| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| No alternative to the King |
| 2006-04-23 |
| By Swapan Dasgupta The term "popular uprising" arouses the most puerile fantasies of the Left and the editorial classes. The romanticism becomes even more frenzied when the target of mob ire is a monarch who claims to be a reincarnation of a God and, consequently, wears a permanent, arrogant sneer. For the past few days, televised images of tens of thousands of demonstrators wearing red bandanas and flaunting red flags have thrust Nepal into the forefront of the international bleeding hearts agenda. The issues too seem clear-cut: An exasperated people demanding democracy and representative government versus a tottering King who presides over a decrepit feudal order. Lurking somewhere in the background are barefoot rebels, quaintly professing Maoism, who have braved it out for nearly a decade in inhospitable conditions. At a pinch, it almost seems like a replay of Cuba in the last days of Batista, Nicaragua in the throes of the anti-Somoza insurrection and the final hours of the Shah of Iran. The democratic right to be reckless cannot be taken away from starry-eyed idealists. It has become fashionable to mock those who shed tears for the world's only Hindu kingdom. Yet, before India joins the clamour for a republican order, it is prudent to look dispassionately at the implications of a monarchical collapse in Nepal. First, it is instructive to remember the awkward fact that the monarchy in Nepal as in Bhutan epitomises order, continuity and tradition. There may be misgivings over King Gyanendra's dogged determination to play the benevolent despot and there is justified concern at the reckless ways of Crown Prince Paras. However, it is sometimes necessary to separate the individual from the institution, a distinction that the British were good at drawing in their dealings with Princely states. Secondly, if the choice in Nepal was between democracy and autocracy, there would have been little room for confusion. Tweaking the system to dilute the discretionary powers of the monarch is overdue and even King Gyanendra has recognised its necessity, albeit belatedly. But it is an open secret that the seven-party alliance that was cobbled together at the behest of India doesn't have either the wherewithal or the purposefulness to manage the show on its own. It needs the active backing of institutions such as the Royal Nepalese Army which has so far been outside the purview of civilian control. Maybe this anomaly needs correction but this is best done if the monarchy acts as a bridge during the transition. Dispensing the monarchy and the 1990 Constitution at this juncture will trigger fresh divisions in an already fractured society. Thirdly, Nepal has been in a state of civil war for a decade. The Maoists, contrary to ill-informed perceptions, did not initiate their insurgency against the monarchy. They took up arms in 1996 against the democratically-elected Nepali Congress government. That insurgency has been continuing. The plea for democracy is a merely a Maoist ruse to first forge a united front against the monarchy and then gobble up all the political parties. If there are elections to a Constituent Assembly, the Maoists will prevail because they have the guns and the political parties just have slogans. By rejecting the King's offer to join the Government the political parties have played into the hands of Maoists, a wrong-turn that delights the new busybodies like CPI(M)'s Sitaram Yechuri. Finally, for India, the biggest danger in Nepal comes from a full-fledged civil war, leading to a Maoist takeover. The Nepalese "revolution" will not stop at Biratnagar as some suggest. To survive, the Maoists have to make either make Nepal a dependency of China or create support systems for the revolution in India. The latter is the rationale behind the Naxalite red corridor. This is why it is in India's national interest to deal with a chastened King rather than Comrade Prachanda. Without the King, the political parties will be like Kerensky waiting to yield before Lenin. The last thing India needs is turbulence in Nepal that will make another IPKF-type misadventure inevitable. India needs a buffer and for that role there is no alternative to the King. |
| Posted by:john |
| #3 I am not sure there will be war with China over Nepal, but if the Maoist take over or look like doing so, India will invade. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-04-23 18:17 |
| #2 There are an awful lot of red flags with hammers and sickles being waved by these "pro democracy" protestors. Here is what Gwynne Dyer has written about the maoists "Comrade Prachandra", the 42-year-old former horticulture teacher who is the Nepali Maoists' leader, never gives interviews, but the deputy leader, Baburam Bhattarai - whose PhD thesis was a Marxist analysis of Nepal's problems - was chilling when asked whether his movement's policies would be similar to those of the Khmer Rouge: "There is no independent and authentic account of events in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge available so far. Whatever is emanating from the Western media appears to be highly exaggerated." In other words, they are the same. If the Maoists win, an early Indian intervention might spare the Nepalese population the worst horrors of a Khmer Rouge-style genocide, but only at the cost to India of a long and thankless guerilla war in Nepal. Nepal is heading straight for hell, and nobody in the country seems remotely capable of stopping it. The Himmalayas protect the Indian subcontinent. If Chinese troops enter Nepal, or the maoists take over, it faces the prospect of the vulnerable gangetic plains being open to attack. It cannot allow that. There will be war. |
| Posted by: john 2006-04-23 17:17 |
| #1 Aragorn, son of Arathorn, will return. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-04-23 12:49 |