The Royal Coup D’etat In Nepal

  Anil Biswas

FEBRUARY 1, 2005 has seen yet another coup d’état in Nepal. The coup was led and orchestrated by none other than the king of Nepal.  Democracy has once again been throttled in Nepal and an autocratic rule has been put in place. An Emergency has been declared. The political leaders have been put under house arrest. Some of the provisions of the Nepal constitution have been suspended.  Restrictions have been clamped down on the media.

The Indian government, responding to the setting up of an authoritarian rule has correctly commented that in the aftermath of the coup, the terrorist activities of the Maoist ultras would go on the rise in Nepal and the political crisis would be intensified.

In fact, a dark mass of political cloud enveloped the skies of Nepal and is set to deepen and widen further with the passing of each day. The impact is not going to be limited by any means within the confines of Nepal alone. The cascading effects of the political crisis, in particular of the violence-driven acts of the Maoists, have affected Bangladesh and equally, the border region of Jharkhand, Bengal, and Bihar.

The democratic-minded people of India cannot, must not, remain mute witnesses to the recent internal developments taking place in Nepal. Behind the façade of Nepal’s political crisis, the activities of the elements of separatism in this sub-continent may well increase with the help of the forces of imperialism.

ROOTS OF THE CRISIS

Nepal is one of the poorest countries of Southeast Asia.  The pangs of hunger drive more than 30 per cent of the population of that country to seek livelihood elsewhere.  The cruel exploitation by the Nepal monarchy over the years has made the life of the people there unbearable. Thus, we witness how a struggle to end the monarchical rule and to set up a democracy has been going for a long time in that country. The struggle is led by the Nepal Congress Party and the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist). 

In 1990, because of the uncompromising struggle launched and led by the democratic parties, a multi-party democracy was established in Nepal. A new Panchayat structure was set in motion in lieu of the palace-controlled Panchayat system, and a democratic programme was put in place. 

Nevertheless, over the past fourteen years since then the multi-party democracy was not able to grow roots or attain maturity.  If we count the Sher Bahadur Deuba government, the prime minister of Nepal was short-changed and shown the doors for 14 times in these 14 years. Such kind of political restiveness has but seldom been seen in very few countries in contemporary times.

The political instability and the pain felt by the people of Nepal because of the economic dysfunction have provided the Maoists with the opportunity to escalate their violent activities. Of the fourteen governments that have succumbed to pressure, eight had to bear the blame of a crass failure to put down the Maoist menace. The Nepal monarchy has been able to take full advantage of the failure of the democratic parties. The monarchy, which now blames the democratic system for the increase in violent activities, was, however, never willing to accept the Panchayat (parliamentary) system.

We have to take especial note of the fact that whenever has the Communist Party come forward to emote an important role in the running of the Nepal government, the armed aggression of the Maoists have weakened the base of the democratic system itself in Nepal. The violent conduct of the Maoists has in a manner helped the authoritarian activities of the monarchy in Nepal.

STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRACY

It needs to be mentioned at this point that the biggest force of democratic politics in Nepal is the Nepal Congress. The second biggest such force is, of course, the Communist Party of Nepal (UML). In addition, several smaller political parties are patronised by the Nepal royalty.  The internecine quarrels of the Nepal royalty are well known. On the other hand, the activities of the two largest democratic political parties have failed to enhance the democratic consciousness of the people of Nepal.

The people of Nepal began their struggle for a multi-party democracy from 1980.  However, in the task of setting up a democracy, the trend of a partyless democracy started to prevail.  With the joint democratic programme conducted by the Nepal Congress and the CPN (UML), the first democratic elections in Nepal took place in 1991.  Girija Prasad Koirala, the chief of the Nepal Congress was the first elected prime minister of Nepal.  That government did not even last for three years.

Elections were held again in 1994 and a government under the leadership of the Communist Party was set up.  The government was not allowed to last for even one year.  The moment a Communist party-led government had been set up, the Maoists under the slogan of the ‘people’s republic of Nepal,’ started to embark on a ‘war of liberation’ in the countryside.  They targeted the communist leadership, especially the kisan leaders. 

Within a short while, the Communist government was dismissed and Sher Bahadur Deuba was appointed as the prime minister for the first time.  In the months that followed, Nepal saw a series of prime ministers, including Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Surya Bahadur Thapa, come and go.  No government could attain stability.  An election was held in 1999, which the Nepal Congress won.  Krishnaparasad Bhattarai formed the government with the support of the CPN (UML).  This government also was not allowed to last a year.

Between 2001 and 2005 there took place no fewer than nine changes in the political set up.  Sometimes the prime minister was changed, and sometimes, the king.  The Maoist ultras took full and complete advantage of the situation.  However, the Maoists were quite routed and did miserably when they essayed to take part in the elections in 1996.  Of the 205 seats of the Nepal parliament, they could win but nine.

In the period that followed, the Maoist ultras took to the path of aggression between 1996 and 2004.  No less than 13 thousand people have been killed in the violence of the Maoists’ armed assaults.  The majority of those killed are poor peasants.  The so-called political theory flaunted by the Maoists is that of setting up ‘people’s democratic Nepal’ through conduct of a ‘people’s war.’  A trained guerrilla force of 15,000 has bee set up and they have adopted a strategy of people’s war that is similar to that adopted by the Sendoro Luminoso or the shining path group of Peru.

Side by side with unleashing an armed aggression, the Maoist ultras have also organised 21 general strikes in Nepal from 1996.  The programmes have but one aim.  They aim at destroying the democratic system in Nepal and it can be said they have succeeded to some extent in this regard.

The Nepal Congress is, like its counterpart in India, a party of the capitalists and big landlords.  The party has never launched struggles demanding the economic uplift of the poor people of Nepal.  As a result the situation wherein there rose an opportunity to launch an uncompromising struggle against monarchy has to some extent been compromised. 

The CPN (UML), to the people of Nepal, is the only principled political party engaged in launching struggles.  Unfortunately, the party in the name of coalition politics has become more and dependent on the Nepal Congress.  The innate and internal weakness of the Communist Party in Nepal has also served to weaken its ideological position. It nevertheless remains the major and consistent force fighting for democracy in Nepal.  The Nepal royalty and the extremists have taken advantage of the situation.

In a word, the weaknesses that plague the democratic parties of Nepal have helped the royalty to reassert and re-establish itself. As a result, the intensity of the political crisis in Nepal will escalate. Authoritarianism can never put a stop to violent activities by throttling democracy. The crisis that has unfolded in Nepal today is the crisis of democracy. The imperative task of the people of Nepal and of the political parties of that country is to accelerate the struggle for the re-establishment of democracy in that country.

(February 3, 2005)