arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

REVOLUTION AND COUNTER–REVOLUTION IN NEPAL

- Baburam Bhattarai


A process of revolution and counter – revolution is unfolding with dramatic momentum in Nepal. Whereas a revolutionary People's War (PW) led by CPN (Maoist) for a democratic republic is sweeping across the length and breadth of the country since the last seven years, the archaic feudal – bureaucratic monarchy has staged a coup d'e'tat against the spineless parliamentary democracy on October 4, 2002 and centralized the old state authority in itself. This epic fight between monarchy and democracy (of both ‘old' and ‘new' variety), reminiscent of the history of all civilized countries in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, has naturally drawn the attention of the outside world to the geo-strategically placed country of Nepal. It is, therefore, imperative that the internal and external dynamics of this political upheaval be scrutinized and the immediate prospects be assessed.

The Nature of the Coup

Though the October 4 proclamation of dismissal of the elected Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and assumption of executive power of the state by the self –proclaimed King Gyanendra has been generally dubbed as a coup d'e'tat, there is discernible divergence of opinion amongst the political forces and observers about the real nature of the coup. Whereas a reactionary class interest has motivated some to view it as an unpleasant but necessary step by the monarchy to restore ‘order' from years of revolutionary upheavals, others have failed to see through the essential retrogressive nature of the royal move against the limited democratic gains of the 1990 people's movement because of some formal legalistic illusions. A formal "commitment and allegiance of Constitutional Monarchy and the multiparty democratic polity'' in the royal proclamation seems to have lulled these gentlemen into believing that the royal take-over is just a transitory move and there is no permanent threat to the multiparty parliamentary democracy in the country.

Let us look at the royal proclamation itself, which says:
"As it is our responsibility to preserve nationalism, national unity and Sovereignty, as well as , to maintain peace and order in the country and also to ensure that the state of the nation does not deteriorate for any reason , a situation has arisen wherein, by virtue of the State Authority as exercised by us and in the spirit of the constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990 ,as well as , taking into consideration Article 27(3) of the Constitution ,Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba should be relieved of his office ,owing to his incompetency to conduct the general elections on the stipulated date in accordance with the Constitution, and the Council of Ministers dissolved. Similarly, the general elections slated for November 13 also needs to be postponed. We, therefore, issue the following orders in accordance with Article 127 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990. ………..
"As it will take some time to make new arrangements, we will exercise the executive powers of the Kingdom of Nepal until such arrangements are in place and we ourselves undertake responsibility of governance in the country...
"We will never allow the commitment and allegiance of Constitutional Monarchy and the multiparty democratic polity to be compromised .The government to be constituted will make adequate arrangements for peace and security as soon as possible and conduct the general elections."(Emphasis added)
Firstly, it should be noted that from Louis Bonaparte of 19th century France to modern day military dictators in Pakistan and elsewhere to our own King Mahendra (father of Gyanendra) in 1960, every executioner of a coup d'e'tat unmistakably swears by some obscure and double–edged provision in the prevailing constitution and dangles the carrot of restoring democracy "as soon as possible''. But, as they say ‘the taste of the pudding is in the eating', one has to judge the monarchical or military dictators not by their pious words but their actual deeds.
Secondly, Gyanendra, through his October 4 proclamation, has unabashedly usurped "executive powers of the kingdom of Nepal until such arrangements are in place" and sought to "undertake the responsibility of governance in the country'' . This is pure and simple coup d'e'tat against the letter and spirit of the Constitution of 1990 .As it is a matter of common sense that the so-called constitutional monarchy nowhere exercises ‘executive powers' and assumes ‘responsibility of governance' and the 1990 Constitution through its Article 35(2) clearly exhorts the monarchy to undertake "all functions according to the advice and consent of the Council of Ministers''. Hence it is axiomatic that the King can operationalize the much flaunted Article 127 (which states, "If any difficulty arises in connection with the implementation of this Constitution His Majesty may issue necessary orders to remove such difficulty and such orders shall be laid before parliament'') not through his own independent volition but according to the advice and consent of the Council of the Ministers. However, in the present case the Council of Ministers advises the King to postpone the planned November 13 elections to a future date according to an all party consensus and the King in return castigates the PM as ‘incompetent' and summarily dismisses the Council of Ministers . If this is not forcible restoration of an absolute monarchy ,what is it?

Thirdly, Gyanendra has announced a puppet ‘Council of Ministers' of his own henchmen headed by his ever loyal stooge, Lokendra Bahadur Chand, on October 11, against the joint petition of all the six parliamentarist parties having representation in the dissolved parliament .Though the nominated PM belongs to the pro-palace Rastriya Prajatantra Party(RPP) and the crumb of deputy PM(DPM) has been offered to the acting head of the pro- India Nepal Sadbhavana Party (NSP) ,they have been personally handpicked by Gyanendra against the stated policies of their respective parties, thus ensuring that the puppet cabinet would ever dance to the tune of the palace. And it is interesting to note that the King who had branded Deuba as ‘incompetent' for not holding the midterm elections on November 13 has conveniently avoided fixing the new date of elections so far, providing enough hints of his disinclinations to share power with the showcase parliament in the near future.

Hence there should be no illusion to anybody that a retrogressive royal coup d't'tat has been executed in the country and an autocratic monarchy has been restored by nullifying the limited democratic rights won after the 1990 people's movement. Whether the parliamentary political parties would be allowed to function or not and the 1990 Constitution would be formally scrapped or not, is just a matter of convenience and expediency to the feudal autocratic monarchy. In any case, a ‘multiparty Panchayat system' would be hardly different in essence from the previous incarnation of ‘party less panchayat system' of the 1960-1990 autocratic monarchical period.

‘Why' & ‘ How' of the Coup

What are the objective and subjective factors that contributed to the ultimate restoration of despotic monarchy after 12 years of flirtation with the multiparty parliamentary democracy? Are not the parliamentary political parties accountable for this fiasco due to their apparent non-performance, corruption, etc? Did not the ever-raging Maoist PW prepare a ground for this rearguard action by the feudal-bureaucratic monarchy? There are speculations galore in the media and armchair discussions of the urban intelligentsia. However, the issue would deserve a deeper probing than mere motivated or ill-informed insinuations.

First of all, it should be recollected and recognized that historical events of this import do not occur due to mere will or omission and commission of individuals or groups, but as an historical necessity propelled by incessant contradictions between antagonistic social forces .In that sense this royal coup d'e'tat is a further link in the long chain of revolution and counter- revolution generated by the epic fight between feudal monarchy and bourgeois democracy for the last half century. To the uninitiated of the Nepalese history it may be worthwhile to recount that in the immediate aftermath of the revolutionary sweep across third world countries after World War 2nd a nascent bourgeois parliamentary democracy was introduced in Nepal in 1950, which was snuffed by a royal coup d'e'tat in 1960 and continued to be suppressed under the feudal royal boot till 1990. A broad-based people's movement abetted by the then global hysteria for multiparty democracy in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet and Eastern European state systems, resulted in restoration of the multiparty parliamentary system in 1990 but without significantly weakening the feudal-bureaucratic-military basis of the age-old monarchy .The history of last 12 years is the history of continued contention between the semi-feudal and semi-colonial social formation principally patronized by the monarchy and a progressive bourgeois democratic transformation ,which had a qualitative leap with the initiation of revolutionary PW in 1996 .The recent counter-revolutionary royal putsch is just one more link in the ongoing process of life and death struggle between the
retrogressive and progressive forces , and this will continue till the reactionary feudal-bureaucratic forces are completely swept away by the ultimate victory of democratic revolution . And this royal coup d'e'ta has unmistakably validated the principled stand of the revolutionary
Left that the 1990 political change had not consummated the bourgeois democratic revolution in the country and the feudal-bureaucratic monarchy with its continued control over the traditional Royal Army still constituted the main danger even to the incipient parliamentary democracy .In that sense the recent developments are not at all ‘unnatural' and ‘unexpected' as some people have claimed to be.
Now, let us see the developments through a purely constitutional or legalistic prism. As the revolutionary left had warned right then, the 1990 Constitution and the process of constituting it had left enough loopholes for future subversion by the all-powerful monarchy. The 1990 Constitution was not made by any elected body, but drafted by a King-nominated committee and promulgated by the King using his so-called "inherent constitutional and state authority and privilege''. This clearly meant that the ultimate source of constitutional authority were not the sovereign people but the monarchy, and the King could subvert the constitution using the same ‘inherent authority' at the time of his choosing .The fact that the King has now quoted the same passage from the Preamble of the Constitution –i.e. " by the virtue of the State Authority as exercised by us''- to execute the coup d'e'tat clearly underscores the Himalayan blunder committed by the parliamentary

political parties in not insisting on a Constituent Assembly in 1990 .The parliamentary political parties were lulled by the passage , "The sovereignty of Nepal will be vested in the Nepalese people'', in Article 3 of the Constitution , but they did not take notice of the Damocles' sword of the so-called inherent State Authority of the King as proclaimed in the Preamble of the same Constitution . It is clear that such constitutional ambiguity about ‘Sovereignty' and ‘State Authority' too has now enabled the monarchy to stage a counter –revolutionary coup in a very ‘constitutional' manner .

However, if one closely follows the sequence of events particularly after the infamous palace massacre of June 1 , 2002 , it is not difficult to foresee the current developments as a logical conclusion or climax of the counter –revolutionary process triggered much earlier. It is now proved beyond doubt that the whole family of King Birendra was wiped out and Gyanendra placed on the throne as part of a grand international strategy to check revolution in Nepal and convert the country into a springboard of imperialist and expansionist machinations. In a recent article " Comparisons Between Recent US –Backed Coups", Wayne Madsen, a former US Navy officer, writes, "According to unblemished sources in Katmandu the King (i.e. Birendra) and his family were quickly dispatched by a Nepali army commando unit trained at the time by US special operations forces sent by U.S Pacific Commander in Chief Adm .Dennis Blair ( he is the same guy who propped up General Wiranto with special training while the good general was committing genocide in East Timor ) .What was to become the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence (PSYOP s division ) prepared a story ,with the assistance of India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) intelligence agency , that the King and his family were murdered as a result of the Crown Prince going nuts with automatic weapons after being forlorn over his mother's refusal to allow him to marry a commoner''.(http://www.spiescafe.com ).After eliminating Birendra for his apparently weak posture against the revolutionary and democratic forces , Gyanendra systematically undertook the mission to concentrate powers in his own hands , primarily through the Royal Army and palace bureaucracy . From the declaration of nationwide state of emergency and imposition of royal military dictatorship last November, through the engineered split in the largest parliamentary political party, the Nepali Congress, and untimely dissolution of parliament, to the virtual reduction of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission into loyal palace stooges, the demolition of all formal democratic institutions was complete within a span of one year. Hence this direct royal take-over was just a matter of time .

As regards the role of major parliamentary parties in this whole process, their principal weakness and mistake was not to grasp the age-old feudal monarchy as the foremost bulwark of reaction and instead to fancy it as an ally of ‘democracy'. Given the weak bourgeois class base of these parties, this is not very unnatural, however. Consequently, during the past 12 years in power these parties could not introduce a single programme to cut the roots of feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism and prepare a material base for sustainable bourgeois democratic institutions. None of these parties who shared state power during the period, including the parliamentary left UML, attempted to carry out radical land reforms. Rather all of them seemed to vie which each other to appease the monarchy and share the crumbs of power. As a result the shrewd monarchy continued to play one against the other and went on consolidating its own position. The utterly ridiculous
position of Deuba faction of the Nepali Congress, which was conveniently utilized by the monarchy to dismiss the parliament and spilt the largest party, only to be kicked out in the end with an ignominious label of ‘incompetent' on it , adequately speaks of the abject impotency of the parliamentary parties vis -a-vis the crafty monarchy .

And now coming to the role of Maoist PW in precipitating this counter- revolutionary backlash, there is no doubt that this last desperate action by the feudal autocratic monarchy has been consciously resorted to when all other means failed to check the ever raging revolutionary wildfire sweeping across the country. The course of events have adequately verified that the Maoist PW is basically intended to complete the bourgeois democratic revolution in the country and in that sense it was quite natural to develop a closer relation between the parliamentary forces and the Maoist revolutionaries against the feudal monarchy in latter days. This obviously alarmed the monarchy and goaded it to undertake this desperate step. However it is just the confirmation of the law of materialist dialectics that the advancing revolution would give raise to the corresponding level of counter-revolution until revolution finally triumphs over counter- revolution.

Response of Different Political Forces

There is a triangular balance of power among three political forces, viz. feudal monarchists, bourgeois parliamentarians and revolutionary democrats, currently in Nepal. Accordingly, three different responses are seen towards this royal coup, and this will largely determine the political course of events in the immediate future.

First of all, the feudal monarchist forces, sidelined but not crushed by the 1990 people's movement, have jubilantly welcomed this royal move and even audaciously taken to street celebrations shedding 12-year long political hibernation. The handful of ultra–rightist elements who had thrived on the previous autocratic monarchist Panchayati era and mostly belong to the Shah-Rana aristocratic families and big landlord and bureaucratic capitalist classes, have overnight floated various ultra-nationalist (‘mandale'in Nepali parlance) and obscurantist outfits like Pashupati Sena , Shiv Sena ,etc (a'la Bal Thackerays of India ) and demonstrated their muscle power in favour of the King . Similarly, comprador Marwari traders whose economic interests are closely tied with Shah-Rana families for long are seen to be most vociferous supporters of this royal coup. However, when this orchestrated move by the discredited revivalist elements seemed to boom rang on the monarchy, it was mysteriously curbed within a few days.

Secondly, the parliamentarians' forces, as usual, demonstrated their most vacillating, irresolute and meek character during this period. It seems to have taken several days to them to grasp the enormity of the royal move and to make any meaningful response against it. However, with the passage of time there are signs of positive development in their attitude and they are increasingly inclined to resist the royal coup.
Their collective decision not to join the royal puppet ministry, after Gyanendra refused to heed their advice regarding the formation of an interim all-party government, is a significant pointer towards this. Nevertheless, there are important overt and covert differences in the postures of different parties. Whereas the most discredited Deuba faction of the Nepali Congress, perhaps in the feats of anger at being booted out at the last moment, has termed the royal take-over as ‘unconstitutional' and ‘undemocratic' and vowed to fight against it , the larger Koirala faction more aware of the repeated betrayal of the monarchy since the days of the late B.P.Koirala has shown enough indications to resist this retrogressive move . As usual the role of the revisionist UML in this case, too, has been the most opportunistic, timid, vacillating and conciliatory. It is all the more interesting to note that the higher one moves in the leadership hierarchy of this group the more opportunistic one finds them, which was amply reflected in the response towards this royal take-over. Whereas, the General Secretary, Madhav Nepal, was initially hesitant even to condemn the counter-revolutionary coup the lower level cadres were already in the streets in protest. It is also reliably learnt that but for the firm opposition from other parliamentarist parties Madhav Nepal would have occupied the chair of puppet PM in place of Lokendra Bahadur Chand. However, the increasing pressure from other parties and its own cadres would ultimately compel the UML leadership to come out against the royal coup. As regards the other smaller parties, the rightists RPP and NSP seem to be vertically divided on the issue and the minor Left groups have so far shown positive signs to resist the royal take-over.

And thirdly, the revolutionary democratic forces, principally represented by the CPN(Maoist) and the United Revolutionary Peoples Council (URPC) (an embryonic Central People's Government Organizing Committee in the form of a revolutionary united front), have unequivocally condemned the royal take-over as a counter–revolutionary coup and called for joint resistance against it by all the parliamentary and non- parliamentary democratic forces . The CPN (Maoist) and URPC have already announced Madhes and Tharuwan (i.e.Terai) bandh (shut-down) on October 27 and a three-day Nepal bandh on November 11, 12 and 13 to protest against the counter-revolutionary coup d'e'tat. It may be relevant here to note that the CPN (Maoist) and URPC have advanced the immediate slogans of a roundtable conference of all patriotic and democratic forces, an interim government and election to a Constituent Assembly to complete the bourgeois democratic revolution, which is getting increasingly positive response from other democratic forces, the intelligentsia and the general masses. Now a general consensus is building around the revolutionary democratic proposition that unless a democratic constitution is drafted and promulgated by an elected Constituent Assembly and the feudal Royal Army is disarmed and replaced by a modern National Army such periodic royal coups cannot be prevented and democracy fully consummated and firmly implanted in the country.


Role of the International Forces

Because of the particular geo-strategic position of the country sandwiched between two super states, India and China, and a semi-colonial relation with India since the days of the 1816 Sugauli Treaty, internal political dynamics of Nepal have been invariably conditioned by the external interferences, and overt or covert hands of imperialist and expansionist forces are widely suspected to be involved in the recent royal coup d'e'tat as well. What ought to be firmly grasped in this context is that, despite their lip-services towards ‘democracy', an autocratic monarchy or a military dictatorship is seen to be more convenient and acceptable for the guardians of international monopoly capital in the backward, underdeveloped and dependent third world countries like ours, which is amply verified by the intimate patronage of imperialist powers enjoyed by the medieval Sultans of the Middle East and a host of military dictators in other parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. In the light of the increased interventionist activities of the sole superpower USA in Central and South Asia in recent times and tightening collusion between the ruling classes of USA and India with a strategic perspective of containing China, the imperialist and expansionist forces seem to have chosen the autocratic monarchy as a better bet over the democratic forces to consolidate their vested interests in the region. Hence there are enough grounds to suspect prior knowledge and approval, if not direct involvement, of the US and Indian rulers in this royal coup.

Coming to the role of Indian ruling classes, the heightened bonhomie between the ruling Hindutwa forces in India and the so-called ‘incarnation of Visnu' within the Nepalese royal palace particularly during and after Gyanendra's state visit to India last June, is there for all to see. Ban imposed on the All India Nepalese Unity Society under the draconian POTA on July 2, arrest and deportation of four journalists including P.Chhetri on July 11 and capture and disappearance of the popular mass leader Bam Dev Chhetri from New Delhi on September 5, were clearly designed to appease the monarchy. Though the South Block has so far sought to underplay the royal coup and much fuss is made about the absence of senior officers in the Indian Embassy at the time, the visit of high profile former Ambassadors K.V. Rajan and M.K. Rasgotra to Kathmandu on the eve could not have been without any implications. More significant pointers are, however, provided by the editorial comments of the pro-establishment dailies published from New Delhi. Penned perhaps earlier than the mid-night royal coup and published in the early morning edition on October 5, the Hindustan Times editorial entitled "Rumbles in Nepal'' says:"King Gyanendra is well within his powers under Article 127 of the constitution to establish an interim government under his personal charge.'' Why such hurry to provide advance legitimacy to the totally undemocratic actions of the monarchy? And The Times of India editorial of October 8 under the heading "King's Compulsions'' says: "New Delhi needs to understand the compulsions that led King Gyanendra , a monarch known for his modern outlook and pragmatism , to act in the manner he did and to help him and the interim government in every way it can to restore normality in the kingdom " Note the eulogy heaped on the most discredited and unpopular ‘King' in the Nepalese history ! It is really disturbing that the Indian ruling classes who boast about their republican and democratic political culture should so openly condone the murder of limited democracy in a neighbouring country. This has all the more fuelled the suspicion in the minds of the Nepalese people that the Indian rulers are deliberately propping up an unpopular and weakened King so as to further aggravate the ongoing civil war and to militarily intervene with the King's formal ‘invitation' in a grand strategy of Bhutanisation and Sikkimisation of Nepal. It may be worthwhile to refer to Sunanda K.Dutta-Ray's Smash and Grab on the Sikkim episode in this context.

As regards to other foreign powers, the northern neighbor China has as usual termed the developments as the ‘internal affairs' of Nepal and refused to politically commit itself on the issue. However, there are enough indications that they are keenly watching the heightened interference of other external powers, particularly theUSA, with deepening alarms.(See for example," What is the United States Doing in Nepal '' ,The World Times(Huanqiu Shibao),13 May,2002.
The Western powers, on the other hand, have been intensely lobbying to rationalize the royal coup and pressurizing the parliamentarians' parties to capitulate before the autocratic monarchy so as to defeat the "Maoist terrorists". The US Ambassador, Michael Malinowsky, is seen most active in this mission, visiting all and sundry in Kathmandu. The British Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mike O' Brien,who was in Kathmandu on October 10-12 to chair a meeting of the so-called International Contact Group , is reported to have said, "(Maoist) Terrorism can never be allowed to win . International community is determined to support democracy opposing terrorism.'' (Kathmandu Post, October 13, 2002). So who ever opposes "Maoist terrorists''is a ‘democrat'! With this funny logic Gyanendra would naturally be the greatest ‘democrat'! But, Mr. O'Brien, did all the colonized countries in the past "win" their freedom from British colonialism because you very gracefully "allowed '' it? Of course, not. The European Union, however, has struck a milder posture and called for the settlement of the issue through negotiations.

Future Prospects

As the Nepalese politics has strange tradition of going on ‘holidays' during the major festival of Dashain (or Durga Puja /Dussehera ) and Deepawali, new courses of events are still to unfold after the initial royal move . However, they are expected to be unrolled any time after the festival season. Meanwhile there are speculations galore on the future course of events, according to one's class interest or outlook. Where will the wheel of history stabilize in the immediate future? What will be the internal and external power equations? As the objective situation stands today, we can only offer some clues.

In the specific historical context of spiralling contention between the moribund feudal monarchy and up surging people's democracy in the form of a nationwide civil war, it is but natural to centralize one's forces for the decisive battle, and this royal coup d'e'tat is just a manifestation of that . Hence in the coming days revolution and counter –revolution can be logically foreseen to clash with greater intensity and ferocity. Those conversant with the father King's (i.e.Mahendra's) coup of 1960 and subsequent thirty years' protracted struggle between the autocratic and democratic forces may be inclined to believe that the history would repeat itself. But things have undergone a fundamental change between 1960 and 2002, as not only much water but also a lot of blood has flown down the Kosi, the Gandaki and the Karnali rivers.
The most apparent and significant change is that the most backward country-sides that acted as the bulwark of feudalism and reaction for ages have now been turned into liberated areas of revolutionary democrats. Still more important from the practical point of view is that for the first
time in the history of the country there now exists a well -motivated People's Liberation Army (PLA) to effectively take on and defeat the demoralized Royal Army. Also, tens of millions of masses of oppressed classes, castes, gender, regions and nationalities now identify monarchy as the principal guardian of the oppressive and exploitative order and the main target of their immediate wrath . In such a vastly changed scenario a successful anti-monarchy uprising could materialize much sooner than ordinarily expected.

However, two major factors are likely to influence the pace of the revolutionary democratic process. Firstly, it would be the role of the parliamentary democratic forces in the anti-monarchy movement. Even though the guardians of international monopoly capital are working overtime at the moment to bring about one more rapprochement between the autocratic monarchy and the parliamentarians forces citing the rising spectre of "Maoist terrorists'', the parliamentary democrats would have to decide for themselves whether they want to be deceived by a Musarraf-style ‘election' under the aegis of Gyanendra (if at all he holds it in the near future ) and get politically liquidated for ever ,or they would like to do away with the despotic monarchy once and for all and consummate democracy in the country . There is no other alternative left. All ‘constitutional' paths for restoration of the spineless parliamentary democracy of the past are now totally blocked. Since, once you acknowledge the ‘right' of the monarchy to snatch away or return the ‘executive powers' of the state at its whims, then the Damocles' sword of a royal coup will for ever dangle over the head of parliament and democracy. It is in this context that we have been hammering on a round-table conference of all democratic forces, an interim government, election to a Constituent Assembly and formation of a National Army in place of the Royal Army . Only this way can the ‘Sovereignty' and ‘State Authority' be effectively handed over to the people from the monarchy. And this is nothing but a pure and simple bourgeois democratic programme. Also, all concerned should note that the CPN (Maoist) has publicly committed itself to a multiparty system in the future. That is why our constant appeal to all the parliamentary parties has been – ‘you accept republicanism, we will accept multiparty-ism'. Hence there are strong chances that on the basis of this common minimum programme there would be a second edition of 1990 people's movement, but with higher intensity and efficacy, in the near future.

Secondly, the role of the international forces, particularly the USA and India, would have a significant bearing on this whole process.
It is quite intriguing that these powers, who boast themselves as the greatest republicans and democrats in the world have so far chosen to side with the monarchy in this historic fight between monarchy and democracy, despite our best efforts to make them see reason.
(See, Nepalese People's Appeal to the International Community, URPC, August 2002) . What these powers fail to realize is that so-called constitutional monarchies in some advanced capitalist countries were brought back by the victorious bourgeoisies to function under their (i.e. bourgeoisie's) exclusive hegemony, and in the pre-capitalist countries like ours there would be either autocratic monarchy or no monarchy at all. This is the objective law of history, which cannot be altered by the anybody's pious wishes. As regards the vain hopes of restoring order in the strategically placed Himalayan state under the hegemony of a discredited monarchy, that is another great illusion of these powers which will burst asunder sooner than they realize. It is thus expected that the genuine democratic forces in the international community, particularly the closest neighbour India, will prevail upon the faulty policies of their respective governments and let the Nepalese people decide their own future themselves.

Wheel of history may be temporarily stalled, but it cannot be permanently turned back. As Karl Marx had remarked, the father King's (i.e.Mahendra's) ‘tragedy' of 1960 may be repeated as the son King's (i.e. Gyanendra's) ‘farce' of 2002, but nothing more than that. Our own new edition of ‘eighteenth Brumaire' may not last that long.

October 18, 2002

Postscript

Meanwhile the traditional festival season is over and the country's politics is slowly coming out of the month-long hibernation. The much earlier declared 3-day Nepal bandh (general shutdown) for November 11-13 by the CPN (Maoist) and the URPC has been a grand success. On November 14, in one of the biggest military strike by the PLA, the district headquarter of Jumla in far-western Nepal has been successfully raided and a police station over-run in Takukot of Gorkha, in which more than a hundred armed personnel of the old state along with the Chief District Officer of Jumla were killed. This has thoroughly exposed the utter fragility of the autocratic monarchical regime and boosted the morale of the revolutionary masses.

On the other hand, Gyanendra's frantic efforts to buy over the major parliamentary forces to his side have not overtly paid off, as they have refused to join in his puppet ministry unless he retracts his retrogressive steps. Utterly frustrated (or emboldened?), he has expanded the puppet ministry on November 18 with the inclusion of a host of ‘rotten eggs' thrown away from different parties at different points of time to create the illusion of an ‘all–party government'. But he is not likely to fool anybody, except himself and his close coterie.

The international community, in the meantime, seems to have fathomed some ground reality in the country and there are some signs of their distancing away from the hated monarchy. May be they do not want to risk their total stakes on the losing horse. Hence in the most dramatic manner (or with tacit prodding from US rulers?), the UN resident representative to Nepal has publicly offered to broker a negotiation between the two warring sides. The climb down of the Indian ruling classes has been all the more hilarious. In a series of four editorials within one and half month, (i.e. October 8,19, 24 and November 18) The Times of India has progressively toned down its pro-monarchy posture. The gem of their newfound wisdom on the situation in Nepal, as expressed in the November 18 editorial, is worth quoting in some detail:

"The state of near civil war in Nepal with the monarchy unable to check the unrelenting Maoist offensive is an SOS that those interested in peace in the Himalayan Kingdom cannot ignore. Friends of Nepal would agree that the situation appears irretrievably grim as things stand today….
.
" Clearly, the problem has become too big for the authorities in Nepal to tackle. Like in Sri Lanka, where Norway entered as a broker to persuade all parties to take the initiative for peace, Nepal to probably needs the healing touch provided by external brokers. Norway's peace venture in Sri Lanka did not gather momentum till the international community, especially Washington, threw its weight behind the moves. In Nepal too any headway towards ending the insurgency appears unlikely without Washington's tacit help. However, New Delhi, which has been giving all assistance to Kathmandu for combating "Maoist terrorism" will do well not to get embroiled any further in this conflict. For, that would be courting another fiasco like the IPKF mission to Sri Lanka. That does not, however, preclude the government of India initiating a proposal for a credible international broker, with SAARC, Europe and the United States supporting such facilitation.
This is of utmost importance and should be done without delay before mischievous elements move in and further vitiate the situation in
Nepal. "

So we will have to wait a bit more to see other acts of the unfolding drama.

November 19, 2002

[The author, Baburam Bhattarai, is Standing Committee Member of CPN (Maoist) and Convenor of United Revolutionary People's
Council, Nepal]