Out Of The Impasse
Paramendra Bhagat
September 24, 2004

I am on record espousing a republic. But perhaps the monarchy can reform itself. Crown Prince Paras' marriage to an Indian was a major step in the right direction. Ethnic purity is a primitive concept. And King Gyanendra should perhaps make use of his cunning, well exhibited in his maneuverings of the political parties, to seriously reform the institution he represents. The princes and princesses should be making individual decisions on their marriages, and if that practice takes hold, the net would be cast much wider beyond the Ranas of Nepal and the Rajputs of Rajasthan. Historically the throne has been a Nepali Speaking High Caste emblem. That has to change. And the first born, not the first born son, should ascend to the throne. So the institution is no longer sexist. Thus issues in ethnic representation and gender inequality could be addressed to see if the monarchy can continue to be relevant.

The next impediment stands in the form of huge royal expenses that the Nepali taxpayers put up with, unbecoming of a poor country. Here the Thai monarchy has set a wonderful example. It is possible to generate revenues by cashing on the royal clan's appeal for tourists, enough to offset all its expenses, perhaps more. The British royal family are also known for generating income for the country through their appeal for tourists.

As for president or monarch, once the ethnic, gender and monetary grievances are taken care of, it makes little difference if the country becomes a republic or not. Because, in a functioning democracy, which Nepal is not at present, but one hopes it will be, it is only a matter of time, a president or monarch is at best a figurehead. The real power stays with the parliament and the prime minister.

It is hard to imagine the Maoists will take over the country militarily, but it is also hard to see how the army can quash them anytime soon. Their accomodation or defeat has to be political. And you do that by co-opting them. Those on both the left and the right who are bidding on a long war of attrition are doing wrong by the Nepali people.

The monarchy-Maoist dispute is almost like the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. India can stay put with the status quo for as long as it wants, but it will only get genuine peace by making some compromises. The monarch is like India. Because of the army, he is a strong position, but it would be a disservice for him to not look for creative ways out of the current impasse.

The Maoists could not possibly be serious about establishing a communist republic in Nepal. But there are signs they could be looking for a face saving move. As in, hold elections for a constituent assembly, and if the voters choose to keep the monarchy, so be it.

It is in the Maoists' willingness to opt for the constituent assembly lies the possibility of disarming them the fastest. The only other option would be to dramatically capture the top Maoist leaders. Has that even been the focus? Or is the right end of the political spectrum simply enjoying its enhanced status, thanks to the Maoists? And so they are in no hurry to remedy the situation? Likewise, the Maoists are also set to fight a prolonged war. That keeps them relevant. The hardest hit are the political parties, sqeezed out by the extreme right and the extreme left, the "two guns."