Opinions may vary, but the events of December 15, 1960, can be rated the most pivotal turning point in the nation’s history, a more epochal event than the Kot Purba in 1846 (when the Rana clan neutralized monarchy)and the events of 1950 (when that regime came to an end).
The sad thing, though, is that, as in the past 52 years, December 15 has come and gone and no one has taken notice. This is disheartening and unfortunate, because if you ignore history, you risk repeating it, which may be worse the second time around.
December 15 needs to live in infamy—similar to the US President Roosevelt’s famous characterization of Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941.[break]
Looking back at Nepal’s recent history, the dismissal of a democratically-elected government by late King Mahendra on December 15, 1960, was, indeed, an infamous day: the end of democracy in Nepal on that day meant a repudiation of the Lincoln-esque conviction that a government by the people, of the people, and for the people shall not perish from the face of this Earth.
The government led by late Bishweswar Prasad (BP) Koirala was sworn-in on May 1959, after his Congress Party (NC) swept the general election held a month earlier, winning 72 of the 109 parliamentary seats. It was miraculous for NC to show this kind of strength, in an environment full of conflicts and divisions based on regionalism, ethnicity, feudal hegemony, and of course, a highly divisive politics.
At the time of the voting, there were 52 registered political parties in the country, of which at least half contested the election. Owing largely to the charismatic leadership of BP, almost all opposition party leaders lost the election, and more significantly, communist parties were thoroughly discredited, winning just four seats.
Among other things, the electoral rout of communist parties convinced foreign observers that existence of extreme poverty in a country need not necessarily provide fertile ground for communism, and that people did care about their individual rights even if they were poor.
NIPPED IN THE BUD
However overwhelming the electoral mandate, it was obvious from the very start that democracy was headed for a difficult passage, facing headwinds from feudal structures built up over 100 years of Rana regime, during which the State was run strictly as a family business and people who inhabited the land knew no personal freedom and democratic rights.
Despite a convincing win by BP’s Congress Party, there was very little for him to go on to sustain democracy. For one thing, King Mahendra was unwilling to cede absolute power to democratic leaders, whatever their public mandate.
IMPORTANCE OF DEC. 15
In a private conversation during the late 1970s, BP told me that the King hadn’t called him when NC swept the election. BP added that he had to wait for almost a month before he was finally called in to see the King. He did go to meet the King, but there was neither a welcome nor any words of congratulation. The reason, BP explained, was that the King had agreed to the election with the conviction that no single party would win a majority, and in that case, the King would continue to wield ultimate power by playing one political party against another.
BP moved quickly after taking office as the country’s first elected Prime Minister. He gave priority to strengthening key institutions like the Planning Commission and Nepal Rastra Bank, and to improving the budget-making process that had been carried out without public oversight till then.
He entered into negotiations with India to harness the country’s water resources for power generation and irrigation, and gave ownership rights to landless peasants. In foreign affairs, he visited India and China to strengthen new relationships and seek economic and technical assistance. The prime ministers of both the countries visited Nepal in return, which gave Nepal international recognition and respect for its democratic credentials.
Ironically, the limelight BP received was anathema for King Mahendra, who felt marginalized and isolated. Reportedly, the old oligarchs in the Palace, and very likely King Mahendra himself, tried to create public disorder and incite the crowd against BP, most notably in the King’s ancestral home region of Gorkha, but that failed to diminish the public goodwill towards BP or tarnish the clean image of his administration.
COUP AND AFTERMATH
King Mahendra looked upon these positive developments with anger and disgust, but was helpless to turn the tide against the democratic experiment. He then exercised the only option he had left—to use his Army to bring down the government.
One fine morning in 1960 fifty-two years ago, the King dispatched no more than a dozen Army officers to round up the Congress luminaries including BP, who were then taken to the Palace to await their fate. Reportedly, Congress leaders who were brought to the Palace were completely unaware that a royal coup was underway and that they were being taken prisoners to face an uncertain future.
One joke of the time is that Ganesh Man Singh (the then Transport Minister) asked BP why he had called the Cabinet meeting in the Palace! Such was the innocence of Nepal’s founding fathers—completely oblivious of their surroundings which permeated with intrigues and conspiracies to hasten the end of the democratic experiment.
However, I shouldn’t exaggerate this innocence theme. In fact, I asked BP whether, at any time as prime minister, he had become aware of the King’s intentions or taken any precautions against the possible use of force to oust him. BP told me that he had been aware of the King’s unhappiness for some months but there was little he could do in defense—either in advance or after the King acted.
Did he consider fleeing the country? BP replied that this option never occurred to him because he was absolutely convinced that whatever game the King was likely to play, the ultimate victory would be his and the Nepali people’s. This was because people were not ready for a repeat of a Rana-type rule, and if the King acted unwisely, he would lose out.
However, BP was unconvinced that abolition of monarchy would be an option if the King’s action backfired. He held that the country wouldn’t survive as a nation without monarchy, and also that the best democracies in the world he knew of were Scandinavian countries, which he attributed to their constitutional monarchy.
I shared BP’s conviction that monarchy was good for Nepal if it existed under a functioning democracy. BP later elaborated this stand in a speech, telling his audience that his neck was tied with the King’s and he was ready for reconciliation with the monarch.
I was not supportive of BP’s unflinching faith in the institution of monarchy, but admired his greatness and humility. How could a man who suffered eight years of rigorous jail term at the hands of the King be so generous and forgiving? Probably his feelings about monarchy were deeply personal but also utterly pragmatic—a conviction that monarchy was good for democracy and that it would help keep the country together.
With monarchy now gone, BP’s sapna lies in dust. However, this might not always be the case. Looking at the level of political and economic mess we have faced in a monarchy-less Nepal, people will again be asking: was this the end of history? Or, will history repeat itself?
sshah1983@hotmail.com
Related story
‘Lest We Forget Kanchanpur Diaries’: Fundraising musical event...
