Nepal: Why I Support The King

[Guest guest]

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 � 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.

 

 

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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � including massive

income-tax defaults � 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 � or at least Kathmandu � 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 � a handful of Nepalese products that sell well in

India � 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 Tibet�s

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

kingdom�s 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 � never call retreat.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00170.htm

ENDS