I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
Thapa begins on wrong foot

Kathmandu: Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa’s seven-man cabinet is clearly designed to provoke participation from agitating parties. At risk of antagonizing the broader RPP, the selection of his clique within the party gives him the leverage of clear monopoly in pursuing his priorities, which at the moment has repeatedly been insisted upon as wooing the agitators and talking to the Maoists.

The dangers lie here. Both the Maoists and the agitators have publicly revoked Thapa’s gestures. The Maoists take to the streets this week in Kathmandu. The agitators are on the verge of announcing their fifth phase of their agitation.

Yet another source of danger of perhaps crucial significance to the course of constitutionalism in Nepal rises from Thapa’s insistence that his is the more constitutionally correct appointment. Thapa claims that the clear mention of the shift of the executive powers to him under article 35 has taken the wind out of the agitators’ demand that the constitution envisages a Prime Minister with executive powers. That this is hardly the issue in the agitation is very much reflected in the continuing agitation.

Indeed, in making such a claim Premier Thapa appears to have forgotten HM King Gyanendra’s insistence before the Nepali media that his assumption of executive powers remained only during the period between the sacking of P.M.Deuba and the appointment of Prime Minister L.B.Chand. By making this public disclosure the King was stressing the Prime Minister under the present constitution could no way be bereft of executive powers as under article 35.

While it may suit Thapa to use the mention of article 35 for his appointment as making him distinct from Chand, it is nevertheless as indication of Thapa politics that he should insist upon this distinction regardless of its consequences on the constitutional action of the monarchy.

This raises valid reservations on Thapa’s coming actions and priorities. Perhaps the most forthcoming such example would be on his call for dialogue on matters regarding the reinstatement of the dissolved parliament.

It is significant that noneless than the UML’s Bharat Mohan Adhikary has stated publicly this week the Palace had been willing to consider the appointment of Madhav Kumar Nepal as Prime Minister under article 127 but this was rejected up[on insistence by the agitators that the appointment be undertaken only under article 128 and be linked to the restoration if the dissolved house.

This public admissal, that, too before UML cadre, makes sure that the issue of article 35 is redundant in the continuing malaise. What is certain is that the agitators want the activation of article 128, which automatically become redundant upon implementation of the constitution 14 years ago. Moreover, the reinstitution of the dissolved house is a demand already quashed by the judiciary.

Clearly then what is being said is that the demands of the agitating parties be met regardless of t6is consequences on a constitutional monarchy on the strength of agitation. In this lime of thinking both the Maoists and the agitators have cast constitutionalism to the wind. Its reflection on the government’s public standpoints will thus have to be more carefully watched in any analysis of coming events.

How long Koirala would have tolerated Mr. Nepal as Premier?

Kathmandu: UML’s strongman, Madhav Kumar Nepal is pretty angry with the King.

His "blind" followers in the party and elsewhere say that when Madhav does so, he has reasons in his own right.

Sources close to Madhav Nepal, the UML leader, say that the veteran communist leader had been "assured" by the constitutional monarch that he would make him the Prime Minister on two separate occasions. However, as the luck would have it, Madhav Nepal was denied twice the prime ministership of the country barely in a short span of nine months. This remain yet to be substantiated nevertheless.

Understandably, the last jolt Madhav Nepal received from the Palace was when he "applied" for the post of the prime minister attached with the unconditional support from the rest of the agitating four parties grouped in the alliance but yet the constitutional monarch considered him unfit and elevated the ranks of a political personality who didn’t enjoy the alliances’ support. The members of the big-5 say that when they had met the King last time, Thaps’s name had not even figured in the talks at the palace.

RPP’s old-horse and an established leader of the country who plays conspiratorial politics with proper finesse, Surya Bahadur Thapa, broke the dreams of Madhav Nepal. Thanks the timely intervention of K.V.Rajan, former Indian ambassador to this country, it is widely talked and believed.

Political observers fail to guess as to what might have transpired in between the monarch and the UML leader in the past in their private conversations, but the manner Madhav Nepal has gone all and all out against the monarch in his fresh speeches does hint that some thing very exclusive must have been in between the two political personages which when denied could have irritated the firebrand communist leader to the extent that the latter opted to pose a challenge to the monarch suggesting the monarch that if he "wished to play politics, he should constitute or float a political party".

In effect this is what Madhav Nepal said of the monarch in his Monday speech in front of his own cadres in Balkhu.

Madhav Nepal went to the extent that he hinted that his party now could think of turning Nepal into a "republican" state.

This threat apparently hints at the leaders’ mercury going up in the barometer which if not brought under control might really be a problem to the monarch ultimately. Good or bad, Madhav Nepal is the leader of a party that possesses enormous strength at the national level. Concurrently Madhav Nepal must also not forget that the people on whom he trusts that he can mould their opinions in the course of their making republicanism a political agenda might not digest his agenda for some time to come.

Nepali society is a traditional one indeed. The monarchy as an institution is deep rooted in the given scheme of things in the country and hence to expect that the people will throng against the monarch at Madhav Nepal’s call or for that matter on Koirala’s call will boomerang.

Be that as it may, Madhav Nepal’s anger is genuine or not is not of much concern to the political analysts. However, what is important to the national population is whether the King’s decision of denying the prime ministerial post to a consensus candidate was a right or a wrong move?

Analysts say the King’s move was wrong in many more ways than one.

Firstly, Madhav Nepal was a common candidate of the now agitating political parties.

Secondly, good or bad, it is these political parties now in opposition who have given a shape and continuity to the system now in place.

Thirdly, Madhav Nepal, comparatively speaking, is less a harmful person than Surya Bahadur Thapa or any one who could have been picked up by the King other than from the agitating political parties.

Fourthly, if Madhav Nepal would have been allowed to function as the nation’s prime minister, the agitation would have come to a grinding halt and the nation’s derailed democracy, as they claim, would have been back on the rails.

Fifthly, Madhav Nepal’s choice would not have been that objectionable to the outside world, mainly the Western democracies and the neighboring India, for analysts opine that Madhav Nepal represents a party that is left with only a hammer and sickle in the party’s flag and hence nothing left to get frightened. Conscious citizens in this country and the international community consider the UML as a namesake communist party. The fact is that it is a party more capitalist than the congress.

Sixthly, Madhav’s appointment as Nepal’s prime minister would have diluted his party more for understandable and obvious reasons.

And finally, Madhav Nepal’s choice would have been an opportunity for the King as well on how to cope with the RED Communists.

All said and done, analysts wish to pose a question to Madhav Nepal. The question is "how long president Koirala would have tolerated Madhav Nepal being on a chair which he likes most?

Maoists become restive, fear talks going to the dogs

Kathmandu: With the change in government in Singh Durbar, definitely the government-Maoist talks got a brake.

However, both the sides concerned have so far not ventilated their feeling going against the resumption of the now stalled talks with each other.

In the mean time, the government under Thapa has already provided two good names who will be the in charge for the talks. It has also been reported that some members of the previous team will be told to continue their duties as usual.

The Maoists, however, appear harassed with the sudden change in the leadership in Singh Durbar and opine that the political events that were taking place in the country at the center were all to sabotage the talks.

The Maoists, in the process, do not hesitate in blaming the external forces to have been engineering ploys to damage the prospects of the talks with the government. The government denies any role of the external forces and is determined to go in for talks with the Maoists but only after carefully analyzing the agreements thus far agreed in between the two parties.

Clearly speaking, the government under Thapa is politically disturbed by the agreement reached by the government of his predecessor on limiting the mobilisation of the army to a periphery of five-kilometer range which meant that beyond that periphery, the men from the People’s army will rule the roost.

This agreement invited scathing criticisms from all and sundry. In the process, the men in the previous team tried to convince the public that no such agreement had been arrived at in between the government and the Maoists. The Maoists say with full force that such an agreement had been reached and that the agreement should be a binding one.

The two way allegations and counter allegations does hint that some thing very special could have been agreed in between the two but when criticisms started pouring in against the government, the latter tried to cover up its blunders committed at time of the negotiation in the second round of talks.

Dr. Bhattarai, an acclaimed ideologue of the insurgency, has time and again said that the government is trying to sabotage the prospects of peace by going against the already reached agreements. He and his colleagues send warning signals to the other camp by saying that if the agreements were not complied with would mean that they will have to think of yet another devastating war against the old-regime.

The government is listening to their threat loaded statements and making no retaliatory remarks for it believes that the Maoists will in all probability not enter the "jungles" for obvious and understandable reasons.

The Maoists perhaps know that the government understands their internal weaknesses. The fact is that the Maoists will prefer not to go to the jungles for they know that the international wind is blowing against them. Add to this the BJP government toeing the American line which is against terrorism. This means that the BJP led government in India will not provide them shelter for fear of inviting the US wrath.

The Maoists also remain abreast of the fact that the US and the British government have vowed that they will support Nepal ad infinitum in order to contain the threat of the resurgence of terrorism in Nepal.

A quick look at Sir Jefferey James’ statement made on 12 June amply reflects that the United Kingdom will continue its support to Nepal in this regard. According to Sir Jeffery James: " Britain is committed to training and other non-lethal assistance to enable the security forces to counter any resumption of hostilities, in compliance with international standards". This amply means that while the UK side welcomes the ceasefire arrangement in between the government and the Maoists, it also appears prepared to support the Nepali establishment should the peace talks fail and the Maoists resume their hostilities.

The ground reality is that the government is receiving or will be receiving arms and weapons from friendly countries to maintain the security system in the country intact, the Maoists perhaps been denied of this opportunity for obvious political reasons. The fact is that the RNA is guarding the borders carefully which is sure to cut the supply of the arms to the Maoists. If this is the case then what is for sure is that the Maoists are already short of arms and can’t meet the challenges posed to it by the other side should the talks fail and they forced to go to the jungles.

Let’s talk positive now.

Thanks that the Maoists have not so far declared that they will refrain from the talks. Most of the leaders from the camp of the insurgency have come up with the statements that they will resume the talks. This is no less a matter of consolation to the peace loving Nepali population.

Analysts hope that the government with all sincerity resumes the talks and vice versa.

But how the government will settle the issue related to the People’s militia of the Maoists? How these military men will be assimilated in the existing security system of the country? What would happen if the RNA and the government together can’t find a fitting solution to the issues of the people’s militia? How the militia men react to their own leaders if the latter fail to address their issues?

Analysts say that this issue might be a major problem that will confront the both parties at time of the third round of talks.

Give priority to the issues that led to conflict says British envoy

Kathmandu: The international community more so the Western democracies have been closely watching the unfolding events in Nepal.

However, they appear to be in a sheer dilemma on how to treat this government being constituted under Article 127 to which the major parliamentary parties dub as an "unconstitutional" one.

"The local level government is missing with no signs of going to the polls in the near future; the elections to the parliament appears remote; and there is a government that most of the political parties consider unconstitutional; the Upper House-the National Assembly too is about to become defunct in a matter of days but yet we have been forced to consider this unique situation in Nepal hoping that soon the country will be back to normalcy and the constitutional process will prevail that are demanded of a democratic system", is what the international community opines on Nepal situation.

Though this is the ground reality in the country but yet some powerful nations appear to proceed with this situation come what may.

For example, the government of Thapa enjoyed congratulatory messages from India, China and the United Kingdom which must have come as a blow to those political parties who dub this government as unconstitutional.

For example, if one were to analyse the content of the message sent to Thapa by Indian prime minister Bajpayee, one is forced to believe that in the Indian scheme of things, Thapa’s appointment as the country’s chief of the executive was what the Indian establishment had been wating for since long. Here lies the significance of Bajpayee’s message to Thapa.

However, we would wish to analyse the comments made by Sir Jefferey james on Nepal during his recent visit to Nepal.

Sir James says that since his government has already congratulated Mr. Thapa means that the UK will not mind in working closely with the new government in Nepal. This should have come as a severe blow to the big-5 and must have weakened their morale as well.

Secondly, Sir James welcomes the announcement of a ceasefire in Nepal and hopes that it will hold until a peace accord is struck in between the two sides. Concurrently, Sir James also hints that his country would continue in extending her support in training the RNA and would also unconditionally assist with non-lethal weapons. This means that the United Kingdom will continue its effort in supporting the RNA immaterial of whether the talks fail or succeed. " Britain is committed to training and other non-lethal assistance to enable the security forces to counter any resumption of hostilities, in compliance with international standards".

The message is perhaps aimed at the Maoists.

In the process, Sir James also hints all the major actors of the country to stick to the rules of the game and advises all to observe "constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy" which means that the agitating parties must not exceed their political limits and by the same token he also suggests the monarch not to forget his own constitutional limits.

He then hints that the agitating parties could join the government or even suggests the Thapa regime to win support of the agitating parties and include them in the cabinet.

"All parties are free to participate in national elections and to form or join a Government if successful".

The message is there for both the men in government and in the opposition.

However, there is a strong message to the government from the United Kingdom. The UK would wish to see the "the new government will continue to give priority to the issues which have helped give rise to the conflict—poverty, social exclusion, lack of development, weak human rights protection".

This means that the UK believes that the rise of the insurgency could have been due to the lapses he has just mentioned above.

Not very surprisingly, Sir Jefferey talks of rampant corruption which he says have got to be prevented.

In his concluding remarks, the UK representative says: "Britain and other international partners are strongly committed to development and reform in Nepal working with the government, other institutions and civil society to achieve real inroads into poverty".

Chaudhary urges RPP men to honor Pokhara directives

Kathmandu: The Chairman of the Tharu Welfare Society Mr. Narendra Kumar Chaudhary who is concurrently an elected Central Working Committee (CWC) member of the ruling RPP party has said that the present political situation prevailing in the country after S.B.Thapa’s appointment as Chief of the executive of the government has got to be utilized even by the now agitating political parties in a manner that facilitates the "restoration of peace" and allows the "derailed" democratic system to come back to its original track.

Mr. Chaudhary made these remarks while talking to our reporter Tuesday afternoon.

"The present conflict that has gripped the party with the formation of Thapa Cabinet has to some extent brought a sharp rift in and among the stalwarts of the party which is neither in the interest of the party nor of the government" opines Mr. Chaudhary.

Mr. Chaudhary is of the opinion that the incumbent Prime Minister Mr. Thapa and the party President Mr. Pashupati Rana should join hands and honor the directives of the Pokhara convention and lead the party and the nation in a positive direction.

National | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past