The people at large appear to be more than willing to give the king credit for these welcome developments

-Shrish Rana, Political Analyst, Kathmandu

Shrish Rana is definitely not a new name for the regular readers of this newspaper.

He is basically a political analyst of repute. His analyses on contemporary national and international events remain par excellence.

At the moment Mr. Rana is a free person but yet he continues to write for some Nepali and English language newspapers. For quite some time he assumed the role of a politician and served the Rastriya Janata Parishad headed by Kirtinidhi Bista. But these days he appears to have maintained a distance with that party. However, his real bent, as he prefers to claim, continues to be journalism. His journalism career began when he joined the government controlled and owned The Rising Nepal in 1976. Later he brought out the National Star weekly and continued there for a year and a half. It was this newspaper which had interviewed late B.P.Koirala, Mr. Rana beamingly recalls. His long association in the journalism sector made him finally the Chairman of the Gorkhapatra Corporation but that was almost at the fag end of the erstwhile regime.

After the change in the System in 1990, Mr. Rana resigned and joined the RJP mentioned above.

Rana studied Political Science at the TU and prefers to participate in the political debates of all sorts as and when he is approached. To recall, Mr. Rana has presented at least three working papers for the seminars organized by this newspaper and the last being his paper on good governance which he presented on November 23, 2000 in Kathmandu.

He is intellectually competent, independent, sharp and critical as would be evident from the interview that will follow in these columns. He is rich in sparking new ideas that are contextual.

Last week, we approached this scholar for an exclusive tête-à-tête exactly after two years gap. Below the results-Chief editor.

TGQ1: The manner the monarch paved the way for the talks with the Maoists and the subsequent declaration of cease-fire does hint that the King wishes to act like an active monarch. Say so the Nepali politicians. What would be your comment in this regard?

Rana: Press notices emanating from the royal palace and the Maoists as also statements from the two who facilitated the current agreements appear to suggest that the effort is to give a public appearance that denies the Monarch's direct role in these developments. Regardless of what the politicians say, the King himself has several times come public in favour of his constitutional role in the current democracy.This notwithstanding, the manner with which things developed of a sudden in favor of a ceasefire and talks and the very nature of the current government appointed with specific tasks charged by the King appear to have provoked a general public willingness to credit the king for the recent breakthrough. This is understandable given previous reversals and stalemates under politicians, which have given our politicians low credibility in public eye.

At another level this breakthrough has further lowered the public standing of these very politicians and so politics would have to cast aspersions on the intents of such success given the rhetorics of democracy on which our politicans appear to rely whole and sole for their grip on organization. A king committed to the constitution would in other democracies have to contribute to the constitutional process when it falters as at the moment that is why he is there in the constitution. This need not please those whose incompetence will thus have been exposed. Perhaps this is exactly why our politicians invented this unique notion of a passive monarchy equating it with constitutionalism. A monarch which does not actively support the constitution is nowhere to be found in constitutional monarchies around the world.

TGQ2: Girija sees a grand design in the sudden emergence of the possibility of government-Maoist talks. Is he speaking on his own or is told to seak so? To recall, he has been saying the existence of a grand design in Nepali politics specially after the Royal massacre that summarily killed the entire family members of the late King Birendra. What you say of Koirala's utterances?

Rana: Mr. Koirala's public utterances deserve to be looked at from the above said perspective of a desparate politician losing his public grip. He would do the country a whole lot of service by coming clean on the grand design he has so loudly been threatening he will reveal. Until then one can merely see him as a poltician who has no other apology for the malaise he has created in the nation. One only hopes that his contribution to our current misery and what actually amounts to the virtual dismantling of our state machinery emanates from gross ignorance and not by purposive design.

TGQ3: In the past, the talks in between the establishment and the rebels have failed. What is the guarantee this time that the talks will yield positive results? What if the mainstream political parties continue to exhibit their reservations for the proposed government-maoists talks? Your comments please.

Rana: The threats to the current breakthrough are many. That is why one must express reservations at the hype being created in the media and political circles. Yes, there is massive national relief at the agreement on a ceasefire between Moaists and government forces and the convening of talks. In the light of previous reversals and stalemates, this is definitely a forward looking breakthrough. But tangible breakthrough must come at the talking table which has not yet been composed. The suddenness and suggested levels from which this breakthrough appears to have emanated from hint that some homework has been done on the agenda but these are mere insinuations. Furthermore, the organized political sector and middlemen who have been bypassed in a seeming effort to make the breakthrough in their very initial reactions appear to be demanding a role for themselves which both the Maoists and the government may not be able to ignore outright at risk of repeating the same mistakes that contributed to previous hitches. The fact is that seven years of insurgency and thirteen years of malgovernance have bred vested interests that will have been threatened if the country comes back on track. There is no denying that these quarters will persevere to assert their presence. It is for the primary actors of the proposed talks to take due cognizance of these factors lacking which the talks or its results are doomed.

TGQ4:What factors could have forced the Maoists to come to the table? Did they decide on their own keeping in mind the larger interests of their own motherland or some extraneous forces advised them to do so? Or is that the King himself convinced the rebels to cooperate in his new gestures? Your remarks please.

Rana: One can merely conjecture in answering your question in the absence of admissals from the parties concerned on the real reasons for coming to the table. Heightened national capabilities both strategically and otherwise that are somewhat more visible now than previously could compose one feasible component of such a conjecture. Eroding popular capabilities to sustain an insurgency maybe another. Yet another such could perhaps be the proper idenitification of actual deterrants and a determination to them little room to play in the current context. It would be preferable, however, to concieve that both parties focussed on the dismal state of the nation to determine a breakthrough which, one might add, has yet to tangibly emerge. Despite loud efforts to minimise it, the people at large appear to be more than willing to give the king credit for these welcome developments which, one might add, might not be altogether without substance.This would seem of significance in more ways than one.

TGQ5: Talks of the formation of a constituent assembly has emerged. What is this all about? Is a referundum necessary in this regard? How the King would react if the CA members decide against constitutional monarchy? Your opinions please.

Rana: This is the tircky part. The Maoists have come to the talks with primarily three publicly stated demands, namely, a representative round-table conference, republicanism and elections to a constituent assembly meaning a fresh constitution. Outside of a round-table conference, our current constitution has yet to be enabled to amlagamate the other two demands. It would seem that this would entail constitutional reforms. Reform in the current constitution under the constitution in vogue is a preserve of parliament. The parliament lies dissolved and can only be revived constitutionally by elections.

Since the real agenda for talks would perhaps be part of the talks itself it is perhaps to erarly to begin theorising on how things will be accommodated for purposes of realising the demands. Will this current constitution be scrapped outright on account of an unresolved insurgency? Who will do this? Will it be constitutional? Are the Maoists willing to participate in elections for the current parliament on a platform for constitutional change? Will the post-election parliament make due reforms in the constitution to allow for such accommodation? One is theorising constitutionally here, of course and dangerously at that perhaps. But constitutionalism has repeatedly been subverted for political expediency in this country and there is an anything-can-happen approach in politics that makes it impossible to rule out the impossible.

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past