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.

Emerging Superpowers

It is often wondered how the superpowers achieved their position of dominance. It seems that the maturing of the two superpowers, Russia and the US, can be traced to Second World War. To be a superpower, a nation needs to have a strong economy, an overpowering military, immense international political power and, related to this, a strong national ideology. It was this war, and its results, that caused either of these superpowers to experience such a preponderance of power. Before the war, both nations were fit to be described as great powers, but it would be erroneous to say that they were superpowers at that point.

What is a Superpower?
A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale. It is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power or a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemonic. After the Cold War, the most common belief held is that only the US fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower. Brazil, China, the European Union, India and Russia are thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century.

The British Empire was the most extensive empire in world history, which was considered the foremost great power and by 1921, held sway over 25 per cent of the world’s population and controlled about 25 per cent of the Earth’s total land area, while the United States and the Soviet Union both proved their newly gained power in Second World War. The British Empire emerged from Second World War significantly weakened and recognized to have lost its superpower status, while the Soviet Union and the United States were recog­nised as the two remaining superpowers.

Rise of New Superpowers
Academics predict the possible rise of new superpowers in the 21st century, mentioning four possible superpower candidates. Whether the Federative Republic of Brazil, Russian Federation, and the People’s Republic of China, Republic of India or the European Union will be future superpowers is a matter of ongoing debate.

The European Union has been called an emerging superpower by academics who believe that the power of the European Union will rival that of the United States in the 21st century. Several factors: the EU’s large population, large economy, low inflation rates, the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years, and certain EU members states’ high quality of life (when measured in terms such as hours worked per week).

The People’s Republic of China receives continual coverage in the popular press of its potential superpower status, and has been identified as a rising or emerging economic and military superpower by academics and other experts. China will overtake the US to become the world’s largest economy by 2038 if current growth rates continue and that China’s GDP will overtake that of Japan by 2017 or 2018, and Germany’s in 2008 itself.

Under an optimistic scenario, China could become a real superpower in 30 years’ time. Though in late 2007, China’s economic power ’shrank’ when the World Bank reported that they had overestimated China’s economy by about 40 per cent. Although, the finding was based on a PPP estimation of the Chinese GDP, which the above estimations do not depend on.

India’s Position
The Republic of India is in its potential of becoming a superpower. With 9.4 per cent GDP growth in 2007, Goldman Sachs predicts that as 700 million Indians are expected to move to cities by 2050, the Indian economy may surpass the United States (in US$) by 2043. India has moved onto a much faster growth trajectory than the World Bank had previously expected, fueled by strong and steady productivity gains in its legions of new factories, which are producing everything from inner wear to cars. India’s strength lies in its demographics; more than 50 per cent of India’s population is under 25. India has a great potential to become an economic superpower because of its growing young population.

The Russian Federation is a suggested potential candidate for re­achieving superpower status in the twenty-first century due to its fast-growing economy, sizeable energy resources and the size of its military. Russia intends to reemerge as a full-fledged superpower,” and contrary to conventional wisdom, this goal is easily within the Kremlin’s grasp, but the cost to the Russian people and global security would be immense. Russia has an intact military-industrial complex and the mineral wealth to reactivate its dormant structurally militarized potential and that supply-side constraints don’t preclude a return to prodigal superpower-dom.

The Federative Republic of Brazil has been suggested as a potential candidate for superpower status. It is the fifth-largest country by geographical area, the fifth most populous country, and the fourth most populous democracy in the world. Brazil has one of the ten largest economies in the world; in addition to having one of the largest defense budgets, and armed forces in the world. On the global stage Brazil is a member of the G8+5, a political and economic group composed of emerging economic powers and the G8. Brazil is one of the BRIC countries—a Goldman Sachs thesis projecting that the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India, and China is such that they may become among the four most dominant economies by the year 2050.

Multipolar World
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 that ended the Cold War, the post-Cold War world is widely considered as a unipolar world; with the US as the world’s sole remaining superpower. The United States, of course, is the sole State with preeminence in every domain of power—economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural—with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world. With previous superpowers in history, the US is the last remaining superpower in the world. Some experts argue that this mainstream assessment of current global politics is too simplified, in part because of the difficulty in classifying the European Union at its current stage of development. Others argue that the notion of a superpower is outdated, considering complex global economic interdependencies, and propose that the world is multipolar.

UPA Returns to Power

It was said of Mexican generals that as military strategists they were always fighting the last war. In 2009, India’s 15th Lok Sabha election saw television commentators and political analysts too busy predicting the last election. Indeed, the calculations of the opposition parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the CPI(M) and a gaggle of other regional forces from the AIADMK to the Samajwadi Party (SP), were based on the 2009 election replicating the trend of the 2004 election and devolving into a conglomeration of State contests.Politics and the public have a way of surprising pundits. While State identities and local issues and compelling personalities did play a role, the Lok Sabha election that has just concluded was underpinned by a national mood. What the Congress has won is not quite a national mandate — perhaps, even it wasn’t quite ready for it — but sometimes resembles it more closely than anything in a long, long time, certainly since the NDA victory of 1999.Broadly, there are three sets of winners and losers in this election. The trend they collectively indicate sometimes seems contradictory. However, the message that the voter is sending at the end of the day is fairly categorical — and one that will please anybody who believes India is more than just the sum of its parts.

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) has raced to an unexpected decisive victory in what was billed as one of the most unpredictable Lok Sabha elections. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was clearly the man of the moment as he scripted history by becoming the first Prime Minister after Jawaharlal Nehru to come back to power after completing a full term in office.

The grand old party did exceptionally well on its own as it crossed the 200 mark while the incumbent ruling combine was comfortably placed at over 250 in the 545-member Lok Sabha. The UPA’s estranged allies like the Left parties, Lalu Prasad Yadav’s Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Ram Vilas Paswan’s Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) were humbled even as the main opposition party, the BJP finished at a low of 116 seats.

Manmohan Singh’s Personal Image
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s personal image as a man of learning and integrity and the electorate’s preference for stability proved to be key factors in these elections. Realising that he enjoys a groundswell of goodwill, Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Nehru-Gandhi scion Rahul Gandhi went out of their way to repeatedly project him for the top job, thus converting this election into a Presidential contest. BJP leader LK Advani’s personal attacks against Manmohan Singh only ended up improving his popularity ratings.

The fear of a fractured mandate with disparate small political parties calling the shots at the Centre also appears to have scared the electorate, which has shown a preference for national parties, although nobody is writing off the regional parties.

Given present line-up, the Congress is comfortably placed to form the Government with its pre-poll allies though it is a few seats short of the majority mark. It no longer requires the Communists or its former partners or even the Samajwadi Party to muster a simple majority in the Lok Sabha. Well aware that it is in a position to call the shots, the Congress has already indicated that it will tap Independent members and smaller like-minded parties like the Janata Dal (SD), Ajit Singh’s Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) and Assam’s AUDF for support to make up for the shortfall instead of seeking support of the Fourth Front . However, the Congress continued to be soft towards Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, whose Janata Dal (United), swept the State.

Admitting privately that they are more comfortable dealing with Nitish Kumar as he represents the classical Lohia school of thought, Congress leaders said the Bihar leader will have to take a call on whether he wants to continue with his dependence on the Bharatiya Janata Party or branch out on his own.

While attention will turn to the nitty gritty of government formation in the coming days, the Congress was busy savouring its victory today, made possible by its massive gains in states like Kerala, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh and its unexpected performance in the other Hindi heartland states of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YSR Reddy was the real game changer as he was able to improve on his tally of 29 seats even though all other political parties were ranged against him.

Congress Comeback in Uttar Pradesh
The party’s surprise comeback in Uttar Pradesh with 21 seats, where the Congress has been in the wilderness for over two decades, has proved to be a real morale booster for the grand old party as it is seen as the beginning of its revival in the Hindi heartland.

What is even more heartening for the Congress is that the party is gradually regaining its old base with the minorities and the upper castes veering towards it. The UP performance is, however, a personal victory for All-India Congress Committee(AICC) general secretary Rahul Gandhi who had argued that isntead of going in for an unequal alliance, the Congress should fight on its own.

In contrast to the Congress, the BJP suffered serious reverses as its tally has plummeted from 138 to 112 seats. However, all is not lost for the saffron party as it has held its own in Chhattisgarh and improved in Karnataka.

Similarly, the DMK-Congress combine managed to minimize its losses in Tamil Nadu where the rival Jayalalitha-led AIADMK front was projected to sweep the polls banking on the emotive Sri Lankan Tamils issue.

Setback for Kingmaker
It is noticeable that one politician who has received a severe drubbing in the elections is Nara Chandrababu Naidu. His Telugu Desam Party has been defeated in the elections to the Lok Sabha and the Andhra Pradesh State Assembly.

Only the other day, he was considered the most important politician in the post-poll scenario. His next move was watched by the Congress, the BJP and their allies. Apparently, both the national parties were too happy to have him on their side but Naidu was keeping everybody guessing.

Naidu reportedly said, “new friendships, new groupings and new polarisation will emerge in the days to come”. Apparently, he was inclined towards the yet-to-be born Third Front. His preference was the Third Front rather than joining the BJP-led NDA.

He has been quoted as saying that rumours were spread that TDP had no option but to move closer to the NDA. This was started by the BJP because its leaders knew that “they on their own are not going to be in a position to form the Government”.

Clearly, Naidu knows both the BJP and the Congress very closely. He was an important ally of the BJP in the NDA.As for the Congress, he began his political career in that party as an Youth Congress activist.

The election results have, however, changed the political scenario. Though he fought a bitter battle with the Congress, even by forming a “Grand Alliance” with the TDP, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi, the CPI and the CPM, his strategy to trounce the Congress has failed.

End of Political Instability
By winning the elections to the 15th Lok Sabha, the Congress-led UPA has certainly pulled the nation out of the jaws of political instability that was worrying most countrymen all these months.

The people have also voted for continuity which is essential for tackling enormous domestic and external challenges facing India as also pulling up the economy caught in a slowdown.

Essentially, the vote speaks highly of the maturity of Indian voters who have certainly opted for the policies which, despite odds and vagaries of coalition politics, the UPA Government led by Manmohan Singh followed during the past five years.

In the process, the electorate has also outrightly rejected the negative policies followed by the Left from one end and the Hindutva brigades of the BJP from the other. Their rejection seeks to underscore the fact that the real India — which neither the Left parties, nor the BJP has tried to understand — believes in liberal democracy which can take care of the common man’s daily bread as well as the need to push economic growth which can create more jobs as well as build an India of the 21st century.

The 2009 General Elections Results

Congress: 205, BJP: 116, SP: 22, BSP: 21, JD(U): 20, AIADMK: 9, DMK: 18, PMK: 0, MDMK: 1, TDP: 9, RJD: 4, LJP: 0, NCP: 9, TMC: 19, Left: 24, JD(S): 3, BJD: 14, INLD: 2, RLD: 6, TRS: 2, AGP: 1, Akali Dal: 4, NC: 3, PDP: 0. Others: 20