LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

February 16--28, 2005 - Vol. 24, No. 4

Royal coup in Nepal

Nepal, the only Hindu kingdom in the world, was plunged into grave crisis on February 1 when King Gyanendra sacked the government of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and declared a state of emergency. Taking the reins of governance in his own hands, the king has effectively converted constitutional monarchy into executive monarchy. Civil rights of the citizens of Nepal have been suspended. Strict censorship has been imposed on the media. Many politicians, including the former prime minister have been put under house arrest. The BJP expressed its grave concern over the latest developments in Nepal on the very next day, when Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Shri Lal Krishna Advani, after meeting Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, issued a statement (See page 4).

Setback to democracy in any country in the world is an unwelcome development from the point of view of the BJP, which counts 'democracy' as one of its Panch Nishthaayen (five foundational commitments). But Nepal is not 'any country', as far as India is concerned. Our spiritual, cultural and social ties with Nepal run deeper than with any other country in the world. We have a profound stake in the stability, security and progress of Nepal. This is partly because instability and turmoil in the Himalayan Kingdom, which shares a long border with India, have a bearing on our own national security. After all, there is a strong ideological and operational link between Maoist insurgents in Nepal and the naxalites of various stripes in India (See page 22). But the reasons for our concern go beyond our own diplomatic and security considerations. We have a vital stake in the well-being of the people of Nepal because we share a special relationship with them and their nation.

Sadly, over the past few years, this special neighbour of ours has been facing one trauma after another. The most painful of these has been the murderous insurgency mounted by Maoists since the middle of the 1990s. It has led to the death of over 10,000 people, besides severely damaging the economy, undermining the efficacy of governance and denting the credibility of the political system. "It would not be right for the monarchy to just watch the country slide into chaos," the king announced in defence of his emergency rule. "Even when bloodshed, violence and devastation have pushed the country to the brink of destruction, those engaged in politics continued to shut their eyes to the people's welfare." He has thus blamed politicians who took part in Nepal's fledgling democratic experiment for having precipitated the current chaotic situation.

In other words, King Gyanendra would like the people of Nepal - and the rest of the world - to believe that executive monarchy will succeed where "guided democracy" has failed. Not many would be persuaded to put their hope in this assurance. There is no example in recent world history where a monarch or an absolutist ruler who has grabbed all power in his own hands, has quelled a domestic insurgency and then willingly paved the way for a democratic system to take over. On the contrary, cases abound where such rulers have become tyrants, and brought greater misfortune on their peoples.Which is why, traditionally, both governments and major political parties in India (which have close links with both the monarchy and the political opinion in Nepal) have held that maintenance of constitutional monarchy, coupled with sustained and determined development of multi-party democracy, is the best guarantor of the protection of Nepal's national interests and the fulfillment of its people's aspirations. Implicit in this view was the hope that, in course of time, all real power would gravitate towards people's representatives and the monarchy would remain only as a respected symbol and custodian of Nepal's unique national identity. Barring the Maoists, this view resonated well with all segments of the mainstream patriotic spectrum of the Nepalese society.

Unfortunately, both the palace establishment and the mainstream political establishment seem to have failed to develop the necessary partnership, so vital for Nepal's transition to effective democracy and a secure future. This failure was most starkly seen in the lack of a common strategy and a unified front between these two establishments to quell the Maoist insurgency. Nepal's woes, stemming from this failure, grew manifold when, on June 1st 2001, a mysterious massacre in the palace wiped out the widely revered King Birendra, his son crown prince Dipendra, and nine other members of the royal family. Thereafter, Gyanendra was crowned as the 13th king of the Shah dynasty. However, these traumatic events are said to have brought about a significant change in the attitude of the ordinary people in Nepal (some of whom earlier worshipped the king as semi-divine) towards the royal family.

If alienation of the people from the palace is one aspect of the current reality, it is also no secret that King Gyanendra made no honest efforts to partner with the political establishment to deal with the Maoist rebellion. Tension and animosity in this relationship became evident when the king suspended parliamentary democracy in October 2002 and began appointing prime ministers and governments through royal decree. In less than three years, he appointed (and sacked) three governments. This time around, he has appointed himself as the de facto prime minister and, simultaneously, curtailed the fundamental rights of citizens. Rather than contributing to a common front against Maoists, he may end up contributing to the emergence of a common front against the king.

The BJP believes that India's stand on the events in Nepal should be guided primarily by a comprehensive understanding of our national interests. Our party expresses its solidarity with the people of Nepal for the fulfillment of two aspirations that are uppermost in their minds: an early end to the Maoist insurgency and also an early end to the emergency rule— both paving the way for a return to constitutional monarchy and restoration of multi-party democracy in an effectively empowered form.