NEPAL: THE KING TAKES CHARGE: Will
1960 be repeated?- Update No. 21.
by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan
The King of Nepal issued an order under Article 127 of
the Constitution relieving Prime minister Deuba of his post on 4th
October and dissolved the Council of Ministers.
The points made by the King were
* The Prime minister is being relieved for his
incompetence in not being able to conduct the general elections on the
stipulated date.
* The general elections scheduled to be held on
November 13 this year has been postponed.
* The King will exercise executive powers until new
arrangements are made.
* A new council of ministers will be formed within
five days, of persons who have clean images and who will not be
participating in the elections.
* The commitment to Constitutional Monarchy and the
multiparty democratic polity will not be allowed to be compromised.
* The government so constituted will make
arrangements for peace and security as soon as possible and conduct
the general elections.
In our earlier update No. 20 we had predicted that the
King would take recourse to Article 127 of the Constitution. We
quote- "If elections are not held the King has the option to take
recourse to Article 127 of the Constitution and constitute a ministry of
his own for the interim period until elections are held.... The action of
the King though within the Constitution will certainly be a set back to
democracy and coming from an active and an assertive King, there could be
legitimate fears that he may perpetuate his hold on the country by this
means.
It is not going to be easy to find political leaders
with a clean image in Nepal just as it is difficult in India too.
What the King would get will be politicos who are totally pliable and
would do whatever the King wants them to. One recalls the days
between 1960 when the lawfully constituted democratic government of B.P.
Koirala was dismissed and the advent of multiparty democracy in 1990,
the King was able to rule the country through many leaders whose only
qualifications were total and abject surrender to the King’s
wishes. It is hoped that the elections will be held as soon as
possible by the newly constituted government and a lawfully elected
government takes over the reins of the government.
Some legal experts contend that in the absence of
Parliament the King cannot use this provision to dismiss a prime
minister. Section 127 reads as follows. " If any
difficulty arises in connection with implementation of this Constitution,
His Majesty may issue necessary orders to remove such difficulty and such
orders shall be laid before the Parliament. " There is no doubt
that a constitutional crisis had arisen when the Prime minister had shown
his helplessness to conduct the elections within the stipulated
period. In the absence of a Parliament what should the King do?
Reconvene the Parliament as some of the political parties suggested? The
Constitution does not provide for such a provision. Eggs scrambled
cannot be unscrambled.
Deuba could have pre-empted the King by suggesting the
formation of an all party interim government along with the recommendation
of postponement of polls. This he did not do. While the general
consensus was that the elections could be postponed by six months, his
cabinet decided to recommend postponement by one year which was too long a
period. In the course of the Cabinet meeting in the morning of
November 3rd, Deuba met the King. At that time it is
heard that Deuba was willing to resign. In the afternoon, when Deuba
met the King again with the decision of the cabinet to recommend
postponement by one year he perhaps did not indicate his willingness to
resign. What changed his mind and who? It is still not clear.
Deuba could have avoided his own ignominious dismissal!
The first mistake Deuba made was in trusting the King
and following his instructions in recommending extension of emergency when
his family- the party headed by G.P. Koirala was against it.; The second
mistake was in seeking dissolution of the Parliament , paving the way for
fresh elections within six months when he knew that the law and order
situation in view of the Maoist menace was not improving but steadily
worsening. He could not have conducted the elections within six
months. Third, in the interim period as a care taker government, his
mandate is limited and he should have kept the King informed of all the
developments. This he did not do. Fourth, he trusted other
political parties who gave a general and weak mandate to find a way out of
the constitutional crisis and contradictory advice to restore the
parliament and defer polls! Fifth, he should have accepted the schedule
given by the Election Commission to have the poll in six phases from
November 13 till Jan 10, consulted the King before recommending formal
deferment of polls!
Thus Deuba has been left in lurch by the King, his
political allies and his friends. There is no doubt that he is a
clean and a genuine person. He did the same mistake B.P.Koirala did
in the sixties. Koirala was over confident of himself and under estimated
the powers of the King. The result was that the nascent democracy
was snuffed out within nineteen months and Nepal had to wait for thirty
years after many sacrifices. This time it is hoped that it will not
be so.
There are a few points which India needs to think well
in advance in dealing with Nepal.
Firstly, the Maoist problem that started in 1996 has
only worsened with more than fifty five districts now affected. It
has ramifications for Indian security also and there is material and moral
support from across the border for the movement from Bihar and West
Bengal. The Nepal government continues to be under an illusion that
the Maoist movement is only a law and order problem. It has a social
and an economic base. The west central region is the most poverty
stricken area and this is where the Maoists had a stronghold and from
where they started the movement.
Secondly, there is widespread anti Indian feeling in the
urban centres and in the centres of power. One is the Indo-Nepal
Friendship treaty which gives the impression of Nepal being a client
state. Nepal has been demanding a review of the treaty and it is not
restricted to any one or a few parties but comes from all the
parties. The earlier it is reviewed the better.
Thirdly, from the Panchayat days Nepal has
deliberately spread the wrong impression that India has cheated in the
Kosi and Gandak projects. No new project has since been finalised
and none is likely in the near future. India should understand this
and seek joint projects elsewhere. There will only be frustration is
trying to negotiate with Nepal on joint river projects.
Fourthly, in the current situation India should ensure
that both multi party democracy and constitutional monarchy are preserved
along with human rights and full freedom for its people. Unfortunately in
this crucial period, India does not have a full fledged ambassador there.
