Monarchy to a referendum
Media Communications Center
December 05, 2006
The anti-monarchy Nepali parties could not dare subject the issue of Monarchy to a referendum. Their rationale was that they were uncertain as to result of such a referendum. Or, as another point of view has it, the monarchy would be shown to have at least some popular base. So being a typical Nepali "democrats" it was too risky for the advocates of Nepali democracy to even to allow the people to have a direct say on the issue of Monarchy! So their fear of Monarchy has extended to the fear of what the popular will maybe. And that, it seems is what the Nepali democrats think democracy is all about---bypassing the popular will!
The non-elected parliament had declared Nepal to be a non-Hindu country. With 23 official Hindu holydays intact, of course! This issue of Hindu country was naturally too risky to be subjected to a referendum. Given the fact that 85 percent of the people were Hindus, it was obvious what the result of the referendum would be. The will of the people in such a case had to be bypassed. The Nepali democrats, of course, construe this, as a democratic progress! Or was there a free flow of Christian donors' dollars involved?
Nepali democratic "progress"' was made so easily by declaring the country to be a non-Hindu country. Why could not the date expired parliament make such "progress" by declaring Nepal to be a republic as well? By what incapacity could they not do so? After all, they do claim that they have the mandate of the Andolan II, facilitated mostly by the Maoists. Without the Maoists, their series of previous Andolans before April 2006 had been insignificant, for all to see. Yet what prevented them to declare Nepal to be a republic?
Instead of directly getting the mandate of the people through a referendum to make Nepal a republic, they have now opted for an indirect method to do so. They now want their partisan candidates in the proposed elected Constituent Assembly to do away with the monarchy. Why this indirect method? Why wait for about 8 months to do so? Is it because their geopolitical master had not quite decided on this issue to give them specific orders? Is this the reason for their procrastination? Perhaps, the Southern masters of our eight political parties, now aspiring to be a permanent member in the U. N. Security Council, did not want to be seen to be utilizing their quislings and Lehndup Dorgees in the style of Sikkim in the seventies.
Meanwhile, the politicos, like the dry mountain brooks that roar only during the monsoon (Urrladho Khare), are subjecting the monarchy to various threats, allegations, and vilifications. Some thing akin to barking dogs that cannot bite? Or is it a display of their social origin as with the slimily of the Urrladho Khare? Or is there something more to this?
They have threatened the monarchy by saying they will remove the institution through their own candidates in the Constituent Assembly. They have threatened the monarch by saying that they will use retroactive laws (and this is Nepali democratic ethos, one has now to presume) against him. Retroactive laws made by a non-elected parliament! They have threatened the monarchy by attempts to contravene the prevailing inheritance law of Nepal (and this by the advocates of the "rule of law" !). Why all such threats sans actions?
Apart from such threats, there seem to be some carrots dangled before the monarch to abdicate on his own. The notion of "Ceremonial Monarchy" ( whatever it may mean in operational terms) suddenly propped up in the brains of Girija P. Koiral, only upon his return from a pilgrimage to Delhi and not before that. It is notable to know that the leaders of the eight parties of Nepal usually come up with new notions only after their pilgrimage to Delhi. What is there in Delhi that miraculously transforms the thoughts of the Nepali political leaders, which could not be transformed before such pilgrimages? Anyway, it was heard that an advice was conveyed to the monarch, that if he were to abdicate voluntarily, the party would reinstall him as a Ceremonial Monarch!! So this imported notion of Ceremonial Monarchy, coupled with subsequent geopolitical "advice" to abdicate only to be reinstated as a Ceremonial Monarch was indeed revealing. Was not Mohan SJB Rana assured of continuity in 1950 on condition of signing of the 1950 treaty? Were not many similar "advisory assurances" reneged subsequently, before in many occasions?
Another carrot dangled before the monarch, is of course, the notion of being made the first president of republican Nepal, if he voluntarily abdicates. Such carrots dangled before the Monarch and supplemented with various threats of possible humiliations and deprivations must have been assumed to be sufficient motivation for the Monarch to abdicate or leave the country voluntarily.
Will all such vociferous threats and fraudulent geopolitical "advices" motivate the King to abdicate and / or leave the country on his own, like the harassed Mohan SJB Rana in the fifties ? That would naturally save the Southern Masters of the eight political parties from any allegations of using Quislings and Lhendup Dorgees to remove the monarchy, as was with the case of Sikkim. It would not behoove the new strategic partner of U.S., who had been pro-Soviet Union during the Cold War and now remains an aspirant to the permanent seat in the UNSC, to be seen to be playing a dirty game, does it? And of course, there maybe some consideration to the fact that there are many nationalities, that have been fighting for more than forty years to liberate themselves from the "largest democracy" of the world.
The question now remains as to whether the King of Nepal will fall for this Quisling bait or call their bluff.
The non-elected parliament had declared Nepal to be a non-Hindu country. With 23 official Hindu holydays intact, of course! This issue of Hindu country was naturally too risky to be subjected to a referendum. Given the fact that 85 percent of the people were Hindus, it was obvious what the result of the referendum would be. The will of the people in such a case had to be bypassed. The Nepali democrats, of course, construe this, as a democratic progress! Or was there a free flow of Christian donors' dollars involved?
Nepali democratic "progress"' was made so easily by declaring the country to be a non-Hindu country. Why could not the date expired parliament make such "progress" by declaring Nepal to be a republic as well? By what incapacity could they not do so? After all, they do claim that they have the mandate of the Andolan II, facilitated mostly by the Maoists. Without the Maoists, their series of previous Andolans before April 2006 had been insignificant, for all to see. Yet what prevented them to declare Nepal to be a republic?
Instead of directly getting the mandate of the people through a referendum to make Nepal a republic, they have now opted for an indirect method to do so. They now want their partisan candidates in the proposed elected Constituent Assembly to do away with the monarchy. Why this indirect method? Why wait for about 8 months to do so? Is it because their geopolitical master had not quite decided on this issue to give them specific orders? Is this the reason for their procrastination? Perhaps, the Southern masters of our eight political parties, now aspiring to be a permanent member in the U. N. Security Council, did not want to be seen to be utilizing their quislings and Lehndup Dorgees in the style of Sikkim in the seventies.
Meanwhile, the politicos, like the dry mountain brooks that roar only during the monsoon (Urrladho Khare), are subjecting the monarchy to various threats, allegations, and vilifications. Some thing akin to barking dogs that cannot bite? Or is it a display of their social origin as with the slimily of the Urrladho Khare? Or is there something more to this?
They have threatened the monarchy by saying they will remove the institution through their own candidates in the Constituent Assembly. They have threatened the monarch by saying that they will use retroactive laws (and this is Nepali democratic ethos, one has now to presume) against him. Retroactive laws made by a non-elected parliament! They have threatened the monarchy by attempts to contravene the prevailing inheritance law of Nepal (and this by the advocates of the "rule of law" !). Why all such threats sans actions?
Apart from such threats, there seem to be some carrots dangled before the monarch to abdicate on his own. The notion of "Ceremonial Monarchy" ( whatever it may mean in operational terms) suddenly propped up in the brains of Girija P. Koiral, only upon his return from a pilgrimage to Delhi and not before that. It is notable to know that the leaders of the eight parties of Nepal usually come up with new notions only after their pilgrimage to Delhi. What is there in Delhi that miraculously transforms the thoughts of the Nepali political leaders, which could not be transformed before such pilgrimages? Anyway, it was heard that an advice was conveyed to the monarch, that if he were to abdicate voluntarily, the party would reinstall him as a Ceremonial Monarch!! So this imported notion of Ceremonial Monarchy, coupled with subsequent geopolitical "advice" to abdicate only to be reinstated as a Ceremonial Monarch was indeed revealing. Was not Mohan SJB Rana assured of continuity in 1950 on condition of signing of the 1950 treaty? Were not many similar "advisory assurances" reneged subsequently, before in many occasions?
Another carrot dangled before the monarch, is of course, the notion of being made the first president of republican Nepal, if he voluntarily abdicates. Such carrots dangled before the Monarch and supplemented with various threats of possible humiliations and deprivations must have been assumed to be sufficient motivation for the Monarch to abdicate or leave the country voluntarily.
Will all such vociferous threats and fraudulent geopolitical "advices" motivate the King to abdicate and / or leave the country on his own, like the harassed Mohan SJB Rana in the fifties ? That would naturally save the Southern Masters of the eight political parties from any allegations of using Quislings and Lhendup Dorgees to remove the monarchy, as was with the case of Sikkim. It would not behoove the new strategic partner of U.S., who had been pro-Soviet Union during the Cold War and now remains an aspirant to the permanent seat in the UNSC, to be seen to be playing a dirty game, does it? And of course, there maybe some consideration to the fact that there are many nationalities, that have been fighting for more than forty years to liberate themselves from the "largest democracy" of the world.
The question now remains as to whether the King of Nepal will fall for this Quisling bait or call their bluff.
Print
Email
