From Chaos to Chaos in Nepal
Media Communications Center
March 06, 2007
Shashi Malla & Chandra Bahadur Parbate
The King, in his annual 'Democracy Day' message to the nation, said he was forced to take over power in 2005 to keep law and order amidst a Maoist insurgency: "It is clear that the prevailing situation compelled us to take the February 2005 step in accordance with the people's aspirations to reactivate the elected bodies by maintaining law and order." He continued that : "We also should take the moral responsibility for the success or failure of the 15-month period." He further blamed prime minister Deuba for not being able to hold polls because of the armed opposition by the Maoists, overlooking the fact that none of the premiers he himself nominated could carry out the task either.
The King referred to the achievements of his most famous ancestor King Prithvi Narayan Shah obliquely in pointing out that "Nepal is a kaleidoscope of diverse peoples." Since the unification of the country by this great king, the Nepalese monarchy has stood for 'unity in diversity' and ethnic and religious tolerance. He pledged his support for democracy on Monday, but also appealed to the countrymen to "respect history", apparently appealing for the monarchy to be retained in some form.
King Gyanendra's direct rule for 15 months starting with February 5, 2005 was the last resort to bring order to a flawed polity. The reason for the failure of his direct rule was primarily due to domestic constraints and secondly by massive international interference. His principal advisers and ministers were inept and unable to make an objective assessment of the domestic and international situation. Consequently, the pressures from regional and international powers and organizations were underestimated. In terms of foreign policy, its biggest miscalculation was probably not to take China into close confidence.
It is due to these circumstances that however well-intentioned King Gyanendra's move may have been - due to the way it was conducted and its ramifications domestically and internationally - it seems to confirm the saying that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The King's message to the nation on the occasion of National Democracy Day raised an outrage, sparking protests from political parties accusing him of illegally meddling in politics. The council of ministers has now concluded that the King's statement was "undemocratic, unauthorized and unconstitutional"! In another reaction to his address, tourism minister Pradip Gyawali told reporters: "The effort to justify the February 5, 2005 step is unfortunate. The statement should not have been made in the present context."
A close analysis of the announcement shows that the politicians and commentators who condemned the monarch, have worked themselves to a frenzy of hate without understanding the letter and spirit of the said message. Many have reprimanded the King without even having read it. But to what extent has the King's announcement been illegal? If Nepal is a true democracy and every Nepali has the right of free speech, then this surely also applies equally to the King. In his address he has given his own perspective on the events leading to his direct rule, just as the majority of leading politicians of the Seven Party Alliance have given theirs often enough. Full objectivity should be expected from neither perspective.
There seems to be an almost 'Pavlovian' reflex in the Seven Party/Maoist Alliance to 'bite' at anyone not a member in their club who 'dares' to speak his mind or voice his opinion. In this context, the reader may remember the comparable outrage that followed the remarks of Brig. General Dilip Rana a few weeks ago. This reflex has its roots in the desire of the politicians currently in the government to demand the authority on the interpretation of the events that led to their rule only to themselves. However, this should not lead to muting views that differ from the other.
At the same time, it seems that the politicians from the Seven Party/Maoist Alliance leave out no opportunity to attempt to put responsibility for Nepal's problems to the monarchy, reactionaries and royalists (for example, during the first flare of violence in Madhesh). As such, this overdrawn reaction might be another attempt to deflect massive criticism and draw attention away from themselves. Trying to make the King a scapegoat for all the country's ills is not a new move.
After 1951 and again after 1990, it has been the politicians at the helm of political power who have abjectly failed to keep their promises on affirmative action and to consolidate national integration. Now with the active help and assistance of the Maoists, the country is being rent asunder. The ethnic strife in the Terai has progressed to crisis and beyond that to open conflict, that is being fueled actively by the Maoists.
It would be highly desirable that our leaders accept the values of unity in diversity and ethnic and religious tolerance as their mission statement to bridge the transition from turmoil to normalcy.
The King, in his annual 'Democracy Day' message to the nation, said he was forced to take over power in 2005 to keep law and order amidst a Maoist insurgency: "It is clear that the prevailing situation compelled us to take the February 2005 step in accordance with the people's aspirations to reactivate the elected bodies by maintaining law and order." He continued that : "We also should take the moral responsibility for the success or failure of the 15-month period." He further blamed prime minister Deuba for not being able to hold polls because of the armed opposition by the Maoists, overlooking the fact that none of the premiers he himself nominated could carry out the task either.
The King referred to the achievements of his most famous ancestor King Prithvi Narayan Shah obliquely in pointing out that "Nepal is a kaleidoscope of diverse peoples." Since the unification of the country by this great king, the Nepalese monarchy has stood for 'unity in diversity' and ethnic and religious tolerance. He pledged his support for democracy on Monday, but also appealed to the countrymen to "respect history", apparently appealing for the monarchy to be retained in some form.
King Gyanendra's direct rule for 15 months starting with February 5, 2005 was the last resort to bring order to a flawed polity. The reason for the failure of his direct rule was primarily due to domestic constraints and secondly by massive international interference. His principal advisers and ministers were inept and unable to make an objective assessment of the domestic and international situation. Consequently, the pressures from regional and international powers and organizations were underestimated. In terms of foreign policy, its biggest miscalculation was probably not to take China into close confidence.
It is due to these circumstances that however well-intentioned King Gyanendra's move may have been - due to the way it was conducted and its ramifications domestically and internationally - it seems to confirm the saying that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The King's message to the nation on the occasion of National Democracy Day raised an outrage, sparking protests from political parties accusing him of illegally meddling in politics. The council of ministers has now concluded that the King's statement was "undemocratic, unauthorized and unconstitutional"! In another reaction to his address, tourism minister Pradip Gyawali told reporters: "The effort to justify the February 5, 2005 step is unfortunate. The statement should not have been made in the present context."
A close analysis of the announcement shows that the politicians and commentators who condemned the monarch, have worked themselves to a frenzy of hate without understanding the letter and spirit of the said message. Many have reprimanded the King without even having read it. But to what extent has the King's announcement been illegal? If Nepal is a true democracy and every Nepali has the right of free speech, then this surely also applies equally to the King. In his address he has given his own perspective on the events leading to his direct rule, just as the majority of leading politicians of the Seven Party Alliance have given theirs often enough. Full objectivity should be expected from neither perspective.
There seems to be an almost 'Pavlovian' reflex in the Seven Party/Maoist Alliance to 'bite' at anyone not a member in their club who 'dares' to speak his mind or voice his opinion. In this context, the reader may remember the comparable outrage that followed the remarks of Brig. General Dilip Rana a few weeks ago. This reflex has its roots in the desire of the politicians currently in the government to demand the authority on the interpretation of the events that led to their rule only to themselves. However, this should not lead to muting views that differ from the other.
At the same time, it seems that the politicians from the Seven Party/Maoist Alliance leave out no opportunity to attempt to put responsibility for Nepal's problems to the monarchy, reactionaries and royalists (for example, during the first flare of violence in Madhesh). As such, this overdrawn reaction might be another attempt to deflect massive criticism and draw attention away from themselves. Trying to make the King a scapegoat for all the country's ills is not a new move.
After 1951 and again after 1990, it has been the politicians at the helm of political power who have abjectly failed to keep their promises on affirmative action and to consolidate national integration. Now with the active help and assistance of the Maoists, the country is being rent asunder. The ethnic strife in the Terai has progressed to crisis and beyond that to open conflict, that is being fueled actively by the Maoists.
It would be highly desirable that our leaders accept the values of unity in diversity and ethnic and religious tolerance as their mission statement to bridge the transition from turmoil to normalcy.
Print
Email
