Nepal Monitor: The National Online Journal

Editorials in Nepal’s national newspapers and leading Indian and international dailies comment on the turn of events in Nepal. Most call for respect for democratic norms and consensus politics in the transitional process.

The following are some editorials. More updates to follow.

Preserving The Peace In Nepal
Voice of America, May 8, 2009

Negotiations are under way to form a new government in Nepal after the prime minister resigned in a dispute with the president over the firing of the Army Chief. This dispute and accompanying street protests threaten hard-won accords that ended a 10-year rebellion in 2006. The United States hopes all parties can resolve their differences peacefully and politically, to continue moving their country forward.

Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, a former Maoist rebel leader, stepped down after his effort to dismiss the country's military chief was blocked by President Ram Baran Yadav. Maoist insurgents fought a violent guerilla war against the government before joining the political process and then winning a plurality of votes in parliamentary elections in April 2008.

Under the peace accord, Maoist combatants are confined to barracks monitored by the United Nations. The accords called for the Council of Ministers to control, mobilize and manage the Nepali Army. Army chief General Rookmangud Katawal began hiring new troops, in contradiction to the terms of the Peace Agreement.

The U.S. urges Nepali leaders to work to find a peaceful way out of the current impasse and to resolve differences in a manner consistent with democratic principles so they can progress on the important national concerns including drafting a constitution and military integration. Given the past troubles, there needs to be a broad democratic consensus on how the Nepali people believe things there should work.

Weblink here.

Troubling signs in Nepal
The Japan Times, May 8, 2009
A standoff between Nepal's prime minister and its president has brought the country to the brink of crisis. The resignation of Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda threatens the survival of a peace agreement between Maoist rebels and the government that ended a decade-long civil war. The Maoists say they remain committed to change through the ballot box and the constitutional order, but hardliners may yet prevail and a bloody battle for control of the nation could resume.

Civil war was both a cause and an effect of Nepal's status as one of the world's poorest countries. The vicious insurgency that reduced the government's effective control to territory just beyond the capital of Katmandu was spurred by a ruling class that was unable to better the lives of the vast majority of Nepalese. The war scared off investment, halted development and ensured that poverty remained the norm. A decade of vicious conflict claimed over 12,000 lives.

The abject failure of the Nepalese monarchy to successfully rule led to peace negotiations. The result was a 2006 accord that brought the Maoists out of the political wilderness and the king's relinquishing of sovereignty back to Parliament. In parliamentary elections held in April 2008, the Maoists won the largest bloc of seats, propelling their leader, Mr. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, better known as Prachanda, into the prime minister's office at the head of a coalition government.

Governing has not been easy. Infrastructure remains underdeveloped. Fuel shortages cause daily blackouts, and the inflation rate has reached its highest level in a decade. The breaking point for Mr. Dahal was reached last week, when the prime minister fired Army Gen. Rookmangud Katawal, accusing him of insubordination.

Nepal's president, Mr. Ram Baran Yadav, countermanded the order, calling it unconstitutional since he is the army commander in chief. Mr. Dahal resigned, saying he had to take that step to save the peace process. He also pledged to work within the parliamentary order.

The prime minister's real concern is resistance to including former Maoist fighters into Nepal's army. Some 20,000 of them put down arms when the peace deal was signed, and they were supposed to be absorbed into the military. But the military remains profoundly suspicious of the rebels after fighting them for over a decade. Army brass maintain that the corps' professionalism would be lost if the guerrillas were included in its ranks. That argument is backed by status concerns: Nepal's army has traditionally drawn its members from the higher castes, while the Maoist fighters, befitting their roots, come from poorer, rural and lower castes. As a result, the former guerrillas languish in camps.

The issue came to a head when the army recently enlisted 3,000 recruits, but did not include Maoists. That prompted the prime minister to cashier Gen. Katawal, although he maintains that the recruiting had been completed when the government ordered a halt. The prime minister also pointed to the reinstatement of eight brigadier generals who had been ordered retired and the army's decision to pull army athletes from the national games to protest the participation of former rebel fighters. Gen. Katawal disputed those charges as well, saying the generals returned to service after the Supreme Court provisionally reinstated them and that it was not his decision to pull the army athletes from the competition.

Even if Gen. Katawal is right, the prime minister had little choice. He has come under increasing pressure from hardliners within his own party to end discrimination against his fighters. Overruled by the president and facing the prospect of revolt by his coalition partners and his own party, Mr. Dahal opted for control of his party over a loss of confidence in his ruling coalition. The second largest party, the Nepali Congress, has said it will try to forge another coalition with the moderate Communist UML Party, which left the government after the firings. The chief question is how will the Maoists respond if that effort is successful. While Mr. Dahal has said he remains committed to the democratic process, his party may still take to the streets.

Even if it does not, it retains a large presence in the assembly — 238 of the 601 seats in the National Assembly — and it could use that to deny any government the ability to govern. The next ruling coalition, like the last one, will have to be a large group, and its dynamics will be difficult to manage. The Maoists should be able to exploit those fissures legally, without undermining Nepal's constitutional order.

That may make sense as a political tactic, but a strategy of making the country ungovernable will only alienate the electorate. Nepal needs stability to develop, which is the cure for its crushing poverty. It is difficult to see how pledges to respect democracy, human rights and the rule of law will count for much if the party's avowed strategy is to sew chaos. A broad-based coalition government makes the most sense for Nepal. That means negotiations among the major political parties. That spirit of inclusion must also surface in the military. Blatant violations of the peace accord undermine the military's credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of Nepal's poorest citizens. Nepal's friends must push all the parties to do more to honor their promises.

Weblink here.

Nepal's Maoist double-cross
The Washington Times, May 7, 2009

A negotiated peace agreement doesn't bring peace

So the chairman of Nepal's Maoist radicals brags that he and his fellow-travellers tricked United Nations officials and admits that the 2006 peace deal was a sham - and gets caught on videotape doing it. The video of the recently resigned Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, was shot in January 2008 and just surfaced.

Revealingly, he instructs his fellow communists not to be fooled by the compromises struck with Nepal's democratic government. Seizing total power, he makes clear, remains the communist goal.

The latest crisis in Nepal is a useful case study in communist duplicity and instructive for those who believe that the path to peace with guerillas is cutting deals with them. The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) joined Nepal's government after a decade-long insurgency that left more than 12,000 dead. Under terms of the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Maoists agreed, among other things, to cut the size of their force in half, place their weapons under U.N. supervision and participate peacefully in the political process. In the 2008 elections, the Maoists emerged as the largest party in parliament with 30 percent of the vote, and Prachanda was named prime minister.

But the communists didn't consider the war really ended. The Maoists steadily maneuvered to increase their power with a view toward implementing their revolutionary agenda.

The latest step was an attempt to remove Nepal Army chief Gen. Rookmangud Katawal, who had resisted Maoist demands to integrate their guerrilla army into the national force. He maintained that the "former" guerrillas are brainwashed fanatics seeking to seize control of the army. He's got a point.

Nepal's President Ram Baran Yadav blocked Prachanda's move to sack Gen. Katawal. Prachandra resigned in protest. Nepal's supreme court now has the case.

Prachanda says it is a question of civilian control of the military. That's rich. Meanwhile communist thugs are taking to the streets in coordinated demonstrations calling for further intervention from the U.N.

The video of a relaxed Prachanda addressing his party faithful exposed the Maoists' cynical manipulation of the political system. In true communist spirit, Prachanda said that the compromises struck with the government were only tactical expediencies, and that the "bidroha," or rebellion, was still on. He joked about how they duped the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) into thinking they had 35,000 fighters when in fact they only had 7,000 to 8,000, which allowed them to swell their ranks to 20,000 while claiming to be demilitarizing. And he confirmed Gen. Katawal's suspicions by saying it would take only a small number of his guerrillas to establish "complete Maoist control" of the Nepal Army.

He added that they had not turned over their weapons as required and that relief money earmarked for the victims of the civil war would be diverted to party coffers. "You and I know the truth," he slyly told his comrades, "but why should we tell it to others?"

In an unguarded moment, Prachanda revealed he is still a terrorist at heart and those who make deals with him are dupes. "Why would we abide by [the peace deal] after we win?" he said on the tape. "Why would we follow it when we have the upper hand?"

The situation in Nepal and Pakistan's Swat Valley illustrate the risks in bargaining with extremists, who do not change their goals, only their methods. The lesson is important when contrasted to Sri Lanka and Colombia, where we have seen the value of taking the fight to insurgents. U.S. deal makers should understand that there is more than one way to lose a guerrilla war. Sometimes it happens with the stroke of a pen.

Weblink here.

Political crisis in Nepal
The New Nation, Bangladesh, May 8, 2009
Th nascent democracy in Nepal seems to have been passing through another test following the fall of the eight-month-old government led by the Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal. The crisis apparently began over the question of integration of former Maoist guerrillas into the regular army. The peace accord under which the insurgents agreed to join the mainstream politics provided for this. As the Army Chief refused to take in the guerrillas for their being fundamentally different from the conventional army in nature and political spirit, the Maoists in the government sacked him. But the President ignored the prime minister's order and reinstated the army chief. Nepal has been passing through a transition to constitutional democracy from monarchy as the new Constitution is being drafted.

Coalition partners of the Dahal government disagreed with the decision of the Prime Minister and withdrew their support from him forcing the resignation. Dahal has established himself as the most influential political figure in his country now with 238 (40 percent) seats in the Parliament. He still reportedly enjoys more support in urban and rural areas than the traditional political forces. However, it seems the political opposition to absorption of guerillas with the army is stronger. The guerillas have been living in army cantonments since Dahal's taking over as Prime Minister.

All forces in Nepal including the Maoists would hopefully adhere to constitutional means and work prudently to protect and nurture the nascent democracy. Change of government under democracy is a normal constitutional process. With the monarchy no longer there the politicians must uphold the constitution and rule of law. Failure of the constitutional process would threaten its independence and sovereignty.

Weblink here.

Nepal’s democracy in crisis
Dawn Editorial, 6 May, 2009
Nepal’s nascent democracy is facing a crisis. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s resignation on Monday has left political parties scrambling to put together another coalition which will be shaky at best. Although Nepal entered an era of relative calm after the Maoists ended their insurgency in 2006 and the king was deposed last year, the democratic process has not moved smoothly.

Underlying tensions have pulled different elements in the power structure in opposite directions. The Maoist-led coalition was stable enough as long as Mr Dahal did not try to upset the applecart. But having won a surprise election victory last August and with the peace deal giving them plenty of space to exert their strength, the Maoists appeared keen to redesign the power-sharing arrangement. A political struggle became inevitable especially when it came to the issue of control over the army.

Previously, the army took its orders from the monarchy. Thereafter, the president became commander-in-chief. Being a former leader of the Nepali Congress, the main opposition party, the president has not been too pro-Maoist. The series of events in the last few weeks — the government’s move to retire eight generals, the court’s orders to block it, the prime minister’s sacking of the army chief and then the president’s intervention on the latter’s behalf — resulted in the crisis that continues to unfold.

At the heart of the matter is not just the issue of who controls the army. At stake is the future of thousands of Maoist guerrillas living in UN-run camps awaiting rehabilitation. Mr Dahal’s move to have them inducted into the Nepalese army as per the 2006 peace accord met with resistance from the establishment. Evidently, certain sections in the Nepalese power system fear the Maoists would radicalise the army if they were recruited in large numbers. But the fighters cannot be left to languish in the camps indefinitely.

A solution has to be found and if it was agreed three years ago that the guerrillas would be absorbed in the armed forces, the deal must be honoured. This impasse will block the political process that has yet to see the formulation of a constitutional framework. It cannot be abandoned now.

Weblink here.

Nepalese powers must resolve crisis
Gulf News, UAE, May 05, 2009
As the crises in Pakistan and Sri Lanka threatens to assume dangerous proportions, Nepalese Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal's decision to resign from parliament has thrown the tiny Himalayan kingdom into a tailspin.

The agent provocateur in this case has been President Rama Baran Yadav, who, it is believed, stepped out of his ceremonial role to play the aggressor against the prime minister, who is ironically known as 'Prachanda' (ferocious).

Democratic governance is anathema to Maoists and this is where the current government faltered with their ideology. Having won an election and overthrown Nepal's monarchy, Prachanda had since lost the confidence of his allies.

It is now time for the other political forces to unite for the sake of the nation. It is but natural to assume that the people of Nepal did not initiate change just to see themselves in the clutches of military rule or a dictatorship.

Weblink here.

Moving ahead
The Himalayan Times, May 5, 2009
The sudden resignation by Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal from his post may have taken many observers by surprise. Yet, if the backdrop is analysed, this had to happen because the mandate for the Maoist-led coalition government to continue no longer held legitimacy. With the rapid change in the political permutation and combination setting in recent days, it had been rather difficult to predict the moves that each political party, within and outside the government, had up its sleeve. Prime Minister Dahal or rather the UCPN-Maoist had been quite adamant on the removal of CoAS Rookmangud Katawal from his post, and that did take place despite the general view not in its favour. The lack of national consensus has been evident in the prime minister failing to muster the support even of his coalition partners. And, on top of it, the president stepped in for CoAS Katawal to continue after he had been removed by the government. It is a move that merits attention as it has raised a serious debate as regards the role of the president in the overall scheme of the state structure.

With the breakdown of the old order, the need is for a new political alignment to emerge so that the possibility of conflict being at the centre stage of national affairs could be avoided. This is all the more essential as the country is in the transitional phase, a very sensitive stage. It calls for not only the peace mechanisms to be set up, but also for greater sensitivity among the political parties as the focus is always on the competitive aspect. It all can be resolved through the medium of national consensus which has been lacking, particularly in the recent past. However, for national consensus to materialize the stakeholders ought to ready for making sacrifices, and not merely be guided by petty partisan interests. This can only be the base for achieving the goal of integration, constitution drafting and state restructuring. What should now come to focus is greater maturity and wisdom of the parties while charting the path ahead.

The army chief issue has highlighted the brittle ground that the country is treading on. The Maoists had been rather obsessed with dismissing the CoAS and making a national issue of something that was, in fact, a part of the day-to-day affair of any government. And, they failed because of misguided notions. However, it brought to light the uneasy civil-military relations that have been in limelight now. There has to be clear definition and understanding of that relation so that no tussle like the one witnessed in the past weeks would rear its head again in the future. The Maoists realised the danger zone they were venturing into by unilaterally making the decision to dismiss the CoAS. A price has to be paid for obstinacy, and the UCPN-Maoist is getting its due. The change of guards had to come, but it has been sooner than expected. The failures of the Maoist-led coalition government are too many to enumerate. Yet, the times ahead are going to be challenging with the peace process hitting snags every now and then. The constitution drafting too has not been able to pick up pace to meet the timeframe fixed in the beginning.

Weblink here.

Special Editorial: Unfinished business
The Kathmandu Post, May 5, 2009
Announcing his resignation as prime minister, Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda' portrayed his party as the victim. All of the progressive measures that the Maoist-led government had sought to implement were blocked, he claimed. So was the government's attempt to assert its authority over an insubordinate
Chief of Army Staff (CoAS). And for cornering the Maoists and making it impossible to function were “status quoists” and “reactionary” forces, within and outside the government.

What was obscured in this litany of complaints was the fact that the Maoists, while in government, had given enough reason to other political parties to question their intentions. The prime minister may have stated that his party has always reached out and sought consensus from other political forces to achieve a stable democratic
state where rule of law, human rights and press freedom were respected. But the fact is, Maoist actions in the past eight months have raised doubts regarding their commitment to these universal principles. There have been repeated attempts to impose decisions unilaterally, and by force, contrary to the basic principles on which the peace process was founded. It must be remembered that the chain of events that led to the prime minister's resignation was triggered by the Maoist attempt to remove the Army chief even while its major partners in the peace process repeatedly stressed on consensus.

There is a silver lining in the prime minister's address to the nation today, at a moment of political and constitutional crisis: He expressed commitment towards protecting the peace process, drafting the constitution on time, competitive multiparty democracy, rule of law, human rights and press freedom. Perhaps it is true that the Maoists were always committed to these principles. Perhaps the other political forces -- and international actors -- wrongly judged their struggle to make the transition from a rebel force to a democratic party and mistook them as harbouring authoritarian tendencies. If this was indeed the case, the party, now engaged in its “struggle for civilian supremacy and national sovereignty,” has lost none of the opportunity to prove itself even as opposition party. Its challenge and test is now to maintain order, restrain cadre so that anarchy is not unleashed on the streets and in cantonments to gain political leverage. Having said as much in words, the party now has to demonstrate through action that the peace process, however fragile, is still intact. That its relationship with other political forces, however frayed, is still redeemable.

It is not only the Maoists that emerge tarnished from all this, however. The office of the president, meant by the interim constitution to contribute to the stability of the state by remaining above politics, has dragged itself into controversy due to overzealous interpretation of its office's role as patron of the Nepal Army. But it is India, whose actions in recent weeks have in the minds of the Nepali people raised serious questions. The historical resentment towards what is perceived as Indian interference had diminished since the 12-point agreement was signed by the Seven Party Alliance and Maoists at the aegis of New Delhi. There was a feeling that India had assisted in the establishment of a political order desired by the Nepali people.

Subsquently, Delhi intervened after the 2006 Jana Andolan– first, after the Maoist withdrawal from government in September 2007 and later, during the Madhesi protests of February 2008. Both contributed to moving the peace process forward. However, India's intractable position on the issue of the Army chief's removal made it appear that Delhi had explicitly taken sides on the bitter partisan conflict. While many Nepalis -- including this paper -- still question the democratic credentials of the Maoist-led government, New Delhi would do well to internalize the fact that the Indian position grates self-respecting Nepalis.

Weblink here.

Put people first
The Himalayan Times, May 5, 2009
Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda’s resignation is a victory for democracy, not because the Maoists are out of government, but because it reflects the coming of age of Nepal’s democratic process. The Maoists, who waged a decade long People’s War, have been graceful in their exit from power, and in doing so, they have fully followed democratic norms. This subservience to democratic values, once unexpected of the Maoists, reflects the extent to which political process in Nepal has evolved. As PM Prachanda stated, his resignation was the only way out of the current political imbroglio. The whole episode hinges on the Nepali Army issue, but it was just a pretext for the UCPN-Maoists’ political isolation.

Although Prachanda tried to portray otherwise in his speech, the current situation has primarily resulted because of the Maoists’ habit of taking unilateral decisions and overlooking the need to earn the trust of other political parties.

The Prime Minister’s surprise move, which has both shocked and confused other political parties, has allowed him and the United CPN-Maoist to regain their lost stature. The cleverly worked out statement did not hide the fact that the Maoists were unable to deliver because they were inexperienced. It also highlighted the Maoists as being peaceful, positive and responsible for the peace process and constitution writing. Although the Maoists have been forced to step down from the government, the possibility of their coming back to power still exists. The formation of the next government would be extremely difficult without the support of the Maoists and the MJF. This indicates the possible need to forge a new understanding in running the government and taking the peace process forward.

It would be impossible to complete the peace process — integration of Maoist combatants, restructuring of the state and constitution drafting — without active United CPN-Maoist support. With them in opposition, the country may become ungovernable. However, the Maoists must fundamentally alter their attitude to governance, peace process and political practice if we are to see any progress. As other political parties have experienced, the intransigence of the Maoists on many issues of national interest continues to pose a hurdle. We hope that, with this episode, the Maoists will imbibe a culture of consensus and begin anew on the peace process. The focus should now shift from competitive politics to putting people first.

Weblink here.

Nepal must step back from the brink
The Hindu, India, 5 May, 2009
The political crisis in Nepal has taken a dangerous turn with the resignation of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda.’ The immediate trigger was President Ram Baran Yadav’s decision to reject a resolution of the Maoist-led cabinet dismissing the Nepal Army chief, Rookmangud Katawal, for insubordination. Although the Maoists can be faulted for acting hastily and unilaterally, the anti-democratic attitude of General Katawal towards civilian control in general and the peace process specifically lies at the root of the crisis. Nepal established its democracy through a political process that ended a decade-long civil war and abolished the country’s hated monarchy. Integration of Maoist combatants drawn from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into a reformed and democratised national army was a key principle to which all parties agreed when the struggle against King Gyanendra was at its peak. But now that the republic has been established and the task of framing Nepal’s constitution is under way, the Nepali Congress and even the Unified Marxists-Leninists have been dragging their feet on this question. But most damaging of all has been the stand taken by General Katawal.

In defiance of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the army chief pushed ahead with inducting thousands of new recruits, unilaterally extended the tenure of eight senior generals, and withdrew the army from the National Games on account of the PLA’s participation. No democracy can tolerate such insubordination from its army chief. Worse, General Katawal lobbied for support with foreign countries and there was even talk of a coup d’etat. Although he exploited the constitutional provision designating the President as the ‘commander-in-chief’ as a fig leaf for his machinations, it is a settled principle of parliamentary democracy that a non-executive head of state cannot exercise any powers in this regard independent of Cabinet advice. So blinded are the UML and the Nepali Congress by their opposition to the Maoists that they have applauded Mr. Yadav for his action, which has introduced a dangerous dynamic into civil-military relations in Nepal’s fledgling democracy. Unless the standoff is ended, the peace process could collapse. What all parties, including the Maoists, must do is to act soberly and responsibly to re-establish a working arrangement that allows Prachanda to remain Prime Minister, General Katawal to serve out his remaining four months as army chief, and the core principle of integration to remain intact.

Weblink here.

Crisis In Kathmandu
Times of India, India, 5 May, 2009
The crisis in Nepal deepened after Maoist leader Prachanda quit as prime minister on Monday. With Maoists, the single largest group in parliament, out of the equation a stable government is unlikely in Nepal soon. Prachanda's decision to resign was inevitable after President Rama Baran Yadav asked the army chief to ignore the prime minister's dismissal order. It's a step in the right direction since the Maoist leader had lost the confidence of major allies in the government.

The present political and constitutional crisis is a result of the unravelling of political forces that had come together to replace the monarchy and build a full-fledged democracy in Nepal. The trigger was Prachanda's move to sack the army chief, who according to Maoists repeatedly defied orders of the government. The authority of a civilian government over the armed forces is beyond doubt in a democracy. However, the Maoist leadership, wary of a restive cadre confined in UN-monitored camps, sought to reconstitute the armed forces and integrate its erstwhile fighters in the army. But it could not get even allies in the government to back the plan.

It is now for political parties in Nepal to sort out the mess. New Delhi must wait for the situation to clear and support the democratic forces. Considering the long border, close cultural and economic ties and the looming shadow of Beijing, it is naive to expect New Delhi to be a passive onlooker in the unfolding drama. Sections of the political class in Nepal tend to blame India for its woes and want closer ties with China to counter the influence of India in the region. India needs to maintain its concerns without aiding the perception that it doesn't fully respect Kathmandu's sovereign interests. Winning friends in the neighbourhood has never been easy for a regional power anywhere in the world.

India must win the trust of its neighbours by assuring them that it seeks to be a bulwark against political and economic disruption in the region. Unlike in India, democracy has not gained deep roots in the rest of the subcontinent. Nepal has only recently shaken off its monarchy after a bloody civil war that lasted for more than a decade. The gains of that democratic struggle need to be consolidated and Maoists, who had a significant role in ending the monarchy, must recognise that the impulse of the people is to build a democratic country with space for a diversity of political opinion to flourish. The people did not revolt against a despot to usher in army rule or a dictatorship of Maoists.

Weblink here.

Post Prachanda
The Indian Express, May 05, 2009
After months of being on the brink, Nepal is finally in the midst of an unprecedented crisis following the resignation of the Maoist prime minister, Prachanda. This was not unforeseen, given the prolonged tussle between the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which leads the ruling coalition, and the army, judiciary and president. But it’s unprecedented because it’s a first for republican Nepal. And the implications of Prachanda’s resignation cannot be ignored by India. For one, India’s concerns are not limited to Nepal having a functional and stable government. The CPN-M’s battle with the army chief, R. Katawal — sacked by Prachanda and asked to stay put by the president, Ram Baran Yadav — destabilised a fragile and ill-governed state. Eighteen parties, including its alliance partner, the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist), had appealed to the president not to allow Katawal’s sacking. The CPN-UML’s exit from the coalition following Prachanda’s decision to unilaterally remove the army chief had already jeopardised the government. Now, the PM has resigned and the Maoists are not sure of retaining their government. Of particular concern to India would be the endangering of the peace process that a fall of the Maoist-led government may result in. A top Maoist leader has already warned that the peace process might be imperilled.

Part of the problem is of course technical — Nepal hasn’t managed to draw up a new constitution yet while the old one is silent on the appointment of the army chief, traditionally appointed by the erstwhile kings. That new constitution must be framed, or the peace process is necessarily incomplete. India cannot afford a Nepal where the president accuses the PM of acting unconstitutionally, and the PM’s party charges the president with a “constitutional coup”.

Besides, the CPN-M’s warm relations with China, at India’s expense, are worrying.

As far as numbers go, the 238-strong CPN-M needs a minimum of 301 seats to keep its government; and it has decided to talk to smaller parties to retain its majority. Otherwise, Nepal would need an alternative government, in which the opposition Nepali Congress might support the CPN-UML. As our columnist today points out, India has high stakes in the peace and should engage in deft diplomacy to save it. During Maoist institution-wrecking, as they signed the peace and friendship agreement with China, India preferred to remain in the sidelines. It must now talk to all actors, and forthrightly.

Weblink here.

Crisis in Nepal: Elections seem the way out now
Economic Times, India, 5 May, 2009
The current crisis in Nepal, which has come to a head with the resignation of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, has not only unravelled the remarkable political coalition experiment but could, in a worst-case scenario, also escalate into civil strife.

The larger issue, of course, remains that of the redrawing of the social contract that the Maoists are intent on. What is on test here is whether a former rebel group, now a party with a revolutionary agenda for an unreformed, hierarchical society has the ability, and will be allowed, to democratically implement that agenda.

Clearly, the situation had become untenable after Prachanda’s dismissal of the anti-Maoist army chief and President Rambaran Yadav’s contravening of that order. Indeed, the reform of the army, which remains heavily unrepresentative, was one of the central principles around which the coalition government was formed.

Though the issue of integrating the PLA with the army was always going to be a vexed one, it is nobody’s case the army chief did not embody traditional resistance to Nepal’s radical political transition.

And with the crucial task of writing the new Constitution now likely to be further delayed, the political uncertainty could worsen to an extent that threatens the peace pact of 2006. But for now, fresh elections might be the only way out as it is difficult to envisage a situation where any coalition can now function meaningfully.

To be sure, there are many strands that constitute the narrative — be it sections within the Maoist camp which pressured Prachanda to take an unrelenting stand, or fears within the opposition and the old guard that the PLA-army integration demand was a step towards absolute Maoist control.

But continuing the push-and-pull between a revolutionary group and the other parties in a democratic set-up is, while being a prime Maoist responsibility, also a matter for the other parties to re-envisage.

For its part, India should certainly seek to avoid the identification with a particular section — such as the army, as was the case during the events leading to the Nepal PM’s resignation — which can only complicate Nepal’s complex internal dynamics.

Weblink here.

####