Nepal's Strength based on King & Army

[Guest guest]

The Myths of a Constituent Assembly

By Preeti Koirala

"It must be emphasized here that it was because of the monarchy and

the Royal Nepal Army that Nepal was unified as a nation state and

throughout the British raj in the Indian sub-continent, Nepalese

could keep their head high as citizens of a sovereign country

precisely because of the bravery of the Royal Nepal Army which fought

wars with the colonial British armed forces."

 

Nepal's parties and the Maoists have agreed on a 12 point agenda

among which the most controversial is the election to a constituent

assembly to resolve the triangular conflict in Nepal.

 

At the very outset, one side of the triangle which is the palace and

the army has been deliberately excluded from this understanding. The

Rastriya Prajatantra Party, the Rastriya Janashakti Party, the

Election Commission recognized Sadbhavana Party whose Member of

Parliament were incumbent lawmakers at the previous Lower House were

also excluded from this agreement.

 

Narayan Man Bijukchhe, President of one of the seven agitating

parties has already shown his highest displeasure at this agreement

as it was inked in a hush-hush manner in India in what looks like a

Delhi engineered package to determine the future of the Nepalese

people. Therefore, at the very start, nationalist elements of Nepal

have been "disqualified" to be part of negotiations to reach this 12

point understanding- sending shock waves right through the people's

psyche' on what is the hidden rationale behind India taking the lead

for this impractical overture.

 

The second element of discontent is of course the "agreement" to

allow the United Nations or so-called "credible" third-party to

supervise the arms of the national army. It must be emphasized here

that it was because of the monarchy and the Royal Nepal Army that

Nepal was unified as a nation state and throughout the British raj in

the Indian sub-continent, Nepalese could keep their head high as

citizens of a sovereign country precisely because of the bravery of

the Royal Nepal Army which fought wars with the colonial British

armed forces.

 

Today, that same patriotic army has been shamefully told by political

party leaders to lay down its arms over a third-party whose

intentions, preconception, impartiality and design is a big question

mark specially in the perspective of North Korea, Taiwan and Myanmar

already being hotly disputed international issues around China's

vicinity. The recent statement of President Bush on the right of the

Tibetan people must also be seen in the same perspective.

 

GP Koirala and Madhav Kumar Nepal who were both Defense Ministers at

a certain period of time should have at least contemplated the

repercussions of this on the morale of the security forces. One

cannot even imagine what would have happened to the fate of Nepal if

the Royal Nepal Army command and structure would have been in the

grips of these sorts of fickle-minded and selfish leaders after 1990.

The palace having a strong say over the usage of the army therefore

was a correct modus operandi, proven right by these same political

leaders. Placing the RNA at the same par with the Maoist guerrillas

was not only a dishonor to Nepal's independent history but also a

conspiracy to invite thousands of foreign peacekeepers on Nepalese

soil.

 

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the involvement of a third-

party like the UN will help create stability and ensure free and fair

elections. The style of functioning of the newly established UN Human

Rights Commission in Kathmandu has already generated serious doubts

over the neutrality of the UN bureaucracy.

 

Ian Martin is more interested in inaugurating seminars, condemning

the state, censuring the army, criticizing government ordinances and

passing negative judgments over issues clearly of domestic nature.

Did he issue a statement when the parties held a Nepal-Bandh and the

human rights of Kathmandu people were held hostage? Has he ever shown

sympathy to the police personnel who are targeted with stones by

hooligans of the student organizations? Does he ever caution

the "free media" of this country for writing stories in support of

violence, agitation and fighting? The intention of the commission is

obviously to linger inside Nepal for as long as it can in the costume

of the protector of human rights.

 

Thirdly, the Maoists have nowhere in the agreement said that they

will end violence, stop killing people and lay down their arms prior

to the constituent assembly elections. It is clear that if the result

of the constituent assembly goes in their favor, they will takeover

the state or if it is the other way around, they will cry foul and

yet again return to the jungle. It is clearly a trap that they would

want the state to fall upon.

 

It is in this background of suspicion and mistrust on how the

agreement was reached with the Maoist terrorists that have an

Interpol arrest notice, betrayal of party leaders over their own

motherland as regards to the RNA and the ill-intention of India that

behaves like a bully over all of its six South Asian neighbors - that

the concept of a constituent assembly needs to be carefully examined.

 

Constituent Assembly was originally proposed by Prime Minister Nehru

at the behest of his home minister Sardar Patel during the tripartite

agreement of 1950. It was designed to grab and annex Nepal

constitutionally just like Patel had seized other kingdoms and

princely states of Junagadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad around the Indian

subcontinent.

 

King Tribhuvan, nationalist leaders like Tanka Prasad Acharya,

Matrika Prasad Koirala and his wise brother BP Koirala very soon

realized the hidden agenda behind the proposal and therefore never

pressed for the holding of constituent assembly elections.

 

With the Maoists now insisting on this 55 year old Nehruvian model,

it is now becoming clearer that Delhi is using them to fulfill the

same old grand design framed by the grand father-in-law of Mrs Sonia

Gandhi, current President of the Congress (I). Mrs Indira Gandhi, the

daughter of Nehru annexed another sovereign Himalayan kingdom of

Sikkim by using the same methods of division, coercion, instigating

political uncertainty, referendum and elections in the early 70s.

 

What happens if two-third majority of the newly elected constituent

assembly decide to merge Nepal into the Indian union especially in

lieu of the demography heavily tilted towards the Terai and an open

border with India? Furthermore, citizenship papers and voter identity

cards have been sold at reasonable prices to tourists coming from

Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and numerous cases against CDOs are pending

at the CIAA and the district courts.

 

Therefore, the risks involved for Nepal's independence is not very

different than what it was in 1950.

http://newsblaze.com/story/20051209080454nnnn.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Op

inions.html