Nepal can ill afford return of monarchy

Public disaffection with the regime in Nepal, headed by Prime Minister Khadka Prasad Oli of the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist-Leninist (UML), primarily drives the rising popularity of the ex-King, Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev. Oli’s opponents accuse him of maladministration, crony capitalism and corruption.

The large turnouts at pro-Gyanendra rallies gave the impression that the former King has a big following. Independent journalists who attended the rallies affirm that participants were not outright in favour of the monarchy but more against the performance of three parties — the Nepali Congress, the UML and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) — which have alternately constituted 14 governments in the country in the past 17 years, spending greater energy politicking rather than governing. Not one PM has served a full term of office.

The 2015 Nepalese Constitution declared the country as “an independent, indivisible, sovereign, secular, inclusive, democratic, socialism-oriented federal democratic republican state.” A derogation from this would be difficult in the foreseeable future. In his comment on the “baseless enthusiasm of the royalists,” former Tribhuvan University professor and ex-Ambassador to India, Lok Raj Baral, dismissed claims about the traction of the pro-monarchy protests.

Oli has been in power for less than a year. Yet, popular ire against the present coalition government has taken the form of growing protests and demonstrations. Oli has embraced hyper-nationalism to bolster his popularity, unmindful that by doing so, he is fanning the same sentiments that work in favour of Gyanendra. Both Oli and Sher Bahadur Deuba, the head of the Nepali Congress and the coalition partner of the UML, appear to be losing their grip on their parties.

It has become difficult for Oli to appear in public functions for fear of facing insulting sloganeering. Within the UML, which he seeks to control tightly, in the party elections such as the one recently held in Morang, the slate opposing the sponsored candidates scored an easy victory. The Nepalese intelligentsia has not appreciated cases of government high-handedness in forcing the resignation of the Tribhuvan University Vice Chancellor, Prof Keshar Jung Baral, and the removal of the head of the Nepal Electricity Authority, Kulman Ghising, attracting widespread disapproval. Both Baral and Ghising belong to Janajatis.

Gyanendra’s return as the head of state is not just supported by the die-hard Nepali royalists and supporters of the erstwhile ‘party-less’ panchayat system but also by reluctant republicans and closet monarchists. Another constituency favouring the monarchy are elements of the élite who are the most implacable opponents of federalism. Except for actor Manisha Koirala, the leaders of the pro-monarchy movement are not popular figures. Their political base is meagre.

Those at the forefront of the current agitation, such as Rabindra Mishra and Durga Prasai, the ‘commander’ of the Joint People’s Movement Committee to restore the monarchy, do not enjoy a good reputation. It is perplexing that Gyanendra did not involve either the current Chairman of the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party, Rajendra Lingden, or Kamal Thapa, both of whom have previously served as Deputy Prime Ministers, and are the foremost respected advocates of constitutional monarchy and restoration of Nepal as a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, in the current agitation. But even the most ardent supporters of the ancien regime in Nepal believe that reinstating the King is a remote possibility.

The Nepalese monarchy was conservative. It overturned the democratic Constitution of Nepal and introduced the panchayat system of government based on the pattern of ‘guided democracy’ introduced by Ayub Khan in Pakistan. It was a negation of democracy, with powers concentrated in the hands of the King.

Similarly, Gyanendra dismissed the Prime Minister in 2005, imposed an emergency, imprisoned political leaders and established direct authority. “We have been generous in the interest of the nation,” he declared in his message on the Nepalese Rashtriya Prajatantra Diwas earlier this year. He added: “We have given up our positions and privileges wishing for the good of the people.”

In reality, he surrendered his absolutist powers in 2006 after all democratic parties got together with the Maoists and a popular Jana Andolan swept Nepal. Two years later, he was dethroned. Ironically, someone who throttled democracy and brought an end to the Nepalese constitutional monarchy by his intemperate conduct is now declaring his intent to save the country. Gyanendra hopes the Nepalese people will overlook his past behaviour and take his supposed makeover at face value. It might happen only if the Nepalese have a very short memory.

In India, there is an erroneous impression that the monarchy has been the prime defender of the Hindu faith and the bulwark against China. Anti-Indianism had traditionally been cultivated and propagated by the palace. It pursued ‘feudal nationalism’ or an anti-Indian conception of nationalism as an instrument against the democratic and progressive forces of Nepal and India. The monarchy did not serve the people of Nepal well. It impacted Delhi-Kathmandu relations negatively by pursuing a crude narrative of equidistance from India and China, which is historically and geographically a fallacy. Delhi has never grudged that Nepal should maintain good relations with China, as long as it is not at India’s cost.

Sympathy in India for the restoration of the monarchy in Nepal is mainly due to the fringe elements favouring ‘Hindutva’ and partly because of the growing frustration with the anti-Indian actions of the Oli government. Gyanendra’s reinstatement will end Nepalese republicanism, pluralism and diversity; it will be a setback to secularism, inclusion and federalism; it will weaken the Madhesis and Janajatis and end the reserved representation of women in the legislature. It will be an enormous setback to democracy in Nepal and India’s interests.

The Indian supporters of the restoration of Nepal as a Hindu State overlook that Gyanendra will emerge from the last compartment of the ‘Hindu Rashtra’ train, causing India and Nepal irreparable damage in the years to come.

Comments