Instability in Nepal

Nepal is again in the grip of serious crisis, and there is the risk of the country heading for political instability. Prime Minister Pushpa Kumar Dahal Prachanda, also known as Prachanda, has announced his resignation in the course of a televised address to the nation. He has accused some of his coalition partners, opposition parties and “foreign powers” for being behind the situation. However, Madhav Kumar has taken over as the new Prime Minister of the country.

In fact, the Maoists themselves are to blame for the situation coming to such a pass. They have been endeavouring to induct in the Nepal Army all those who constitute their People’s Liberation Army. But this could not be possible because of the resistance put up by most senior army officers, including its chief, General Roopmangud Katawal, as well as by some political parties which are worried about the Maoists’ attempt to gain a strong grip on the Government.

It is possible that Prachanda would not have precipitated a political crisis by locking horns with Gen Katawal. If blame must be apportioned, most of it should be shared by Prachanda’s comrades in the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). For, it is the Maobadis outside the Government, nearly all of them impulsively intolerant of the democratic process, which pushed Prachanda into taking a position from where he could not retreat without being seen to have suffered a humiliating defeat.

The Genesis of Instability
Nepal's President Ram Baran Yadav had directed Army Chief Gen Katawal, sacked by Prime Minister Prachanda, to continue in office in a faceoff between the two leaders that threatens to escalate the political crisis and derail the peace process.

Soon after Prachanda sacked Gen Katawal on May 3, 2009 accusing him of defying the Government's orders by reinstating eight Generals retired by the Maoist administration, the President told the Army Chief to remain in the post.

In fact, the rift between Prachanda and Gen Katawal ultimately led to the sacking of the Army Chief despite opposition from many of the Maoists’ coalition partners. Prachanda also ignored wise counsel from India, the US, the UN and elsewhere in the world. This led to the intervention by President Yadav, who asked Gen Katawal to stick to his post. The President took the decision as the Supreme Commander of the Nepal Army, arguing that General Katawal’s dismissal and the appointment of a new Army Chief “do not meet the constitutional requirements and due process” as laid down in New Nepal. This led to two of the Maoists’ allies withdrawing from the coalition, rendering the Prachanda government to a minority in the Constituent Assembly.

The simple reason for the crisis was that the hardliners among Maoists wanted 19,000 of their cadre to be inducted into the army to which the army chief was obviously opposed. The Army Chief’ s argument was that it would be difficult to integrate such a large force of Maoist cadre with the Army’s rank and file, particularly since the two had been fighting each other not long back.

Army Chief Controversy
Gen Katwal has been sacked for his “defiance” on three issues; namely fresh recruitments in Nepal Army (NA), extension of service to eight Brigadier Generals and withdrawal of NA from National Games in reaction to participation by the Maoist’s Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA). On all these issues, the NA’s position is not quite sustainable. New recruitments are a violation of Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of November 2006, (Article 5.1.2). The UN Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) which is managing both the PLA and the NA under the peace process had categorically said so. There was no urgency for NA to proceed with the recruitment of about 3000 soldiers during October-December 2008 against the direction of the Defence Ministry. On extension of officers’ services, the NA is insisting on the norms that pre-date the new Army Act 2007. This Act clearly empowers the ‘Council of Ministers’ to “control, mobilise and manage the Nepali Army.” The retiring officers obtained a temporary stay on the government’s decision of denying them the extension, but NA must have consulted the Defence Ministry in allocating them their duties afresh.

History Repeats Itself

The present crisis that reached flashpoint has long been in making. The Maoists have never been comfortable with Nepal’s Army, their principal enemy during the bloody insurrection that ultimately led to the passage of Singha Durbar into the annals of history. The demise of the 240-year-old monarchy, founded in 1768 by Prithvi Narayan Shah who forged warring fiefdoms into a unified kingdom, was a logical, if undesirable, conclusion of relentless political strife and disruptive social discord.King Gyanendra’s unceremonious eviction from Narayanhity Palace, which has been converted into a national museum and where relics now gather dust, should have marked a rupture with the past. But the Maobadis did not quite see it that way. Nor did their participation in the Constituent Assembly election, which, contrary to the expectations of the Maobadis, did not fetch them a parliamentary majority, and subsequently forming a Government with the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) rid them of their insecurities, primarily their fear of the Army seizing power sooner or later and reinstating the dethroned King. Instead of allowing the political crisis to deepen, Yadav has acted swiftly and in a commendable manner. He has asked the other political parties to form a Government.

A number of major parties, which have collaborated in the past, had decided to form a ‘national’ Government under the leadership of the CPN (UML). Together, these parties, including the Nepali Congress, the Terai Madhes Democratic Party, the Sadbhavna Party and the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party, have 280 MPs in the 601-member Constituent Assembly. Sensing an opportunity, most of the 53 MPs of the Madhesi People’s Rights Forum are believed to have expressed their desire to join the Government — in true South Asian style, they are willing to split the parent organisation if it does not endorse participation in the new Government.

Indo-Nepal Relations
India-Nepal relations must be based on friendship, mutual cooperation and harmony of interests. Towards this end, existing arrangements will be reviewed and revised bearing in mind mutual interests and benefits on the basis of dialogue.

Political and economic dislocations in Nepal concern India as this country has an open border with its northern neighbour. When negative impulses are unleashed, some of the fallout inevitably impacts India. In times of uncertainty in Kathmandu, New Delhi has to be watchful for possible moves by China, Nepal’s neighbour to the north.

India has a huge stake in stability in Nepal. But the people of Nepal will obviously be greater losers if efforts to save the situation fail to fructify and the emergence of a regime based on a wider political consensus runs into rough weather. How political events shape in Nepal remains to be seen.

The Future Ahead
Regrettably, this has been pretty much the norm in the Himalayan state for several years. When the political system is placed in jeopardy, it is the people who suffer The present Nepal Parliament was primarily elected as a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution for the country after the jettisoning of the monarchy and the entry of Maoists through democratic elections in the political process. This was a novel experiment indeed. The question now is: will the constituent assembly address the primary task before it of writing the constitution? Indeed, is this possible unless the Maoists, the single largest block in Parliament but not possessing a majority, and the others come to a modus vivendi after the failure of the Maoists to ram through their design? There are other questions as well. Will the Maoists propose another Prime Minister, or will there be a bust-up within if they try to do so?

Keeping the present crisis in view, the international community also needs to keep in mind the overall context of civil-military relations in South Asia. The political dominance of military over civil authorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh has left dangerous scars on democratic institutions in these countries. The potential of Sri Lankan army dictating political terms on the ethnic issue and even seeking a share in the power structure following its “impressive” victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealem (LTTE) has been created. Nepal should be saved from drifting on this risky alley. The international community must devote its efforts to rebuilding the shattered political consensus in Nepal and address the present crisis in the interest of the peace process.