|
Nepal's deposed king Gyanendra has been out in the woods since 2001but he could still prove to be a force to reckon with.Despite the end of its centuries old monarchy and advent of democracy, Nepal is still mired in political wrangling that has put a wedge in the progress of this small and-locked Himalayan nation.
The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has now requested the Security Council for a six-month extension to its special mission in Nepal beyond July 23 - a request based on a perception that there is "growing complexity of the political situation” in the country. However, it appears that progress towards taking the ongoing peace process to its logical conclusion is palpably limited. Nepal's friends and donors are doubtful that a new constitution will replace the present interim one by May 2010. The reasons are rivalry and mutual mistrust among key political parties. Added to this is the deteriorating law and order situation and ethnic unrest. Senior leaders of the Maoist party are issuing threats of a new "people's revolt" if Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal is allowed to continue to lead an unconstitutional government, supported by a coalition of 22 from among 25 political parties with representation in the Constituent Assembly. They allege that the PM is a mere "puppet" and derives his strength from the army. Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai has also dragged India into the scene by urging New Delhi to stop cooperating with the "illegitimate government" of Nepal. Adding fuel to the fire, ABC television, which is known for its pro-Maoist line, has aired a report claiming that the deposed king, Gyanendra, is becoming more "ambitious" and wants to reclaim the throne he lost following the proclamation of Nepal as a republic on May 28, 2008. Political pundits say the Maoist jitters need also to be viewed in the context of neighboring India's recent decision to ban the Maoist organization in that country. Former king Gyanendra is not such a serious threat because he does not have the army on his side any more. He also has no political base except one small pro-monarchy party that has just four members in an assembly over 600. Perhaps he is bitter because the monarchy was abolished in haste and without recognizing the contributions that it made over two centuries. The former king's concerns for "fellow citizens" surfaces only in the form of informed worries. Who could address the public grievances effectively - a powerful ruler or popular leader? "Whoever the people choose should be given the responsibility of governing the country," Gyanendra recalled in a recent statement. While he is perturbed over the present events and trends, Gyanendra's profound anxiety takes him beyond the immediate horizon. "All conscious and patriotic citizens need to work together for posterity if not for anything else," he said. He seems aware of the current debate to restructure the state in the quest for a "new" Nepal. At the same time, since Nepal shares a border with China through Tibet, needs to be constantly vigilant and insulate itself from the vortex of conflicts in the neighborhood. Nepal has already made Beijing more conscious about the region than it was before. Previously, there was a kind of stability under the monarchy that the Chinese saw as a reliable force, but they have not found a dependable substitute after the abolition of the monarchy. Nepal's Maoists have yet to win Chinese confidence because they operated, if not originated, in India during the years of the insurgency (1996-2006). Gyanendra travelled to India earlier to attend a relative's marriage. While in New Delhi, he met Sonia Gandhi and other political leaders and officials. He received friendly gestures, accompanied by all the normal courtesies extended to a former head of state. But he found an element of confusion about Nepal. A clearer view might emerge once the newly re-elected Indian leadership reviews past policies. Gyanendra was obviously elated by the enthusiasm shown by people who visited his residence to offer birthday felicitations on July 7. Some even chanted slogans demanding the restoration of the monarchy, arguing that it alone could end the anarchy that has engulfed the country. One Indian newspaper headlined: "Birthday fervour shows Gyanendra still not a spent force." But is the former monarch carried away by this gesture? He did not indicate he wanted to return to center stage - and reintroduce a rule by decree. Again, he did not utter words to contradict his public statement that the responsibility of governing the country should be given to those chosen by the people. He did, however, indicate that he would make himself available if his services were required for national unity. But it should be reflected by the "people's will, an informed choice". He explained his idea by giving an example of people who love to talk about two sides of a coin. What holds both sides together is often forgotten, he said. It is the rim around it that binds the metal together. He implied that the monarchy could be an institution well placed to represent and address social and cultural matters - issues of common concern. Since Gyanendra reads newspapers and books, and visits several websites regularly, he is aware of a fact-based analysis that even if a large section of the population did not like him or his son Paras, they were not altogether against the idea of retaining the monarchy as an institution. He also knows of analysts who made timely predictions that the abolition of the monarchy would create a vacuum that could not be filled by the available leaders or political forces. That apprehension came true. And now there is fierce competition to gain space there, both internally and externally. The prevailing chaos, disorder and lawlessness fuelled by ethnic and region-based movements across the country are the natural outcome of that contest. Hindus are known for their belief in fate and reincarnation. And Gyanendra is no exception. By a strange twist of fate, he was crowned king twice. First, in November 1950, when the three-year-old Gyanendra was proclaimed king by the then de facto rulers, the Ranas. It was done to gain legitimacy for the regime, which had been lost because the reigning monarch, King Tribhuwan, suddenly abandoned the throne - and left the country - and sided with those fighting against the Ranas. He took his sons and eldest grandson with him during his exile in India, leaving no option for the Ranas but to enthrone Gyanendra - even if he was a toddler. Subsequently, a popular movement led to the overthrow of the 104 years of autocratic rule, facilitating the return of King Tribhuwan in February 1951. Gyanendra's second stint as the king of Nepal began in the aftermath of another tragedy - the mysterious palace carnage of June 2001 in which King Birendra and crown prince Dipendra were killed, along with eight other members of the royal family. He ascended the throne when the Maoist insurgency was rapidly spreading across the country. It is a widely held belief that he paid dearly for relying on ingratiating relatives and courtiers who instigated him to go against the popular will. Will fate once again take a decision in Gyanendra's favour? It is an open-ended question.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
