From Guardian Unlimited
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1405637,00.html Talk - before it is too late
Neither coups nor crackdowns will save Nepal's king or its rapacious upper class from the Maoist rebellion
Isabel Hilton
Friday February 4, 2005
The Guardian
The king of Nepal, like most autocrats, appears to believe that he speaks in the name of the people. When he dismissed the government, put political leaders under house arrest and shut down telephone and internet links he did it, he said, selflessly, "for the larger interests of the people". "The crown," he continued, "traditionally is held responsible for the protection of national sovereignty, democracy and also people's right to live peacefully."
In contrast to King Gyanendra, popular memory has it that democracy was wrung from the feudal monarchy by force of public protest as late as 1989, and that, whatever the failings of the elected governments that followed, democracy has rarely been protected by suspending parliaments or dismissing governments.
That democracy came late to Nepal was the fault of a stultifying social and political system that has stubbornly resisted change. For generations, Nepal's rulers opposed popular education on the grounds that an educated populace was likely to make demands. When democracy did come, it was never strong enough to address the yawning social and political inequalities that Nepal's tiny upper class still seem to regard as natural. In the vacuum produced by political paralysis, revolutionary Maoism prospered; currently 40% of the electorate support communist parties.
Today, bleeding from a nine-year civil war, a demoralised Nepal depends on external donors to keep staggering on. But the king's "pro-democracy" intervention has outraged the countries on whom Nepal relies for developmental and military support. Even India, which has a strong interest in seeing the Maoists defeated, has expressed outrage in strong and undiplomatic language.
So what will King Gyanendra gain? Nepal's politicians, admittedly not a disinterested group, call him an autocrat interested in personal power. He inherited the crown after the slaughter of his brother and nine other royal family members by the drunken crown prince, but has never commanded much public affection. His son Paras, now crown prince, is a notoriously violent thug whom few Nepalis would like to see on the throne. The Shah dynasty's future does not look very bright.
What, then, is the alternative? As of three days ago, the choice has been loyalty to the throne or to the Maoists. Anomalous though it may seem in the 21st century, a peasant movement led by Brahmins, a classic Maoist model, is now the second power in the land.
The Maoists' people's war, waged with an estimated 8,000 troops and up to 40,000 militia, has made steady progress against the larger and better-armed Nepali army and police. They control most of western Nepal and have made substantial inroads into the Kathmandhu Valley, where they collect "taxes" and conduct selected operations in the capital. Their rhetoric is that of Pol Pot's Year Zero, and they are confident, they say, that one day they will hoist the red flag on Mount Everest.
The government that the king dismissed, like its predecessors, sought to negotiate with the Maoists, whose opening position is a new constitution and the abolition of the monarchy. The Maoists refused to talk to the last government on the grounds that they were the king's puppets, and that it would be better to talk directly to he who pulls the strings. There are strong indications that the king shared this view, concerned, perhaps, that the one thing the revolutionaries and politicians might agree on was that the monarchy had no long-term future.
This is not the first time events have taken this turn. In 2002 the same king sacked the same prime minister for failing to hold elections, only to reappoint him last year with a mandate to hold elections and open peace talks. This time, King Gyanendra has given himself three years to restore peace and "effective democracy". He lavishly praised a free press, as he ordered the media to publish nothing that had not been authorised by his minister for truth; and multiparty democracy, as he stationed soldiers at Nepal's politicians' homes.
The very large assumption behind the king's actions is that the restoration of peace and democracy will be his call. In his televised speech to the nation, he referred to the Maoists as "terrorists" and compared Nepal's situation to that of democracies facing a "terrorist challenge". And so far, Gyanendra has enjoyed the backing of several of these: US special forces have been training the army and supplying weaponry, while Belgium, Britain and India have all lent military support.
It is time they reassessed: to conflate the Maoist insurgency with al-Qaida-style terrorism is a delusion that can only aggravate an already desperate situation. The reality is that Nepal faces a choice between the bloodbath of a Maoist assault on the capital, or the slow haemorrhage of the continuing "people's war". Gyanendra has tried the military solution. Now it is time to talk - if the Maoists are still picking up the phone.
? Isabel Hilton is author of The Search for the Panchen Lama
