Nepal’s Peace Process at tenterhook ------ 2
by Krishna Paudel
Democrey goes awry at the hand of political defaulters:
In the aftermath of popular movemnet of 1989-90 and the general election, Nepali Congress again emerged victorious and formed a majoiry government to serve for five years. Party infighting among its top leaders and factionalism led the GP Koirala led Nepali Congress government collapse after its first three years in power. During these three years , the main opposition party Nepal Communist party United Marxist Leninist ( 69 out of 205 seats in parliament) intensified its vicious campaign against the NC led government’s liberal fiscal policies and also accusing it of nepotism and corruption. According to the opposition, the NC led government had undermined people’s expectations in the just concluded movement and was unilaterally deviating from adopting pro-people policies and consequently leading the nation towards economic anarchy to benefit a handful few only. The people in the government, on the other hand, were always on the lookout of material opportunities their precarious hanging onto the power never bringing their focus on country, people and the longer term implications of government actions or policies. This led to disillusionment of people towards the democratic process taking shape in the country which only resulted in frequent elections and toppling of yet another government. Eventulally , the main opposition party NCP UML decided to transform itself into a Socialst Democratic party with the adoption of People’s Multi-party democracy as its party objective trough its party convention in 1992, still replete with communist jargons and agenda.
The ensuing years of recent Nepalese political history were unstable. As many as 13 prime ministers came and went into oblivion during the later ten years rule of multi-party Democratic rule in Nepal. The Maoist movement was creating havoc in the rural hinterlands and was expanding exponentially amid intimidation and fear tactics as well as some poor friendly maneuvers by the insurgent party . Initially, dismissed and discounted as a misadventure dared by an insignificant few as a youthful and romantic Robin Hoodism , the Maoist People’s revolution, as claimed by themselves, was expanding its territorial influence and becoming a potent force capable of running their parallel rule across the rural part of Nepal aided by their own ‘People’s Government’ ‘ people’s courts’ etc. displacing the state all the while.
The palace/king:
Although the palace of Nepal agreed to relinquish its all privileged beyond the constitution position and prerogatives as demanded by people after the popular Movement of 1989-90, it was still a actively existent making a considerable influence in the day-today governance of the sate as well. It was widely believed that the inner palace elements, royalties, their kinsmen , clan members and cronies whose various privileges were revoked in the aftermath of the Democratic movement , inside the Nepalese palace were never at ease with the democratic transformation of the country. These element were against the general people coming to the fore of political helm, although in the name of different political parties. The Royal Nepalese Army ( RNA) , as the singular strongest tool of the state mechanism, was still believed to be pro-palace led by the conservative royalist generals, many of whom hailed from the aristocratic clans of the Shahas and Ranas. Constitutionally, the king was still the Supreme Chief ( Param Senadhipati) of the RNA and the Commander-in-Chief ( COS ) and other general continued still to be loyal to this primitive vestige of power in the name of Monarchy . During the later years of the Maoist insurgency decade, the government led by Girija Prasad Koirala had sought the King’s approval to send the RNA to quell the Maoist insurgency in the mostly affected areas of the mid western region. Furthermore, controversy grew regarding the army not assisting the police during insurgent attacks in remote areas.The PM unable to get the nod from the king, succumbed under moral pressure and resigned from his position. This event was the epitome of an already extant relationship of disenchantment between the palace and the ruling party, the Nepali congress In the coming years, the situation grew from bad to worse.
The Unimaginable: the palace massacre
In the fateful night of Friday, June 1, 2001, Nepal experienced one of the worst event in its recent memory. In a weekly congregation of the royal members partying on a Friday evening, there occurred an incident that took life of 19 members wiping out the whole family tree of King Birendra altogether in a mysterious shootout. The king , his wife, younger son and the only daughter was dead on the spot whereas the elder son declared to be in coma and the culprit in the shootout were the members of King Birendra’s family. The king’s second brother was away to Pokhara and was spared from the fateful party but his wife sustaining a few splinters and his only son mysteriously escaped unscathed in the shootout.
Amid bizarre twist of events, the privy council declared prince Dipendra, in coma and the main culprit in the shootout. Withinin a day , Dipendra’s rein in unconsciousness, too, expired to be succeded by his surviving uncle , Gyanaendra, who had missed the palace party and the horrific night by virtue of being away on his private visit to Pokhara , a tourist town west to Kathmandu, the capital. The rumours and all the conspiracy theory propaganda that spread in the coming few months was utterly impossible for the ordinary Nepali people to comprehend , traumatized with the unimaginable. Who masterminded or carried out such a ruthless extermination of the royal members and what political or sinister design might have been in its background in its aftermath was beyond the understanding and belief of the people. There were rumours of a possible design by RAW ( Indian intelligence wing ), CIA, the Maoists or any other group. The Maoists too announced that they were shocked at the news of the palace massacre and the death of the patriotic king . Theirs was a traditional condemnation of India-US nexsus which was decidedly against the patriotic alliance of the palace and Communists for the sovereignty of an independent Nepal. The Maoists saw in this event a conspiracy agenda hatched
by elements within and outside the nation which didn’t like the success of both the palace and the Maoists. The Maoists for the first time during their insurgency years openly accepted that they were in a working alliance with the deceased king through different palace emissaries.
King Gyanendra and his ambition:
Soon after King Gyanendra succeeded the short lived rule of his nephew, in no uncertain terms he declared that unlike his brother late King Birendra, he wanted to be the head of the state who wanted to be heard and seen . This was possibly his muffled declaration of his apathy against the parliamentary system of democracy practiced in the country that believed in a ceremonial monarchy as the titular head that does no wrong. Violence caused by the Maoists was on the rise and the security force was in defensive in the outlying parts of Nepal. This situation changed dramatically in 2002 when the first session of peace talks failed and the Maoists attacked an army barracks in Daang district in western Nepal. Overnight, the army was unleashed against the insurgents. Ever since the assumption to Nepalese throne , King Gyanendra made his gestures clear that if the situation continued to deteriorate , he would be forced to act on his own. This desire of his came into substance when He seized full control of the nation by dissolving the elected parliament and government in February 2005. King Gyanendra through a state broadcast made it clear that the step was taken by him with a view to overcome violent civil war and maintain peace and order in the nation. He promised a timeframe of three years before he reinstated the democratic process. However, he didn’t bother to take any political parties or neighboring nations into confidence in his act. His usurpation of state power was condemned by all the political parties and Nepal’s allies in the wider world. The most vociferous of condemnation came from Nepal’s southern neighbor , India, who in no uncertain terms asked the king to reverse his act return democracy to the political parties by restoring the democratic process. However, king Gyanendra decided to act his one way by forming a ministerial council led by two of his late father’s loyalists some 4 decades back. King Gyanendra’s style of functioning started showing his sheer apathy against multi-party system of governance. In the beginning of king Gyanendra’s direct rule , the underground Maoists party expected that the king will send a gesture for them to join the political mainstream but it was never to be . In fac, the direct rule of the king seemed to making attempts to strengthening his direct rule while the situation across the nation got further aggravated. He was alienating the political parties and pushing them towards the radical Maoists for an alliance so that he would be able to seek international support to quell them together as a radically violent alliance. However, this was not to be. Seven of the mainstream parliamentary parties forged an alliance and decided to carry out a peaceful movement against the king’s direct rule and even called for the Maoists to join them renouncing violence and declaring a ceasefire.
The New Delhi sojourn: 12 point negotiation :
In an utterly unforeshightful misadventure, the inexperienced yet naively ambitious King Gyanendra had failed to gauge new Delhi’s ire when he decided to seize the absolute power. Angered and provoked by the king, New Delhi decided to mediate between the mainstream political parties ( now a seven party aloiance) led by an octogenarian veteran leader GP Koirala and the Maoist led by Puspa Kamal Dahal known with his nom-de-guerre Prachanda, the
ferocious. After much kowtow, at the auspices of New Delhi a 12 point peace deal was brokered and signed between the seven parties and Maoists. They agreed to launching a final peaceful movement to ouster the rule of the king. It is reported that the Maoists agreed to accept the multi-party political system with some reforms on the condition the political parties accepted election to the constitution assembly to write a news people’s constitution and abolition of Monarchy. However, this negotiation was still kept secret and not publicized because the Maoists were still a banned terrorist outfit and any explicit involvement of them in public agitations against the king’s rule could invite unprecedented persecution . Therefore, it was tacitly agreed among them that the Seven Party Alliance ( SPA ) would announce a general strike appealing all Nepalese to boycott tax and participation in government ceremonies. The Maoists on the other hand agreed to announce ceasefire in certain areas in the country allowing people to participate in the movement against the King’s rule. In fact, the Maoists sent throngs of people from villages, sometimes by force, to encircle the Kathmandu valley. In the beginning the general strike was to take palce from 5 to 9 April 2006 , but later it was extended to an indefinite period of time paralyzing all activities and halting the nation to an uproarish standstill. It was believed that almost 200,000 people actively participated in the Kathmandu gherao Movement when the agitation culminated on the 24h of April. Protestors encountered and scuffles against the security forces and police were reported nationwide district headquarters and the one in Kathmandu was leading to unmanageable proportion with every passing day. The king sought the Army’s help but its chief simply advised him to seek a political solution to the problem as it was impossible to quell the peaceful agitation with force. The king received similar advice from foreign envoys stationed in the national capital. The Indian government sent its Mission representative, Dr. Karan Singh to facilitate the king in finding a political solution with the agitating parties. In a nationally televised address , King Gyanedra reinstated the dissolved parliament and called upon the Seven Party Alliance to bear the responsibility of taking the nation on the path to a national unity and prosperity ensuring permanent peace and safeguarding multiparty Democracy.
( To be continued ---------- 3rd and concluding part to come )
