ON A SUICIDE MISSION.

By John Narayan Parajuli

[Note: In the light of the mass demonstration that has culminated into an unprecedented scale, I am posting again the following piece that I wrote in February—keeping in mind the international audience. King Gyanendra’s detachment from reality or his deliberate oversight might just turn the prophecy below a reality.This piece is relevant in putting together the different pieces of the Nepalese political puzzle together.]

Nepal’s monarchy is facing an early death—as it has pushed itself to the brink of abolition—closer than ever before.

Following King Gyanendra’s ascension to the throne in 2001, Nepal’s monarchy has pushed itself into a downhill spiral of unpopularity—through a series of political and constitutional misadventures—that has culminated into a growing consensus among Nepalese, except a tiny percentage of loyal royalists, that the merits of royalty are few and far between

The traditional support bases of the monarchy have been eroding rapidly. What now remain as its only comfort are the Royal Nepal Army and a small clique of deeply entrenched elites who are reaping huge profits from the war-economy.
For all practical reason the King of Nepal is on a suicide mission. He certainly has a sense of where he is heading, at least his vague reference to “history being the judge” of his actions—in his speech marking the first anniversary of his power grab on Feb.1 seems to indicate as much. King Gyanendra is right in that regard. It is unlikely that history will overlook the end of monarchy in Nepal, unless of course, he quickly overhauls his modus operandi.

Let’s give King Gyanendra his due—for exacerbating political and constitutional crisis through his royal coup. He has hastened the death of the institution of monarchy that he represents—that had consolidated its position barely 16 years earlier. In 1990 King Birendra assumed a figurehead role following a popular movement. This restored democracy in Nepal after 30 years one party autocratic rule. The restoration of democracy in Nepal also restored the popularity of the monarchy to an unprecedented level, albeit for a very short period. Birendra was succeed by his younger brother Gyanendra after an infamous palace massacre perpetrated by Birendra’s son and then the crown prince Dipendra, who later killed himself too, wiping out Birendra’s entire family line.
Since then public resentment against the current royal family has grown by leaps and bounds. Now an increasing number of people believe that it is the obstacle to a meaningful democracy in Nepal. Such consensus is not limited to mere opinion; rather it has been characterized by deep resentment of the king’s power grab on February 1, 2005 and his handling of the Maoists insurgency. The crown prince, whose notoriety rivals that of Uday Hussein, has further damaged the royal family’s reputation. Crown Prince Paras has been implicated in hit-and-run incidents that took the life of a popular singer and countless shootout incidents.
Consequently, many young Turks from Nepal’s leading political parties are spearheading an upwardly popular campaign to establish a republic. In the past political parties had allied with the palace steadfastly defending a constitutional monarchy. But in recent days following the royal putsch of Feb.1, 2005, these parties have done a rethinking on their ideology. The Nepali Congress Party, its splinter group Nepali Congress (Democratic) and CPN-UML, who together have traditionally controlled more than two-thirds of Nepalese parliament, have amended their respective party statutes omitting a reference to the constitutional monarchy. This is a big blow to the palace. But even bigger blow has been coming from the Maoists’ insurgency for years now.

Last week Maoists’ leader Prachanda, whose party has been waging a 10 year armed insurgency against the Nepali state, predicted two options for the monarchy, in an interview with the BBC: execution or exile. Certainly the Maoists have been emboldened by the split between the monarchy and the mainstream democratic parties, yet Prachanda’s prediction is more than just rhetoric of an energized rebel leader.

Prachanda certainly has a flair for theatrics, like most leftist leaders, yet his manner have been tempered with realism and seems capable of making a realistic assessment. Like it or not, this new found realism among the Maoists have brought them more political gains in last one year or two, than in last 10 years collectively.

In November last year, the Maoists entered into an alliance with the seven mainstream parties in a bid to establish a working coalition to overthrow the “dictatorial regime” of the king. Since then the fallout has been rather damaging for the king and his men.

Even a sworn enemy of radical communism, the United States has adopted a wait-and-see approach—after initially warning the parties to annul the alliance with the Maoists. This is a significant shift in U.S. policy on Nepal, which few analysts seem to have noticed. Another traditional supporter is India. While, India still pays lip service to constitutional monarchy, it is under mounting pressure from its civil society to forgo its “obsolete” and “antiquated” policy on Nepal.

Just three years earlier, republicanism was a taboo. But the pace of progression has thunderstruck not just the royals and the commoners, even the Maoists themselves.