Editorial»
Neither struggle nor surrender
DEC 11 - Twenty seven years ago, BP Koirala returned home after spending eight years of self-exile in India. He pursued a policy of rastriya melmilap (national reconciliation). The Nepali Congress (NC) stuck to it until he breathed his last in 2038 BS.
Koirala, the first elected Prime Minister of Nepal, adopted the policy of reconciliation with the monarchy with a sole aim to restore the multiparty system, although King Mahendra had dismissed Koirala’s government on December 16, 1960.
Concurrently, King Mahendra wanted to contain the rise of the leftist movement in Eastern Nepal, which was similar in nature to that of Naxalite movement, which was originated at Naxalbari in India’s West Bengal state.
Against this background, BP Koirala was more inclined toward reconciling with the King so that multiparty system could be restored through peaceful means rather than mass agitation. That is why he committed that his party would neither launch any “struggle”, nor would “surrender” to the autocratic regime.
Instead of making an alliance with the Leftist forces, he conspicuously chose to go alone. Given the national and international political scenario, there was not any possibility for making an alliance between the Congress and radical Leftist forces during Koirala’s lifetime, although Koirala’s national reconciliation policy yielded no result. It did not help restore the democratic system, which King Mahendra had dismissed it without much public protest. The long-lost multiparty democracy could be restored 30 years only after the NC and Leftist forces made an alliance for a joint agitation.
Does not history repeat itself? I think, sometimes, it becomes more palpable. The five agitating parties, including NC and CPN (UML), who represented the dissolved Parliament, are now passing through a similar phase of history, which BP Koirala and his contemporaries had faced decades ago.
The present agitating political parties have neither been able to launch a “decisive” movement against “royal regression”, keeping the Maoists at bay, nor have they made a move to align with the Maoist rebels, who are responsible for the derailment of multiparty democracy.
Despite being betrayed time and again, the political parties are more inclined towards making a “holy” alliance with the monarch, who, history has taught us, has no faith in democracy. Why do the political parties still trust the king who does not trust them? Maybe because of the circumstance that has forced them to align with the King.
It is a complex situation for the parties who want to restore the system through a controlled and peaceful agitation. But the history has taught us the King did not give up power unless he faced tremendous public pressures backed up by the international community.
The political parties lack both – public and international supports – which are crucial for putting the democratic process back on to the track. The King took over the executive power, ousting elected government, at a time when the image of political parities was at their low ebb. The country was not only crippled by the Maoist insurgency but also plagued by corruption and bad governance, or no governance in rural areas.
This indicates that the political parties have failed to muster enough public support required for restoring the democratic process in the near future.
For the five agitating political parties, making an alliance with the gun-totting Maoists would be not that much easy, either. Both the forces have no common political goal they intend to achieve. The Maoist leadership has made clear its stance that they would lay down their arms and take part in democratic process only after “the feudal regime” and “military fascism” is defeated.
It means the Maoists would not budge an inch to the demand of constituent assembly. So, parliamentary forces cannot make an alliance with the Maoists unless they lay down their arms, which is impossible at the moment. They have now fallen into the labyrinth because of their own political miscalculation when they enjoyed power and immense popular mandate.
As far as making an alliance with the King is concerned, it is also plagued with mutual mistrust against each other. The 18-point demand put forth by the political agitating parties looks more, as an albatross around their neck, than a process of reconciliation. The King is also aware of how serious the political parties’ demand could be. So, the king would also not budge an inch on the issue.
The King is sure to fight back them, yielding military might, as much as possible. This shows that the political parties neither can launch any massive “struggle,” in the near future, nor can they “surrender” to either of the force, who are largely dependent on military strength for their survival. The only option left for the parliamentary forces is to go to the people and apologize honestly for the mistakes they made when they were in power.Posted on: 2003-12-11 02:45
Headlines
Advertisements
