India’s tilt towards the king may harm Nepal’s democracy

IMAGINE India compelling Queen Elizabeth to take a salute at the Republic Day parade without Prime Minister Tony Blair’s knowledge. This is precisely what the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government did when King Mahendra of Nepal was invited to the Republic Day celebrations this year. The democratically elected Prime Minister, Girija Prasad Koirala, was not even informed, much less consulted.

The king was also taken to Haridwar to participate in a function organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad as part of the Kumbh mela celebrations. That the BJP-led government has been going overboard on religious gatherings is nothing new. But the importance that it gave to Nepal’s king, a mere constitutional head, seemed deliberate. It was as if New Delhi wanted to create a channel other than the elected government to improve relations with Kathmandu.

“A democratic country like India preferring the monarch to the Prime Minister for the 50th anniversary of the republic is bad enough. But worse still was inviting the king directly, without even informing us,” said a top aide to Nepal’s Prime Minister. When I sought Mr Koirala’s reaction, he was reluctant to be drawn into the discussion. “The fault is ours,” he said, adding: “We are suffering because of the confrontation between us and the Opposition.”

I do not think that New Delhi even realises the harm it has done to Nepal’s precarious democratic set-up. The king has never reconciled to the position to which he was reduced nearly a decade ago when a popular uprising against his autocratic functioning cut him down to size. He has been trying to expand his role since. For example, he has referred the innocuous Bill to amend the Citizenship Act, 1963, to the Supreme Court for advice. All that the government wanted was to streamline procedures to issue the certificate of citizenship at district levels. But the king has stalled it on the ground that he wanted to know whether the Bill violated the Constitution.

New Delhi’s direct invitation has given legitimacy to the king’s efforts to retrieve what he lost after the popular uprising. Word has gone round that India finds him more dependable than the elected government, which has ‘failed’ to check ISI activities in Nepal. (Mr Koirala says New Delhi is satisfied with what his government has done to check foreign intelligence agencies’ operation in Nepal.) The stalled Parliament has also helped the king’s stock soar. The Lower House has not been able to transact business because of charges of corruption against Mr Koirala, who is alleged to have been involved in the Dhamiya scam. (The general sales agency of the Royal Nepal Airlines for Europe is said to have been offered to Mr Koirala’s family friend.)
The stock of Parliament has gone so low that people make fun of politicians. The media, too, has come down heavily on the non-functioning of Parliament. One English daily describes it thus: “With blows, punches and the largest ever stalemate, the Lower House of Parliment has sunk to the ‘lowest’ ebb possible.”

The main opposition, the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist), sees no way out till Mr Koirala resigns. There are some in the Nepali Congress who concur with this thinking. In fact, dissidents within his own party—led by former Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai—are proving to be Mr Koirala’s biggest headache.

Because of a messy political scene, even the king’s failed panchayat system—indirect elections to the top—has begun to attract attention, however limited. Disillusioned over the non-performance or misperformance of elected governments, people are questioning the democratic system itself. Economic conditions are so bad that anyone who promises employment is seen as one who delivers. This is the main reason why there is a sneaking admiration for the communists, who are a close second to the ruling Nepali Congress. Some even support the Maoists .

One-third of Nepal—the northern part is dominated by the Maoists—is beyond the pale of Kathmandu’s authority. The Maoists are said to be looking towards China for inspiration and help. But their main support comes from the People’s War Group, which operates in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa. Mr Bhattarai has even demanded use of the Army to crush the Maoists. But this is not going to be easy. The Prime Minister has no authority over the armed forces. The ‘reformed’ Constitution in 1995-96 puts them under the king’s control. The government is willing to talk with the rebels but the Maoists want to be the sole representatives in the Opposition. They do not want to be overshadowed by the communist party.

The king has another advantage. The Gorkhas, who comprise the Army, have always been loyal to the monarchy. They also served the British well. But it is a matter of shame that London has not given them the same status, much less the pension that it has given to British soldiers. Retired Gorkhas have been languishing in Nepal.

The tripartite agreement, recorded after Independence on November 9, 1947, has India, Nepal and Great Britain, as signatories. New Delhi should have taken up with London the question of discrimination against the Gorkhas. The king, too, is conspicuous by his silence. The treatment meted out to the Gorkhas is, however, not a matter of dispute between India and Nepal. Indian soldiers and the Gorkhas enjoy similar facilities. The grievance of the Nepalese against India is on other counts. The main one being the attitude of superiority that Indians display towards the Nepalese. This is reflected in every field, more so in business, which is dominated by the Indian community.

Kathmandu is probably too sensitive and New Delhi too nonchalant. The result is an ever-smouldering suspicion, be it the Tanakpur Agreement of 1993 or the Mahakali Agreement of 1977, which have remained on paper because of mistrust. New Delhi’s tilt towards the king may further complicate matters. Soaked in tradition and reverence, people have immense respect for the king. But his position is symbolic . India should not try to distort the arrangement and should engage itself in winning over the people of Nepal instead of playing petty games to have a say in its internal politics.

Earlier Columns