Nepal State Crisis and People's War: Strategies of Survival

Share This Story

By: Shashi P.B.B. Malla

At the present juncture, we have to be clear about our priorities, and if necessary think the unthinkable. Our mission is to preserve our independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity; everything else is only secondary. It may seem to be 'mission impossible', but we have to be realistic and demand the impossible ! After all " the difficult is what takes a little time; the impossible is what takes a little longer."

The Security Forces

The caretaker government has succeeded in demoralizing the police forces and the intelligence agency by axing their chiefs. It is now in the process of doing the same with the army. Wild rumours are floating around that the Chief of Army Staff, General Pyar Jung Thapa is to be relieved of his post or forced to resign because of being a hard-core 'royalist.' The same seems to be in store for the second-in-command, Lt.Gen. Rukmagat Kotwal. This 'development' is highly regrettable for various reasons, principally from the national security point of view.

Whether the army carries the epithet 'royal' or not is fully irrelevant. The army has time and again demonstrated its loyality to the civilian government in power. The government would be playing into the Maoists' hand by unduly interfering in the orderly promotion of army officers. If the army is in shambles, a Maoist takeover is most likely. Then heads will roll indiscriminately, even among the politicians. After all, they were the ones who unleashed brutal police force on the rebels. King Birendra did not allow the army to be mobilized against them. That is why his brutal murder was bemoaned by the insurgents.

There are reports that the third in seniority in the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA), Lt.Gen. Bala Nanda Sharma, currently serving with the United Nations as Force Commander (for a record third term) has been recalled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA). Now this is highly irregular. First, was this at the behest of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) or not? This portfolio is held by the Prime Minister himself. Just as in the royal regime, there is a perceptible lack of transparency in the decision-making process.

Since Lt.Gen. Sharma is in any case due to retire in a few months, he should not supersede the Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Kotwal, should Thapa resign or be ousted. As an officer and gentleman, Sharma should in any case decline the offer. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to curtail the duration of the office to two or wo and a half years. No general should be appointed to the top post because of canvassing via bribes. This would send a very bad message to the troops. The PM is too busy with other matters. He should immediately appoint a minister of state for defence to relieve himself of a heavy load.

If a name is to be changed, it is the defence ministry. By designating it the 'Ministry of National Defence', the implication would not be lost on the Nepalese people, the Maoists and the international community. It would be clear signal that the interim government is willing and able - through the army - to push forward the peace agenda and re-establish law and order on the domestic front and also defend the nation's territorial integrity. The installation of a puppet regime on Nepalese soil by foreign power(s) is not in the interests of the Nepalese people. In the meantime, the Maoists continue to put pressure on the government and provoke the RNA with their continued atrocities. Indian army generals are disgusted with their government's support of the Nepalese Maoists (with their proven nexus to the Indian terrorists- Naxalites/Maoists) and have secretly urged the RNA to crush the Maoists relentlessly.

A 'sovereign' Parliament ?

The agenda to declare the House of Representatives (HoR) sovereign is untimely, redundant and unconstitutional. First, the HoR as a body acts in the name of the Nepalese people, who are the real 'sovereign' (possessing supreme and ultimate power): " the source of sovereign authority of the independent and sovereign Nepal is inherent in the people" (Preamble to The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990 ). That MPs with law degrees (with knowledge of constitutional law and political science) ignore this basic fact is indeed astounding! Or is it all a gimmick to fool the people? Or is there some other hidden agenda?

Second, the HoR is the legislature per definition. It cannot usurp executive powers. It is there to enact laws, not to govern the country. Third, it has no mandate from the people to even legislate on matters of great import. The time-frame for its mandate has already expired. Its resurrection was a political necessity to give some semblance of legality to the provisional government. It cannot change or modify the hallowed Constitution. This is the job of the future constituent assembly to be elected by 'free and fair' elections, monitored by international observers. It can, of course, form a committee on national security to oversee the government in this sphere.

The Monarchy

By the same reasoning, the HoR - whether it declares itself 'sovereign' (unconstitutionally and illegally), or not, has no right to tamper with the rights, privileges and duties of the monarch at the present juncture. This is a question to be resolved by the sovereign Nepalese people through their duly elected representatives in the constituent assembly. It is also for the people to decide whether to retain constitutional monarchy as the form of state. The constituent assembly will decide on the modus operandi , probably through a referendum. This is the politically correct path to be taken. If the Communists/Maoists want a so-called 'democratic republic', then this is their political right. But for this they have to take the road of evolutionary elective politics, not by force of arms or even intimidating and manipulative elections.

It is an entirely different question whether in the interests of the nation as a whole and the future of constitutional monarchy per se , it is politically wise for King Gyanendra to continue in office. Taking into consideration the grave mistakes committed in the recent past, and the very negative perceptions of the monarchy in the world at large, it would indeed seem opportune that the King would be doing the nation and future generations (his included) a great service if he graciously abdicated in favour of his grandson Prince Hridendra.

Queen Mother Ratna would initially be the Queen Regent later followed by Crown Princess Himani. The King and Crown Prince Paras would temporarily go into voluntary exile, perhaps to Thailand. Alls well, that ends well !

The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com

alan@newsblaze.com