L'état, c'est moi - Gyanendra's Power Play 

Laxman B. Bahroo

Abstract

In a rapid sequence of events from October 4 to 11 2002, Nepal's elected government was removed by King Gyanendra and replaced with handpicked ministers.  As these events unfolded, everyone rushed to comment on the future of Nepal, however, very few if anyone commented on the events that led to the takeover.  It was obvious. Wasn't it? This article will look at the royal takeover from its inception and then comment on the potential future.

The transformation of King Gyanendra

The seeds of the recent royal take over were planted in the summer of 2001.  On June 5, 2001 a royal massacre took place in Narayanhity Palace.  The culprit, Crown Prince Dipendra, died in a killing spree that resulted in the death of his father, King Birendra, his mother and sister [1].  Gyanendra, brother of King Birendra, became the next inline to inherit the throne.  At the time, an outraged public rioted, denounced Gyanendra and leveled accusations against him [2].  Beside the shock of the tragedy, other reasons for the denouncement involved Gyanendra's image [3].  He was viewed as pompous, heavy-handed royal and had advised his brother to take a stronger stance against the pro democracy forces.  It was feared he would seek to undermine Nepal's democracy, there were reports of his pro-China leanings and even considered to be pro-Maoist.  Also, he was also known to have business interests and suspected of corruption [4].

As time passed, the initial grief over the loss of King Birendra subsided.  The people of Nepal gradually accepted King Gyanendra and his son Prince Paras as their monarch and heir apparent.  Nepal faced increasingly severe internal challenges such as a stagnant economy, political squabbles and most importantly the upswing in Maoist violence.  King Gyanendra was above all of these problems and his steady approach endeared him to the people.  The King repeatedly and publicly affirmed his commitment to economic reform and the betterment of the life of the common man [5].  Due to these and other statements, he came to be viewed as a "benevolent" king committed to the Nepal ongoing political reform and multiparty democracy [6].  A year after the massacre, a columnist of a leading English daily hailed him as the 'savior' of a nation strangled by political infighting and violence [7].  The transformation was complete; perhaps the most telling was the somber celebration of Gyanendra's first year on the throne as compared to the vicious riots at his ascension.  

Maoist Movement

The Maoist Movement started in 1995 as a breakaway from the existing communist party.  Initially the Maoists were merely a political pressure group. The insurgency started after the government rejected the list of forty demands put forth by the Maoists [8]. In the past 7 years, the Maoist movement expanded from a handful of core districts to engulf most of the country.  The explosive spread of Maoist influence was due to several factors among them was lack of political consensus, usage of an ill equipped and improperly trained police force and King Birendra's reluctance to use the army against the Maoists.  As Maoist influence spread, they carved out an enclave in the core districts of Rolpa and Rukum.  They replaced the government with their authority, such as holding elections and running courts [9].  In addition to a very active military wing, the Maoists movement consists of  a robust political wing headed by Babhuram Bhattarai and Jana Awaj, a newspaper voicing propaganda [46].

While the insurgency may seem like an internal security problem.  It is not one.  The organization is well connected to region's radical leftist groups and has ties to a world wide network of fraternal organizations [10,11,12] .  The Revolutionary International Movement (RIM) links the Maoists to similar groups in Iran, South East Asia and even Europe [13].  Additionally, the Maoists have been tied to the People's Republic of China, Pakistan and North Korea as they serve the geopolitical agendas of these countries [14].   

In mid 2001, the Maoists declared a ceasefire and started dialogue with the government, which abruptly ended on November 25, 2001 due to a large Maoists offensive [15].  The government response to the duplicity was to declare a state of emergency, brand the Maoists as terrorists and deploy the army against the Maoists. Over the last year the Maoists have launched spectacular attacks.  Specifically, they carried out four large-scale attacks in addition to the usual ongoing attacks. The first was in Accham in February 2002, in celebration of their sixth anniversary [16]. The second high profile attack occurred in Dang and another occurred in Gam Base on May 9, 2002.  The most recent attack was on the police in September 2002 [17,18].  All of these attacks resulted in heavy casualties on the Nepali security forces and destruction of significant infrastructure. 

Two disturbing trends have manifested in the civil war.  The first, the Maoists increased attacks on infrastructure such as bridges, roadways, power plants and telecom towers [19].  This has further isolated poorly connected local people and increased misery in these areas.  By mid 2002, the Maoists had destroyed a total of about $1.25 billion worth of infrastructure, most of it in areas where little infrastructure existed at all [20].  The second disturbing trend is the attack on Kathmandu.  In the first five years, Kathmandu was largely spared.  However in the last year and specifically in the last few months, Kathmandu has increasingly come under attack [21].  This marks a significant escalation, as Comrade Prachanda stated in an interview to Revolutionary Worker, the attacks on Kathmandu marked the fourth and final phase of the revolution.

Military response & international posturing

Upon declaration of Civil War in Nepal, the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) was ordered to suppress the Maoists.  Initially, the RNA achieved rapid success; most notably the large-scale surrender of an estimated 10,000 NCP - Maoist cadre, [22].  However, the involvement of the army in anti Maoist operations did not achieve significant success expected by the government.  The Maoists still carried out large-scale attacks such as Accham in February of 2001 and others [23].  Overall, the RNA did increase the body count of the Maoist rebels with large-scale attacks in the strongholds of Rolpa and Rukum [24,25].  

In the past year, the international community has aided Nepal.  The United States and the United Kingdom pledged financial aid and a small amount of weapons sales.  China officially denied aiding the Maoists, and gave verbal assurances to aid Nepal in the civil war.  India, Nepal's closest friend, branded the Maoists as terrorists, gave generous financial aid, extradited captured Maoists, and provided weapons [26].  Furthermore, proposals exist for Indian training of Nepal's counter insurgency forces and continued financial and military aid [27,28]

Government in Crisis

The genesis of the political conflict that ultimately led to the royal take over started with the resignation of Prime Minister Koirala on July 19, 2001.  After being in office more a little more than a year, he was replaced by former Prime Minister Deuba.  The resignation, like others, was tied to the inability of the government to curb Maoist violence.  Though both Prime Minister Deuba and Koirala were members of the Nepal Congress Party, they were from different factions.  Prime Minister Deuba was close to former Prime Minister Bhattarai, who was ironically replaced by Koirala over the burgeoning Maoist violence.  There had been considerable friction within the party over Koirala's double role as Prime Minister and leader of the party [29].  Upon assuming office, Prime Minister Deuba began to explore ways of resolving the Maoist insurgency.  He had previously headed a governmental committee that studied the Maoist insurgency in depth [30].  Deuba's initial tenure was marked with a truce and mutual exchange of prisoners [31].  However, the failure of the truce in November 2001 coupled with large-scale Maoist attacks ended hopes for talks and ushered in the declaration of emergency.   

The emergency was declared on November 26, 2001 for a period of six months expiring on May 25, 2002.  It was declared under the existing clause of the Nepali constitution and curtailed civil liberties such as privacy, expression, assembly, and freedom of the press.  As the months continued and Maoist attacks occurred unabated, the differences between Deuba and Koirala increased and the relationship between the two finally broke down, when Deuba announced his support for the extension of the emergency rule with the support and encouragement of the King [32].  Aside from the personal squabbles, the difference of opinion resulted in the dissolution of the parliament and Prime Minister Deuba's expulsion from the party [33].  However, he continued to serve as the head of the caretaker government with elections scheduled for November 2002.   

As election time drew near, the Nepal Congress Party preoccupied with internal squabbles split vertically.  The two factions, one championing Deuba and the other led by Koirala, formed to contest the upcoming elections.  As the political uncertainty continued the Maoists were able to gain ground with spectacular attacks in Kathmandu Valley [34].  However, two months prior to the planned elections, the Deuba caretaker government announced that elections could not be held due to the deteriorating law and order.  If the elections could not be held at the decided time, it set the stage for a predicted constitutional difficulty [35,36].  The inability of a caretaker government to uphold its mandate of elections, allowed the King to dismiss the Deuba government.  King Gyanendra invoked Article 127 of the Nepali constitution and took direct control of the executive branch of the government.  In an address to the nation, he justified his decision in best interest of Nepal and the preservation of the political system.  Additionally, he repeatedly called Prime Minister Deuba incompetent [37].  This is surprising as many of Deuba's actions were in accordance with the King's wishes.       

After the takeover

Shortly after taking direct control of the government, King Gyanendra appointed a cabinet of nine loyal ministers headed by Lokendra Bhadur Chand.  Prime Minister Chand is a member of a smaller national party, the RPP (Rashtriya Praajatantra Party).  Shortly after, he received the support of his party.  The ministers picked by the King all have a clean image but have little governmental experience.  The Nepali Congress Party and UML (United Marxist Leninist) have not supported the new government and instead joined the Maoists in condemning and criticizing it.  The new government is faced with the arduous task of quelling the civil war, bolstering the economy and providing stable political leadership [38,39].   

A few weeks after the installation of the new government, King Gyanendra expanded the cabinet by adding eight ministers and 5 assistant ministers reducing the portfolio burden of Prime Minister Chand.  Among the new ministers are several businessmen, political independents, and even a former UML member [40].  The political parties criticized the expansion especially since King Gyanendra was holding dialogue to incorporate them [41].  In the first month after the royal takeover, the diverse messages of the political parties indicated that they are unable to decide on a common front against the King and the appointed government.  The Maoists, however, with a clear agenda continued their violent attacks on schools, infrastructure, security forces and terrorized people during the festival season. [42].  Politically, the Maoists continue to pressurize the government by attacking the royal take over as illegal.  These attacks have increasingly resounded with "mainstream" political parties, such as the UML and to a certain degree with the NCP. 

After the takeover, King Gyanendra has become even more popular.  This is evidenced by the recent visit to Eastern Nepal where many people defied a Maoist bandh and came out in force to see their King [43].  This popularity surprised the Maoists and has resulted in a shift in their long held demand.  Dr Bhattarai, head of the political wing of the Maoists, stated the possibility of joining a resurrected parliamentary system [44].

Conclusion

As it depicted in the article, the royal takeover was not simply due to just the preceding political crisis.  In fact it is the culmination of preexisting squabbles, instability of the political system, exacerbated by escalating violence and coupled with the inability of the government to act resolutely.  In such a situation, King Gyanendra was left with the following choices: 

1) To allow the political infighting to continue

2) To hold elections despite violence

3) The allow the UML to come to power benefiting from the NCP split

4) The royal takeover.   

Option 1 would continue to weaken the political system, deepen the ongoing disillusionment of the public with the political system.  This would in turn bolster the Maoists.  Option 2 was equally unrealistic since the proposed elections, would neither be free or fair given the Maoist predilection for killing political candidates and would result in a high level of violence.  Option 3 was also undesirable as the UML has Maoist sympathizers within its ranks, as seen by the increasing coordination with the political messages and also is anti - monarchy.  Option 4, the royal takeover remained the only option.

In opting for the royal take over, Gyanendra chose the only viable option.  However, that is not to say that Gyanendra's execution of the option was not without fault.  King Gyanendra played his hand masterfully but by putting in place a cabinet of his choice but he has forced the political parties to lash out against him.  A royal takeover could have consisted of a cabinet representative of the major political parties rather than exclude them.  It is not exactly clear why King Gyanendra did not seek a broad based coalition consisting of the major political parties as a replacement government except to say that King Gyanendra was well known for his anti democracy stance during the tenure of his brother, King Birendra.  Is it possible that a person who years ago was dubbed a villain for trying to undermine Nepal's democracy is able to do so today and be hailed the savior of a nation? 

In marginalizing the political parties, he has set the stage for a possible convergence of goals between the various political parties and the Maoists.  Recently, there is some news of political party heads meeting with Maoist representatives and coordination in the statements between the groups seems to be emerging in a nascent stage.  If such a convergence is formalized, attacks against pro - monarchy targets by the Maoists will escalate while similar attacks against the major political parties will decline.

Furthermore, by becoming the sole power in a country, King Gyanendra has placed himself in a position of peril as a public disenchanted with its "incompetent" politicians may tire of their monarch if he fails to deliver on the promises made at the time of the takeover.  Currently, even the censured Nepali press has spoken out against the non-performance of the Chand government [45].  As these allegations grow, it will become impossible for the King to continue with the current cabinet and also prevent being tainted by the lack of performance.    

The royal takeover is not meant to be a short-term solution either, as seen by the expansion of the cabinet after a month in office.  Actually the expansion is a very strong indicator that King Gyanendra's government intends to be in control for the foreseeable future.  The mandate of the Chand government is to stabilize Nepal, provide good governance, check corruption and hold elections.  This vague mandate is not held to any definite time frame.  The takeover could (in theory) go on for an indefinite period of time.  Finally, the takeover has changed the agendas of Nepal's political forces, the king and the political parties have conflicting interests both seek to marginalize the other, retain and even expand their influence with the public.  Any long-term stability in Nepal will depend on how quickly these two major centers of political power are able to accommodate each other.  

The author wishes to thank Dr. S. Chandrasekharan for his invaluable guidance.

References

1) A Routine Night When 'All Went Wrong’ by Pamela Constable, Washington Post Wednesday, June 6, 2001

2) Nepal Tightlipped on Information, New York Times June 11, 2001

3) "Nepal Update No.10: The Palace massacre on June 1 and its aftermath " by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan www.saag.org 

4) A Glimpse of Nepal: Crossroads in the Himalayas by Laxman Bahroo http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-1/bahroo.html

5) Monarchy will remain committed to wipe out peoples’ hardship: King Gyanendra http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2002/june/arc405.htm#7

6) Nepal king wants vote on time http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2026587.stm

7) Savior Of The Nation http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishweekly/spotlight/2002/may/may31/national1.htm

8) "Maoist's 40 Point Demands"   http://www.humanrights.de/n/nepal/politics/130299_40demands_Maoist.htm

9) Soroor Ahmed "Eleven CRPF men gunned down by MCC ultras" Rediff September 24, 2001

10) Kesava Pradhan "Nepal Maoists set up parallel Govt" Hindustan Times November 24, 2001

11) Rashmi Saksena "Brothers in Arms" The Week December 16, 2001

12) "Govt. bans PWG and MCC, brands them terrorist outfits" Indian Express December 5, 2001

13) Nepal: Return to Year Zero by Alex Perry, Time Magazine May 13, 2002 Vol. 159 No. 18 http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501020513-235504,00.html

14) "The Naxal Connection" Twilight Zone http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/jan/24jos.htm

15) B.Raman "Maoists' Tet like offensive in Nepal" http://www.saag.org/papers4/paper368.html

16) Red February In Nepal by Laxman Bahroo http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-5/bahroo.html

17) The Battle of Gam by Min Bajracharya  http://www.nepalnews.com.np/ntimes/issue94/nation.htm

18) Maoists kill 49 policemen; injure 21 others in Sindhuli, September 8, 2001 http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2002/september/arc471.htm#6

19) Nepal: Maoist Insurgency Attack Government's Credibility - Special Press Summary  http://www.vic-info.org/regionstop.nsf/28c75f7b539911c88a256839000f9902/5e0f69e83d60fa4a0a256b9c0067b1c6?OpenDocument

20) Maoists damage infrastructure worth Rs. 1.25 B http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishdaily/trn/2002/jun/jun08/index.htm#1

21) Nepal in a Crisis Mode Update No. 20. by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan http://www.saag.org/notes2/note158.html

22) 'Thousands surrender' in Nepal by Sushil Sharma, BBC South Asia, December 24, 2001

23) "Carnage in Accham” by Bhagirath Yogi, Spotlight, February 22 - 28, 2002 Vol 21::No 32

24) Rolpa

25) Dang

26) Six Maoists arrested in India, regional in-charge extradited, July 22, 2002 www.nepalnews.com

27) Camouflaged Arms Truck with Indian Army Escorts Roll into Nepal,  by Probir Pramanik, Telegraph Dec 4, 2001

28) Nepal gets military help from India, BBC South Asia December 12, 2001

29) Nepal Update No. 16: The going gets tougher for the Army in dealing with Maoists by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan http://www.saag.org/notes2/note144.html

30) "Nepal Update No. 12: Sher Bahadur Deuba taking over as Prime minister " by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan http://www.saag.org/notes2/note130.html

31) First Deuba cabinet meet urges settlement with Maoists, July 26, 2001 www.nepalnews.com

32) Prachanda talks peace, July 29, 2001 www.nepalnews.com

33) Deuba-Koirala schism grows; Showdown likely when parliament meets By Damaru Lal Bhandari, Kathmandu Post May21, 2001

34) PM Deuba expelled from party May 26, 2001 www.nepalnews.com

35) Nepal in a crisis mode- Update No. 20. by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan    http://www.saag.org/notes2/note158.html

36) A kingdom under siege, Major General (retd) Ashok K Mehta June 27, 2002 http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/27ashok.htm

37) Full text of King Gyanendra's Royal Address given to the nation Friday evening:  October 5, 2002 www.nepalnews.com

38) "Nepal: Royal take over is complete: Update No. 22 " by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan  http://www.saag.org/notes2/note161.html

39) PM Chand gets formal party support, November 2, 2002 www.nepalnews.com

40) King expands Chand government November 18, 2001 www.nepalnews.com

41) Parties criticize cabinet expansion, call for integrated movement, November 19, 2002 www.nepalnews.com

42) "Nepal: Political Parties continue to be in disarray. Update-25" by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan http://www.saag.org/notes2/note168.html

43) Potent schism pregnant with change! The Weekly Telegraph January 1, 2003

44) Dr. Bhattarai favors unity among prevailing dominant powers for positive results, The Weekly Telegraph, January 1, 2003

45) "Honeymoon Over, Chand's days numbered” The Weekly Telegraph, January 15, 2003

46) Understanding Nepal's Civil War, Laxman Bahroo, http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-4/bahroo.html