Nepal’s recent transition from monarchy to democracy has a brief but eventful history, which we need to focus upon for getting a comprehensive picture of the recently experienced political turmoil in the Himalayan democracy. King Gyanendra of Nepal staged a coup in February 2005 in which he dismissed Sher Bahadur Deuba, the then Prime Minister of Nepal, and arrested prominent politicians from democratic parties. He also introduced other restrictions on political activity through a sudden countrywide emergency and assumed executive powers. The autocratic monarch then made a show of taking steps to restore democracy, including a decision to hold municipal elections. The democratic Seven Party Alliance (SPA) rightly questioned the legitimacy of a municipal election called by an unconstitutional ruler, who imposed his rule upon the people.

Demanding that the King restore democracy first, the SPA announced a boycott of the February elections. Protest marches and demonstrations were met with mass arrests and restrictions on political activities, thereby providing clinching evidence that King Gyanendra had absolutely no intention of restoring democracy. Following a deluge of protests, the ‘royal government’ released three of the arrested leaders, including Girija Prasad Koirala of the Nepali Congress (NC). If the King thought that by selectively freeing some leaders he could create a rift in the democratic alliance, he was indeed mistaken. A firm statement from the NC that it would not dance to the monarch’s tune, amply endorsed the prevailing sentiment.

The massive public outcry soon snowballed into a mass movement of sorts, and the people’s power ultimately paved the way for democracy in Nepal. In the face of fearless crowds creeping up on the Narayanhitty Palace, King Gyanendra finally threw in the towel. Nepal’s transition from monarchy to democracy can be described as a reflection of the power of the people. The people of Nepal, delighted by their victory over totalitarianism, welcomed the transfer of power to the SPA headed by octogenarian Prime Minister G. P. Koirala. They welcomed democracy despite losing their confidence over the ever-squabbling and corrupt Nepalese politicians years ago.

Binay Dhital, in his Internet article titled ‘Peace talks in Jeopardy?’ feels that never since its unification into a single country 237 years ago, has Nepal undergone so much change so quickly. Strategic analyst Gurmeet Kanwal, while discussing the subject with me said that the Nepalese people’s short but intense agitation that led to the restoration of parliamentary democracy in April 2006 after over two years of brutal repression, was nothing short of spectacular in the extent of its reach and the depth of its significance.

King Gyanendra has now been stripped of all royal powers and privileges. The army’s command by the royal palace has been severed, at least officially, and it has to take its orders from parliament. Nepal, which boasted of being the only Hindu kingdom in the world, has been declared a secular state, and the country is now headed for a constituent assembly. No wonder these sweeping changes have caught many people off guard, since Nepal has experienced too much change in its political scenario too soon, for which adequate groundwork was not carried out. However, all said and done, once upon a time Gyanendra’s Himalayan Kingdom, which he treated as a personal fiefdom, is still in a royal mess.

The threat of insurgency is still casting its shadow over Nepal. The trigger-happy Maoists, whose writ runs over large swathes of rural Nepal, have declared a ceasefire for three months, but have set tough conditions for elections to a new constituent assembly, which includes the release of their cadres from jails in Nepal and India. This indicates that the honeymoon of the ruling government in Nepal with the Maoist rebels is likely to be short-lived. Fissures have already begun to emerge among the constituents of the SPA over their approach to bringing the Maoists into the mainstream.

Then there is the despotic monarch. According to Kanwal Dhital, “The arrogant and wily monarch that he is, King Gyanendra’s recent moves are at best only a tactical retreat to stave off what was quite obviously an imminent lynching.” He further elaborated, “He appears to be light years away from realising that in the eyes of the people he is the problem and cannot, therefore, be part of the solution.” The Royal Nepalese Army (the prefix ‘Royal’ has now been dropped) had also incurred the wrath of the people with its high-handed tactics in crushing the movement for democracy. “Though the traditionally loyal Army, that is officered at the senior level by the King’s handpicked appointees, has reluctantly agreed to place itself under civilian control, it remains to be seen whether it will actually take orders from a civilian dispensation or continue to take its bearings from the palace”, adds Dhital.

Succinctly for Nepal the future is thwart with challenges, which the main political actors in Nepal may not be able to grapple with effectively. The crucial task at hand is the writing of a new constitution through a constituent assembly, which has to be elected, and the modalities for this exercise have to be properly worked out. Since the constituent assembly election is an exercise totally new to the country, people have to be educated and prepared, prior to the election. But, before elections take place, the issue of the Maoists’ arms has to be settled. Otherwise the elections cannot be deemed free and fair.

An interim constitution is being worked out and preparations are on for bringing the Maoists into an interim government. But the SPA, which is now seated in power, has categorically ruled out inclusion of the Maoists in any interim administration unless the arms issue is tackled first. This is another contentious issue that needs to be tackled urgently. The international community including the United Nations (UN) is also of the same view. Staffan Mistura, the leader of a high-level UN mission, which concluded its mission in Nepal, had stressed the need for the separation of Maoists from their arms. Earlier, Maoists had flatly rejected the UN mission’s idea of keeping their arms locked up somewhere under two padlocks—one from the Maoists and the other fromthe UN.

Maoists argue that they will accept this proposal if the Nepalese Army’s arms are also are locked up like this—an argument which neither the SPA, nor the international community accepts. USA, Japan, and India have warned that if the Maoists are included in any interim government without their first giving up of arms, they will severe all links with the Nepalese government. Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist’s Chairman Prachanda has said that he couldn’t even think of giving up arms before the conclusion of the constituent assembly election. His proposal is that both the Maoists and the state army be kept under UN observation.

Analysts say that Maoists are not willing to separate themselves from their arms because it’s the arms which give them the requisite bargaining power. So, the SPA is on the one hand facing strong international pressure on not allowing the Maoists into any interim administration until they do away with their arms, while on the other they cannot trust the Maoists. This stalemate on arms management has stalled other important processes. There is also no certainty about Maoists wanting to genuinely share power with the SPA. In fact, there are reports about their using this ceasefire to recoup and rearm themselves. They may be just buying time to launch into another full-fledged insurgency operation.

The Maoists seem too have a diabolical game plan. As they are well armed and have terrorised most of rural Nepal, they hope to win the elections to a Constituent Assembly and then dictate terms. So far, they have failed to show any enthusiasm for laying down their arms as a pre-condition for their participation in the proposed electoral process. It is not even clear whether they genuinely wish to share power with the SPA, or if their interests lie in capturing Kathmandu unilaterally through the ballot box if they can. India, which is watching, has enough to worry about, as it has been plagued by Maoist violence in 150 districts of its 14 states. In recent months, the Maoists have broken into Indian jails to free incarcerated cadres, hijacked a train, and attacked police stations to loot arms and ammunition. Daily incidents of violence and IED (improvised explosive device) blasts are commonplace in India. In the deep jungles of Central India, the Maoists collect taxes and impose fines. They are rapidly acquiring organisational cohesiveness and may soon begin to coordinate their attacks. As has been the case with insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir and India’s north-eastern states, inimical neighbours of India can jump into the fray with what they call “political, diplomatic, and moral” support for the violence prone Maoists.

This is not the only disturbing development. Maoists on both sides of the India-Nepal border have linkages with other Pakistan-raised or Pakistan-supported terrorist groups, which are active all over India. Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) has maintained an effective presence in Nepal since at least the 1980s. Underworld hoodlum Dawood Ibrahim, responsible for the Mumbai blasts of 1993 and with a very strong possibility of connections to the July 2006 Mumbai blasts also, has major ‘business interests’ in Nepal. According to Indo-Asian News Service, many terrorists targeting India have used the Himalayan country either as a getaway or a transit to plan attacks in the past.

Here it deserves a mention that in the past, a number of terrorist attacks in India turned out to have a Nepal connection. Three terrorists—Latif Ahmed Waja, Mirza Nissar Hussain, and Mahmood Kille—who were arrested in India in June 1996, after their engineered blasts were responsible for the death of 21 civilians in the Lajpat Nagar central market, were based in Maharajgunj in Kathmandu.

Following their arrest, Nepal police recovered around 20 kg of explosives, including RDX, timer pencils, detonators, and remote control devices, from Kathmandu’s Swayambhu area, which is known as one of the holiest Buddhist pilgrimage sites. It was unearthed that the lethal trio belonged to an extremist group named Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front, and were trained in Nepal by Dawood Ibrahim’s Pakistan-based associate Tiger Memon. Five months after their arrest, three more men from the same outfit, Fayaz Ahmed Shah, Gulam Rasool Mir, and Azaz Ahmed Chowdhary, were also arrested in India. The three were operating from the upmarket Lazimpat area in Kathmandu and were trying to launch terrorist strikes in India on 26 January 1997 during the Republic Day celebrations. In January 1997, Indian police arrested Javed Pawle alias Mohammed Shakeel, an ISI-trained extremist designated to set off a blast at Mumbai’s World Trade Centre. It was found out that Shakeel had arrived in India via Nepal and his arrest led to raids by Nepal police, who unearthed a hoard of RDX, other plastic explosives, and detonators.

Hence, there is enough reason for the Indian government to be apprehensive of any linkages between Indian and Nepalese Maoists. But all said and done, in the current environment of terror in South Asia, there is every reason for India and even some other Western powers to go all out in trying to help Nepal achieve and maintain political and social stability. Political stability in Nepal will help India and Nepal launch a concerted effort in tackling the mushrooming growth of terror in their region, whose ominous operations have every possibility of being interlinked across their geographical boundaries. It will also foster the process of mutual economic growth and development in the near future, which is in line with the existing friendly ties between the two neighbours.

(* The writer is a strategic analyst and Consulting Editor, The Diplomatist. )

 --By Anil Bhat