<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Courtiers hailed as democrats
Sunanda K Datta-Ray (Pioneer)
Today's historic meeting of Nepal's Pratinidhi Sabha presents a challenge not just to the kingdom's three main contenders for power - King Gyanendra, the constitutional parties led by Prime Minister designate Girija Prasad Koirala, and Comrade Prachanda's Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). It will also test India's diplomacy in a region where everyone, no matter how much they might hate each other, is apprehensive of New Delhi's aims.
But not everyone is as blunt as Prachanda who makes no bones of his ideological conviction that war with India is inevitable. Though the Maoist emulators of Peru's Shining Path revolutionaries have suspended their insurgency for the time being, their denunciation of both the King and the political parties for the "historic mistake" of this truce does little to encourage the hope that they will lay down arms and join the political mainstream. Whether this is only bluster will become clearer when the Pratinidhi Sabha takes a stand on the Maoist demand for an unconditional Constituent Assembly leading to a republic.
To adapt Palmerston's famous adage, India has no permanent friends in the Himalayan kingdom. It has interests and options. No Nepalese forgets the sorry mix of force and fabrication through which India absorbed the adjoining kingdom of Sikkim. The action sent nervous tremors through the Himalayas. "India has had Sikkim for breakfast and wants to lunch on Bhutan and dine on Nepal" a Kathmandu official fumed at the time. "But we will give India indigestion!"
Today, Bhutan is India's most staunch friend. But one of the first acts of young King Jigme Singye Wangchuck's reign was to repeal a law whereby his dragon throne needed a three-yearly vote of confidence from the kingdom's Tsongdu (legislature). The Bhutanese could not be certain that the Tsongdu's simple members would not be pressured as Sikkimese legislators were to depose the Chogyal. Nepal dared to express its fears more vehemently. While mobs demonstrated outside India's embassy in Kathmandu - which our patriotic Press ignored or dismissed as royal manipulation - the King frantically beseeched the Americans to underwrite Nepalese independence.
True, King Gyanendra is a difficult customer. He was suspected of instigating the Maoists during the last King's reign. Darjeeling's Subash Ghising saw him as a patron. Many Nepalese say he reneges on commitments. Most are convinced he will try to regain absolute power. But no assessment of the monarch can be undertaken in isolation from the rest of the political cast as the Pratinidhi Sabha tries to bring the Royal Nepalese Army under political control, punish royalists and reward pro-democracy officials and politicians. Despite all this, the King's move opens up the prospect of resolving the constitutional crisis though it alone will not quell the Maoist threat.
The tendency in India is uncritically to support Nepal's political leaders (even Maoist terrorists!) because they are supposed to represent the great god democracy and are now the rightful heirs of the massive protest. No one mentions the basic problems of a virtually bankrupt nation. But Mr Koirala and others are expected to preside over stable governments that maintain strong and friendly links with India. In practice, there is little evidence that the corrupt and inefficient politicians who made a mess of things when given the chance to run Nepal in the 1990s have learnt from their mistakes.
Their links with India run deep. When Harkishen Singh Surjeet presides over the Nepal Democracy Solidarity Committee, he is continuing a tradition set by the National People's Congress before independence and continued by Jayaprakash Narayan and the Congress Socialist Party. Jawaharlal Nehru helped to overthrow the Ranas hoping that the restored Shah dynasty would allow his comrades in the Nepali Congress to form a Government.
Reflecting this bond, most Indian papers have been regaling us with editorials disguised as reports and opinion masquerading as fact. Allegations of the police manhandling toddlers ignore the criminal callousness of pro-democracy protesters dragging little children and disabled people in wheelchairs into the melee. Charges of the King wantonly dismissing Prime Ministers overlook the fact that most of these incumbents were his nominees. They were derided as courtiers when appointed but hailed as democrats when sacked.
Some basic questions must be asked as Nepal grapples with the chance of peace. What could King Gyanendra have done to avert the crisis? Been more tactful certainly, but he could hardly overlook the failure of the politicians to cope with the Maoist revolt which is still the principal danger. What do the populist leaders want? Power. Democracy is little more than a fig leaf for their ambitions. What course would most effectively safeguard India's interests?
This is the crux of the matter. The British Raj would have sent a proconsul with a detachment of troops to Kathmandu to "persuade" King Gyanendra to abdicate, placed some obscure and amenable cadet of the Shah dynasty on the throne and claimed popular acclaim for the coup. It knew that personnel decide policies that are essential for India's security. The obligations of geography remain the same. In current terms, it means preventing anarchy, ethnic fragmentation, Chinese control or Pakistani mischief. Much will depend on how India follows up Karan Singh's obviously effective mission which may have saved the throne but, more to the point, ensured victory for the politicians.
The need is for a blend of diplomatic finesse with tough management at many levels. The eviction of hundreds of Indian labourers who were robbed and beaten up should have produced a strong public response from New Delhi. The Don Pacifico incident, when Britain almost went to war over the vandalisation of a British subject's property, may have been an extreme case, but no Government can enjoy respect abroad if it lets foreigners treat its citizens roughly. This is especially so of a region's principal power.
Beset by enemies on all sides - and even within - India needs a regime in Kathmandu that can promise stability and friendly cooperation. Prachanda is hardly the man. The 84-year-old Koirala and the seven democratic parties are hostages to his stratagems. The only alternative to a King whose current unpopularity may owe something to India's dismissive attitude is his even more egregious son and heir. India must try to ensure that this is the beginning of a peaceful negotiated solution, not just another switch in the current of triangular politics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Maoist vipers
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Prachanda must not be trusted----- On the eve of Nepal's reconvened Pratinidhi Sabha's meeting to formally elected Mr GP Koirala as Prime Minister at the head of a seven-party alliance Government, two important statements have emanated from Kathmandu. Comrade Prachanda, chairman of the outlawed terrorist organisation, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), has offered a unilateral "ceasefire" for the next three months, promising not to mount attacks but maintain "defensive positions".
Linked to this is Nepal Commuist Party (UML) general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal's gratuitous promise that the new Government will "withdraw the terrorist tag from the Maoists, invite them for a dialogue and bring them into the political mainstream". While those interested in the restoration of political stability in Nepal are pinning a lot of hope on Mr Koirala's leadership at this crucial juncture in the kingdom's history, the veteran Nepali Congress leader would be well-advised not to rush into cutting a deal with Prachanda and his rapacious revolutionaries, irrespective of pressure from colleagues like Mr Madhav Kumar Nepal and interlopers like CPI(M)'s Sitaram Yechury who is driven by the single-point agenda of achieving in Kathmandu what his comrades have thankfully till now failed to achieve in New Delhi - hoist the Red flag atop the kingdom's seat of power. If Mr Koirala succumbs to the temptation of opting for the line of least resistance, he would only prove King Gyanendra right: Nepal's politicians are incapable of governing with a firm hand and in a decisive manner. Worse, by allowing himself to be overwhelmed by those who see nothing wrong with Prachanda's murderous campaign, Mr Koirala would hugely strengthen the Maoists.
Going by the propaganda that has been unleashed by admirers of Prachanda both in Nepal and India - and which has been disseminated by a complicit media - it would seem that Maoist violence is of recent origin. That is far from the truth. For more than a decade Prachanda's terror brigade has been waging war against both Palace and Parliament. At no stage have the Maoists declared faith in multi-party parliamentary democracy, nor have they ever made an effort to hide their desire to capture power with the sole purpose of establishing a dictatorship. Successive Governments in Kathmandu have singularly failed in convincing the Maoists to give up arms and join the political process; there is no reason to believe that Mr Koirala will be more successful in his present stint as Prime Minister.
A treacherous and venomous lot given to speaking with forked tongues, Prachanda and his comrades cannot be trusted. Indeed, it is absurd to suggest peace talks with those who have offered to lay down arms only if the Royal Nepal Army does so; that absurdity is only further underscored by Thursday's conditional ceasefire which is nothing but a ruse to lull those who will now govern Nepal into inaction. It is a pity that killers of innocent men and women who have kidnapped children to forcibly indoctrinate them in Maoism feel, with more than little help from Mr Yechury and his ilk, not to mention senior functionaries of the UPA Government, emboldened enough to set the terms of engagement. That is tantamount to legitimising terrorism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sunanda K Datta-Ray (Pioneer)
Today's historic meeting of Nepal's Pratinidhi Sabha presents a challenge not just to the kingdom's three main contenders for power - King Gyanendra, the constitutional parties led by Prime Minister designate Girija Prasad Koirala, and Comrade Prachanda's Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). It will also test India's diplomacy in a region where everyone, no matter how much they might hate each other, is apprehensive of New Delhi's aims.
But not everyone is as blunt as Prachanda who makes no bones of his ideological conviction that war with India is inevitable. Though the Maoist emulators of Peru's Shining Path revolutionaries have suspended their insurgency for the time being, their denunciation of both the King and the political parties for the "historic mistake" of this truce does little to encourage the hope that they will lay down arms and join the political mainstream. Whether this is only bluster will become clearer when the Pratinidhi Sabha takes a stand on the Maoist demand for an unconditional Constituent Assembly leading to a republic.
To adapt Palmerston's famous adage, India has no permanent friends in the Himalayan kingdom. It has interests and options. No Nepalese forgets the sorry mix of force and fabrication through which India absorbed the adjoining kingdom of Sikkim. The action sent nervous tremors through the Himalayas. "India has had Sikkim for breakfast and wants to lunch on Bhutan and dine on Nepal" a Kathmandu official fumed at the time. "But we will give India indigestion!"
Today, Bhutan is India's most staunch friend. But one of the first acts of young King Jigme Singye Wangchuck's reign was to repeal a law whereby his dragon throne needed a three-yearly vote of confidence from the kingdom's Tsongdu (legislature). The Bhutanese could not be certain that the Tsongdu's simple members would not be pressured as Sikkimese legislators were to depose the Chogyal. Nepal dared to express its fears more vehemently. While mobs demonstrated outside India's embassy in Kathmandu - which our patriotic Press ignored or dismissed as royal manipulation - the King frantically beseeched the Americans to underwrite Nepalese independence.
True, King Gyanendra is a difficult customer. He was suspected of instigating the Maoists during the last King's reign. Darjeeling's Subash Ghising saw him as a patron. Many Nepalese say he reneges on commitments. Most are convinced he will try to regain absolute power. But no assessment of the monarch can be undertaken in isolation from the rest of the political cast as the Pratinidhi Sabha tries to bring the Royal Nepalese Army under political control, punish royalists and reward pro-democracy officials and politicians. Despite all this, the King's move opens up the prospect of resolving the constitutional crisis though it alone will not quell the Maoist threat.
The tendency in India is uncritically to support Nepal's political leaders (even Maoist terrorists!) because they are supposed to represent the great god democracy and are now the rightful heirs of the massive protest. No one mentions the basic problems of a virtually bankrupt nation. But Mr Koirala and others are expected to preside over stable governments that maintain strong and friendly links with India. In practice, there is little evidence that the corrupt and inefficient politicians who made a mess of things when given the chance to run Nepal in the 1990s have learnt from their mistakes.
Their links with India run deep. When Harkishen Singh Surjeet presides over the Nepal Democracy Solidarity Committee, he is continuing a tradition set by the National People's Congress before independence and continued by Jayaprakash Narayan and the Congress Socialist Party. Jawaharlal Nehru helped to overthrow the Ranas hoping that the restored Shah dynasty would allow his comrades in the Nepali Congress to form a Government.
Reflecting this bond, most Indian papers have been regaling us with editorials disguised as reports and opinion masquerading as fact. Allegations of the police manhandling toddlers ignore the criminal callousness of pro-democracy protesters dragging little children and disabled people in wheelchairs into the melee. Charges of the King wantonly dismissing Prime Ministers overlook the fact that most of these incumbents were his nominees. They were derided as courtiers when appointed but hailed as democrats when sacked.
Some basic questions must be asked as Nepal grapples with the chance of peace. What could King Gyanendra have done to avert the crisis? Been more tactful certainly, but he could hardly overlook the failure of the politicians to cope with the Maoist revolt which is still the principal danger. What do the populist leaders want? Power. Democracy is little more than a fig leaf for their ambitions. What course would most effectively safeguard India's interests?
This is the crux of the matter. The British Raj would have sent a proconsul with a detachment of troops to Kathmandu to "persuade" King Gyanendra to abdicate, placed some obscure and amenable cadet of the Shah dynasty on the throne and claimed popular acclaim for the coup. It knew that personnel decide policies that are essential for India's security. The obligations of geography remain the same. In current terms, it means preventing anarchy, ethnic fragmentation, Chinese control or Pakistani mischief. Much will depend on how India follows up Karan Singh's obviously effective mission which may have saved the throne but, more to the point, ensured victory for the politicians.
The need is for a blend of diplomatic finesse with tough management at many levels. The eviction of hundreds of Indian labourers who were robbed and beaten up should have produced a strong public response from New Delhi. The Don Pacifico incident, when Britain almost went to war over the vandalisation of a British subject's property, may have been an extreme case, but no Government can enjoy respect abroad if it lets foreigners treat its citizens roughly. This is especially so of a region's principal power.
Beset by enemies on all sides - and even within - India needs a regime in Kathmandu that can promise stability and friendly cooperation. Prachanda is hardly the man. The 84-year-old Koirala and the seven democratic parties are hostages to his stratagems. The only alternative to a King whose current unpopularity may owe something to India's dismissive attitude is his even more egregious son and heir. India must try to ensure that this is the beginning of a peaceful negotiated solution, not just another switch in the current of triangular politics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Maoist vipers
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Prachanda must not be trusted----- On the eve of Nepal's reconvened Pratinidhi Sabha's meeting to formally elected Mr GP Koirala as Prime Minister at the head of a seven-party alliance Government, two important statements have emanated from Kathmandu. Comrade Prachanda, chairman of the outlawed terrorist organisation, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), has offered a unilateral "ceasefire" for the next three months, promising not to mount attacks but maintain "defensive positions".
Linked to this is Nepal Commuist Party (UML) general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal's gratuitous promise that the new Government will "withdraw the terrorist tag from the Maoists, invite them for a dialogue and bring them into the political mainstream". While those interested in the restoration of political stability in Nepal are pinning a lot of hope on Mr Koirala's leadership at this crucial juncture in the kingdom's history, the veteran Nepali Congress leader would be well-advised not to rush into cutting a deal with Prachanda and his rapacious revolutionaries, irrespective of pressure from colleagues like Mr Madhav Kumar Nepal and interlopers like CPI(M)'s Sitaram Yechury who is driven by the single-point agenda of achieving in Kathmandu what his comrades have thankfully till now failed to achieve in New Delhi - hoist the Red flag atop the kingdom's seat of power. If Mr Koirala succumbs to the temptation of opting for the line of least resistance, he would only prove King Gyanendra right: Nepal's politicians are incapable of governing with a firm hand and in a decisive manner. Worse, by allowing himself to be overwhelmed by those who see nothing wrong with Prachanda's murderous campaign, Mr Koirala would hugely strengthen the Maoists.
Going by the propaganda that has been unleashed by admirers of Prachanda both in Nepal and India - and which has been disseminated by a complicit media - it would seem that Maoist violence is of recent origin. That is far from the truth. For more than a decade Prachanda's terror brigade has been waging war against both Palace and Parliament. At no stage have the Maoists declared faith in multi-party parliamentary democracy, nor have they ever made an effort to hide their desire to capture power with the sole purpose of establishing a dictatorship. Successive Governments in Kathmandu have singularly failed in convincing the Maoists to give up arms and join the political process; there is no reason to believe that Mr Koirala will be more successful in his present stint as Prime Minister.
A treacherous and venomous lot given to speaking with forked tongues, Prachanda and his comrades cannot be trusted. Indeed, it is absurd to suggest peace talks with those who have offered to lay down arms only if the Royal Nepal Army does so; that absurdity is only further underscored by Thursday's conditional ceasefire which is nothing but a ruse to lull those who will now govern Nepal into inaction. It is a pity that killers of innocent men and women who have kidnapped children to forcibly indoctrinate them in Maoism feel, with more than little help from Mr Yechury and his ilk, not to mention senior functionaries of the UPA Government, emboldened enough to set the terms of engagement. That is tantamount to legitimising terrorism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->