New Nepal: The Last Opportunity

 Introduction

It is the November elections for the new Constituent Assembly (CA-2) under the leadership of Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi that probably stands in the way between ‘New Nepal’ and ‘Functional Collapse of the State’. The journey from peace accord to CA-1 to CA-2 has been from consensus to institutional disarray. In 2006, the pro-democracy parties agreed to come on the platform of ‘Republicanism, Federalism and Secularism’.  With the credibility of the political parties at lowest ebb, and given the impasse, the only alternative was a Chief Justice led government. The peril, however is that if the experiment fails it may lead to the serious erosion of credibility of the ultimate institution of Chief Justice and judiciary as such, and eventually result in the demise of the idea of ‘New Nepal’.

Elusive Parliamentary Democracy

In March 2013, the Chief Justice of Nepal Khil Raj Regmi was appointed Chairman of the Cabinet, as compromise candidate to oversee the new Constituent Assembly Elections. He can be considered as de-facto Prime Minister of the country, the 36th in line. The whooping number of prime ministers, of which nearly two-third held office after restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1990, is indicative of the vitiated political culture and instability in the country.  The fruitless foregoing Constituent Assembly between 2008 and 2012 threw up no less than five prime ministers in five years. Regmi replaced Babu Ram Bhattarai, who was PM for nearly 19 months. The outgoing Constituent Assembly failed to deliver a Constitution primarily because of the obduracy of the Maoists. Prachanda recently made a public admission wherein he owned the responsibility for the failure of the Constituent Assembly (CA) and not brining the key-ingredients of the future Constitution to debate.[i]

New Nepal: Floundering Basics

The Constituent Assembly (CA), which came into being in May 2008, betrayed peoples’ mandate when it failed to deliver a Constitution even after four extensions, between May 2010 and May 2012. Exasperated, the Supreme Court refused any further extensions. Leave alone tricky issues like federalism, the CA could not arrive at any consensus even on the basics of new identity of Nepal. The Maoists dissented on the very name of the Constitution. As opposed to the majority which was for “Constitution of Nepal-2010” the UCPN-M insisted on “The Constitution of People’s Federal Republic of Nepal-2010.” Further, it proposed that the words “people’s war” be included in the preamble. The word ‘people’ is an ideological compulsion for the Maoists. It recurs everywhere - peoples’ court, peoples’ war, peoples’ liberation army etc. This is in fact a matter of bitter debate between radical and democratic communists. There was no consensus on the national flag either. 

Exasperation of International Community

At the UN General Assembly, Khil Raj Regmi defended his dual positions on the plea that it was the major political parties, having considered all options, forged a consensus on forming a neutral government under him to conduct free, fair and credible CA . On his return he reiterated that there was no question of his resigning as the Chief Justice. The most strident in this demand is the CPN-M and consequently refuses to participate in the elections.

The assertiveness in Regmi’s posturing after his UN visit can be ascribed to the support of the international community. Mohan Baidya, the leader of the CPN (Maoist), the breakaway faction of the Maoists said: “Chief Justice led government was planted by foreign powers and is threat to national sovereignty.”[ii] He indirectly took a swipe on India by saying that the elections will lead to ‘Sikkimisation of Nepal’. About 82 members of the dissolved CA have declared allegiance to Baidya. The total number of seats held by the Maoists before split was 229.

Maoist Parties Propensity to Violence

Baidya, known for his close links with China has been threatening to obstruct the polls even if it necessitates violence. Reportedly the CPN-M conducted training for its cadres in the first week of September in an obscure location in Rukum in the art of disrupting elections. The CPN-M cadres have begun targeting members of other parties, engaged in election campaigning or filing nominations. Further, CPN-M chairman Mohan Baidya, Vice-Chairman CP Gaujrel, General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa and Secretary Netra Bikram Chand convened a meeting of their leaders and central committee members in Dang on October 9 and 10 to formulate ways to disrupt the polls.

External Manipulations of Maoists

The China and CPN-M connection became evident when Baidya chose to visit China as his first foreign trip in the wake of the split with UPCN-M in July 2012.  Exactly, a year later Baidya and CP Gaujrel again made a sudden visit to China in the second week of July this year. This abrupt visit was at a time when there was a meeting scheduled between Baidya and the Indian Foreign Minister Salmaan Khurshid at Hotel Dwarika in Kathmandu. This diplomatic insult only reinforced the stranglehold of China over the Maoist parties, and its bid to influence politics in Nepal. In the latest visit of Baidya, the Chinese authorities reportedly urged the CPN-M not to boycott the polls and reunify with the UCPN-M.[iii] This appears to be a motivated leak. CP Gaujrel later said: “They (Chinese) leaders did not tell us to go or not go to the polls, according to them the decision is our internal matter.” A politburo member close to Baidya said that the delegation managed to convince the Chinese leaders that the decision to boycott polls was for the good of the country and the people.[iv]

Baidya and Gaujrel have always been uneasy with expressions like ‘peace process’ and ‘democratic republic’. The latter, they contend was only a tactical goal, the ultimate objective being establishment of a “Peoples’ Federal Republic”, in other words ‘One Party State’ like China. Baidya and Gaujrel, who were in Indian jails during 2005-2006 peace process are virulently anti-India.   

Support for Monarchy?

The subtle demand for restoration of Constitutional Monarchy in Nepal is coming from unexpected quarters, i.e. from the ultra-left to the extreme-right. In this regard, the China factor is significant. Netra Bikram Chand, CPN-M secretary, at a press meet in Dhangadi in July this year indicated the possibility of a deal with former King Gyanendra Shah to preserve the nationalism and sovereignty. Significantly Baidya who had just returned from China, said that such deal has become ‘necessity’.[v] NC Leader Shashank Koirala told BBC that removing “monarchy was a mistake[vi] and moreover it was not a demand of mass movement of 2006 and a time will come when we all have to think of the decision. Even BP Koirala, who was jailed by King Mahendra for eight years, kept insisting on Constitutional monarchy.” 

India No Longer Sole Arbiter

Since the Maoists came to power in Nepal in 2008, the Chinese footprints in the Indo-Nepal border region in Terai became increasingly pronounced, particularly by way of more than 20 China Study Centers (CSC). These serve as training ground of Maoist ideology and anti-India propaganda. Indian Maoists are reportedly visiting these centers. Intelligence gathering on India is very much on agenda of these CSCs. Also China Radio International has a local FM station in Kathmandu and smaller radio stations in Indo-Nepal border regions. The pace at which CSCs have multiplied indicates the growing anti-India component of Chinese influence in Nepal.[vii]

Towards the end of 2012, the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal Yang Houlan had divulged that he was in constant dialogue with the Indian Ambassador Jayant Prasad on matters relating to peace and stability in Nepal, thus indicating China’s challenge to India’s lead role in the country.[viii] In an interaction programme, organised by China Study Center, the then Chinese Ambassador to Nepal Quo Gaohang had said: “If Nepal faces threat to its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, China as a good friend, in addition to arms support in the eventuality, will also provide financial and diplomatic support”.[ix]

Geopolitically, the run-up to the elections, prove three things: first, India is no longer the sole arbitrator in the political destiny of Nepal; secondly, the Western countries have developed critical interest in the stability of Nepal, may be due to the China factor; and thirdly, the Nepal Army has bounced back as an institutional force since substantial number its personnel are to be deployed for the conduct of elections. It is the Nepal Army, which the Maoist leaders wanted to destroy or at least undermine in their bid to capture the Stat[x] From the latest signals and preparations it can be inferred that the election government and the international community are more than aware of the threat are determined to defeat any disruption attempts by the CPN-M and 33 other smaller parties.

Nepal Army: Institutional Resurrection

The Nepal Army as institutional force is back in the reckoning .It may well, though unwittingly, may be drawn into sphere of governance if the political discourse in the country does not mend in the run-up to the CA election or after. It may be recalled that the political fortunes of Prachanda led government hurtled down since the sacking of the then Army Chief Gen Rookmangud Katwal on May 03, 2009, a decision subsequently overruled by the President. This led to the withdrawal of support by CPN-UML and collapse of the Prachanda government. Gen Katwal had fiercely resisted absorption of Maoists rebels in the Nepal Army and defeated endeavors by the Maoist government to alter the character of the institution. Recently among many confessions made publically, Prachanda acknowledged his mistake of sacking Army Chief.[xi]

Arguably, one of the success stories of the foregone Constituent Assembly (CA) has been the absorption of 1,460 Maoist (PLA) cadres out of 19,600 into the Nepal Army. The rest opted for a civilian life with a rehabilitation package of $10,200. [xii]

Some 70 officers and 1350 other ranks were absorbed in the Army on August 2013. The Officers underwent a training of nine months at Nepalese Military Academy at Khairpatti (12-miles east of Kathmandu). Of the 70 Officers, 13 were taken as Majors, 30 as Captains and 24 as Lieutenants.[xiii]  The Army had resisted the integration on the grounds that it was dangerous to have politically indoctrinated cadres in its ranks. Fortunately, these absorbed Maoist cadres will only form part of non-combatant units dealing with natural disasters, industrial security etc.[xiv] In end-September 2013, Baidya wrote to the UN Secretary General, not to support the deployment of the Army  in the forthcoming election on the plea that it was against the spirit of ‘Comprehensive Peace Accord’ of 2006.

Federalism an Explosive Issue

While the Maoists have been advocating ethnicity based federalism, the NC and CPN-UML have been arguing for geographical divisions based on five-province or at the most seven. The Maoist emphasis on ethnicity based federalism was driven by their agenda to steer the country away from Hindu identity and nationalism. Moreover, it was from the ethnic groups that the Maoists drew their armed cadres. Nevertheless and very recently in August 2013, Baburam Bhattarai unambiguously abandoned the idea of ‘single ethnicity based federalism’ while addressing a gathering in Itahari. Ethnicity based federalism suffers from inherent flaws. The ethnic groups like Rais, Tamangs, Newars, Gurungs, Magars, Tharus and Limbus is between 33 and 35 percent. No group therefore is in majority in the proposed provinces.[xv] Majority of these ethnic groups (janjatis) live outside the claimed/proposed areas and have fused with the social, economic and cultural life of their home communities. 

The European Union and Scandinavian countries view the future federal structure of Nepal entirely through the prism of religious agenda. They see rich harvest of religious conversions in an ethnic federal structure. On his return from China in April this year, Prachanda said that China was worried about whether federalism would result in stability or push Nepal in to anarchism. He further clarified that China’s prime concern was Tibet and therefore was apprehensive that federalism may spawn different power centers which would provide an opportunity to maneuver different activities to create problems in Tibet. Similar apprehensions were raised by China during the visit of Mohan Baidya in July 2012.

The Mustang memory continues to haunt China. Mustang, a northern district of Nepal, inhabited by Tibetan speakers, following Lamaist religion served as base to launch operations by US trained and armed Khampa rebels against the PLA in Tibet in the late 50s and early 60s. China does not want to contend with too many federal states on its border. A unified Nepal with one power center is therefore of vital strategic interest to China. It feels that ethnic based federalism will create several power centers and may lead to disintegration of the country. [xvi]

Prachanda vis-à-vis China & India

Prachanda’s trip to India  in April this year was in the wake of his week-long visit of China, wherein he had confabulated with the new Chinese leadership including President Xi Jinping.[xvii] Significantly during his visit, Prachanda proposed tri-lateral cooperation between India-China-Nepal. This mischievous proposal came at a time when New Delhi and Beijing were engaged in the military and diplomatic stand-off in DBO sector in Ladakh. Besides, other joint-ventures, he particularly emphasized on investment by India and China in hydel projects and development of Lumbini as a religious and cultural center. The latter proposal is of concern to India, given the historical linkages and proximity of Lumbini on the Indo-Nepal border. Prachanda has been clamouring for revision / abrogation of Indo-Nepal Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950. At the same time he has been a diehard proponent of similar treaty with China. Thus by way of tri-lateral cooperation, he is trying to use a devious method to ingratiate Nepal into the strategic orbit of China. Rightly, the Union External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid turned down the proposal with the refrain that the time was not right.[xviii]

It may be recalled that against the established diplomatic practice of last 50 years, Prachanda, on becoming prime minister had chosen China for his first visit and not India.

Conclusion

The indulgence of both Baidya and Prachanda by China is typical of its strategic culture, as it maintains more than one leverage in the countries of interest. It is again typical of China to invest both in the revolutionary and political route to influence politics in the target country. India can afford to ignore this truism at its own peril.

RSN Singh is a former R&AW Officer and an Author of Military Factor in Pakistan

Views expressed are personal