Pawns Are Not Players
Media Communications Center
March 14, 2007
Dr. Raman Raj Misra
It has been quite a while that the people of Nepal have heard the slogan of Nepal being made into a Republic. But come to think of it, what is Nepal of today? Is it a republic by deed and not by word ? When the supreme power is with the plebeians and not with any autocrat or autocrats, it should qualify as a republic. We do not have an elected president or the elected representatives. This should qualify Nepal to be a dictatorship. Still, dictatorship is also a republic. When vital decisions are taken by unelected plebeians and not by autocrats, it qualifies to be called a dictatorial republic.
Yet, the unelected plebeians exercising the supreme power of the State have allowed the monarch to remain sans any power or role. Probably because of this, they are refraining from calling Nepal a dictatorial republic. Perhaps, with the formality of removing monarchy, they will finally call Nepal, what it has already been in actuality --- a republic.
But the enigma of Nepali politics is that those plebeians in power say they want to declare Nepal to be a republic. Yet they have not formally removed the monarchy while they seemingly hold the supreme power of the State ! What is preventing them to exercise the power for formally removing monarchy, which they have already rendered powerless?
They have with ease discarded the duly formulated Constitution. They have with ease rendered the monarch powerless. They have with ease formulated the first Interim Constitution and also amended it. They have with ease brought in those they had called terrorists in the unelected legislature. If they have done all these without being elected by the people, why are they waiting for the formality of being elected, to do away with the monarchy?
So far, they seem to be waiting to formally remove the monarchy via their own candidates through an elected Constituent Assembly. Why wait for a veneer of representation? As it is, they claim to be bestowed with the people's mandate. So, why are they just spending their time and energy, raving and ranting at monarchy? Why this display of impotency, when they wield the supreme power of the State?
They could have declared a republic many months ago. As easily as they had declared Nepal to be a non-Hindu country. Why didn't they? What had stopped them? What is stopping them? They claim they represent the people of Nepal now. So, why the delay in doing what they want to do ?
Some say that the delay is due to the Nepali Congress Party, being reluctant to decide the fate of monarchy. But this party has chosen to appease the Maoists. It has been apparent that this Party cannot withstand the Maoist onslaught. For about 10 years, this party had been routed out of the districts, their cadres and supporters being victims of Maoist atrocities. Yet this Party had remained helpless to do anything about it. They could only genuflect before the Maoists and appease them. With such a weak political standing, it is ludicrous to think that this Party could stand against the Maoists.
If peace was ever the objective for appeasing the Maoists, then peace is not possible without relenting to the Maoists' demand for inter alia, a republic. Especially so, as the Maoists have clearly stated that if things do not go their way then they will revert back to violence. Option for armed onslaught has not been discarded. In this point also, the Nepali Congress could not possibly have taken a stand on the issue of monarchy to jeopardise any imagined prospect for peace.
However, this mystery regarding the delay in the formal declaration of a republic was never a mystery to those in tune with the geopolitics affecting Nepal. Some grounds to authenticate such geopolitical assessment had already been provided by the sayings of the Maoists, in that there are foreign intrusions.
The fact that the Home Minister, Krishna P. Sitaula, a senior member of the Nepali Congress had to beseech India to remove the king, says it all. Many took this plea, made by Sitaula to the Indian ambassador on 23rd February as normal. There was no hue and cry, as would have been in any independent and sovereign country, had their minister made such an appeal for foreign intervention.
However, one party, the RPP-N, made a protest on Tuesday --- five days later --- in a press release saying that Sitaula's subservient request was an affront to nationality and sovereignty. This protest was a display of ignorance of the changed status of Nepal, with the advent of "Loktantra".
At least, Sitaula knew where actually the sovereign power of Nepal now resides. He also knows the standing and status of those claiming to represent the people of Nepal. Anyway, it is apparent why the Nepali King still remains, in spite of all the hue and cry for officially declaring Nepal, a republic.
The failed leaders of the political Parties can genuflect. But the comedy unfolds when Nepali intellectuals keep braying for a republic, unaware that pawns, as they have become, are not players.
It has been quite a while that the people of Nepal have heard the slogan of Nepal being made into a Republic. But come to think of it, what is Nepal of today? Is it a republic by deed and not by word ? When the supreme power is with the plebeians and not with any autocrat or autocrats, it should qualify as a republic. We do not have an elected president or the elected representatives. This should qualify Nepal to be a dictatorship. Still, dictatorship is also a republic. When vital decisions are taken by unelected plebeians and not by autocrats, it qualifies to be called a dictatorial republic.
Yet, the unelected plebeians exercising the supreme power of the State have allowed the monarch to remain sans any power or role. Probably because of this, they are refraining from calling Nepal a dictatorial republic. Perhaps, with the formality of removing monarchy, they will finally call Nepal, what it has already been in actuality --- a republic.
But the enigma of Nepali politics is that those plebeians in power say they want to declare Nepal to be a republic. Yet they have not formally removed the monarchy while they seemingly hold the supreme power of the State ! What is preventing them to exercise the power for formally removing monarchy, which they have already rendered powerless?
They have with ease discarded the duly formulated Constitution. They have with ease rendered the monarch powerless. They have with ease formulated the first Interim Constitution and also amended it. They have with ease brought in those they had called terrorists in the unelected legislature. If they have done all these without being elected by the people, why are they waiting for the formality of being elected, to do away with the monarchy?
So far, they seem to be waiting to formally remove the monarchy via their own candidates through an elected Constituent Assembly. Why wait for a veneer of representation? As it is, they claim to be bestowed with the people's mandate. So, why are they just spending their time and energy, raving and ranting at monarchy? Why this display of impotency, when they wield the supreme power of the State?
They could have declared a republic many months ago. As easily as they had declared Nepal to be a non-Hindu country. Why didn't they? What had stopped them? What is stopping them? They claim they represent the people of Nepal now. So, why the delay in doing what they want to do ?
Some say that the delay is due to the Nepali Congress Party, being reluctant to decide the fate of monarchy. But this party has chosen to appease the Maoists. It has been apparent that this Party cannot withstand the Maoist onslaught. For about 10 years, this party had been routed out of the districts, their cadres and supporters being victims of Maoist atrocities. Yet this Party had remained helpless to do anything about it. They could only genuflect before the Maoists and appease them. With such a weak political standing, it is ludicrous to think that this Party could stand against the Maoists.
If peace was ever the objective for appeasing the Maoists, then peace is not possible without relenting to the Maoists' demand for inter alia, a republic. Especially so, as the Maoists have clearly stated that if things do not go their way then they will revert back to violence. Option for armed onslaught has not been discarded. In this point also, the Nepali Congress could not possibly have taken a stand on the issue of monarchy to jeopardise any imagined prospect for peace.
However, this mystery regarding the delay in the formal declaration of a republic was never a mystery to those in tune with the geopolitics affecting Nepal. Some grounds to authenticate such geopolitical assessment had already been provided by the sayings of the Maoists, in that there are foreign intrusions.
The fact that the Home Minister, Krishna P. Sitaula, a senior member of the Nepali Congress had to beseech India to remove the king, says it all. Many took this plea, made by Sitaula to the Indian ambassador on 23rd February as normal. There was no hue and cry, as would have been in any independent and sovereign country, had their minister made such an appeal for foreign intervention.
However, one party, the RPP-N, made a protest on Tuesday --- five days later --- in a press release saying that Sitaula's subservient request was an affront to nationality and sovereignty. This protest was a display of ignorance of the changed status of Nepal, with the advent of "Loktantra".
At least, Sitaula knew where actually the sovereign power of Nepal now resides. He also knows the standing and status of those claiming to represent the people of Nepal. Anyway, it is apparent why the Nepali King still remains, in spite of all the hue and cry for officially declaring Nepal, a republic.
The failed leaders of the political Parties can genuflect. But the comedy unfolds when Nepali intellectuals keep braying for a republic, unaware that pawns, as they have become, are not players.
Print
Email
