NATIONAL 2 (Spotlight Weekly)]

Under Political Assault

The army has become the focus of political discussions. With hearsay and conjecture defining the parameters, can such debate be productive?

By AKSHAY SHARMA

Very few people knew the facts surrounding the military mission against Maoist rebels in Nuwagaun in Rolpa district, according to a recent newspaper report. The obvious implication is that the incessant commentaries and criticisms that followed in the media were largely based hearsay.

RNA personnel : On guard

In another article in the same publication, Udi Tagari, an Israeli freelance journalist, suggests that the Maoists represent a real threat not because of their military might but because of their popular support. "A grudging enthusiastic support, vindicating decades-long enthusiastic mistreatment and neglect by the center — which is not only the state and its various institutions, but also social and economic centers in Kathmandu and a few other central towns." Tagari finds it virtually impossible to believe that the Maoists with their rickety and rudimentary arms were ever or can ever be a problem for the army.

So what fuelled the sustained media coverage that, for the most part, sought to tarnish the image of the army? In a recent newspaper article, Dipt Prakash Shah, a former top legal official with the Royal Nepalese Army who was recently nominated by King Gyanendra to the upper house of parliament, framed the question more specifically. "Inside Nepal, one group [the Maoists] decided to wage a war and others opposed it. In these circumstances, why has the government failed to ensure the security of the people?"

Shah adds: "There is a police force to maintain law and order. If there is a serious situation, the National Security Council [chaired by the prime minister] has the authority to deploy the army. The government chosen by the people has to fulfil its basic duties like ensuring social and financial justice and national security. When a popularly elected government is at war, especially if there is a civil war, the victims are the people. Such a situation paralyses the whole nation."

RNA giving security : Unnecessary controversy

Some politicians and publications, oblivious of the sensitivities and stakes involved, are waging their own war against the army. As one expert puts it, "This is the first time the army is facing a frontal attack from within. The process of denigrating the army began after the tragic event at Narayanhity Palace on June 1 and the Nuwagaun episode was used to advance the campaign."

Leading politicians are on the front lines of this battle. "Former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala showed his immaturity by implying that he chose to step down because the army did not obey his orders," says a political analyst. "What could a season politician like him expect to gain by questioning the flawless record of discipline and loyalty the Royal Nepalese Army has maintained? Or was Koirala misled by aides who were working for other forces?"

There is no dearth of speculation on why the army didn’t move against the Maoists. The fact, however, remains that the soldiers eventually helped to bring the Maoists to the negotiating table. Why didn’t the army attack the rebels? Perhaps because they did not get specific orders — and the assurances of the conditions necessary — to do so.

The generals understood that deploying their soldiers would have drawn the immediate attention of opposition parties, pressure groups and human rights organizations, all of which were in favor of a negotiated settlement and against the use of force. How could the top brass have been expected to act without an across-the-board consensus?

"The army can quell the insurgency if all the forces in the country and the people want them to. But how hard have the elected leaders thought about this matter?" Shah asks. "During the course of military action, normal human-rights related issues and other legal considerations must be laid aside in order to successfully quell the crisis. According to the constitution, emergency rules must be invoked in the areas affected," he writes.

No effort was made towards creating the conditions for a successful military mission. Instead, Koirala’s resignation was followed by sustained attacks on the army from some of his closest confidantes. "A leader of Koirala’s stature should not have resorted to such cheap shots. Nepal’s specific conditions and circumstances have determined the nature and evolution of its polity. Can politicians be so sure they can survive in a state of confrontation with the army?" an analyst asks. "Are the anti-army tirades spewed by senior Nepali Congress leaders like Sailaja Acharya and Arjun Narsingh KC merely political posturing by a frustrated cabal or is something more sinister involved?"

Shah sees an element of dubiousness in the entire episode, extending into the government-Maoist talks. "The government or leaders have no right to address the issues raised by the Maoists. Their rebels’ demands can be met only through a revolution like in France or Russia. An overwhelming majority of Nepalis revere the monarchy and understand that it is an institution without which the country and people cannot prevail. Moreover, His Majesty cannot go against the wishes of the people."

Where will this effort to undermine image of the army eventually lead Nepalis? "There are six factors that play some role in the polity of Nepal: the monarchy, army, the two main popular political forces and our two big neighbors, China and India. The army has always played a stabilizing role in Nepal’s politics," the analyst adds. "The ongoing orchestrated attack on this force of stability cannot be viewed as purely coincidental."

A columnist for The New York Times once wrote: "There should be a permanent force of Gorkha soldiers as an international peace-keeping force. They are disciplined, they are respecters of families, they commit the lowest level of atrocity as compared to other armies in the world and above all, they come from a very high altitude that makes them stronger than people coming from low altitude. Their healthy conditions allow them to bear any kind of hardships."

Those advantages are hardly appreciated by Nepalese politicians, who have developed a habit of using state institutions to pursue their narrow political agendas. "In criticizing the army, Koirala may have been led into a trap by people working for extraneous forces that want to create rifts between the political and military leaderships," the analyst adds.

"The army doesn’t need to be told under whose command it is. Koirala should have kept in mind that the army, according to the constitution, is under the government. The king is part of the constitutional equation. The army will not go into action without the full preparation it needs," he adds.

Preoccupation with political equations and the numbers game in parliament may have prevented politicians from fully understanding how the military operates. "Koirala had no time to look into the structural imperatives of the institution when he ordered the mobilization of the army," the analyst says. "He treated the military as if it were any other political force." Such political overreach, even in a democratic system, could prove detrimental to the nation’s well being.