I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
The King won’t budge

Kathmandu: The King is not going to budge. For the past sixteen months he has been saying that the solution to the current constitutional problems is a government that is also representative of the dissolved house which will parley unitedly with current systemic challenges including the Maoists and thus conduct elections to restore parliament.

This consistency frustrates the major political parties. They want the dissolved house to be restored, this judiciary in an amicus curie has asserted not legally possible but our partisan press has downplayed it in contrast to the wide coverage that news of the judicial review was highlighted.

The parties’ then want a government of their own making. In this they are no longer united. Girija Prasad Koirala will not support it if the government is not to restore the house.

In this sense, Madhav Nepal’s roadmap is close to a compromise. The party has finally acknowledged the possible utility of an "all-representative" government recommended also by the five agitating parties.

Curiously, the continuing republican standpoints of the agitation the parties lead, is a matter to be distanced from by the leadership of the agitation. In this sense one is made to conclude that the anti-monarchists approach is to be made a threat by the parties’. The King is supposed to budge under this threat. He has not.

This is the curiosity piece of the current problems. Political parties which are the sole repository of political organizations of Nepal threaten to oust the King. The King is greeted by hundreds of thousands of people and applaud his remonstrations defying both the Maoists strictures against participation and the active non-cooperation, indeed, opposition, of the political parties to the King’s active ventures into the Nepali mass.

Not surprisingly, the by now routine allegations against the King’s public ventures have been part of the expected party reactions. This time the King has gone further. He has voiced the public frustrations at the performance of the past decade and he has underscored his constitutional right to speakout against constitutional impediments.

In doing so, the King has turned the tables on the political parties who try and cash in on his use of article 127 as unconstitutional. For the Maoists-plagued terror stricken mid-western region where the presence of the political parties is restricted to select urban areas, the King’s presence and his defiant speech comes as solace. This reaction is in utter contrast to that of the partisan preferences of urban intellectualism where the speech provokes vocal fears against an assertive monarch.

Clearly, something must budge somewhere. When and how defies analysis.

King prefers a more assertive role for himself

Kathmandu: King Gyanendra has thrown one more stone in the already troubled waters whose ripples could well be seen and experienced in the country’s politics that has obtained since His majesty made his last speech in Nepalganj on Sunday afternoon.

Good or bad, the country appears now to have been divided on two distinct lines: the first that goes summarily against the King and the second obviously fully supports the monarch’s views expressed "in the name of the people".

Fall in the first category the leaders of the major political parties who have been staging a sort of never-ending agitation against the monarch’s October 4 moves appear to have become more restive upon listening the monarch’s Nepalganj speech and have more or less concluded that the King’s speech needed some sort of political rebuff in a befitting manner.

The other category appears supportive of the King’s expressions and considers that it would be the King now who would take care of their old-standing grievances properly.

Both the categories interpret King’s message differently that suits to their political interests.

But then the fact is that the King in his Nepalganj speech appears more determined to play an active role in the country’s politics that what he had hinted in his Time magazine interview. To a greater extent, Nepalganj lecture could be taken as an extension of his interview recently published by the American magazine.

The political parties have reasons to believe that their "monopoly days" days were over for the King in no uncertain terms has told the political parties that he would not remain now onwards a mere spectator to the Nepali events more so when the poor people continue to remain in distress and not being attended to by the political actors.

"Gone are the days when the King could be seen, but not heard, watching the people’s difficulties but not addressing them and being a silent spectator to their tear-stained faces are over".

It is this particular view of the King that has disturbed the peace of mind of the major political parties who say that in saying so the King is hinting that he will not remain in the boundaries of a constitutional monarch.

One more point that has concerned the leaders of the political parties is that the King does not talk of his role as a constitutional monarch as per the 1990 constitution. He, however, does admit that he remains committed to multi-party democratic system.

Matured political analysts also see King’s speech in a different manner. According to them, the King has tried to enunciate a different sort of definition to democracy. His definition does tally with what Abraham Lincoln made long time back. The interesting part of it all is that King Gyanendra also centers the people while providing a completely new definition to democracy.

Yet another point that political analysts have taken note of in the King’s speech is that he has skillfully turned the tables on the political parties.

The fact is that according to the King, it is not him but the political parties who have been trying to discredit a system that is taken for granted the world-over as one of the best systems existing in the globe. In other words, the King implies that it is not the monarchy that could be held responsible for the acts of regression, but instead it is the political parties that have been trying to prove that Nepal was a failed state.

How the political parties will defend their case will have to be watched.

As usual, the King in his fresh speech has tried to portray the political parties as non-performers. In the same vein, the monarch appeals the leaders of the political parties to speak in favor of the people instead of quarreling for acquiring power. Who else better knows than the monarch as to which political leaders approached him in the meantime and demanded His Majesty’s favor for the post of the Prime Minister?

If the King in his speech has, on the one hand, scathingly criticised the political actors, on the other, he is for all praise for the nation’s security forces. This he could have done to boost the morale of the RNA and the men housed in the unified command which is understandable.

This is not all: the King has, for the time being, capped the possibilities of the formation of a government as wished by Madhav Nepal or for that matter by the agitating parties. It appears that the King is comfortable with the incumbent government and would wish the elections being held under the aegis of this establishment.

To the utter displeasure of the political parties, the King has hinted that the country would go to the polls soon. A proposition that the political leaders will have to think twice. However, as democratic parties, they perhaps can’t reject the idea of facing the elections if declared.

All in all, King’s fresh statement is currently under debate among the political leaders and intellectuals alike. However, what is for sure is that the King will not settle for less and appears to be in a mood to confront the political actors come what may.

What remains, however, yet unclear is that how the king will prove himself as a constitutional monarch given his "assertive" mood as expressed in Nepalganj?

What the quickly unfolding events in series mean?

Kathmandu: Indian Ambassador Shyam Saran was in Nepalganj the other day wherein he took the Nepali Maoists as a threat to his own country.

Around that time, King Gyanendra too was in or was about to land in Nepalganj .

It is interesting to note that one of the top-hats of the Maoists insurgency, Matrika Yadav, was handed over to Nepal’s security forces by the Indian side.

What does it all mean? Could there be any nexus in all these three separate events?

Mr. Yadav has been handed over to Nepal at a time when Maoist supremo, Prachanda, made a fresh call for a dialogue under the UN mediation if the latter so wished.

The RNA instantly reacted to Prachanda’s offer as a ploy to "conserve energy" as usual.

The government is yet to respond to Prachanda’s fresh offer. But Madhav Nepal is quick to say that it should not be the army that should express its opinions on political matters.

Koirala is on record to have said that he will not object if the UN offers its mediation in sorting out the Maoists issue. However, Koirala, sees the need to watch as to how the monarch and India react to this proposal.

The lay men wish the scheme worked.

The German Ambassador to Nepal too does not reject the idea of a UN mediation and says that, "all avenues possibly leading to a peaceful and lasting resolution should be explored, including, of course, a role for the United Nations as the world’s most comprehensive, experienced and prestigious organization". If this is so then what could be concluded is that the entire members of the European Union would not mind UN role in taking up the Nepal’s Maoists issue.

The fact is that Prachanda favours a dialogue now. The fact is also that his party has stepped up violent activities centring around major cities, specially Kathmandu and its environs.

Questions are being raised in certain quarters as to why a party that talks of the resumption of a dialogue on the one hand and on the other is hell bent on terrorising the establishment with increased violent activities?

Does this mean that the Maoists wish to exhibit that they were not a spent-force as claimed by the men in the RNA? Should this mean that the Maoists wish to sit on the negotiating table with a "position of strength" so that the other side could yield greater concessions.

Questions are also being asked as to whether the arrest of Matrika Yadav and Suresh Ale Magar, the two known personalities of the insurgency, weakened the insurgency from within?

The leaders of the insurgency know it better. However, the fact is also that India appears to have begun taking the Maoists as a threat to its own security and apparently been cooperating with Nepal so that the latter is convinced of its genuine concerns. If it is so, then the Maoists will have rough time in Indian territories. The fact is that when India can handover Matrika Yadav to demonstrate Nepal that she is with her in her times of crisis, why it can’t do the same with Dr. Bhattarai or some one else?

Speculations indeed.

However, the timing of Mr. Yadav’s arrest in Lucknow and he being handed over to Nepali authorities does hint that India will now do every thing it can to erase the suspicions what the Nepalese have in their minds about the Indian intentions vis-à-vis the maoists.

Too add to confusion, one vernacular weekly on Sunday revealed that the King met Krishna Mahara for three hours in Nepalganj. However, the Maoists rejected this newspaper item dubbing it as malicious and fake.

Mahara himself in a statement made it clear that he has not met King Gyanendra as reported by the weekly.

High placed sources say that the King might use his presence in western region to seduce the leaders of the insurgency through his own channels.

The establishment side, in all likelihood, can now bargain with the Maoists for honest and genuine talks in lieu of Matrika Yadav. That Matrika has been languishing in Nepali custody is yet to be told by the Maoists. Until they speak the truth, nothing could be said further.

To recall, the Maoists in the past had accepted the talks if their leaders were freed from Nepali jails and it was Mr. Yadav who was freed by the government side as a gesture to the Maoists.

To sum it up, the fact is that the UN is on record to have said that it was ready to extend its mediatory role. The government is yet to respond to this UN gesture. It is not yet clear as to whether the Maoists would prefer others’ mediation, for example, the EU or of the Nordic countries, should the government reject the UN role?

The government’s silence over the possibility of UN role, as demanded by Prachanda, does hint that it would primarily reject such mediation.

Some say that the government would go by what the army suggests in this regard. The army has clarified that it is for the government to decide on how to proceed. "We simply obey the orders of the government", clarifies the army.

The laymen wish resumption of dialogue at the earliest. It is immaterial who offers mediation.

Muslims deliberately labeled as terrorist deliberately

Kathmandu: Pakistan’s Ambassador to Nepal, Zameer Akram has expressed his concern over the "growing clash in between the West and the Islamic world specially after the events of 9/11.

"There has been a tendency to blame the Muslims and see the Muslims through the prism of "terrorism", is what Ambassador Akran said adding that "our view has been that such portrayals were being deliberately promoted.

Ambassador Akram made these observations at a program organised by the Pakistan embassy to mark the Kashmir Solidarity Day which falls on February 5th each year.

Muslim leaders, more specially Pak President Pervez Musarraf, have been appealing the West to understand the gravity of such allegations on the Muslims and the Islamic world.

Talking on the strategic position wherein Pakistan is located- South Asia in one flank and the central Asian countries on another edge, Ambassador Akram told that the energy deficit countries of South Asia can benefit from their expanded relations through Pakistan with the countries in Central Asia which is energy surplus.

According to Pakistani envoy, the twelfth SAARC Summit held in Islamabad was a tremendous success and that it was this Summit which facilitated India and Pakistan to come closer.

"Road ahead is difficult but yet the leaders of the two countries are meeting soon", said Akram on the impending Indo-Pak bilateral talks which is slated for this month itself.

He, however, did not rule out the possibility of a third party pressure on both the countries for the resumption of dialogue and added that "it could have been a sort of realization on the part of India, better late than never, that she gave its nod for a composite dialogue with Pakistan.

Talking on Nepal-Pakistan relations, the Pak diplomat hinted that his country was ready to "assist in whatever way it can". He also revealed that his country was willing to increase the scholarship quota to Nepal in various educational disciplines.

According to Ambassador Akram, the Joint Economic Committee, JEC, is soon meeting in Kathmandu which will look into the entire gamut of Nepal-Pak relations.

Russia calls for constitutional forces to unite

Kathmandu: A press conference was organized today to celebrate the Russian Diplomat’s day by the Russian embassy here.

The Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Nepal, H.E Valery V. Nazarov speaking at the program said that " It is premature for Russia to say what kind of support is to be provided to the Nepalese government in fighting against the extremist activities". But said, "We are ready to support if formally asked by the government".

He said, " Nepal and Russia both share the same kind of threat form the extremists". He was reminding the recent extremist’s attacks on one Metro Station in the Russian capital Moscow with lots of casualties. He, however, preferred not to dub the Maoists as "terrorists". Not very surprising then, the RF diplomat revealed that his stance towards the Maoists is much the same with those of the Chinese. He opined that his Chinese colleagues take the Maoists as "so-called" Maoists.

But the fact is that the RF diplomat says at one point in his statement, "Russia is aware of the terrorist threat to Nepal". When admitting that his host country had been experiencing terrorist threat, the Ambassador very cleverly absolves the Maoists from calling terrorists.

"Nepal and Russia, both share the same position on various international issues such as having Multi-Polar world instead of a Uni-Polar one", Nazarov said.

Touching on the current Nepali events, Ambassador Nazarov appealed all to join hands in order to take out the country from the current stalemate.

" We hope the government and all the responsible political forces will join hands for a political settlement of the existing problems with a view to putting an end to confrontation, violence and terror", continued Ambassador Nazarov.

This means that he is in favor of the political parties coming closer with the king and vice versa. He also wished that Nepal be allowed to take up her internal issues to be sorted out internally.

Does this mean that he is against Comrade Prachanda’s fresh call for a UN mediation between the two warring rivals? Should this mean that Ambassador Nazarov is siding with the establishment line that summarily rejects third party mediation in the whole affair?

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