Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Is former king Gyanendra a serious threat to both the revolutionary Maoists and the coalition of 22, which is currently opposed to them? No, he does not seem to be, primarily because he does not have the army on his side any more. Secondly, there is no organized political base except one small pro-monarchy party that has just four members in the assembly. By Dhruba Adhikary
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's request to the UN Security Council for a six-month extension to the world body's special mission in Nepal beyond July 23 is based on a perception of a "growing complexity of the political situation".
Progress towards taking the ongoing peace process to its logical conclusion is palpably limited. Nepal's friends and donors are doubtful of the possibility of promulgating a new constitution (to replace the present interim one) by May 2010. Rivalry and mutual mistrust among key political parties have not abated. Deteriorating law and order amid ethnic unrest leave little room for realistic optimism.
To make matters worse, senior leaders of the Maoist party headed by Prachanda are issuing threats of a new "people's revolt" if Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal is allowed to continue to lead an unconstitutional government, supported by a coalition of 22 from among 25 political parties having representation in the Constituent Assembly. They consider Nepal a mere "puppet" deriving its strength from the army.
Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai also dragged India into the scene by urging New Delhi to stop cooperating with the "illegitimate government" of Nepal. Bhattarai often talks about a conspiracy to dissolve the assembly, elected in April 2008, in order to impose emergency rule by the president.
Adding fuel to the fire, ABC television, which is known for its pro-Maoist line, aired a report on Saturday claiming that the deposed king, Gyanendra, is becoming more "ambitious" and wants to reclaim the throne he lost following the proclamation of Nepal as a republic on May 28, 2008. Political pundits say the Maoist jitters need also to be viewed in the context of neighboring India's recent decision to ban the Maoist organization in that country.
Is former king Gyanendra a serious threat to both the revolutionary Maoists and the coalition of 22, which is currently opposed to them? No, he does not seem to be, primarily because he does not have the army on his side any more. Secondly, there is no organized political base except one small pro-monarchy party that has just four members in the assembly, which consists of over 601 people.
Is he bitter because the monarchy was abolished in haste and without recognizing the contributions that institution made over two centuries? He may have hurt feelings deep down in his heart, but he does not appear to brood over the past.
Or perhaps he realizes his own flaws and mistakes he made during his days as ruler. Or maybe, he has acquired some divine power to conceal all of his woes and miseries. That was what this correspondent found in the course of an hour-long expansive conversation with the former king last week. No inkling of a rant was visible, even on burning issues like the worsening law-and-order situation or soaring market prices of goods and services.
His concerns for "fellow citizens" surfaced only in the form of informed worries. Who could address the public grievances effectively - a powerful ruler or popular leader? "Whoever the people choose should be given the responsibility of governing the country," Gyanendra recalled from the statement his office issued to mark his 62nd birthday - which, incidentally, used to be observed as a national day when the country was still a kingdom. (It is still a tradition in remaining monarchies like Britain, Thailand, the Netherlands and Bhutan.)
While he is perturbed over the present events and trends, Gyanendra's profound anxiety takes him beyond the immediate horizon. "All conscious and patriotic citizens need to work together for posterity if not for anything else," he said.
He seemed aware of the current debate and demand to restructure the state in the quest for a "new" Nepal. The existence and integration of Nepal, a garland of Himalaya, hills and flatland called Terai, must not be broken by either internal discord or external ill will. At one point, he took a long pause to recollect the remark of a visitor who likened present-day Nepal to Austria shortly before World War II. He did not elaborate, but history books are full of the events leading to Anschluss - the incorporation of Austria into Nazi Germany in 1938.
Yam between two boulders was how the founder-king of present-day Nepal, Prithvi Narayan Shah, described his country's location, to denote China and (British) India. Gyanendra is not sure if that description fits into the globalized politics of the 21st century.
Remembering his student days, Gyanendra alluded to the widespread belief of "knowledge is power, and work is worship". In the changed context, he said, the age of information had dawned. Although Nepal has to learn to live with both neighbors by maintaining the best of relations on either side, we need to realize one of them is closer to us on a day-to-day basis.
And you must not expect your neighbors to be quiet. On a broader framework, Western attempts to contain the Dragon would not remain unchallenged. In such a scenario, the stability of frontline states might be affected. Nepal, which shares a border with China through Tibet, needs to be constantly vigilant and insulate itself from the vortex of conflicts in the neighborhood.
"That is why I say the sooner the current phase of interim arrangements ends, the better it is for Nepal's stability and progress," said Gyanendra.
Nepal has already made Beijing more conscious about the region than it was before. Previously, there was a kind of stability under the monarchy that the Chinese saw as a reliable force, but they have not found a dependable substitute after the abolition of the monarchy. Nepal's Maoists have yet to win Chinese confidence because they operated, if not originated, in India during the years of the insurgency (1996-2006). All other political forces are scattered, divided and weak. Indians, on the other hand, view growing Chinese interest in Nepal as a threat to their security.
Gyanendra had not left Nepal since 2006 - the year he bowed to a popular uprising against his absolute rule that began in February 2005. Earlier this year, he traveled to India in the context of a marriage of a relative. While in New Delhi, he met Sonia Gandhi, leader of the ruling Congress party, and a host of other political leaders and officials. He received friendly gestures, accompanied by all normal courtesies extended to a former head of state. But he found an element of confusion about Nepal. A clearer view might emerge once the newly re-elected Indian leadership reviews past policies.
Gyanendra was obviously elated by the enthusiasm shown by people who visited his residence to offer birthday felicitations on July 7. Some even chanted slogans demanding the restoration of the monarchy, arguing that it alone could end the anarchy that has engulfed the country.
One Indian newspaper headlined: "Birthday fervor shows Gyanendra still not a spent force." But is the former monarch carried away by this gesture? He did not indicate he wanted to return to center stage - and reintroduce a rule by decree. Again, he did not utter words to contradict his public statement that the responsibility of governing the country should be given to those chosen by the people.
He did, however, indicate that he would make himself available if his services were required for national unity. But it should be reflected by the "people's will, an informed choice". He explained his idea by giving an example of people who love to talk about two sides of a coin. What holds both sides together is often forgotten, he said. It is the rim around it that binds the metal together. He implied that the monarchy could be an institution well placed to represent and address social and cultural matters - issues of common concern.
Since Gyanendra reads newspapers and books, and visits several websites regularly, he is aware of a fact-based analysis that even if a large section of the population did not like him or his son Paras, they were not altogether against the idea of retaining the monarchy as an institution. He also knows of analysts who made timely predictions that the abolition of the monarchy would create a vacuum that could not be filled by the available leaders or political forces.
That apprehension came true. And now there is fierce competition to gain space there, both internally and externally. The prevailing chaos, disorder and lawlessness fueled by ethnic and region-based movements across the country are the natural outcome of that contest.
Hindus are known for their belief in fate and reincarnation. And Gyanendra is no exception. By a strange twist of fate, he was crowned king twice. First, in November 1950, when the three-year-old Gyanendra was proclaimed king by the then de facto rulers, the Ranas. It was done to gain legitimacy for the regime, which had been lost because the reigning monarch, King Tribhuwan, suddenly abandoned the throne - and left the country - and sided with those fighting against the Ranas.
He took his sons and eldest grandson with him during his exile in India, leaving no option for the Ranas but to enthrone Gyanendra - even if he was a toddler. Subsequently, a popular movement led to the overthrow of the 104 years of autocratic rule, facilitating the return of King Tribhuwan in February 1951.
Gyanendra's second stint as the king of Nepal began in the aftermath of another tragedy - the mysterious palace carnage of June 2001 in which King Birendra and crown prince Dipendra were killed, along with eight other members of the royal family. He ascended the throne when the Maoist insurgency was rapidly spreading across the country. It is a widely held belief that he paid dearly for heavily relying on ingratiating relatives and courtiers who instigated him to go against the popular will.
Will fate once again take a decision in Gyanendra's favour? It is an open-ended question.
(Dhruba Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist)
Courtesy: atimes.com
View Comments