|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 04/05/07
Trouble in Paradise: Nepal’s Tryst with Insurgency and Despotism
by Harsh V. Pant
Protesting in September 2005 against King Gyanendra’s participation in the UN General Assembly in New York City, Girija Prasad Koirala, former prime minister of Nepal and current president of the Nepali Congress, declared, “The days of kings are gone.” Articulating the desire of a majority of the Nepalese people, Koirala’s comment also reflected the success of the Maoist insurgency in Nepal and the virtual isolation of the Nepalese monarchy.
Nepal is witnessing one of the most successful Maoist insurgencies in recent times. The current turbulence began in 1996, when the Communist Party of Nepal initiated a “People’s War” against the monarchy in an attempt to establish a communist republic. By failing to effectively counter the Maoist menace, the political parties of Nepal discredited themselves, giving King Gyanendra an excuse to take control from elected officials. In February 2005 the situation worsened when he suspended democratic rights in Nepal and the Nepalese army was called in to suppress the Maoists. The Maoist insurgency has spread to almost all of the seventy-five districts of the nation, taking the lives of more than 12,000 people so far.
This article examines the current crisis unfolding in Nepal with a focus on the roles of various domestic, regional, and international actors. It argues that so far the international community and the main regional player, India, have been lackluster in their responses to the unfolding crisis in Nepal. A major global initiative is necessary to prevent the emergence of another failed state. Following a brief overview of the crisis is an examination of the role of three major domestic forces in Nepal: the monarchy, the political parties, and the Maoists. Only after understanding the domestic actors can the response of India, the most influential regional player, be used to situate the present crisis in a larger regional context. The article concludes with observations about the future trajectory of the Nepalese imbroglio.
Overview: A Saga of Weak Democratic Institutions. With 42 percent of its population below the poverty line, Nepal is one of the leastdeveloped countries in the world. With a total area of 140,800 square kilometers, it is also one of the smallest states in the world, sharing its borders with India on three sides. Until 1951 Nepal was an isolated medieval kingdom without the rudimentary infrastructure of a modern state. A brief experiment with democracy was cut short in 1961 when King Mahendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev overthrew Nepal’s first ever elected government and banned political parties. His son, King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, succeeded him in 1972. By 1990, however, popular demand for democracy had reached levels that allowed Nepal’s political parties to forcefully demand a democratic regime, which ultimately led to the establishment of a multi-party democracy in April of that year.
This second attempt at democracy also proved short lived. King Gyanendra dismissed the democratically elected prime minister in 2002 and took direct rule even as he continued to make pious statements about his commitment to multiparty democracy. The monarchy ruled Nepal either directly or by proxy with nominated prime ministers until 1 February 2005, when the king took the extreme step of reverting Nepal to absolute monarchy. He dismissed the coalition government led by Sher Bahadur Deuba, declared a state of emergency, and assumed all executive powers for the next three years, thereby converting a constitutional monarchy into an unconstitutional dictatorship. The government placed many politicians under house arrest. Several provisions of the Nepali Constitution were also suspended, including the freedoms of press, speech, and expression; the freedom to assemble peacefully; and the right to privacy. In addition, the government implemented a policy of preventive detention, a further infringement on individual rights. Emergency rule has since been lifted, but the king continues to stifle the media with coercive laws and has yet to involve political parties in any meaningful process toward restoration of multiparty democracy. Political leaders and activists remain in prison, contrary to assurances given by the king to the international community.
The rising Maoist insurgency forms the backdrop for this political drama. Over one-third of Nepal’s 24 million people live below the poverty line, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in recent years. The insurgents have drawn strength from this socioeconomic discontent among the masses and have exploited the shortcomings of the Nepalese political system.2 Although the king took control by claiming that only a strong, centralized government led by a monarch could handle the crisis effectively, the reality is that the king and the Maoists are inseparable twins, conjoined by a rigid feudal order, an extractive economy, and a political system that has no regard for human rights. Both the king and the Maoists have relied on the failure of democracy to bolster their claims to power.
Harsh V. Pant is a Lecturer in the Department of Defense Studies at King’s College London. The views expressed here are his own.