Nepal: An Army without a cause?
Atul Chatterjee
April 23, 2009
In Nepal the prospect of the Army Chief Rukmangud Katwal´s likely sacking receded with India and the US having spoken on his behalf. Even some coalition partners protested the move to the Prime Minister Pushpa Kumar Dahal ´Prachanda´.
More recently the Nepal Army boycotted the National Games because of the participation of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA – Maoists who had waged a decade plus struggle against the monarchy and the Army). In fact large number of this cadre are enjoying a UN subsidy.
It is said that the PLA is nothing but a gang of extortionists and murderers. It may be so, but at the elections in 2008 the party they supported were voted in, though not with an absolute majority.
The strangest move is that the Army is trying to recruit 3000 men. What does Katwal intend doing with so many soldiers? The government has presumably authorized the move in the first place. The government´s move is understandable, it possibly wants to stuff the Army with members of the PLA.
There is a different question. To the north there is the Chinese army which can overrun Nepal in a few weeks, to the south the Indian army which can do it in fewer weeks (mainly because of geographical advantages). So what is the Nepalese army guarding against? Earlier it was to keep the people quiet. Now what role does it have?
What do you do with an army which has a minor role to guard national frontiers?
A few roles of the Indian army (read armed forces) are fighting internal insurgency, emergency operations in times of disaster and civil disobedience, environment reconstruction, catalyzing institutions.
The Indian army has protected areas from environmental degradation. During a strike work by electricity workers in the state of UP a few years it took over distribution centers and operated them. It has opened management institutes and schools. In times of civil war in pockets (like Kashmir) it has cracked down. In fact during riots when police and para military forces are unable to contain a situation the army is called in. It is the disciplinarian of last resort. In times of environmental disasters the army flies in.
In fact armies around the world are trained in other roles as well. In the 1980s, while Ronald Reagan was President, US armed forces personnel took over air traffic control towers when their civilian counterparts struck work.
The Nepalese army needs to reinvent itself and its officers and soldiers need to be retrained. Rukmangud Katwal was trained in India, now Nepal should look to train its officers in UK, US, Russia etc (If they feel like slapping India they could send them off to China). The officers may enjoy it more. Similarly the soldiers also need to be retrained, just as the PLA was accused of atrocities so was the Army. Otherwise the soldiers are going to be paid for doing precious little.
Instead of handing out a dole to the PLA, members should be retrained. It is time for the government at Kathmandu to put on its thinking cap and redefine the traditional role of the army.
More recently the Nepal Army boycotted the National Games because of the participation of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA – Maoists who had waged a decade plus struggle against the monarchy and the Army). In fact large number of this cadre are enjoying a UN subsidy.
It is said that the PLA is nothing but a gang of extortionists and murderers. It may be so, but at the elections in 2008 the party they supported were voted in, though not with an absolute majority.
The strangest move is that the Army is trying to recruit 3000 men. What does Katwal intend doing with so many soldiers? The government has presumably authorized the move in the first place. The government´s move is understandable, it possibly wants to stuff the Army with members of the PLA.
There is a different question. To the north there is the Chinese army which can overrun Nepal in a few weeks, to the south the Indian army which can do it in fewer weeks (mainly because of geographical advantages). So what is the Nepalese army guarding against? Earlier it was to keep the people quiet. Now what role does it have?
What do you do with an army which has a minor role to guard national frontiers?
A few roles of the Indian army (read armed forces) are fighting internal insurgency, emergency operations in times of disaster and civil disobedience, environment reconstruction, catalyzing institutions.
The Indian army has protected areas from environmental degradation. During a strike work by electricity workers in the state of UP a few years it took over distribution centers and operated them. It has opened management institutes and schools. In times of civil war in pockets (like Kashmir) it has cracked down. In fact during riots when police and para military forces are unable to contain a situation the army is called in. It is the disciplinarian of last resort. In times of environmental disasters the army flies in.
In fact armies around the world are trained in other roles as well. In the 1980s, while Ronald Reagan was President, US armed forces personnel took over air traffic control towers when their civilian counterparts struck work.
The Nepalese army needs to reinvent itself and its officers and soldiers need to be retrained. Rukmangud Katwal was trained in India, now Nepal should look to train its officers in UK, US, Russia etc (If they feel like slapping India they could send them off to China). The officers may enjoy it more. Similarly the soldiers also need to be retrained, just as the PLA was accused of atrocities so was the Army. Otherwise the soldiers are going to be paid for doing precious little.
Instead of handing out a dole to the PLA, members should be retrained. It is time for the government at Kathmandu to put on its thinking cap and redefine the traditional role of the army.
Print
Email
