdered
and maimed will not have gone in vain.

The Maoists have brought out the deep political, economic, social and
cultural inequalities that have struck ever deepening roots under 236
years of monarchy. In their ardor to blame the king for this reality,
the Maoists have let out another side of their thinking. Maoist
literature recognizes that Nepal's stagnation is a product of its
special form of partial incorporation as a semicolony of the British
Raj and subsequently within the political economy of India. This
experience, in their words, has ensured a degree of forced stagnation
in the production and productivity which led to increased popular
pressure on marginal land, emigration and ecological decline.
ADVERTISEMENT

In seeking to redress these grievances, they have unleashed ancient
hatreds to a dangerous level. Destruction and devastation, in the
Maoists' view, provide the foundation to build anew. But do they have
the ability to sustain even what would remain, much less build
anything. Can they expect to retain power ï¿½ much less initiate their
radical programs? In recent months, they seem to have lost the spine
to go head on against the monarchy.

Having joined peace talks twice under a king whose enthronement they
so severely denounced, the Maoists have swung the other way. Their
12-point accord with the principal parliamentary parties to restore
total democracy has raised more questions than it has answered. The
circumstances in which they signed the accord have deprived them of
their other novelty: the willingness to resist Indian pressures and
practices. At least the mainstream parties are honest about their
attitude toward Nepal's southern neighbor.

Girija Prasad Koirala, Madhav Kumar Nepal and all the other leaders
and followers in the seven-party alliance now arrayed against the
palace aren't gripped by some sinister compulsion to ruin the country
through perpetual protests. Indeed, they believe the way forward for
Nepal in today's day and age can only be by empowering the people.

They may believe the monarchy is the principal obstacle to Nepalese
democracy as they envision it. But in their heart of hearts, do they
still have doubts about their ability to hold the country together in
a post-monarchy environment? Is that why alliance leaders worry in
private conversations about the "vacuum" that might grip a small
nation perched strategically between Asia's two giants? Is this why,
like the Maoists, they have not been able to even articulate what
total democracy is?

On the face of it, the mainstream alliance's belief ï¿½ and even the
Maoists', for that matter -- in closer cooperation with India cannot
be considered inimical to Nepal's interest. There is full merit their
argument that Nepal cannot expect to go on receiving Indian
concessions without offering reciprocal pledges on major concerns of
New Delhi.

Logically, the new realignment created by the mainstream-Maoist accord
should have spelt the end of the royal regime. The reason King
Gyanendra remains unperturbed ï¿½ at least in public -- is because he
recognizes that "total democracy" is not the real reason Indian
engineered this union.

I personally believe the Indians do not want to do away with the
monarchy. If King Gyanendra acceded to Indian demands on a broad
package of concessions ï¿½ I am personally convinced that such a
proposal would not differ much from the versions New Delhi tried to
impose on King Birendra and interim prime minister Krishna Prasad
Bhattarai ï¿½ New Delhi would once again hail King Gyanendra's wisdom,
experience and maturity in the same awed tone editorial writers used
in the weeks and months after his enthronement four years ago.

For me, the king's game plan is clear. He is too smart to expect to
monopolize power the way his father and brother did. But, then, he is
not ready to retain the throne without the freedom of action his
vision of the monarchy demands. King Gyanendra has made up his mind to
wage Nepal's war of total independence. The cause of this war is what
inspires me.

King Gyanendra's opponents don't need to stress the obvious. The royal
government is autocratic, packed with yes-men and devoid of
creativity. The lack of representative institutions at all levels has
made the palace unaccountable. Royal relatives and hangers-on are
abusing their power and privilege in a way the democratic leaders
never could. This, to me, is a price worth paying.

Why is the government is going after the media? Actually, it is going
after only one media house, Kantipur, which has been more responsible
than any political party for subverting democracy. (The raid on
Sagarmatha FM was merely a reflection of the royal government's
resolve to implement the law. In the government's view Prachanda is
still a terrorist, and the law forbids anyone to encourage terrorists.)

What kind of newspaper would report that the Maoists, in a massive
extortion spree, had sought "donations" from its publishers but then
hold back the fact that they had paid off. The Maoists had the decency
of returning the day the story appeared to return the money. What kind
of publisher or editor would carry Dr. Baburam Bhattarai's plea for a
military uprising against the new king amid such grave national
crisis? Probably one attuned to the traditions of the subversion and
subterfuge of Indian journalism practiced against its neighbors.

No doubt, the public had a right to know what the chief Maoist
ideologue thought about the royal massacre. Dr. Bhattarai may have had
his own agenda in lavishing praise on each one of King Gyanendra's
predecessors in the Shah dynasty while singling out the new monarch
for calumny on the basis of hearsay and rumor? Was it so difficult to
see through the Maoist propaganda?

How many Indians from Assam, Almora, Darjeeling and Meghalaya
masquerading as Nepalis dominate Nepali newsrooms to spread Indian
venom against Nepal in the name of a free press? Why are publishing
houses with hefty property interests in India ï¿½ including massive
income-tax defaults ï¿½ the most critical of the royal regime?

And the code of conduct for non-government organizations? Again, this
was the way the United States and European imposed their color-coded
"revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine. Weeks after the Nepalese
government issued the NGO code, the Kremlin came out with similar
restrictions. One autocrat emulating another? Or two countries
comparing notes to protect their flanks?

The royal regime cannot expose the charade because of King Gyanendra's
core dilemma. His strongest loyalists are incompetent and the most
competent people on his side have the temptation and tendency to
become the most disloyal.

But, then, King Gyanendra is too shrewd not to understand the space
history and geography have provided him. His plan to develop Nepal as
a transit point between the rapidly growing economies of India and
China has prompted much ridicule from his detractors, but it worked
for Nepal ï¿½ or at least Kathmandu ï¿½ in the past. What the Malla kings
could do for Kathmandu is entirely within grasp for the entire kingdom.

Nepal has reached a critical crossroads. The stakes are much higher
than determining whether Nepal remains a monarchy or becomes a
republic. Basically, this is the challenge: Nepal can either be truly
independent of or truly dependent on India.

If India wants Nepal to be firmly in its sphere of influence let it
incorporate the kingdom as a full member of the union. Having secured
its foothold on Nepal's strategic position and established full
control of its water resources, New Delhi can lay the basis for a
healthy center-state relationship. Ordinary Indians would be startled
to discover the commonalities Nepalis share, given the negative image
their media have consistently portrayed.

But Nepalis must be assured of the full benefits of formal
integration. We would need Central Police Reserve Force to step in to
quell unrest. Natural disaster victims would require the full
deployment of the relief and rehabilitation of the Indian machinery.
Political representation in the Lok Sabha could be worked out in
accordance with several factors that assuage concerns of
underrepresented social, ethnic and linguistic groups. Indeed, India's
current political map might have to be redrawn to optimize integration
with bordering Indian states.

Indeed, some communities in Nepal may resist formal integration with
India more violently than others, but then that is a price India has
been paying in half of its states for more than a half-century.

If that is too high a price for New Delhi, then it must grant Nepal
full recognition as an independent and equal partner. Nepal would
enjoy the sovereign right to develop its own political and security
ties with China, Pakistan, United States or any other country as it
deems fit.

India would also need to fully respect Nepal's economic sovereignty.
Why should Nepal have to go to such lengths to invite third-country
investors like Kodak only to have them leave after India reneges on
its promise of full market access? Bilateral treaties should hold the
full force of law. If free and unrestricted trade is guaranteed by
both governments, why are Indian state governments allowed to step in
to impede commerce. Specifically, why do Vanaspati Ghee, zinc sheets,
nails and bolts ï¿½ a handful of Nepalese products that sell well in
India ï¿½ come under the periodic entanglements of Indian trade and
commerce regimes?

King Gyanendra's roadmap is aimed at consolidating Nepal's sovereign
options through closer integration with China. The first direct
passenger bus service linking Kathmandu and Tibet began weeks after
the royal takeover, although it has now stalled amid procedural hurdles.

Efforts at developing Nepal as a transit point between China and India
have received a fresh impetus. Nepal expects to provide the transit
facility with the objective of expanding its service sector and
physical infrastructure development. A Nepalese government study has
identified three alternative routes linking the three countries.

Chinese delegations have visited Kathmandu to expand cooperation in
investment, tourism promotion and infrastructure development. Nepal
expects China's modernization of Tibet will assist the development of
its own mountainous northern districts. Specifically, the kingdom
hopes to benefit from a railway project linking China with Tibetï¿½s
heartland. Chinese officials say the railway will bring in 5.64
million tourists to Tibet over the next five years. The
Lhasa-Kathmandu bus service is likely to benefit.

Kathmandu is planning to set up a special economic zone in its north
with Chinese cooperation. Both governments will have special laws,
special taxation structure and special investment policies in an
effort to ease the access of Nepalese products to Chinese markets.

Nepal and China have taken special interest in developing the
kingdomï¿½s vast hydro-electric power potential. China and Australia
will invest in West Seti Hydropower project, the biggest
hydro-electric project of Nepal with the capacity of 750 megawatt,
the Chinese news agency Xinhua reported recently.

The $1.2 billion project is scheduled for completion within five and
half years. The power generated will be sold to India, yielding $29
million in the first year of operation.

The war of Nepalese independence has begun ï¿½ never call retreat.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00170.htm
ENDS