The fledgling Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal has a series of challenges ahead, from federalizing the state and drafting a new constitution to integrating the People´s Liberation Army (PLA) into the national armed forces and upholding the peace process. However, to every one´s consternation, the row between the Maoist-led government and Nepal Army – particularly with Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangud Katawal – that shockingly ended up with the resignation of the prime minister, has driven the nation to a dangerous edge at this transitional juncture.
Let us not forget that Gen. Katawal´s noncompliance to government orders (not once) can be assumed to be symbolic syndromes of sustaining a legacy of the erstwhile royal regime´s arrogance and supremacy, bolstered by local and foreign powers. As the army chief, to defy the Defense Ministry´s directives is to make derision of an elected government and democracy itself—and a ceremonial president, too, might mull well over this. If the protest swells too huge, Dr. Yadav´s sinisterly inspiring role could drop him flat on the ground.
Actually, the trouble ignited even before the Maoists formed a coalition government, when the army repeatedly opposed the integration of PLA into the national army terming it as ´politically indoctrinated´. But let us try recalling the radical sentiment enshrined in the former Royal Nepal Army´s (now the same takes a new nomenclature as Nepal Army) motto as ´for crown and the country,´ and now, it might have switched to become ´for president and the country(?)´. If so, in both the cases, the army has disrespected the people´s supremacy and sovereignty.
In an ambiance of political polarization and trust deficit, the Unified CPN-Maoist´s overt headstrong drive to sack CoAS and its blunt, go-it-alone style policy handling, as part of its strategic plan seemingly to capture ´entire´ state power, revealed its perilous naivety in statesmanship. Rather than irrationally bogging down in trivial matters to meet his personal and partisan interests – take the instance of CoAS controversy – Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal might have turned around to address the real crises confronting the nation, including the checking of unregulated crippling price rises in basic commodities and managing of ethnic movements burgeoning across the country.
After more than a decade-long bloody civil war and subsequent uncertainty that engulfed the nation, we had seen a shimmer of hope for peace far-off in the horizon, with the institutionalization of a Maoist-led government, but this budding Nepali dream has now shattered like porcelain.
Now, the hawkish premier has gone leaving the hungry crows and vultures to rule the roost over the nation. What is next? The same sickening faces and the same wheeling back into the purple era of post-1990? A déjà vu?
Sure, we have some bad news about the flaws littered here and there during the brief rule of Maoist-led government. For example, Dahal´s partisan-centered policies had contributed to the rapid decadence of Maoist credibility (even) among his political allies, fuelled by the sporadic unlawful and anti-social activities of the YCL and other Maoist-affiliated organizations that need no mention. But there are good news, too. Among others, take the instance of the Pashupatinath dispute on which I stand by the Maoist side: Why not a temple inside Nepal´s territory be officiated by the Nepali priests? No doubt, the Maoists truly did try to make a radical change in vain, apparently, owing to the near zero support from nearly all political quarters of the country.
Wait a minute! Did India´s External Affairs Minister Pranav Mukherjee rattle ´What is happening in Nepal is internal to Nepal´ in his hollow diplomatic platitude. Oh, well then, he might pull himself up to tame his bullying envoy in Nepal, who runs unruly dropping malicious threats to every one he bumps into. Please advise him that it is not a standard practice for a foreign envoy to tangle up in the in-house business of his host country, and dictate terms to a democratically-elected state head. Last but not the least, India has contributed to the derailing of Nepal´s peace process, and should own this blame squarely—without shame! Whenever India blows a cautionary foghorn turning to Nepal, until now, it has always precipitated a bad omen to the nation.
Certainly, the international community has a meaningful role to play in buoying up Nepal´s peace process. But first, they should understand the ground realities and listen to the people, putting aside their own interests. As regards to the current most contentious issue of federalism, the international community has been contriving and arguing loud and clear that, ´Nepal is not ready yet for federalism,´ that it can be very costly, that it might escalate ethnic hostility and can be potentially disastrous. But my questions are: "Was Nepal ready for democracy in 1950s and 1990s? Was Nepal ready for the abolition of monarchy? Was Nepal ready for the Maoist-led government? But all this happened. Why? Because the people wanted them to happen!
Finally, I´m not sad because Dahal has resigned, but I worry as to what the future has in store for this young republic. Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah, at times, were politically very discordant. Yet, each transcended beyond their political difference when confronted by severe national crisis, and concertedly faced the challenges. Let us hope, our leaders, too, might learn from them.
(Writer is an author and his recent book is "Nepal: Negotiating a Path through Quagmire".)
Related story
China’s spring festival
