A Way Out Of The Triangular Morass
Paramendra Bhagat
August 8, 2003

When I think of Nepal, I think primarily of its national economy, of issues in global trade, of globalization, of the luck to be sandwiched between India and China, both potential superpowers that might unseat the United States itself before the century is over and done with. But, first, of course, a way has to be found out of the current triangular morass: the Maoists, the royal palace, and the parliamentary parties. It is an eery stalemate for now.

It is a checkmate situation. The Maoists can not be militarily defeated. They are not strong enough to take over the country through use of arms, not strong enough to push the monarchy off the radar screen. The parliamentary parties complete the triangle. Their recourse is sitdowns, demonstrations, statements, and press conferences.

The ceasefire with the Maoists is a prime achievement. That can not be squandered. The dialogue has to continue.

I reiterate. I believe the number one thing is to keep the violence out. And so not letting go of the ceasefire with the Maoists is a must. After that, the Maoists and the royal palace have to realize that they are in a checkmate situation. One party is not in a position to militarily defeat the other. The royal palace has to be open to the possibility of a republic, and the Maoists have to be open to the possibility that the people might actually vote to keep the monarchy in some kind of a referendum. And that is where the parliamentary parties enter the scene.

The parliamentary parties might be the monarchy's best friend. Their demand for an all-party government has to be met so they are brought under the tent. Their consensus candidate becomes Prime Minister. Such an all-party government comes into power with an explicit mandate: conduct peace talks with the Maoists, and hold elections.

I believe the parliamentary parties are the royal palace's best friend. For all their complaints, they have not voiced the call for a republic. And so I think it might be best for the king to let go of Surya Bahadur Thapa, and invite an all-party government. The king might be leery because he might trust a Madhav Kumar Nepal much less than a Surya Bahadur Thapa. Madhav Nepal might change his mind and shoot for a republic midstream, the king must think.

There is no provision in the current, derailed constitution for the revival of the dissolved parliament. Nepali Congress and Girija Koirala need to understand that and move on. Half the time Koirala comes across sounding like a worn out record.

An all party government in which all major parties participate would then deal with the Maoists. As in, okay, you want a Constituent Assembly, we will have one. We will hold elections. And the resultant body would be of a parliament that would double as the Constituent Assembly. That assembly would frame a new constitution. But the Maoists would have to lay down their arms before that, and it would give word that it would accept the resultant constitution. That it would not go back into the jungle, if the people, through popular vote, decide to retain the monarchy.

I have a feeling the monarchy will remain, though in a trimmed form, as in, bring the army totally under the parliament, recognize only the king's immediate family as the royal family, make transparent all royal assets, and so on. The activist monarchy like the kind this king has tried to play out is not going to be the model for the times to come. It might be a boring proposition to be a constitutional monarch, but it is what it is.

The monarchy remains quite a popular institution, especially amidst all the instability. Personally, I am for a republic, but I think it is for the Nepali people to decide what they want. I mean, I bid farewell to Hinduism too, in my personal life. I am officially a Buddhist, have been for a few years now. I have major disagreements with Hinduism. But most Nepalis are Hindus. That is who and what they are, by birth and by choice. And the choice is perfectly legitimate. The same applies to the monarchy. If the Nepali people wish to retain it, they may do so.

I only hope the major difference with the new constitution would be that Nepal becomes a federal state. I am a strong proponent of it. I think a federal form of government might be the only answer to the country's great cultural diversity and eons of ethnic and regional inequities. And it would help the cause if Badri Mandal and Hridayesh Tripathy buried their differences, and reunited the Sadbhavana, the only parliamentary party explicitly for a federal state.

But change is slow coming. For example, what does Surya Bahadur Thapa mean when he says not even the king can sack him? How long will he stick around? I mean, he has to go before an all-party government can step in. He is someone with considerable political skills, but the disagreement might not be with his personality, rather the process that got him seated on to the "throne."

The three corners of the triangle show little sign of budging from their respective positions. And that rigidity might be the primary problem. An all party government might be the first step in the right direction. That shows the ball for now is in the monarch's court.