National 3 (Spotlight Weekly)

The General Speaks Out

What compelled the army chief to say what he said?

By KESHAB POUDEL and SANJAYA DHAKAL at Shivapuri

Although it was a normal convocation ceremony, the contents of the speech Royal Nepalese Army chief General Prajwalla Sumsher Rana's delivered to the audience in Shivapuri sent shock waves across the political establishments. MPs disrupted parliament for days seeking clarifications from Prime Minister

RNA Chief Rana : Candid comments

Sher Bahadur Deuba, who also holds the defence portfolio, on what they described as "unfortunate", "provocative" and "ominous" comments from the country's top army brass.

At the epicenter of this political earthquake was Gen. Rana's candid appraisal of today's dismal political scenario. In an address to an audience that included the top brass of the army, senior police officers and intellectuals at Shivapuri, about 15 kilometers north of Kathmandu, Gen. Rana voiced his concern at the lack of cooperation security forces were being meted by political parties in their campaign against the Maoist insurgency.

"We have to be proud of the role played by the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) in the fight against terrorists," Prime Minister Deuba told parliament after returning from a tour of the security situation in western Nepal. "We have to salute the brave actions of our security personnel," the prime minister said, adding that he had "alerted" the army chief about the MPs' concerns.

Prime Minister Deuba visited the far-western and western regions of the country along with King Gyanendra and Crown Prince Paras to inspect the situation on the ground and boost the morale of security personnel.

Gen. Rana asserted that his comments were made in good faith. "My statement was not influenced by any political thinking but was a positive observation. The Royal Nepalese Army is fighting to finish terrorism and protect Nepalese nationalism under the political leadership," the army chief said in an appearance before the House of Representatives State Affairs Committee.

If the RNA's case had been defended properly by the prime minister and the government, Gen. Rana might not have felt the need to voice them in the way he did. The army chief's remarks came in the context of the petty politics key leaders and parties were using the military to advance.

In presence of the chiefs of Nepal Police, Armed Police Force, National Investigation Department, senior army generals, police officers and the media ó who have joined hands in the fight against the Maoist insurgency ó Gen. Rana raised important issues on the role of security agencies and political parties in this hour of national crisis.

Soldiers on alret : Fulfilling their duties

To sustained cheers of the audience, Gen. Rana read a hard-hitting 12-page statement listing the grievances security agencies had quietly endured so far. When the army chief concluded his address, the audience present gave him an enthusiastic applause.

Despite the fierce opposition Gen. Rana's remarks triggered in parliament and in the major political parties, the security agencies seem to have rallied solidly behind the army chief. "He had to come out and tell the truth to the army and the people in general," an army general told SPOTLIGHT on condition of anonymity.

"The army chief has the right to speak on security-related issues and defend the role of the institution he represents. In other democratic countries, including neighboring India, army chiefs speak on the country's internal and external security matters. They are often in the press, but no political leader drags them into internal party politics," the general said.

In a country where the political class fails to defend the security forces, its top brass is compelled to come out with direct clarifications on vital matters of the day. In the six years since the Maoist insurgents launched their campaign of violence, more than 1,500 policemen and about 100 armymen have lost their lives. No politician has acknowledged the sacrifices security forces were making in the defence of the nation and democracy.

Instead, many political leaders have used derogatory remarks against the security forces. Days after parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of extending the state of emergency imposed last November to quell the insurgency, Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala publicly stated that the army had forced the emergency on the country. Other leaders of the ruling party like Govinda Raj Joshi blatantly accused the army of failing to assist the police in pre-emergency operations. CPN-UML parliamentarians, for their part, have been demanding the setting up of a commission to probe alleged "excesses" committed during the security operations.

"We have to accept the reality contained in the statement of the army chief," said Minister of Information and Communication and spokesman of the cabinet Jaya Prakash Prasad Gupta, who has been a bitter critic of the army until a year ago. "At a time when political parties have failed to defend the army's role, I don't think there is anything wrong in the command-in-chief expressing his concerns directly."

The army and police are upset with, among other things, the budgetary constraints they are being told to operate under. The government is said to be reluctant to provide the minimum requirement for operation. When the rank-and-file of security forces feel that the government and political parties are giving them a raw deal, the army chief had to go public to ventilate their grievances.

"The army chief's statement represents the inner feelings and complaints of the security personnel, including the police," said a senior police officer on condition of anonymity. "Had we made such a statement, we would have been sacked within a few hours. But the army chief has strong backing. After all, we are not fighting for ourselves. We are laying down our lives and shedding our blood to protect the political system."

Agrees senior advocate Mukunda Regmi, a member of the panel that drafted the present constitution. "From hill to hill and corner to corner, the security forces have been conducting search operations putting their life under threat. At a time when politicians are alleging that security operations are limited to the district headquarters, the army chief had to come out to defend their role."

Instead of considering the remarks of the army chief with the seriousness they deserve, political parties are in a confrontational mood. "Prolonging the controversy would not help anyone. Instead, it could create more problems," said Regmi.

Sections of the ruling party and opposition MPs were using the issue also to put greater pressure on Prime Minister Deuba. "We will boycott parliament until Prime Minister Deuba clarifies the army chief's statement," said CPN-UML general secretary and leader of the opposition Madhav Kumar Nepal.

"The army general does not have the right to comment on internal matters of political parties."

The fact that politicians have hardly hailed the role of the security forces in parliament or any other public forum has not been lost on the soldiers. "The UML and other opposition parties have been adopting double standards," said a retired army general. "After the Achham assaults, the UML's official statement came a week after condolences were issued by India and United States. This shows that Balkhu is farther from Nepal than Washington or New Delhi."

Ruling and opposition MPs argue that their vote in favour of extending the emergency amply underscored their support for the security forces. "The army chief cannot blame us for the failure of security operations and he does not have any right to point a finger towards us," said Jagannath Poudel, a Nepali Congress member of upper house.

Although the Nepali Congress president carefully avoided comment on the army chief's remarks, it is no coincidence that key Koirala loyalists in the lower house, Krishna Prasad Sitaula, Mahadev Gurung and Shanker Prasad Pandey, have been most vociferous in demanding a clarification from Prime Minister Deuba.

The army should remain informed about political and other realities in the country. As the head of the institution, the army chief has to foster candid discussions among cadets and generals on political, strategic and other issues of the day. "Gen. Rana's address to his cadets showed full respect to the monarchy, constitution, political system and interests of the country," says a political analyst. "Had the army chief not explained these realities, rumor would have stepped into the vacuum and created more confusion in the rank and file."

The political class, however, overlooked this fact and sought to divert public attention. The real point is not to debate endlessly whether the army chief was entitled to voice his concerns in the way he did, but to analyze the compulsions that made him do so.