NEPAL'S ELECTORAL UPSET

Indian media lament ruined ties between two Hindu neighbours

Dr. Abdul RuffColachal in New Delhi

People in Nepal is expected to revise Nepal's constitution and abolish its 240-year-old monarchy. As a surprise, the Maoists have won and are leading in more seats than other parties already declared.
   A total of 74 parties have been registered with the election commission, including more than 13 owe their allegiance to some shade of Marxism-Leninism. However, the main contestants remain Nepali Congress Party, Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist, Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), Rashtriya Janashakti Party (RJP), Nepal Sadbhavna Party-Anandi Devi (NSP-A), People's Front Nepal, United Left Front and Madheshi
   
   Janadhikar Forum.
   King Gyanendra seized absolute power in 2005 but was forced to give up his authoritarian rule the following year after weeks of pro-democracy protests. He has since lost all his powers and his command of the army. The king meanwhile has urged everyone to vote in the poll. "It has always been our desire to ensure that under no circumstances are the nation's existence, independence and integrity compromised, and to build a prosperous and peaceful nation through a democratic polity in keeping with the verdict of the sovereign people," the king said.
   Maoist Pushpa Kamal Dahal, popularly known as Prachanda, has seen his dream come true with his Maoist party sweeping. An agriculture graduate, he left his job as a school teacher in a village and groomed an army of revolutionaries with the dream of ousting the monarchy and establishing equality. It is expected that as the chief executive of Nepal, Prachanda would fulfill the aspirations of the Nepalese people.
   
   Indian worry
   India is already burdened with too many worries now, all of them are self-earned. Kashmiris are determined to regain independence, Pakistan is not playing according to New Delhi's music and now Nepal is getting out of Indian shadow. India which believes anything Hinduism is "secular and great" calls Nepal as its civilisational ally, meaning a Hindu ally. Indians must be ready to welcome a new secular republic in her neighbourhood.
   Nepal, India's best friend and so far her closest civilisational ally, is set to be reborn as a different nation. Indian journalists lament that Hinduism is not spreading beyond India. Indian media - especially the core ones in New Delhi-loudly cry over the spoiled relationships between the two Hindu neighbours.
   Indian strategists hoped Nepalese Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (UML) under the suave and India friendly leadership of Madhav Nepal may emerge as the final engines to the Nepalese democracy. But victory of Maoists has upset the Indian calculations very badly. They say India's interests lie in ensuring that Nepal remains in the hands of Nepalese "patriotic" people and doesn't fall prey to the western powers or the Chinese influences that would de-Nepalise the Himalayan nation to serve their strategic goals. India used to train Hindutva militants for Nepal but now to a greater extent the young Nepalese go to the West for higher education.
   For whatever reasons, India has lost Nepal's respect and also the esteem and trust of her people. Nepalese politicos and media of the secular variety love to hate India and it pays politically to bash India in election speeches. Though till now, the relations with Nepal have remained more than the 'most favoured nation' status with no passport and visa required to travel to each other's territory, (just an official I-card would suffice, such closeness is fast changing).
   India has used Nepal to sell its military and other goods there profitably. Now India blames both USA and China for spoiling India's fortunes in Nepal. India proudly calls Nepal as the Himalayan Hindu land. India says the Chinese obviously do not like the growing US presence and Nepal is fast becoming a playground of the two powers in their war of influence in South Asia.
   Some "patriots" advise the new leadership to be closer to India. They also reason, with China, Church and Islamists gaining ground in Kathmandu, it's a challenge for India's "nationalists" and Nepal's genuine well wishers to rethink their Nepal policy.
   Even while killing and torturing Muslims in India, Kashmir and Bangladesh, Indian media still malign Muslims and say: "With Pakistan and Bangladesh bleeding India on both sides and a threatening China on the North, we can ill afford to have a new pain in the form of a Nepal turned 'red' under a Maoist dispensation".
   However, with a view to keeping Kathmandu under its full control, New Delhi would be prepared to give military help to the government in Kathmandu rather than see the Maoists seizing power.
   
   Future of monarchy
   This issue keeps ringing in the ears of every citizen of Nepal whether one likes it or not. King Gyanendra seized absolute power in 2005 but was forced to give up his authoritarian rule the following year after weeks of pro-democracy protests. He has since lost all his powers and his command of the army. The main reason for the decline is the royal massacre. Most Nepalese think it was all plotted by the successor king, Gyanendra, and his unpopular son, Crown Prince Paras. His unpopularity grew when he took direct power in the name of fighting the Maoist rebels.
   Many feel Monarchy is no longer a symbol of national unity, but of national division. With the institution of Nepal's monarchy now due to be abolished, few venture to voice support for the generally unpopular King Gyanendra: "Without the monarchy in Nepal, this country will not remain. It will break into many pieces or it will be a part of India."
   It seems the Nepal Army has already opposed the idea of the current interim parliament declaring Nepal a republic. Sources say the Army is also unhappy about Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala's Nepali Congress Party's recent decision to vote for the abolition of the monarchy. From emerging scenario, it appears that King Gyanendra is gaining. But the widely held view is that a final showdown between the army and the Maoists in Kathmandu is more likely than ever.
   
   Process to begin
   It is almost certain that the Maoists would be the final lawmakers of Nepal very soon. Maoist supporters in Kathmandu have started victory processions in some of the main streets, with red vermillion powder smeared on their faces and red hammer-and-sickle flags in their hands. The polls, for an assembly to re-write the constitution, are the first to test the Maoists at the ballot box after their 10-year guerrilla campaign.
   The stunning victory of a once underground party mocked as terrorists even during the poll campaign and blamed for derailing the election last year also signalled the end of the road for Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, who despite his advanced age and chronic ill health was hoping to lead the government yet again. It also predicted the end for King Gyanendra, who jeopardised his forefather's throne by trying to step out of constitutional monarchy and revive absolute reign.
   The Maoists might try to pressure other parties to agree to their demands for the immediate ending of the monarchy and for the CA polls to be held under a fully proportional voting system. Prachanda pledged to retain the ruling coalition till the new constitution was written and urged the bureaucracy and security forces to work together for the creation of a new Nepal.
   Former US President Jimmy Carter, who as an election observer in Nepal, has said Washington must deal with the Maoists: "It's the end, I hope, of armed conflict, of revolutionary war in fact". That would mean the new government in Kathmandu will have support from both China and USA and also can hope for collaborative efforts form several nations across the globe.
   
   Maoists: The background
   The Maoists had a long journey. They had also faced severe domestic and international pressure to give up arms and were labeled as terrorists rather than a political party by many, including the US. A decade of insurgency left them dominating much of rural Nepal.
   Maoists changed their strategy in late 2004; they decided to work with mainstream political parties to further their goals. The strategy received a boost when King Gyanendra sacked the democratic government and took over power in February 2005. Enraged by the king's action, the mainstream political parties, which in the past refused to collaborate with the Maoists, decided to accept the rebels into their fold.
   Together, the Maoists and the seven mainstream parties took on the king in a series of street protests in April 2006 that resulted in the king handing back power. In subsequent months, the Maoists became part of the interim parliament and the government. They have also shown an ability to outwit their opponents. During the war, Maoists controlled huge swathes of the desperately poor countryside where basic services like roads, piped water, primary healthcare, education, electricity and telephones are lacking. "Nepali people are looking for economic, social, cultural and political changes ... and a lasting peace," senior Maoist leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara said after being declared a winner. "For this, they look to us as an alternative force," he said. The verdict of the people of Nepal should be supreme and needs to be supported.
   Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala told the parliament a new chapter had begun in the history of Nepal. The new assembly will be elected to write a new constitution and should decide whether to keep the monarchy or not.
   The writer is a Delhi- based researcher and commentator.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Sadeq Khan

At the outset by way of a theoretical framework for the debate, I want to lay down two fundamental premises. Firstly, I hold that the internal dimension of security of any nation-state primarily depends on its capacity to ensure for its citizens the fulfilment of the "social contract" embodied in its constitution. As such, it is a political issue, and its structural support from the three arms of the state and their formal and informal organs in the body politic sustain its health, specifically by the right balance between the coercive powers and tools of the state and the basic rights of individuals and interest-groups.
   Likewise, the external dimension of security for a developing nation-state like ourselves is essentially a function of diplomacy, or the "first line of defence" as it is called. As such, it is a statesmanship issue. But as many ancient and contemporary worldly-wise statesmen, including Madeline Albright, former US Secretary of State, and Barack Obama, a current Presidential aspirant in the US, tell us, diplomacy never proved adequate without military (and quasi-military) strength to back it up.
   I do believe that the security establishment has to be essentially a support institution to sustain the nation-state and its political leadership, in government and out of government. The purpose of a security establishment is defeated if it attempts to "transcend" the socio-political institutions of the state.
   I am also proud of the anti-war principle enshrined in our Constitution as a fundamental state principle. But I do believe that in the matrix of violent changes and informal warfare proliferating transnationally, we need to expand our military and quasi-military establishment and evolve multi-dimensional strategies and tactics for our survival as well as projected growth.
   
   Media hostility
   From the perspective of the above theoretical approach, I find it baffling to note that a veritable campaign is going on in the media these days to say 'NO' to National Security Council. The campaigners fear that such a council, if given effect, could rob the parliament of its sovereign power and capacity of oversight on all affairs of the state. They admit that strong Security Council apparatus exist in India, the United States, France, Turkey, and Pakistan, and in none of these countries excepting perhaps the last-named, the Security Council apparatus are considered a threat to legislature; even that threat perception arose not from the existence of NSC as such, but on account of special power vested in the President to dissolve the legislature at his pleasure, with scope of using the NSC as a tool.
   In Turkey, military interventions in the legislative process came through constitutional courts with strong support from the Turkish judiciary and Europeanised elite. In Pakistan, the civil-military tussle for decisive share of power has its own historical dynamics of socio-political and geo-political dimensions, and the tussle goes on propelled more by its internal and external compulsions of power balance than any incorrigible institutional propensity of the military. India, on the other hand, prides itself on its 'elephantine' endurance as a 'security state' while the democratic tradition, heedful of the demands of the 'security state', has hardly ever given any scope for use of the President's residual powers.
   One has to be cautious, however, in consequence of our historical experience of post-colonial rule in the Pakistan period, that there are no loopholes for the proposed NSC to become a "government within the government" leading to regimentation of the democratic order. I am of the view that democratic order exposes itself to direct interventions or indirect manipulations by powerful organs in the services of the state, civil or military, or even to manipulations by civil society institutions, ONLY when the order itself becomes weak from its own failures, forfeits the popular support base from which it derives its legitimacy, or comes into violent conflict with opposing socio-political forces that had remained carelessly unattended and gathered steam to challenge it.
   Terrorism is the voice of the unheard, as a western scholar put it. It is precisely to prevent such a situation that a National Security Council is needed. On my part, I feel it is not necessary any more to enter into the debate for the need for a National Security Council, as I believe the issue has been amply propounded by other security experts. I shall confine myself to a design of possible modalities of formation of an effective National Security Council, which the roundtable agreed that the nation-state badly needs. The nature of the needs and the importance of such an effective NSC will be self-evident from deliberation on the design of the modalities themselves as hereunder.
   
   Research orientation
   In Bangladesh, to the best of my knowledge, a dormant enactment of sorts for National Security Committee already exists from the late nineteen eighties. In a meeting with editors of national newspapers on 8 April, the Chief of Army Staff General Moeen U Ahmed further informed the media that by gazette notification in 1996, a 23-member Security Council, designed to ensure national security and accountability of the government, came into existence. But the NSC, never made effective, was led by the then prime minister to make decisions on defence affairs only. A circular issued at the time by the Cabinet Division said the council had also been given responsibilities to deal with all internal problems tied to security.
   The NSC had also been empowered to make decisions or direct the authorities concerned to take actions and make recommendations to the cabinet, if necessary. Evidently, the body remained ineffective and non-functional for lack of necessary back-up support and for lack of essential political will. It is possible to amend and modify the existing provisions with regard to the National Security Committee, so that its terms of reference may include assessment and preparation of action-plans on various kinds of threats to security and wealth of the nation, as well as long-term policy determination for common consensus. It may be appropriately re-designed to be chaired by the President, both for the necessity of conciliation of Treasury & Opposition Bench views, and of continuity during transition from one parliament to the next.
   The National Security Council may include the Prime Minister/Chief Adviser, the Leader of the Opposition, the Finance Minister/Finance Adviser, the Home Minister/Home Affairs Adviser, the Foreign Minister/Foreign Affairs Adviser, Information Minister/Adviser, four lawmakers-two each from the Treasury and Opposition Benches of the existing/last parliament (as chosen by the President), the three Chiefs of the Armed Forces and the DG of the Bangladesh Rifles (or, as suggested by the Professor and others, a newly-formed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee), the Chiefs of the three Security Intelligence organisations, namely, the DGFI, the NSI & the SB, (or, as suggested by others, a newly-formed chief of combined heads of security services, criminal investigations and the police), and heads of five research outfits that may be newly formed or structured afresh from existing bodies. In this case also, it is possible to combine the security research and programming establishment to be represented on the NSC by a single head in the person of the National Security Adviser, as suggested by the Professor and others. I am, however, inclined to include the five (or eight, if further sub divided as the design-details hereunder indicate) research bureaus to emphasize the forward-looking character and the peculiar needs of our nation-building, in which our NSC could strongly supplement myopic parliamentary and political party efforts of our adversarial parliamentary system and multiparty democracy, acting as a thread of national consensus. It is natural for politicians and parliamentarians to be overwhelmed by current affairs and immediate needs of their constituents. The NSC could act as a constant reminder fro them about the demands of the future and longer term needs. I also think that it would be wrong to imitate the superpower or any other hegemonic power to have a National Security Adviser, as by Article 25 of the Constitution quoted hereunder, we are committed to interactive and not exclusive pursuit of peace and security.
   We have a Home Minister and a Defence Minister constitutionally designated to take care of threats within and without our borders. Nor do we contemplate offensive actions for national defence far beyond our borders. Except in its role as international peace-keepers, Bangladesh is disinclined to extend its security concerns outside the ambit of its sovereign territory.
   Even if the appointment of such an Adviser-Minister is found expedient, the modality of his appointment by the President could be through a selection process of a panel as in case of other constitutional office-holders. Such appointment, if subject to a selection process (and not by Presidential discretion) will not need constitutional amendment. Nor will the provision for the President to summon and chair the National Security Council, without the advise of the Prime Minister, amount to any deviation from the fundamental structure of the Constitution, but will need minor addition by way of amendment of Article 48(3) of the Constitution. In the spirit as above, I have identified the five security paradigms requiring urgent research and action plan.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE