Whither Nepal? Serious Questions For The Monarchy http://www.asianewsnet.net/level3_template3.php?l3sec=7&news_id=36093 The happenings in Nepal bring into sharp focus the fact that the most important personality in the hapless kingdom is King Gyanendra. He is unique in a variety of ways. He came to occupy the throne not once but twice: first in 1950 (when he was only three) and next in 2001 (when he was 54). On both occasions, his kingship, by a strange coincidence, became controversial and questionable. In 1950, he was installed as the king by the then Rana prime minister (the real centre and source of political power), Mohan Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana. It was done against the background of the fleeing of the entire royal family of King Tribhuvan (1911-55) to India. The Indian deputy prime Minister and home minister Sardar Vallabhai Patel made a very strong statement in Parliament refusing to recognise the Nepal prime Minister?s action. Countries like the USA and the UK followed suit. Eventually, King Tribhuvan returned to his kingdom assuming a new and powerful political role ? indeed, by becoming the real source and centre of political power. Behind the curtain The Ranas, though, had acted quickly, and had also issued coins showing Gyanendra as the King. This had for long proved, as the stories go, very handy to Gyanendra to show to his elder brother King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev (1972-2001) to prove his importance. Various stories do the rounds that Gyanendra would, by showing some coins, impress upon Birendra that the former had become king much earlier than the latter had. This mental make-up, it is widely believed, proved endurable. It is said that during the entire reign of King Birendra, Gyanendra, behind the curtain, endeavoured to make the monarchy stronger and stronger so that he could use the fruits for his own benefit. It is altogether a different matter that after 1990 up to his assassination on 1 June 2001, King Birendra left no one in doubt that he was tremendously enjoying the status of a constitutional (ornamental, titular, limited and symbolic) monarch. It is against this backdrop that King Gyanendra came to assume the throne in June 2001 ? after both the King and the Crown Prince (who was enthroned for mysterious reasons for a couple of days ) died. He lost no time in making it obvious that he wanted to concentrate more and more political and economic powers in his hands. He began to give all kinds of interviews to the media (both print and electronic, both national and international) which had almost been abandoned by King Birendra in his role as a constitutional monarch. In all such interviews, Gyanendra would emphasise the King was active and constructive. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), known popularly as Maobadis, had emerged in February 1996 as a significant and violent force to challenge the very system of constitutional monarchy and seeking to replace it by a system of one-party republic. The Maobadis succeeded in showing to various political forces within the kingdom and to the outside world that they had significant grassroot support. Their base, though created through terrorist tactics, went on increasing throughout Nepal. And by now, some 11,000 people ? army personnel, policemen, political leaders and activists, Maobadis themselves and innocent Nepalis ? have lost their lives in the state?s fight against Maoist insurgency and vice versa. Earlier, various stories had done the rounds that Maobadis had been an indirect creation of King Gyanendra to challenge both the political parties and the then king, Birendra. It is a different matter that, with time, Maobadis became too big for Gyanendra. ?National betrayer? The same Maoist leadership, which had at one point of time stated that it could only talk to the king and not his prime minister (who did not have any real power), has described King Gyanendra after 1 February as ?the national betrayer?. Maobadis have refused to talk to King Gyanendra and have intensified their agitational politics. They have even urged parliamentary political parties to work together to uproot the arrangement that came into force on 1 February. In the era of multi-party democracy, particularly after the 1994 resignation of Girija Prasad Koirala and the second parliamentary polls in that year, Nepal did not witness political stability. Strange and undesirable inter-party and intra-party politics being played in Nepal left no significant parliamentary political party immune from split. And no split ever was ideology-based. There were several rumours that the palace had played significant roles in effecting splits in the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party and the Nepal Sadbhawana Party. Indeed, rumours had also surfaced that Pushpa Kamal Dahal alias Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai, the two main leaders of the CPN (Maoist) had parted company. Political parties hardly gave a good account of themselves. To them, government formation ? and not its running ? was of utmost importance. To make matters worse, political parties began to vie with each other in the game of commissions and corruptions. ?Pajero culture?, in which most of political leaders would show a keenness for riding and owning Pajero cars, became a prominent phrase. All this resulted in the disenchantment of the people with their leaders. It was against this backdrop that the King sought to concentrate more and more powers in his own hands. The first opportunity came to him in the form of the recommendation of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba to dissolve the Pratinidhi Sabha (the lower and popular house of the bicameral Nepali parliament) in May 2002. He allowed Deuba to occupy the prime ministerial chair in the Singh Durbar (the Central Secretariat of Nepal) for some time. But on 4 October 2002 he dismissed Deuba and assumed all executive powers. After Deuba?s removal, he indulged in another kind of politics. He appointed two prime ministers of the panchayat era in succession (Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Surya Bahadur Thapa). While Chand had always proved to be more loyal than the king himself, he was never known for his efficiency, Thapa was known as a relatively good administrator who had never shown any fondness for Gyanendra. When Thapa was removed from the prime ministership in the partyless panchayat days of 1983, he had without naming Gyanendra used sarcastic words for the latter. Gyanendra probably sought to show that he could tolerate Thapa if the latter could help solve the Maoist problem. Power-grabbing Acts By the time of the second removal of Deuba, King Gyanendra had become bolder. By this time, he had probably become overconfident. One wonders why he took three years to hold elections if he could not allow Deuba even a year?s time. In his address to the nation on 1 February, King Gyanendra stressed this commitment to constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. But he has done so intriguingly by making the monarchy absolute and multi-party non-existent in the choice of his 10-member ministry constituted under his own chairmanship. King Gyanendra has been indulging in various power-concentrating acts under Article 127 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990, which reads: ?If any difficulty arises in bringing this Constitution into force, His Majesty may issue necessary orders to remove these difficulties. The orders so issued shall be placed in Parliament?. He lost no time in dissolving Parliament?s lower house in May 2002. He made it a prestige point not to revive it despite demands from mainstream political parties. Worse, he never allowed any session of the Rashtriya Sabha, the upper and permanent house of the bicameral parliament. What King Gyanendra has been doing has unified all democratic elements within Nepal. Besides, all democracy-loving people and governments are speaking in almost the same language. His throttling of the fundamental human rights have united all freedom-loving people within and outside Nepal. Worse, the Royal Nepal Army, with whose help King Gyanendra wishes to run the kingdom, has never given the impression of being an efficient and disciplined body. Indoctrination efforts by the Maobadis have made many of them politically conscious on ethnic, caste and regional lines. King Gyanendra?s actions have put serious question marks before the institution of monarchy itself. The number of supporters of the republican form of government is on the increase. The history of the monarchy in Nepal itself has not been that of a service and welfare-oriented institution. Many, indeed, feel King Gyanendra is hastening the end of monarchy in Nepal.