| |
A People's Handsome Victory
Nepal Shows the Way
Praful Bidwai
Frontline, 8 May 2006
It's hard not to feel elated at the remarkable victory the people of Nepal have won by forcing their despotic, arrogant and powerful ruler to re-convene the Pratinidhi Sabha (lower house of parliament), thus paving the way for a Constituent Assembly. The stand-off between the Palace and the people, which began on April 6, turned into a direct contest of wills. By April 24, the people prevailed. Only three days earlier, King Gyanendra had made a last-ditch effort to rescue his absolutist rule by offering to swear in a weak, totally subservient government, which he could manipulate and dismiss at will. He abandoned it in the face of strong popular rejection and ate humble pie.
The King's effective power has all but evaporated. True, he administered the oath of office to Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. But that was basically a formality. Mr Koirala refused to join the Rajparishad, the privy council, of which all Prime Ministers have been members. This minor act of defiance sums up the new mood in Nepal, like its MPs' refusal on April 28 to let the Crown into the Pratinidhi Sabha. The King is on his way out, he has no future.
The King still retains control of the 80,000-strong Royal Nepalese Army (RNA), with a loyal top brass. Yet, army chief Pyarjang Thapa advised the King to relinquish absolute power. He was at pains to appear autonomous of the Palace. This isn't because Gen Thapa suddenly shifted loyalties, but because he saw that the army faced a split between its higher echelons (colonels and above), and the rank-and-file, whose wives and children were prominent among those surrounding the Palace in the pro-democracy agitation. This change of stance follows a classic pattern and speaks of a near-revolutionary shift in the balance of forces.
No less remarkable are the altered stances of India, China and the United States vis-à-vis the Seven-Party Alliance, which sealed a compact with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to jointly launch the popular agitation. India had welcomed the King's deceptive April 21 offer but quickly changed its position. It's now planning to offer Nepal a large assistance package. China blatantly sided with the Palace not least because the King threw out a Tibet solidarity group. Now, Beijing heartily welcomes Mr Koirala's government with its clearly stated agenda of holding elections to a Constitutional Assembly.
The US was extremely hostile to the Maoists and put them on the terrorist watch-list. Until recently, it did everything possible to wreck their 12-point understanding with the SPA. But now it says it's willing to recognise them if they spurn violence. This may not go down well with many Nepalis who see it as messing with their domestic policies. But it's nevertheless a tribute to the people's victory over the Palace-a victory as handsome as it's stunning.
What made the victory possible? A major role was played by the SPA-Maoist joint agitation. But in all fairness, this was a catalysing or enabling role. In reality, ordinary Nepalis themselves took charge of the struggle. As it developed, they got radicalised. This emergence of the people as arbiters of their own fate was critical to the King's retreat. It also ensured that none of the seven parties would fall into a trap set by the King-by abandoning their long-term demands for the loaves and fishes of office.
The Nepali people now seem set on the road to achieving an objective-the formation of a Constituent Assembly-which was sabotaged twice, in the late 1950s and again in 1990. In all probability, this will lead to a Republic, or the monarchy's reduction to a purely ceremonial role. But a return to the status quo can be ruled out. Gyanendra is a wily old fox. And Mr Koirala is a much-compromised leader. Both will do their utmost to limit the autonomous power of the people. But they face a vigilant and politically charged population, which has transformed itself from subjects to citizens.
The triumph of Nepal's democracy agitation vindicates and reconfirms a great lesson which history has taught us right since the English Revolution of 1640-that Kings and Emperors, however mighty, have no future as rulers, that public opinion will prevail over the force of arms. It also disproves a stereotype about the peoples of South Asia, which holds that thanks to their fatalistic attitudes, the existence of deep social hierarchies, and powerful and arrogant states, they put up with the most extreme oppression and exploitation without rebelling.
Nepal's "democratic revolution" has been in the making for a long time. Ever since King Gyanendra usurped executive power 16 months ago in a putsch, following his October 2002 coup, it has been obvious to everyone familiar with Nepal that the Palace was courting trouble. Blatant misgovernance, cavalier interference with countless Ministries, cronyism of the most despicable variety, muzzling of the media, and brutal repression became the order of the day.
The King's direct rule was disastrous. It further strengthened the people's opposition to him. In recent months, their day-to-day life became more suffocating. The Palace's attempt to justify autocratic government by citing the Maoist "threat" failed to cut any ice. Rather, larger numbers began to sympathise and identify themselves with the Maoists, who have a strong base in three-fourths of all of Nepal's districts. The Maoists deserve to be criticised for their violent methods and for targeting civilians. But they indisputably represent Nepal's dispossessed and marginalised.
The SPA-Maoist 12-point agreement, reached last November, became possible primarily because the parties were compelled to acknowledge that the CPN(M) is a force with a popular base, and because Maoist ideologue Baburam Bhattarai recently formulated a new thesis: in the 21st century, a viable political strategy cannot be based on armed struggle alone. Nor can it use revolutionary violence, which Nepal's two big neighbours, India and China, oppose. The Maoists committed themselves to disarming under the auspices of the United Nations or a "credible" third party. In return, the SPA agreed to demand the establishment of a Constituent Assembly through a mass agitation.
The process of reaching the 12-point agreement, which New Delhi facilitated largely under the pressure of the supporting parties of the United Progressive Alliance, was a tortuous one. India vacillated and prevaricated. The United States was hostile to the agreement. The agreement, mercifully, survived the vacillations, punctuated by the resumption of (limited) arms supplies to the RNA by the US, Britain and India.
In March, the agreement was further fleshed out. The King got increasingly delusional as the agitation beginning April 6 gathered force despite savage repression. India, to its abiding disgrace, sent former maharajah Karan Singh, who is married into the Nepalese royalty, as an emissary to Gyanendra. The message was clear: India still sets store by King Gyanendra as a guarantor of Nepal's stability. India had clearly misjudged the mood in Nepal and was forced to revise its April 21 stand-although Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reiterated it the next day, only to be contradicted by Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran.
A crucial input in the Nepali people's resolve to fight for a Constituent Assembly is their own experience of democracy, instituted after a popular agitation in 1990. Despite the flaws of this system, based on the "twin pillars"-"Constitutional monarchy" and "multi-party democracy"-this experience was positive. After 1990, Nepal witnessed a major improvement in social indicators-a rise in literacy from 36 percent to almost two-thirds, quadrupling of health-services provision, a rise in life expectancy by about 10 years, and a 74 percent increase in access to drinking water. Electrification grew four-fold and total road length doubled.
Post-1990, the traditionally backward areas outside the Kathmandu Valley-which had hitherto concentrated all power in Nepal-benefited from development. This empowered the smaller Janajatis (ethnic and tribal groups from mountainous areas), as well as religious minorities and women. Democracy had proved itself to be substantive, and politicised hitherto disadvantaged sections.
There are major lessons in the Nepal developments for all of South Asia. The region's peoples are getting politicised. Once they assert their democratic aspirations and rights, they'll get more and more energised and empowered. Political arrangements like the 12-point agreement, which accommodates the urges of the underclass represented by the Maoists, are the best-if not the only-way to bring militant currents into the mainstream and tap their creative energies. Armed repression cannot work beyond a point. Nor will Machiavellian manipulation and backroom deals.
In India, in particular, the Naxalite movement should draw a lesson from Nepal. It stands to gain a great deal by joining the democratic mainstream. Progressive parties, in turn, must encourage this and rally against the approach of dealing with the Naxalite challenge with the force of arms. They should instead advocate negotiations and purposive measures to deal with popular grievances, especially in the 170 districts (of India's total of 600) which are affected by insurgency. Nepal has shows that mass mobilisation is the best way to a participatory democracy. We must imbibe this lesson.
Copyright 2006 Frontline
|
|
