Fragmented political class and the Nepali army
By Sudarshan Shrestha
While looking at the present situation in the country, we must not forget that it has its roots in the Maoists’ armed struggle to achieve what they believe is justice for the common Nepali people.
The then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba made genuine efforts to resolve the Maoists problem through dialogue on the negotiating table during his tenure as head of the government. But how can we forget what transpired as soon as the Maoists unilaterally pulled out of peace talks to immediately launch mayhem attacks on Nepal’s security forces in a number of places including Dang killing more than 50 soldiers and policemen on 23 November 2001.
Have we forgotten why the King declared a state of emergency on the recommendation of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba a day after the Maoists made a planned and systematic attack on the state’s army? The Nepalese people felt a sense of unity when political parties including the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML and others voiced their unequivocal support for the emergency which was aimed at countering terrorism perpetrated by the Maoists. The people of this country felt a sense of loss when soldiers and policemen were killed. The 23rd Central Committee of the CPN-UML which was then in the opposition, supported the government’s decision to declare an emergency on 29 November 2001, saying that acts of terrorism by the Maoists were responsible for the state of emergency. UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal said, "The terrorist activities of Maoists are responsible for the current critical situation as it were they who abruptly broke the talks, killing soldiers, police and looting financial institutions."
The communist party’s central Committee even concluded that the wrong and undemocratic policy of the Nepali Congress was the main reason for the political crisis. The same day the Nepali Congress President Girija Prasad Koirala gave his support to the country’s fight against terrorism saying that his party was fully behind the government in the declaration of the state of emergency and the mobilization of the army. There was unanimous voice of the government, the parties in the government and those in the opposition “there can be no more dialogue with the Maoists until the Maoists lay down arms and come under the country’s constitution”.
27 November 2001, the then Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee personally called the King and Prime Minister saying that India would provide "whatever assistance is required" in its fight against the Maoists. The then Indian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Nirupama Rao told reporters that New Delhi was going to support Nepal to maintain peace and security in the country and would not allow the Maoists to use Indian soil.
There is no more truth than this for the common Nepali people to understand. The core of the problem remains the same; the Maoists continue to use force, violence, political intimidation and are bent on attacking the country’s army and police. Four years have passed and nothing has changed in the Maoists attitude and their outlook. To address the Maoist problem and exhibit flexibility, a second cease-fire on 29 January 2003 came into implementation, only to be unilaterally broken by the Maoists on 27 August the same year. But still nothing has changed; the Maoists have not agreed to lay down their arms.
The core issue that dragged the country to the situation in November 2001 and its consequence remain unchanged. But what has changed is increased political bickering, setting up of vested alliances, the loss of mind, the building up of frustration and love lost for the country’s sovereignty and independence on the part of political parties. The voices which strongly supported the mobilization of the army in the fight against terrorism in November 2001 are today trying to fragment and politicize the nation’s army. But it should not be surprising to note where the power base of these statements are; considering the American Senator Patrick Leahy’s statement to the US senate saying it was time for the nation’s army to choose between the King and the people. Rights activist Krishna Pahadi who also wears the hat of political activist also spoke in the same tone as the American Senator upon his return from the United States saying "The RNA has a choice to make: whether it sides with the king or with the people, in the ongoing war between king and people".
The literacy rate in Nepal may be less than 50%, but the Nepali people are smart enough to know who is fighting whom. For those who have been misguided by political and international activism, the war in this country is between the guns, sockets bombs, booby traps, extortions, abductions and forced political indoctrinations of the Maoists and the Nepali people. But what Pahadi fails to understand or choose not to understand is the history behind the army’s role in the present conflict and the country’s fight against terrorism.
Madhav Kumar Nepal, who has served the country as Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister, has gone a step further, by trying to threaten the country’s soldiers and police to make them accountable before the International Criminal Court, questioning the country’s justice system. As an ingenious politician, Nepal should know that the nation’s army and policemen are on a war footing not to kill innocent people, but to fight the people who Madhav Nepal and his colleagues declared terrorists. The question is not to make choices but for Madhav Kumar Nepal to have respect for the people who were called out of their barracks to fight the atrocities of the Maoists against Nepali people, including his party activists. It is beyond doubt that the UML leader is trying to fragment Nepal’s army in a state of political frustration and loss of self-confidence.
Unlike the UML leader who has a history of changing his party’s political partnerships and alliances to suit his political ambitions, the army and the country’s security bodies are always guided by their loyalty towards the state and its people irrespective of the government in place under the constitution.
Interestingly, the army and the police were there to provide security when attempts were made to vandalize UML’s party office. Yet there was not a word of encouragement; only political rhetoric threatening the government. As the leader of the country’s major political party, Madhav Nepal has the freedom and right to negotiate for peace, the freedom to express dissent and opposition, and set up and destroy political alliances, but Mr. Nepal should know that the state’s army, police force and its servicemen are not political pawns to support political activism. Speaker Taranath Ranabhat’s comments should have rung bells for Madhav’s ears when he said the army has its allegiance towards the state and the Nepali people and it belongs to an independent and sovereign nation and not to any one individual.
(Shrestha writes on contemporary issues. Please send your comments to sgshrestha@info.com.np)
(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to editors@mos.com.np and your comments/suggestions to feedback@mos.com.np)
