We Nepali must read this article to understand how much king g has insulted us like slaves with atrocities and killings. He must be countable
Nepal’s troubled kingdom
Guest column | Manjushree Thapa
April 22, 2006
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1681206,00300006.htm
The writing has long been on the wall for Nepal — in bold, italicised and underlined letters — yet India and the international community still, sometimes, appear not to see it. Maybe they have had trouble understanding it because it is in Nepali script. In that case, a translation is needed.
There is no way to resolve Nepal’s crisis but by going for a Constituent Assembly. On April 21, Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah, facing the most widespread, charged and furious mass uprising in Nepal’s 237 years’ history, belatedly threw out a crumb upon Karan Singh’s prodding. He invited the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) to nominate a prime minister-and return to the aegis of the 1990 Constitution.
India and the international community hastily welcomed this as a concession. Nepalis, though, mistrusted it as a ploy that was — like all of Shah’s ploys — too clever by half.
The 1990 Constitution, after all, lies in tatters. Shah shredded it himself by misinterpreting clause upon ambiguous clause in his favour upon transgressing the role of a constitutional monarch in October 2002. Using the military to cow his opposition and deploying handpicked Cabinet members to pass arbitrary (even bizarre) ordinances, he meddled in every branch of government, stymieing every hard-won right, reversing all hard-earned civil liberties. He cannot, now, suggest we return to the 1990 Constitution. There is no Constitution there to return to.
And 13,000 Nepalis have not died, hundreds of thousands of people have not been displaced, the lives and livelihoods of 28 million Nepalis have not been torn asunder just so we could return to what was, to begin with, a very flawed charter.
Even those who helped to draft the 1990 Constitution have long conceded that the document had fatal oversights. The most obvious of these were the articles that enabled Shah to seize power, in particular one clause that granted the monarch the power to ‘unloosen’ constitutional knots, and another granting him undue sway over the Royal Nepal Army.
Shah’s April 21 speech has been received by Nepalis as a cynical attempt to preserve these powers.
The very tone of his speech suggests his ‘concessions’ were made in bad faith. Using the royal ‘we’, he said, “We were compelled to make the decision of February 1, 2005, to set in motion a meaningful exercise in multiparty democracy.” (Oh. Were we not just making an illegal power grab?) The Nepali people, he claimed, supported this decision. (Is this why they have so rapidly turned republican?) The Shah dynasty, he said, reigned “in accordance with the popular will.” He expressed an “unflinching commitment” towards constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy — in that order — and conceded that the source of sovereign authority was inherent in the people.
But just as our sovereignty wasn’t Shah’s to snatch from us in 2002, it isn’t his to give back to us now.
The Seven Party Alliance has rejected his offer, and the popular uprising is set to continue: it’s constituent assembly or bust.
Given the high emotions running through the masses, given Shah’s mad obstinacy, and given the immense uncertainty about how the Royal Nepal Army will conduct itself, the situation is extremely explosive.
For India and the international community, the time has come to unequivocally back the Nepali people — instead of trying, as they have so far, to save a monarchy that isn’t trying to save itself.
For from the start of Nepal’s political meltdown, India has played a lead role in setting the international community’s policy vis-à-vis Nepal. After Nepal, India has the greatest stake in seeing the situation stabilise. It has blocked or discouraged third-party offers of mediation to preserve its lead role. And so India cannot, now, attempt quick-fix solutions. Neither can it go overboard by intervening directly or sending troops should Indian interests be threatened. (For Shah would not be above playing the anti-Indian card as a provocation).
What India can do — and soon — is to pull out all stops to force Shah to agree to a Constituent Assembly. Why send only Karan Singh and a few senior statesmen? Send Sitaram Yechury and an all-party team. Deploy General Ashok Mehta to talk carrot-and-stick to the Royal Nepal Army. Offer safety (though not impunity) to those who might want out. So far India has acted like an enlightened superpower rather than as a possessive big brother. It must show the wisdom to step back as well, to make way for third-party or UN mediation for long-term goals such as disarming the Maoists, rebuilding governance, working towards truth and reconciliation.
There is so much to do to get the country recovering and get it on its way to growth. We have already suffered too much at Shah’s whims. There is nothing radical in the demand for a Constituent Assembly. The Nepali people have the right to a new Constitution — one that keeps or lets go of the monarchy, as popular will may dictate.
(The writer’s last book was Forget Kathmandu: An Elegy For Democracy. She’s based in Nepal.)
