Nepal in limbo

Amidst the ongoing challenge of Maoist insurgency, the squabbles within the Nepali Congress threaten to destabilise the balance of Nepal's nascent democratic system, while speculation over the chances of a Palace takeover come to the fore.

AT the Nepali Congress office in Teku, Kathmandu, senior party leaders coming out of one desperate huddle and going into another, seem to be in a daze over how an intra-party confrontation has spun out of control, threatening not only its own survival but the country's system of multi-party democracy itself. "How could we have walked into the trap - to find Parliament dissolved and heading towards possibly a Musharraf-type election and even a Palace takeover," wondered a worried member of the party's Central Working Committee even as his colleagues picked through a thicket of conspiracy theories. What began as a tedious clash of egos between the N.C. president Girija Prasad Koirala and his protege, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, now involves the future of Nepal's 12 year-old-democracy.

Koirala has accused Deuba of being part of a "grand design" to destroy the gains of democracy, although he stopped short of naming King Gyanendra as a party to it.

The immediate point of contention was the extension of the state of emergency imposed on November 26 to fight the insurgency led by ultra-left Maoists. The Army has insisted on the emergency as a condition for its own deployment. Koirala had in fact resigned as Prime Minister in July 2001 because of the refusal of the Army to be mobilised against the Maoists, sans an emergency. An ambiguity in the Constitution, written at the behest of the Generals in 1990, provided for deliberate confusion about who controls the Army - the King, the commander-in-chief of the Army or the elected representative of the people. The confusion is weighted in favour of the Palace, thanks to the hoary tradition of the Army being the King's Army.

Political parties from the centrist N.C. to the splintered parliamentary Left, including the dominant Left Opposition party, the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninist), have been opposed to the extension of the emergency provisions, fearing as they do the undermining of democratic institutions in a situation of virtual, if not constitutional, martial law. "How could we (Nepali Congress) go back to the people when it is our government that has imposed an emergency, the safeguards we had asked for have not been put in place and atrocities are taking place in the name of fighting Maoists?" asked Arjun Narasingh, spokesperson for the party, explaining the reasons for its opposition to the extension of the emergency. "With the Maoists targeting Army camps since the breakdown of the three-month-old ceasefire on November 23, there was no question of the Army not hitting back. Besides, there is the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (TDA) Act. Koirala told Deuba that if the TDA proved inadequate (to meet the terror threat), emergency could be re-imposed in due course, but the move to extend the emergency was to be withdrawn," he explained.

Instead, Deuba, in classic midnight-coup style, after a brief late-night huddle with his Cabinet colleagues, exercised his "prerogative" as Prime Minister and recommended to the King the dissolution of Parliament, to be followed by elections on November 13. The speed with which the decision seems to have been taken stoked rumours of a conspiracy. King Gyanendra has asked Deuba to continue as caretaker Prime Minister. Emergency has been extended by three months. Meanwhile, Koirala expelled Deuba from the party for three years. Most of Deuba's Cabinet has decided to stick with him although three key Ministers have resigned. The constitutional propriety of the action is to be determined by the Supreme Court, although experts see no irregularity. It is the moral and political propriety of Deuba's action that has been called into question.

"When Deuba in April said that it was not possible to hold local elections under the present situation of civil war, how will it be possible to hold free and fair parliamentary elections?" asked C.K. Bastola, a confidant of Koirala. "Is the Army going to facilitate a Musharraf-type election? (Unless Deuba can split the party and lay claim to represent the N.C., he would have to contest as an independent as no new party can be registered after the announcement of elections.) If elections cannot be held within six months and there is a constitutional impasse, the King, under Article 127 which gives him residual powers, may intervene," he said.

Former Finance Minister Ram Sharan Mahat concurs: "I don't think elections can be held. The political situation will be very uncertain."

It is an index of the bankrupt state of multi-party democracy in Nepal that efforts by party spokespersons to give the confrontation an altruistic and democratic values orientation, carry little credibility among the media in Kathmandu. Even an N.C. sympathiser in the intelligentsia argued, "After all it was Koirala who set a bad precedent by dissolving Parliament in 1994 after a vote of no confidence. It produced the political instability that resulted in nearly 12 governments in 12 years. The media see a power squabble, a pre-emptive move by Deuba to counter the machinations of Koirala who has been trying to oust him and wrest back the prime ministership. A showdown was anticipated especially after Deuba was feted by United States President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Admittedly, what rankles with the Koirala faction is Deuba's disregard for his erstwhile mentor and the party. Then came the conspiracy theories about a well-laid plan in which the dissolution of Parliament is the first move.

In political circles, Deuba is referred to as the son-in-law of the Rana-Shah dominated palace-Army clique and his proximity to the palace is well known. A Western development agency in its mapping of Nepal's political conflict, predicted that if Koirala succeeded in toppling Deuba, the Palace would take over. Koirala's (and the N.C.'s) relations with the Palace have historically been difficult. Incidentally, Deuba's move follows the well-attended first public meeting since the promulgation of the emergency, at which seven political parties, including the N.C., took up the theme of protecting the gains of the pro-democracy struggle under threat from both Left and Right extremism.

ON June 1, King Gyanendra comes out of public mourning over the killing of his brother King Birendra and other members of the royal family a year earlier. There has been widespread speculation of a more proactive role. A political observer in the South Asian diplomatic community asked: "With Deuba practically fronting for the palace-Army clique, where is the need for a more overt takeover?" However, the Kathmandu elite has not let go of the psychological theory of the need of King Gyanendra, who was made King for a few days in 1951 when he was hardly three years old, to re-assert himself as an absolute monarch.

Such theories apart, sections of the Kathmandu establishment are openly calling for the King to take over. Members of the Western diplomatic community have been sending out signals of support for a strong government to take control. Sections of the media, ever busy looking for the 'Indian hand', have speculated on the co-relation between Koirala's visit to India and the showdown with Deuba alias the Palace. The argument is that India's relations with the Kings of Nepal have always been problematic. Moreover, the sidelining of the N.C. would be detrimental to India's interests.

Ironically, it is 'Comrade Prachanda', the chairperson of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), who has joined the chorus of political parties voicing fears about the future of democracy in Nepal. Prachanda has defended the gains of the 1990 People's Movement and denounced the "conspiracy" hatched by imperialists who have combined with feudal, "gangster" and murderous elements to deal a major blow to Nepal when the political parties were united in opposing the extension of the emergency. In a signed statement of the Central Committee on May 26, Prachanda said it was a historical necessity for all progressive elements to lead a struggle together and constitute an interim government and a constituent assembly, he said.

Political parties, while echoing the need for a dialogue, remain wary in the face of the on again, off again offers of ceasefire and peace talks, especially against the background of devastating attacks on army and police posts, telecommunications structures, bridges, hydroelectric units, drinking water pipelines, rural banks, health posts and offices of Village Development Committees.

Deuba is adamant about a military strategy, rejecting any peace dialogue unless the Maoists first laid down arms. (More than 100 Maoists and five soldiers were killed when the rebels attacked an Army post in Rolpa district on the night of May 27.)

However, with Nepal being put on the world terror map and the Maoists equated with Al Qaeda, a local insurgency threatens to blow up into a much more bloody conflict. In the last six months more than 2,000 people have been killed, the same number as in the first six years of the war.

That situation is set to change as the meeting of an international anti-Maoist support group is convened in London in mid-June to map out a holistic military and developmental strategy. Already, the U.S. has earmarked $40 million. The Indian Chief of the Army Staff, General S. Padmanabhan, has promised more Army helicopters and armoured vehicles. India has already despatched 20 trucks. The British defence chief, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, led the latest in a line of visiting international military teams. China, the northern Himalayan neighbour, is discreetly watching as Nepal gets sucked into the vortex of great power play in the name of anti-terrorism.

In the midst of the dominant challenge of the Maoist insurgency, the sideshow of an intra-party squabble has dangerously destabilised the balance of democratic and monarchial structures of power in Nepal. Could the crisis be converted into a political opportunity? The N.C. and the UML are planning to go to the people, breaking the political paralysis that had set in since the declaration of the emergency. The Maoists too are reading the danger signals of a rightist about-turn in Nepal's politics.