Royal Takeover in Nepal

[John Huntington]

Dear David,

Please do not apologize for forwarding this to 
the list, on the contrary, thank you!
Kanik is a very important and thoughtful 
journalist and it is good to hear his opinion. 
Many of us in Sanskrit and Buddhist studies are 
deeply involved in Nepal in a variety of ways and 
want every bit of information we can get.

John


>
>
>By Kanak Mani Dixit
>
>When King Gyanendra sacked the prime minister and began direct rule on 1
>February 2005, he said he did so under a constitutional provision which
>enjoins the monarchy to uphold and protect the Constitution. While he
>repeated many times in the royal address his commitment to constitutional
>monarchy and multiparty rule, the king’s drastic action on Tuesday went
>patently against those principles. Firstly, he was taking over as executive
>monarch on the basis of a personal decision. Secondly, the royal address
>was replete with castigating references to political parties, who are the
>intermediaries for pluralism and democratic practice anywhere in the world.
>
>King Gyanendra’s antipathy towards the political parties is well known and
>has been often-expressed, but by sidelining them completely and planning to
>rule as well as reign, the king has removed a buffer between himself and
>the rough and tumble of politics. To that extent, he has taken a great risk
>and put the institution of monarchy in the line of fire. Clearly, the king
>believes that the risk is worth taking.
>
>Which brings us to the matter of whether Narayanhiti Royal Palace has a
>trump card vis-à-vis the raging Maoist insurgency. If such is indeed the
>case and there is rapid movement towards tranquility, with the insurgents
>being routed or laying down arms, the royal palace may be able to overcome
>the turbulence it has introduced into the Nepali polity. Peace and an end
>to the insurgency would put the monarchy back on the pedestal as a
>respected institution, but everything depends on how soon that would
>happen. At one time, the Maoists did announce that they would negotiate
>only with Prime Minister Deuba’s ‘master’, so are we to hope that now with
>the king directly in-charge the Maoists will extend a hand? We can hope.
>
>Further, the Royal Nepal Army’s fight against the highly motivated and
>increasingly brutal insurgents thus far has been lackluster. Will the royal
>palace’s direct control of national affairs mean that the military will now
>put up a spirited fight, and also that its human rights record will improve
>>From current levels? We will have to see.
>
>What is clear is that this has been a radical step exposing the institution
>of kingship to flak, when other approaches could have been tried. Such as
>using the inherent powers of kingship to cajole the political parties to
>work together and put up a political front against the insurgents. But the
>king’s deeply held feelings towards the parties seems to have blocked off
>this avenue towards resolution. The calls made since King Gyanendra took
>over informally in October 2002 for an all-party government or revival of
>the Third Parliament, all of which would have provided political challenge
>to the Maoists on their home ground, are now for naught.
>
>King Gyanendra’s announcement of a takeover for ‘up to three years’
>provides a long window in which Nepal’s highly successful experiment with
>democracy of the last dozen years may be eroded. Unless there is a rapid
>move towards resolution of the insurgency, it is also likely that the
>Maoists will try to make common cause with the political parties. Although
>it is not likely that the above-ground parties will go with the insurgents
>as long as they hold on to the gun, it is certain that the royal action
>will add strength to the insurgents’ demand for a king-less republican
>constitution and government, a call that has been taken up with alacrity
>lately by many politicians.
>
>It is inexplicable how the royal palace plans to attend to the criticism
>that is bound to erupt in the domestic political arena as well as in the
>international community. In castigating the political parties, King
>Gyanendra preferred to hark back to the Parliament dissolved three years
>ago, while keeping silent over interim period and rule through
>palace-appointed prime ministers. This is the period when the peace and
>security of the country’s populace plummeted more than previously.
>
>In the speech, King Gyanendra highlighted the great contribution of the
>Shah dynasty to the creation of the nation and ventured that he was
>speaking for the ‘janabhawana’, i.e. the Nepali people’s feelings. While it
>is true that the desire for peace overwhelms all other political desires
>among the people, the question arises whether the royal takeover was the
>proper way to address the ‘chahana’ (desires). Rather than remonstrate at
>the political parties’ inability to work together and opt for the takeover,
>it would have been a much more popular and realistic move for the king to
>have used his prerogative as head-of-state to bring the bickering parties
>together at this critical juncture.
>
>In the end, unless King Gyanendra is able to come up with the trump card of
>peace vis-a-vis the Maoists in the near term, one can conclude that his
>unprecedented action of the First of February has exposed the historically
>significant institution of Nepal’s monarchy to the vissictitudes of
>day-to-day politics and power play. Did the Nepali monarchy deserve this at
>this late a date in history?
>
>Endnote: As I write this on Tuesday evening, the significant political
>leaders are all under house arrest, the media (press, television, radio) is
>under censorship, the fundamental freedoms have been suspended, a state of
>emergency has been announced, telephones (landlines and cellular) as well
>as Internet are down, and the Tribhuvan International Airport is closed.