Gyanendra Shah had all of a sudden become the king after the bloody massacre in the Narayanhity Royal Palace in 2001 in which his elder brother and the then king Birendra Shah and all his family members were killed mysteriously.
The king who was a veteran businessman could not be as successful in politics as he was in business. Therefore, he was swept away by people’s power with the declaration of Nepal as a republican country by over throwing the 240 years monarchy.
Curiosities prevail everywhere about next steps of the former king. Though he has not cleared his plan for future, the dethroned monarch , in the statement that he read during the press conference has clearly stated –“ I would like to live in my own motherland and contribute in whatever way possible to the greater good of the country and peace in this land.”
However, he is not clear about whether he will actively be involved in party politics or not.
Property Disputes
Despite all the rumors about former king Gyanendra’s possibilities to go to India for shelter , he has been staying in the Nagarjun palace which had been used to by himself at the time of his reign and that has been nationalized as national heritage recently by Nepal government.
The royal office as well as the former king’s palace has been evacuated and the government has decided to turn the palace into a national Museum. However , the mother of Gyanendra, Ratna Shah and his grandmother have been provided the Mahendra Manjil , section of Narayanhity for shelter for a time being.
Gyanendra was the billionaire owner of Surya Nepal, Soltee and some other hereditary and personal property. However the government has provided him a house to live in. Though he has been staying in the house managed by the government, he has expressed his wish to have rights to maintain private property according to the law.
One of the major political parties Communist Party Of Nepal ( Maoist) has claimed that Gyanendra has owned billions of dollars worth property in the foreign countries which Gyanendra has openly refused in his statements. However the CPN (Maoist) has declared that the new government will investigate and find the facts out about his property.
Royal Massacre Probe
Former king has denied the blame leveled at him for the royal palace massacre by CPN (Maoist). But the senior Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai has informed that the event will be probed again by the newly formed government. Dr. Bhattarai had firstly publicly accused Gyanendra Shah of being involved in the royal massacre 2001. And now Dr. Bhattarai and his party has declared that the dethroned king would help probing the incident.
The probe committee formed just after the royal massacre had given clean cheat to the then king Gyanendra, however, Dr. Bhattarai has said that king Gyanendra had been involved in the incident in co-operation with CIA , so the incident must be probed again by the new government which is going to form in the leading of CPN (Maoist).
Monarch to Politician?
The source closer to Gyanendra has revealed that though there are rumors about Gyanendra to come to active politics he is unlikely to be involved in party politics. Ex-monarch in his press statement has made commitment that he would not leave the country, but would rather work for the promotion of nationalism, peace and prosperity. His commitment to live within the country and contribute in whatever way possible to the greater good of the country and peace has hinted that he might come to active politics.
The president of CPN (Maoist) Puspa Kamal Dahal Prachanda has expressed his views that the dethroned king will have right to open political party and involved in the politics as other citizens.
A close political adviser and the home minister of Gyanendra’s government after the Political coop in 2002 has stated that the ex-king is unlikely to open a new party and be involved in party politics. He has even strongly suggested the dethroned king not to be involved in party politics. Thapa is still of the opinion that monarchy should be restored.
If the ex-king joins party politics it will be difficult to restore monarchy. Therefore he suggests ex-king not to join party politics.If ex-king does so the principle of monarchy will be dismissed. He still shows the importance of monarchy and has expressed his commitment to restore monarchy. But he strongly denies ex-king’s involvement in party politics.
Restoration of Monarchy ?
In the meeting with the chairman of CPN (Maoist) Puspa Kamal Dahal Prachanda, the former king’s messenger Kamal Thapa had said that the country would have a terrible consequence if it was declared republic. Now also, he tries to prove the relevance of his previous opinion . He says – “There are indications for restoration of monarchy in Nepal.”
In this context of his close people advising him not to be involved in active politics, the ex-king is unlikely to take part in politics. However, he is likely to help those groups who are struggling for restoration of monarchy.
According to the monarchists, ex-king will not form away new political groups or parties, rather he will continue to support the earlier political parties which are pro-monarchist. These parties have still been trying to convince that a favorable condition to restore monarchy can be created.
From the close sources of ex-king Gyanendra it has been known that he wants to continue his previous business maintaining his identity as a former king rather than as an active politician.
[By Kishor Panthi, the author may be reached via email at kishorpanthi@gmail.com.]
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Citizen-Turned-Monarch Becoming Politician?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Tea with Maoists
Baburam Bhattarai and I are very different. He studied Marxist analysis at Jawarhalal Nehru University; I studied neoclassical economics at the University of California at Berkeley. He founded Nepal’s United People’s Front and went underground during the Maoist rebellion; I taught at Harvard and now work at the World Bank. He has a picture of Che Guevara on his car’s gas cap; mine has the logo of my daughter’s soccer team.
Nevertheless, based on our speeches and writings as well as an afternoon together in Kathmandu recently, we found much common ground. We are both concerned about the high and rising inequality in South Asia in general, and Nepal in particular. We agreed that among the causes of this inequality are: (i) slow growth in agriculture; and (ii) lack of employment growth, especially in manufactured exports. I then pushed the envelope a bit by suggesting that the reasons for both (i) and (ii) were government policies which, although introduced with the best of intentions, are backfiring and hurting the poor. For instance, in Sri Lanka, government policy forces farmers to grow rice, a highly vulnerable and not very profitable crop. And the lack of manufactured-export-led employment growth in South Asia in general is associated with extremely restrictive labor regulations in the subcontinent.
Baburam countered on agriculture by saying that the real reason is the feudal relationships that dominated South Asian agriculture. Unless these relationships are changed, simply integrating with the global economy would not benefit the poor. On labor regulations, without disagreeing with the direction of the effect, he wondered whether the magnitude was so great. He suggested other reasons why there was little manufactured export growth in Nepal, including the small size of the domestic market, low levels of education and health of the workers, and weak infrastructure. I agreed with the last factor, but pointed out that other countries with equally low levels of education and health, such as Bangladesh, have been able to attract sizeable investments in garment exports, employing some 2 million workers. Bangladesh also has the least restrictive labor regulations in South Asia. One of his Maoist colleagues from the Planning Commission put it plainly: “These labor laws protect a few hundred thousand workers at the expense of the millions who are trying to get jobs.”
We then discussed infrastructure, particularly the need for greater investment in hydropower in Nepal. Baburam agreed that Nepal needed this. I gingerly asked why I had been given the impression that the Maoists were opposed to foreign investment in the sector, especially by India. He complained about Nepal’s “excessive” dependence on India (he said 75 percent of exports went to India—the real figure is about 60 percent). When we pushed him on the point, he explained that their real fear was that Indian companies would buy up all the licenses and extract all the profits. We said that we feared the same thing, which was why we were trying to design programs for benefit-sharing by the population living in the river basins. He seemed pleased to learn this, and responded favorably to the proposition that Nepal needed a major effort to harness its enormous hydropower potential.
Finally, Baburam asked a question: “Why does the World Bank say it will give money for education only if schools are transferred to communities?” My colleague, Roshan Bajracharya, pointed out that the Bank has never said this. What we do say is that we would like to give money so that it benefits students. If the government has a benchmark of 40 students per teacher, we will calibrate our assistance accordingly, and make sure that each group of 40 students gets a teacher, and that teacher is actually teaching. Our experience has been that simply funding the teacher doesn’t achieve this. By contrast, school management committees appear to be better at getting teachers to teach. Consequently, we do fund the program of transferring management to school management committees, but the principle is that we would like money to chase the student rather than the teacher. Baburam said that direct conversations such as the one we were having were useful to allay false impressions.
In closing, both Baburam and I confirmed that this had been a useful start, and hoped that we could have a continuing dialogue on economic policy issues.
Endnote: Throughout the meeting, Baburam had been staring quizzically at Roshan. When the meeting ended, Roshan reminded him that they had been at college together (albeit many years apart), and that Baburam’s wife was Roshan’s classmate. This led to another round of handshakes and smiles all around.
Maoists Give Up Claim To Nepal President's Post
Thursday 05th of June 2008Faced with steadfast opposition from the other major parties, Nepal's Maoists Thursday decided to abandon their claim to the post of president but said they remained firm on the other contentious demand for an amendment to the constitution.The political deadlock that had gripped Nepal since the election two months ago eased slightly following the former rebels' announcement that they would not demand the two top posts in the government.The central secretariat of the party, with its front-ranking members, held a five-hour meeting at party chief Prachanda's residence in the capital Thursday and decided to make the concession.'We had wanted an executive president,' Maoist lawmaker Post Bahadur Bogoti told the media after the marathon meeting. 'However, since the other parties insisted on a ceremonial president, we decided to concede the post.'However, the Maoists are ready to oppose any bid by Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala or his Nepali Congress party to grab the post for him.'Since the president is ceremonial, the top party leaders shouldn't be given the post,' Bogoti said. 'We are proposing that the president be chosen from the civil society or prominent citizens.'On May 28, Nepal's newly elected constituent assembly formally abolished monarchy, proclaiming Nepal a federal republic.Since deposed king Gyanendra had been the constitutional head of state in the past, with his ouster, the nation has been without a head.The appointment of a president was halted with the Maoists staking claim to the post, saying that as the largest party after the election, they should be given both the posts of president and prime minister.The deepening feud led to the former guerrillas finally threatening that they would quit the coalition government if Koirala did not resign.Though the deadline given to Koirala has expired, the Maoists have not carried out their threat to start a new street agitation since the newly elected constituent assembly is scheduled to hold its second meeting later Thursday and any disruption would go against them.But while capitulating on the issue of president, Bogoti said his party had not changed its view that the current constitutional proviso about removing the prime minister should remain the same.Currently, the premier can be sacked only if two-thirds of the lawmakers agree.But the other parties are demanding that it be brought down to simple majority so that they can keep a Maoist government on a tight leash.'The focus of this constituent assembly should be drafting a new constitution,' Bogoti said. 'We don't want it to drift away with the parties beginning their old trick of trying to topple the government.'The persisting differences have come in the way of giving full shape to the much-awaited assembly.It needs to have 26 more members nominated. Though the nominations were to have been made by May 28, the parties failed to do so due to their squabble over power-sharing.Consequently, the chief of a fringe party has moved Nepal's Supreme Court, asking it to strike down the republic proclamation, contending that it was unconstitutional since the assembly did not have the full 601 members.With the parties remaining at loggerheads, it is doubtful if the assembly would be able to draft a new, pro-people's constitution in two years. (News Post India)
India ought to tread cautiously on Nepal
Singh’s comments confirm the worst fears among a large section of the Nepalese public that large parts of India still haven’t come to terms with the abolition of its Hindu monarchy and attendant rituals. In the run-up to elections in April, Nepalese journalists and political observers routinely pointed to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) “meddling”, especially in the Terai region, from neighbouring Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh.
Still, that was the VHP, an extremist faction of the “sangh parivar” (the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, family), which along with its many godmen sought to influence Nepal’s election result, in the hope that a fractured polity would not be able to remove the world’s only surviving Hindu monarch, Gyanendra. You could have argued that the BJP, a political party which ran the country for six years until 2004, and therefore, presumably, had a better understanding of both history and geopolitics, would have known better. The irony is that Jaswant Singh is one of a handful of leaders across the political spectrum with intimate knowledge of foreign affairs, defence and economics (he was minister in charge of each of these portfolios during the National Democratic Alliance, or NDA, government). As the key interlocutor with then US deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott, Singh drove home the message to the world’s most powerful country that a nuclear India had come to stay. From Kandahar to Riyadh, via Agra and Ashkabad, Singh was at the centre of India’s foreign policy story as it unfolded over those years.
The short point here is that for Jaswant Singh to have made those remarks about Nepal was not only bad form, it was also bad policy. After all, Singh has dealt with Nepal in his capacity as a key minister of the government of India. For him to say these things about a neighbouring country, especially one which has just held its first free and fair elections, is an exercise in surprising shortsightedness. If Jaswant Singh returns to office and if the Maoists are still in power — two big ifs, of course — you can bet the last of your slip-sliding rupee that Indo-Nepal relations will hit rock-bottom.
In fact, the BJP national executive threw up more surprises. If it wasn’t Jaswant Singh making noises about Nepal, there was Rajnath Singh redefining secularism for the rest of us, in terms of “dharmnirpeksh” (religion-neutral) and “panthnirpeksh” (sect-neutral). As the party savoured the sweet taste of success in Karnataka, it was time, Rajnath Singh felt, for India to move away from the former towards the latter.
In Karnataka’s aftermath, a victory which has considerably added to the national perception that the throne in Delhi is no longer as elusive for the BJP, it was left to L.K. Advani to announce that an expanded NDA will fight the next national elections with parties which “may not be ideologically aligned” to the BJP. Clearly, Advani wants to distance himself further and further away from the 6 December 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid, and mould himself into a leader with broader appeal.
But back to Nepal. The euphoria with which the Maoist-led Constituent Assembly evicted Gyanendra from the Narayanhity palace a week ago is slowly dissipating, as the interim prime minister, G.P. Koirala of the Nepali Congress, refuses to step down. With the Maoists continuing to argue that, as the single largest party, they have the right to both positions of president and prime minister, the political stalemate in Nepal could have disastrous consequences.
According to Nepal’s Kantipur newspaper, the newly installed Indian ambassador, Rakesh Sood, has met Prachanda, the Maoist chief, to ask him whether his party wants both posts, or would it be happy with just one. Perhaps Sood is trying to broker a compromise between the Maoists and the Nepali Congress, and trying to persuade both sides to respect the verdict of the people, which did not give either party a complete majority.
Sood would be well aware—as is the rest of Nepal—of the statements of his own national security adviser M.K. Narayanan who, barely 10 days before the April elections, announced that New Delhi would like the Nepali Congress to come back to power in Kathmandu. And although, ever since, the government has sought to reassure all parties that it is not interested in taking sides, there are those who believe that New Delhi should weigh in with its old friend Koirala, ask him to step down and concede that the Maoists are at least the single largest political party in the elections.
Truth is, Nepal has always had a special relationship with India. Both the BJP and the Congress party would do well to remember that. (liveMint.com)
Jyoti Malhotra is Mint’s diplomatic affairs editor and writes on the intersection of foreign policy, trade and politics every week.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Maoists threaten to quit govt in two days
BY GHANASHYAM OJHA
KATHMANDU, June 4 - CPN-Maoist has threatened to quit the government in two days if it is not allowed to form the next government by tomorrow.
Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, during a meeting with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala at the latter's official residence in Baluwatar on Tuesday urged the PM to immediately step down to facilitate the Maoists to forming the next government.
"If Nepali Congress and UML don't withdraw their conditions and don't allow us to form the next government by tomorrow, we will quit the government," said senior Maoist leader Dr Baburam Bhattarai, who was present at the meeting.
He charged that the NC and the UML were obstructing Maoists from forming the next government by putting forth 'meaningless' conditions.
During the meeting Dahal told Koirala that CPN- Maoist, being the largest political party, has the legitimate claim to form the next government. He also told Koirala that Maoists can't initiate consultations on forming the government until the Prime Minister resigns.
"The Prime Minister must resign and should call us to form the next government," Dr Bhattarai said, adding, "Otherwise, we will be morally compelled to quit the government."
Maoist Chairman Dahal, during the meeting, reiterated the Maoist position that it (Maoist) will not share the top posts - President and Prime Minister with NC or UML.
"We will never share the top posts -President and Prime Minister with any of the two loser parties -NC and UML," said Dr Bhattarai, adding, "Losers can't claim any of the top posts."
The Prime Minister, during the meeting, agreed to call a meeting of three major political parties - NC, UML and Maoist - to seek political consensus tomorrow.
Today, the Maoist leadership discussed the current political stalemate with leaders of UML, Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF) and Terai Madhes Democratic Party (TMDP).
"We basically made our position clear and informed them that we will quit the government if political consensus is not reached by tomorrow evening," said Dr Bhattarai.
Meanwhile, NC and UML today decided to stand over their previous positions -amending the two-third provision in the interim constitution and sharing the top posts. In a meeting held at PM Koirala's residence, the leaders decided to urge Maoists to agree on amending the two-third provision to form and remove the government and share the top posts during tomorrow's meeting.
"We both (NC and UML) reiterated our position and decided that both the top posts can't be given to a single party," said NC General Secretary Bimalendra Nidhi, who was present during the meeting. (Kantipuronline)
Nepal Maoist chief refuses to renounce armed struggle
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Only Ramilas can save democracy
She had not yet recovered from the shock of seeing the partially decomposed, drowned and mercilessly tortured body of her beloved husband Ramhari Shrestha, but she was not a bit frightened to meet the leader of the party that killed her husband. She was eye-to-eye with Prachanda, boldly interrogating the country’s most powerful person: Why had her husband to lose life so pathetically? Prachanda was totally on defense. He was meekly replying that it was a grave mistake committed in the process of historic transformation of the armed political party into peaceful politics.
She said, “I want assurance from you that no other innocent persons will have to suffer inhuman torture and lose life like my husband,” from the core of her heart without any bias and fear. At this point this writer thought if all Nepali wives and daughters become as strong as Ramila Shrestha, we need not be worried about the lawlessness and any form of totalitarianism in this country. Such an attitude can safeguard our democracy and sovereignty. We need courage, commitment and strength of Ramila Shrestha and her family members.
Thanks to the family members and others who supported and encouraged Ramila Shrestha, 30, to raise voice against the injustice to her family. She knew that her courage and resilience would not bring her dead husband back. And it might even cause trouble to her family in the future. But still she stood up against the injustice, which will definitely protect many people from suffering the fate of her late husband. Assessing her drive of seeking justice, she will not definitely keep quiet until the party punishes the culprits like Kali Bahadur Kham Magar “Bibidh” and his accomplices.
If we wish to protect hard-earned democracy and long-fought republic, we had to emulate Ramila Shrestha. Everybody knows those who have been taking the laws into their hands, who have been running a parallel administration, who have been intimidating people, who have been extorting and who have been kidnapping. All such acts have been culminating in serious violations of human rights. Sadly a few are showing courage to raise such issues, defying them is yet too far. Instead, many are attracted toward the power center as moths are to the fire. Hardly do they realize that joining the rat race and keeping mum for every violation of rights would only embolden the force, not to renounce violence and politics of guns.
Of course, we have abolished the monarchy and established a republic. Each and every Nepali deserves congratulations for this achievement. It will pay off even to those who were against it. But maintaining this is harder than earning it. We might have got rid of the monarchy, but feudalism that the monarchy institutionalized in this country is not easy to uproot. Feudalism is deep-seated in the culture of political parties. And it will definitely permeate into the Maoists as soon as they hold the reign of the government.
It was the trait of feudalism in the Nepali Congress and the UML that eroded their popularity. In 1990, Girija Prasad Koirala spoke from Tundikhel that democracy was also the victory of the then rulers — the Panchas — but in effect he could not become the real democratic leader even within his own party.
The NC only helped enlarge the number of feudal fiats. It hardly succeeded in addressing the issue of feudalism. The UML was expected to be the party that would serve the people. But it competed with the NC in serving its own cadres. The NC and the UML were competing only to serve their own loyal cadres. They never bothered to establish the culture of meritocracy, competence, honesty and integrity. Before they could realize and rectify their mistakes their support had been already waning. The election of April 10, 2008 was the first opportunity people got to vent out their ire.
It can be easily contemplated that the Maoists will suffer from the same disease. Moreover, being a cadre-based party they will always be under pressure to provide opportunities to their cadres who have sacrificed their lives and career for the revolution. Only if they could realize in time that the sacrifices of the political cadres are for the progress, prosperity and development of the country, and not to get certain positions and earn money. The sacrifices of the people who love the nation do not end after the party assumes power. If they don’t realize this, then they are opportunists, and not true nationalists.
Now, as the Maoists are on the verge of being at the helm of power, we have to focus more on them. They will definitely attempt to change themselves if they are confronted effectively. The parties told them to change the character of their semi-military group YCL, and they have committed to do so. Had not the case of Ramhari Shrestha been exposed to this proportion, they would not have so easily agreed on it. Similarly, the question we need to ask to the Maoists is about their financial transparency.
Sometime back Maoist leader Badal said that the Maoists would raise the strength of YCL to 1,000,000. At this point we need to ask them, how will they survive? From where will they get the money? What will they do? Why should the party, which is going to run the government, have such a strong paramilitary force? If we do not ask such pertinent questions, the process of turning into feudal will also apply to the Maoists. A few people will be controlling the resources and revenue of the country and the poor people will remain poorer and hungrier. Let us hope we are able to produce many Ramila Shresthas in every aspect of our life. (kantipuronline)
The Big Question: As Nepal becomes a republic, are there many absolute monarchs left?
Because after 240 years of rule, Nepal has abolished its monarchy – the last Hindu monarchy in the world. King Gyanendra woke up yesterday as a divine ruler, but ended it as a common citizen. Not only has he lost his title and a generous royal salary, but has also had to hand over the keys to the royal family's seven palaces, which will now be turned into museums.
The king has been erased from the currency, and all references to the monarchy in the national anthem removed. But there was no great march on the palace or public guillotining. It has all come about because of Nepal's new constitutional set-up. The first task of its new assembly was to abolish the monarchy. Not bad for the first day at the office.
Why is Nepal ending its monarchy?
The monarchy's demise and the formation of a secular state was a key plank of a peace deal that saw Maoist rebels lay down their weapons after years of fighting, in which 13,000 people died. The royal household had already lost a lot of its influence after handing power to parliament in 1990. But even after that, the king retained some key powers, such as the right to dissolve parliament and to direct the armed forces.
In truth, King Gyanendra was the catalyst to the monarchy's demise. He only ascended to the throne after King Birendra, his brother, was shot dead along with eight other royals by the crown prince in 2001. Unlike his brother, Gyanendra was suspicious of parliament, ultimately dissolving it in 2002. He had hoped that the move would show the strong leadership he thought necessary to defeat the Maoists. The result was deep unpopularity and street protests. Throw in an unpopular playboy son, Paras, and the family had racked up dissenters on all sides.
So where do royals still have power?
Despite the reforms in Nepal, Asia is still where the most powerful monarchies are to be found. Probably the most powerful remains Hassanal Bolkiah, the fabulously wealthy Sultan of Brunei. He is not only the head of state, but also the head of the government. He has absolute power, but seeks advice from a series of councils and unelected ministers, much as the absolute rulers of Europe did in bygone centuries. The Brunei ruler has come from the same dynasty since the 15th century, but even a royal family with such longevity has had its share of unpopularity. There was a small revolt against them in the 1960s.
Other countries to retain absolute monarchies include states in which the monarchs are supported by oil and gas resources, such as Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Jordan's monarch still has considerable powers. He appoints the prime minister and all ministers, but the country also has a democratic element – a fully elected Chamber of Deputies.
And in countries outside Asia?
Swaziland is home to the last remaining absolute monarchy in Africa. The current leader is King Mswati III, whose father, King Sobhuza II, ditched the country's parliamentary constitution in 1973 in favour of reverting to a system based on the empowerment of tribal leaders. This also had the welcome effect of enriching the king and his inner circle. It turned Swaziland from a beacon of hope for African democracy to a feudal throwback almost over night. King Mswati III is currently on wife number 13.
So most just have symbolic power?
That's the case in Europe, with countries including Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands retaining a constitutional monarchy. But even monarchs with symbolic power can retain an important role. Thailand has a constitutional monarchy, but its 80-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej – after 62 years the world's longest serving-monarch – is greatly revered and continues to have a significant role in holding together the country's fractious political make-up. And in Spain, King Juan Carlos I played a big part in the country's transition from fascist dictatorship to the current parliamentary system, after Franco appointed him as his successor.
Once they're gone, do they ever return?
It has been known. After all, England had a go at being a republic. But after an interregnum of 11 years, the British monarchy returned in 1660 – albeit without the absolute powers enjoyed by Charles I. And while the Afghani king was dethroned in 1973, he has since returned and is treasured as a figure of national importance. And lost regal powers can sometimes return, as they did in Liechtenstein. In 2003, Prince Hans-Adam II won the power to abolish the government at will, dismiss ministers and even veto parliamentary legislation. The only way he can lose the powers is via a referendum demanding an end to the monarchy.
But there remain some all-powerful regimes that continue to behave like absolute monarchies, even if they go by another name. The Assad family has ruled Syria since 1970, while North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, took over from his father, Kim Il-sung, who had led since the nation's birth in 1948.
What does a royal do when they're sacked?
Well, some have a go at just about everything. Just ask Prince Yi Seok, who has tried to bring back the South Korean monarchy. He says he is related to Sunjong, the country's last emperor, who ruled until 1910. He has been in the army, taught history, run an off-licence and has even been a Las Vegas-style singer – his rendition of Tony Bennett's "I Left My Heart in San Francisco" is said to be particularly stirring. He argues that the monarchy should return for the sake of tourism, but so far, his pleas have only earned him a lecturing tour on the history of the Korean royals.
As for the newly unemployed Nepalese royal family, the government has hinted that they may have to be given some state funding and an armed guard.
Is our royal family in any danger?
Though we've grown used to the idea that our royal family have no real power and only fulfil state occasions such as the forming of a new government or the Queen's Speech, some say that there are real constitutional advantages to having a monarchy rather than a presidential system. Not least the BBC's interrogator-in-chief, Jeremy Paxman. In his book, On Royalty, he argues a ruling political elite would be just as bad. So should we abolish the monarchy? His conclusion is simple. "Why bother?"
The Nepalese are facing the sticky problem of how to go about replacing the monarchy. The Maoists, the biggest party in its new assembly, want their leader as president, sparking fears of a Communist takeover. Others favour the instalment of an established figure as head of state. Life after monarchy is not necessarily straightforward.
Is the game up for the world's monarchies?
Yes...
* Most monarchies have disappeared now – it's just a matter of time before such an unfair system of rule disappears
* The strongest monarchies are upheld by being oil-rich. When that dries up, they'll be in trouble
* They are just used as a tourist attraction. When they no longer bring in the cash, monarchies will soon be abolished
No...
* Many have survived coups, revolutions and riots. They are remarkably resilient institutions
* It is impossible for the people to wrest control away from the royal family in countries with an absolute monarchy
* Even if monarchies disappear, there are still regimes in which one family has huge power. That's little different from a monarchy (THE INDEPENDENT)
THE END OF HISTORY : Rise and fall of the Shah Dynasty
KATHMANDU, May 28 - The Shah Dynasty that unified and ruled Nepal for the last 240 years, often through bloodshed, came to a peaceful end on MAY 28, 2008. If the rise of the Shahs was spectacular, so was their downfall. In modern history, hardly any monarchy has been abolished either through the ballot or so peacefully.
The story of the Shah Dynasty, stretching over a period of over 450 years, is a saga of both triumph and tragedy.
After Drabya Shah, a prince of the royal house of the adjoining principality of Lamjung and progenitor of the Shah Dynasty, wrested Gorkha from local tribal chiefs in 1559, the Shahs remained confined to this impoverished, hilly principality for the next 183 years.
But that changed once and for all after an audacious prince, Prithvi Narayan Shah, ascended to the throne of Gorkha in 1742 at the age of 20.
Two years later, he had already conquered Nuwakot, ensuring Gorkha’s participation in the profitable trade between Kathmandu and Tibet. A shrewd king, he was strategic in his thinking, meticulous in his planning and ruthless in obtaining his military objectives. His eyes were fixed on Kathmandu Valley from the very beginning, but he made a strategic detour: He decided to first cut Kathmandu’s trade lifeline with both Tibet and India. He did so by conquering the kingdom of Makawanpur and seizing the Kuti and Kerung passes to Tibet.
In March 1767, Prithvi Narayan Shah conquered Kirtipur in his third attempt, providing the Gorkhalis their first strategic foothold in Kathmandu Valley. Already demoralized by the towering presence of Prithvi Narayan in Kirtipur and economically weakened by his blockade, Kathmandu Valley fell to the Gorkhalis in 1768 without offering much resistance. Patan and Bhadgaon, the other two Malla kingdoms of the Valley, fell in line within a year.
By the time he died in 1775, Nepal’s expansion eastward was complete. The whole of the eastern tarai upto Jhapa and the entire eastern hills up to theTista river were now under the Gorkha Empire in-the-making.
Prithvi Narayan Shah died at a relatively young age of 53 without completing his unification project-- but more importantly, without providing a people of vast cultural diversity within the newly acquired frontiers, a sense of belongingness to this new kingdom.
But he did something fundamentally different and more important than past kings of the Indian subcontinent: He refused to share his conquest with his brothers even though they had worked alongside him, and equally hard. Instead, he devised the principle of allegiance to the Dhungo, which literally means stone. But metaphorically it represented the state. “The concept of Dhungo, implied that the Gorkhali state was a permanent entity that transcended the person of the ruler. In other words, allegiance to the state superseded personal loyalty to the ruler,” writes historian Mahesh Chandra Regmi.
The Dhungo concept implanted in people the idea of the permanency of the state. This was perhaps so instrumental an idea that it kept the Nepali state from unraveling even during difficult times and helped it emerge into a modern state. In that sense, too, Prithvi Narayan was a true founder of modern Nepal.End of the golden age
As it often happens with a great revolution after the death of its progenitor, with Prithvi Narayan Shah gone, Nepal lost direction, the principal actors lost their character, and the newly unified but still unconsolidated state fell into an era of uncertainty and chaos.
For the next 70 years, before Jung Bahadur Kunwar finally seized power through a bloody coup, Nepal was ruled by kings and regents who were either insane, inept, profligate or promiscuous-- or all four. The kings were so inept or underage that regent queens ruled for most of those 70 years.
Luckily, the unification project continued. Mainly three persons--Queen Rajendra Laxmi, regent Bahadur Shah and Bhimsen Thapa-- at different times gave continuity to the unfinished business of territorial expansion. Before the project ended rather disastrously in 1816 with the Sugauli Treaty with the East India Company, Nepal was well set to become a Himalayan Empire, stretching from Kashmir in the west to Tista in the east.
British historian John Pemble writes, “In the space of half a century, the Gurkhas had unified, for the first time in history, a belt of territory which was the most beautiful, the most inaccessible and traditionally the most fragmented in Asia. There seems no
reason to suppose that had the war with the British not intervened, this empire would not have proved viable.”
But even after ceding a huge swath of territory to the British in India following defeat in the 1814-16 war, Nepal was left with an area of 136,000 square kilometers. It had grown over 500 times since the tiny Gorkha kingdom, less
than 250 square kilometers in size, started the expansion drive just 70 years earlier.
These defeats had more internal reasons than external. Rivalry and betrayal in the palace and among the Gorkha nobility played a key role in the launching of unplanned-- and perhaps unnecessary-- wars with China and British East India. “The haste with which the decision [to annex the vassal state of Garhwal and its territories further toward the west] was taken again raises the suspicion that Rana Bahadur Shah, grandson of Prithivi Narayan, may have put the nation in a war footing to preempt his domestic rivals.”
Forget the Gorkha nobility, rivalry started right within the Shah family right after the death of Prithvi Narayan Shah. Pratap Singh Shah, son of Prithibi Naryan, put his warrior uncle Bahadur Shah in jail, before forcing him into exile in Betia, India. He was later on recalled by his sister-in-law, Rajendra Laxmi, following Pratap Singh’s death. Rivalry between these two then ensued and they alternately put each other in prison. Bahadur Shah even killed Rajendra Laxmi’s minister Sarbajit Rana, accusing him of an illicit affair with the queen, and also imprisoned her in the palace. Rana Bahadur Shah, after coming of age and wresting sovereignty from his uncle, finally killed Bahadur Shah.
Rana Bahadur was a mad king by any measure. He married four women in his lifetime, including a Brahmin widow, Kantivati-- an act socially not sanctified at the time. According to historian Babu Ram Acharya, Rana Bahadur first saw this young widow of the Mishra caste at Pashupatinath and abducted her to his palace. She was made his unwilling concubine for long before finally agreeing to marry him, but under the condition that their ‘illegitimate’ son, Girwanyuddha, would be made king. Rana Bahadur already had sons by his second wife, Subarnaprabha. But he was so much in love and lust with Kantavati that he abdicated in favor of the one-and-half-year old Girwanyuddha. His insanity only grew when his beloved concubine died of smallpox (some historians claim it was tuberculosis). He killed and tormented those who were involved in her treatment, and uprooted and disfigured idols in temples where prayers had been offered for her recovery.
By Rana Bahadur Shah’s time, and thereafter, the palace also abandoned the strict austerity measures that Prithvi Narayan Shah had so religiously observed. It became too profligate and engaged itself-- rather extravagantly-- in merrymaking. For instance, according to historian Regmi, Prithvi Narayan Shah received his pocket money in quarter-rupees and half-rupees, with only one recorded payment of a full rupee. He also frowned upon foreign dancers and musicians because, among other things, they were a drain on wealth. However, in 1798, Rana Bahadur recruited an Indian musician, Jivan Shah Kalwar, at a monthly salary of Rs 700! Compare this with the monthly salary of the commander of an army company at the time-- a meager Rs 30 -- and its gives a measure of the growing profligacy in the palace.
The rivalry between courtiers of the Shah and Thapa, Pandey and Bashnyat clans only grew in the subsequent years. Rana Bahadur Shah himself was forced to flee the country, but came back later on and wrested power from his second wife and killed dozens of her loyal courtiers, before he was himself killed, possibly in a family feud.
It was his teenager fourth wife, Lalitatripurasundari, who provided some stability to this fledging kingdom. She ruled for the next 26 years as queen regent to the two subsequent kings. But even this stability came at a price: Her minister, Bhimsen Thapa, killed 90 people, including her late husband’s other wives and concubines, to consolidate her power.
There are serious questions as to the sanity of the next two kings - Girwanyuddha’s son, Rajendra Bikram Shah and his grandson, Surendra Bikram Shah. Rajendra Bikram was a very week and ineffectual ruler and he declared his younger wife, Rajyalaxmi, his own regent in 1843. By this time, multiple wives, sex scandals, betrayals, rivalry and killings had become the norm at the palace.
The killing of Rajyalaxmi’s confidante Gagan Thapa --some historians say he was her lover, precipitated perhaps the bloodiest massacre in Nepal’s history--the Kot Parwa, or massacre at the armory, in 1846. This gave rise to another Chherti clan at the palace: The Kunwars. About 55 court officials were killed in the Kot Parwa, mostly men from the Kunwars’ rival clans--Thapas, Pandeys and Bashnyats. Historians say the next day over 6,000 members of these clans fled Kathmandu in fear for their lives. Jung Bahadur Kunwar, who proclaimed himself Ranaji later on, rose to power after the Kot Parwa and his descendants were to rule Nepal for the next 104 years, keeping the Shahs confined to the palace as nominal kings.
Shah re-emergence and end
After the end of World War II, the independence movements in the British colonies reached a fever pitch. Inspired by Gandhi, India finally overthrew its colonial yoke and became an independent nation. Young Nepalis, who studied and lived in India, participated in this movement and in the process became fired up for the liberation of their own country from the clutches of the Ranas. In the meantime, there were already internal efforts underway, especially those led by the Praja Parishad, to overthrow the Ranas. B P Koirala, Subarna Shumsher and other energetic youths started an armed insurgency.
King Tribhuvan, who had suffered humiliation at the hands of the Ranas for years, quietly slipped to the nearby Indian embassy and then made it to Delhi. Some historians suggest that Tribhuvan even urged Jahawar Lal Nehru,
then Indian prime minister, to annex Nepal to India, a suggestion rejected by Nehru.
Rana oligarchy was put to an end through a tripartite agreement reached in Delhi in 1951. Tribhuvan, along with the Nepali Congress leaders came back to Nepal. This was supposed to usher in a democratic era but Tribhuban defaulted on his promise and betrayed the people.
The major political agenda, after the overthrow of the Rana regime, was to write a new constitution through a Constituent Assembly elected by the newly sovereign people. But King Tribhuvan, who was reinstated in power by the people, deferred the election on one or another pretext till his death in 1955. His ambitious son, King Mahendra, never agreed to the idea of a constituent assembly election and forced the parties to settle for parliamentary elections instead. King Mahendra, in 1960, sacked the first popularly elected prime minister of Nepal, B P Koirala, and imposed a partyless Panchayat System that ushered in the absolute rule of the kings for the next 30 years.
King Mahendra, under his Panchayat project, tried to construct a Nepali nationalism based on the single edifice of one nation, one language, one religion, one culture and even one national dress. History textbooks only talked about the glory of the Shah Dynasty, hiding the dark side. Somehow that didn’t go down well with the people. “The jingoism of the Panchayat era rang false,” writes Manjushree Thapa, a novelist.
Students rose up against the Panchayat system in 1979, forcing King Birendra to announce a referendum. But it was in 1990 that the people finally forced a major concession from the monarchy through a popular Janaandolan or People’s Movement. King Birendra promptly accepted multiparty system.
June 1, 2001 was probably the turning point in the monarchy’s demise. King Birendra, an affable man, and his entire family were killed in a royal massacre. People were in a state of shock after they heard news of the massacre but when they came to terms with the reality they had lost faith in the monarchy, whose reins now fell into the hands of a new king, Gyanendra.
It’s hard to pin down Gyanendra’s personality. But above all, he proved to be an arrogant, self-righteous and ambitious monarch. In his lust for power-reminiscent of his father- he was blind as a bat to his own best interests. Before seizing power on February 1, 2005, he miscalculated three things: First, he thought the Maoists and mainstream parties would never join hands and form a collective front against him. Second, given a choice between the Maoists (read terrorists) and the monarchy, the international community would eventually chose monarchy. Third, and most importantly, he underestimated the consciousness of the Nepali people, which had grown by leaps and bounds in the post-1990 open society and during the decade-long Maoist insurgency.
Finally, in April 2006 the people turned the tables on the monarchy. Janaandolan II vanquished the monarchy and culminated in the declaration of a republic. Maybe a republican order would have come sooner or later, but Gyanendra is solely
responsible for bringing it to this country on MAY 28, 2008, ending the 450-year-old reign of the Shah Dynasty. (Kantipuronline)
Nepali expats hope for political stability
DUBAI — Nepal may have shed its status as a kingdom with King Gyanendra losing his crown yesterday, paving the way for the Himalayan country to be a democratic republic, however Nepalese expatriates in the UAE welcomed the change albeit with apprehension.
Expats fervently hope that the new government would exhibit democratic credentials and rectify its earlier image. They also yearn to see a more liberal and democratic rule by the government that includes the much-feared Maoists, who had a historic electoral win earlier this year. Many, though, are welcoming the change. They feel a politically stable Nepal is the need of the hour.
Wednesday spelt the end of the 239-year-old monarchy. King Gyanendra, who ascended the throne in 2001 following the killing of his popular brother Birendra and most of the royal family by a drunken crown prince, who later killed himself, has been given 15 days to leave the royal palace.
Loknath Subedi, a marketing executive and a social worker, said, “If the Maoists rule the country liberally and leave their weapons behind, the people of Nepal will be convinced and happy. Even now, the fear of Maoists is still deeply entrenched in the minds of the people. The political instability that has haunted our country may finally go away if the new government is willing to lead and take a soft stand.”
He cautioned that the country’s future hinges on the Maoists’ behaviour and attitude towards the people.
Chandra Prasad Sapkota, vice-president of the Nepalese Business Council and the Middle East coordinator for non-resident Nepalis, observed that the best is to wait and watch. “The people of Nepal have waited very long and they have voted for the communists as they want change. We all want change and something better to happen so that there will be stability in the country. If the Maoists do manage to bring in change, people will be happy or else there will be another revolution,” he said.
Arjun Prasad Dahal, a team leader with an airport services supplier, observed that even though the world has progressed so much, Nepal is one of the few countries to have an active monarchy. However, he is optimistic that the Maoists might shed their fearsome image to take up the responsibility to rule a country.
“I feel democracy is the way forward. People have only seen Maoists murder, loot and extort money. Now that they are in the government and have the power, we are confident they will do something. They have also been living in the jungles for the past 12 years and now is the time for them to prove their worth and I think they will do that,” says Arjun, whose entire family is in Nepal.
Suresh Basyal, financial consultant, noted with relief that the unpopular Gyanendra was leaving. “It is a good thing that an unpopular king is leaving. The real concerns of the people are the lack of electricity, gas, water and huge rates of unemployment. I left the country because of insurgency and unemployment. If political parties act responsibly and are held accountable, things could change,” he said. Basyal noted that the international community should also assist Nepal to be politically stable. (Khaleej Times)
Nepal abolishes monarchy after 239 years of rule
Across Katmandu, young men marched with red flags as Nepalis celebrated what many see as the culmination of a two-year peace process with the rebels which began after weeks of unrest forced the king to restore democracy.
Near the convention center where the Constituent Assembly was meeting, thousands chanted "Long Live the Republic!" and denounced Gyanendra. While the celebrations were largely joyous and peaceful, police at one point used tear gas to disperse a crowd that gathered too close to the building.
There was no immediate reaction from the palace on the resolution. It has rarely commented on political developments in Nepal since Gyanendra was forced to end his royal dictatorship.
The country's leading politicians have in recent days threatened to forcibly remove him from his palace if he refuses to go peacefully. (CNN)Read more:http://article.wn.com/view/2008/05/28/Nepal_abolishes_monarchy_after_239_years_of_rule/
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Nepal poised for rebirth as a republic
Exactly when and how the monarch, King Gyanendra, would leave Narayanhity, the main palace in the capital, Katmandu, was not clear. He has made no public statements in recent weeks about his plans, though his supporters have made their disappointment known by setting off small bombs in the capital. On Tuesday, an explosion in the center of the capital injured six people and a royalist organization called Ranbir Sena claimed responsibility.
The government has urged the king, a businessman with interests in tobacco and hotels, to move from the pink concrete Narayanhity to his private residence, a high-walled compound in Katmandu, or face eviction by force. "If he does not leave the palace then the government might have to use force to vacate the palace," Ram Chandra Poudel, the peace and reconstruction minister said on Tuesday, according to a Reuters report. "This will not be good for him."
On Wednesday, The Associated Press reported that the government would give him 15 days to leave the palace.
Security was tightened across Katmandu and celebrations began, with the government declaring a three-day holiday starting Wednesday to mark the birth of the republic.
King Gyanendra, who had taken control of the government in early 2005, lost most of his powers two years ago when street protests in Katmandu forced him to cede power to the elected government. Soon, Maoist insurgents came out of the jungle after 10 years of war, turned themselves into politicians and demanded an end to the monarchy. The government, which they joined, complied.
It removed the king as head of the army, dropped the word "royal" from the name of the national airline, and drafted a new national anthem which no longer demanded allegiance to the throne. The king was required to pay taxes, and his likeness was replaced by Mount Everest on the country's currency, starting with the 500-rupee note.
Last year, under pressure from the Maoists, the Parliament voted to declare Nepal, a nation of 27 million people wedged strategically between India and China, a federal democratic republic.
The Constituent Assembly, as the parliament is known, took the final, official step: rewriting the Constitution altogether, starting with the question of monarchy. It seems all but certain that the assembly will scrap it.
The Communist Party (Maoist) holds more than a third of the legislature's 601 seats and is the largest party in the new assembly. Its leader, who is known by his nom de guerre, Prachanda, or in Nepali, the fierce one, is expected to take over as prime minister. The parties have also agreed to have a ceremonial president with limited powers.
Nepali Congress, the nation's oldest political party, won 110 seats, followed by the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) with 103 seats, and the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, representing the plains bordering India, with 52 seats.
The country's three largest parties agreed this week to turn Narayanhity palace into a national museum once the king leaves. Gyanendra took the throne after a gruesome palace massacre in June, 2001, in which his brother, then-King Birendra and most of the royal family were killed by Crown Prince Dipendra, who then shot himself. Gyanendra and his family survived.
The assembly, which was sworn in Tuesday, will govern Nepal for up to two years, while it drafts a new constitution. That will not be easy, as there remain several challenges to sealing peace in the country. Chief among them is the fate of 20,000 ex-Maoist fighters, who are currently in camps under United Nations supervision. The Maoist leadership wants them to be integrated into the military, but that proposal is likely to face stiff resistance from the Nepalese Army and the other main parties. Perhaps the bigger challenge is what to do about the fallout from the war: disappearances, displaced persons, and property seized by the guerrillas. "There are many other peace process commitments as yet unfulfilled," the chief UN envoy to Nepal, Ian Martin, told reporters on Tuesday.(International Herald tribune)
Police shoot at protesters in west Nepal town killing 3
KATMANDU, Nepal: Police opened fire on protesters in western Nepal on Wednesday, killing three people, an official said.
Government administrator Chetra Bahadur Bhandari said police were compelled to shoot at the demonstrators who had surrounded the district administration office and began attacking the building.
They demonstrators were protesting the beating of some local people by rival groups a day earlier and allege the authorities failed to take action.
Bhandari said an indefinite curfew has been imposed in the town about 550 kilometers (310 miles) southwest of the capital, Katmandu.
The two sides of the dispute had gathered at the office on Wednesday so that the officials could resolve the differences.
However, the two sides began clashing with each other and police and they began throwing stones at the administration office. Police first fired in the air but had to shoot at the protesters to control the situation, the official said.
Bhandari said officials were investigating and searching the area for the attackers.
The protest was not related to the rallies being held across this Himalayan nation to celebrate the declaration of a republic state on Wednesday.
Security has been stepped up across this Himalayan nation for the planned rallies in major towns and cities. The special elected assembly meeting in Katmandu for the first time on Wednesday is scheduled to make the declaration, and celebrations are planned throughout the country.
The assembly is to abolish Nepal's centuries-old monarchy and declare the country a republic state.(International herald tribune)
NEWSMAKER-The decline and fall of Nepal's last king
Now Nepal's King Gyanendra is vilified, set to lose his crown and even pay his own tax and electricity bills.
The 60-year-old businessman-turned-monarch has only himself to blame, many Nepalis say, after an ill-judged power grab in 2005 when he dismissed the government, jailed politicians and declared a state of emergency.
Gyanendra was apparently fed up with Nepal's corrupt and squabbling politicians and decided only he could rescue the country from a deadly Maoist insurgency.
The attempt backfired, and he was forced to back down the following year after weeks of street protests that ultimately sealed his and the monarchy's fate.
'He believed that he had the best intention,' said Kunda Dixit, editor of the Nepali Times weekly. 'But it was his autocratic streak that did him in.'
As a three-year-old boy Gyanendra was thrust on the throne in 1950 when his grandfather briefly fled to India, in the midst of a power struggle with the country's hereditary prime ministers, the Ranas.
When King Tribhuvan returned a few months later, Gyanendra retreated once more into the background, building a fortune in tea, tobacco and hotels and getting involved in environmental conservation.
Then, nearly seven years ago, his popular brother King Birendra and eight other members of the royal family were shot and killed by the crown prince, who then turned his gun on himself.
Gyanendra was back on the throne, and like many of his predecessors, he was brought up to believe he knew better than his subjects what was best for Nepal.
The massacre had broken the mystique of a monarchy once revered as incarnations of the Hindu god Vishnu, while Gyanendra's seizure of power unleashed the wrath of the people.
'I think he is getting what he deserved,' said 48-year-old laborer Suntali Khatri, breast-feeding her two-year-old daughter next to a building site. 'He could not ask for more.'
Maoist rebels, whose main demand had been the abolition of the 'feudal monarchy', have gone on to become Nepal's largest party after a 2006 peace deal and elections in April.
They say Gyanendra can stay in the country as a commoner and businessman, provided he respects the assembly's decision.
The king himself has been reported as saying he had no intention of leaving Nepal.
Instead he is likely to drive from the pink pagoda-roofed Narayanhity Palace to his own, luxurious and well-guarded private residence in Kathmandu.
OVER-AMBITIOUS?
Gyanendra went to school in Darjeeling, a hill station in eastern India, and graduated from Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu.
Mohan Prasad Lohani, who taught him English in university, said he was an irregular student – more interested in politics than studies. 'He had his own notion of how things should change. He was very ambitious,' he said.
That ambition could have been his downfall, analysts say. And it has been a dramatic fall from grace.
In the last two years, the government has seized thousands of acres of royal lands, nationalised more than a dozen of his palaces and sacked his priest in a purge of palace employees.
Virtually confined to his palace, the king has had his annual allowance cut, been hit with tax demands and requests for unpaid electricity bills. He has seen his face replaced by an image of Mount Everest on the country's banknotes and praise of him purged from the national anthem.
Yet royalists who have met him say he has taken it all calmly.
They argue that a hasty abolition of the monarchy could backfire and leave the country without the anchor that it needs in times of change. But royalist parties won just four seats in the 601-member assembly.
While many Nepalis like the idea of a constitutional monarchy, few like the idea of being ruled by Gyanendra or his unpopular son Paras, who has a reputation as a playboy and a reckless driver.
'I think this is the end of the road for the monarchy,' Dixit said. 'Most Nepalis think it just not worth the trouble to keep any more.' (Writing by Gopal Sharma and Simon Denyer; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani) (signonsandiego.com)
Is Nepal Ready for a Republic?
By Krishna Giri
.There is no doubt that people have demanded change and it must be delivered. While implementing the changes, let’s hope the leaders will not make any other blunders and force the country into yet another crisis. The CA results have clearly favoured the Maoists. NC and UML cannot blame anyone but themselves for their failure. It was their strategic and analytical failure to reckon with the Maoists as a democratic force. In less than two years, Nepali leaders were convinced that the Maoist guerrillas had made a U turn from the ‘Shining Path’ to the ‘Path of Nirvana’. Now monks have started to hear the philosophical rhetoric about Buddhism from Prachanda & Co. What a shame.
I do not agree that the Nepali people actually know the difference between a CA Election and a Parliamentary Election. But I expect these are known to the national leaders CA election was not an election to make a government. Right from the beginning of the 12-point understanding, governments are to be formed by consensus. Though it’s a real pity that only eight parties are involved in this consensus and the rest of the parties are left behind. SPAM is the unofficial authoritarian regime in Nepal. So, why are the Maoists so desperate to form a government on their own? What do they mean by the danger of ‘power polarisation’ if high profile portfolios (President, Prime Minister, Defence Minister, Home Minister etc) are shared? They do not have the authority to form the government on their own and they should be watched carefully for years to come. Their hands are still red and the political dramas are not over yet. However, they should be allowed to lead the next government.
The country is only a week away from the first sitting of the CA. And if parties followed their election promises, we are only a week away to becoming the newest republic in the world. The biggest question at this time is: DO WE REALLY NEED TO BE A REPUBLIC? I do not think there is a straight forward answer. If there is, why is there so much confusion even after getting a mandate from the people? None of the major political parties backed the monarchy while going to the CA election. The Maoists, who promised to abolish the monarchy right from the beginning of their peoples war, and in the recent past, withdrew from the government to pressure for a republic in the interim constitution. But, they are the first party to propose a space for the monarchy. So, it is not as simple as they speak or promise. And if we look at it globally, countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are still debating on republican issues.
As a student of political science, I do believe politics is a science, where you need a balance of power to run a country or a party or a community. I still see monarchy as an institution, and as a power in Nepal. We have 240 long years of royal history. Kings only represent an institution. We cannot blame the institution if some representatives are bad. Consider the monarchy, NC, UML, MJF, RPP, Maoists etc. Who is good? We have to pick someone good from the worst. If we start to judge the institution with just a few rulers, that may not be ‘fair dinkum’ for the institution. And further more, we are talking about millions of people who are connected to this institution by emotion. Everybody should be heard in an inclusive democracy. The country cannot provoke or isolate any marginalised people. The Maoists know these things better than anyone else because they know their history and rise to power. Having said that, the bad royals should learn lessons from history and appropriate action needs to be taken against them. The country neither needs Gyanendra nor Paras, but it needs the institution. The country should look for the best avenue to overcome this crisis. A redefined model of monarchy should be activated in Nepal. Minimum ceremonial and cultural powers with limited allowance should be given to the monarch. CA debates should go on to impose new powers and restrictions to the Institution. A provision for abolishing monarchy by a referendum should be secured in the new constitution.
Declaring a republic may not sound like a gigantic step at this stage but to face the consequences after the declaration are the prime challenges. Leaders have repeatedly proved that they work for the day but not for the future. Who will be responsible if, by declaring a republic, the country is plunged into another chaos? Is monarchy alone responsible for all failures? The time has come to make a sensible decision. Even if monarchy has to go, it has to go through a transition. If we look back from BS 2007 to today, the monarchy’s power has shifted a lot. They are losing than gaining. Their desire for more has made them losers. So, it is trouble-free for the people and the CA to make them even weaker. This is how people should be punished in politics, cutting the power and narrowing the space to move; if we believe in democracy. Abolishing the monarchy by a simple majority of votes in the first CA sitting is not a democratic exercise, whereas, in the same interim constitution, to change a government we need a two third majority. As long as politicians recognise people as FORCE rather than POWER, the country cannot move forward and we cannot expect actions and decisions that are in the national interest. Aggressive and premature action filled with vengeance may throw the country into long term volatility and political catastrophe.
(The author is currently a student of political science in Canberra, Australia): Kantipuronline
‘Monitoring is not 24-hour surveillance’ UNMIN role unfinished: Martin
KATHMANDU, May 27 - Chief of United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) Ian Martin on Tuesday said the role
of his mission hasn’t yet been completed, even after the CA poll.
“My main responsibility in addressing the Security Council was to remind them of the unfinished business of the peace process,” said Martin, who returned recently after briefing the UN Security Council in New York about developments in Nepal.
“The Constituent Assembly election was a milestone, a
major achievement, in that
process, but it does not
represent the completion of the process.”
Speaking at a program organized by Reporters Club Nepal, he said there are still two armies, with widely differing views amongst political parties as to how their future is to be decided.
He said there is the urgency of addressing the issues of the future of the (Maoist) combatants so that there could be a clear exit strategy from UNMIN’s role of arms monitoring. “And yet, as we know, very little progress was made on those issues before the election and, as I said, there are significantly differing views now,” he said.
He said the transformation of the Young Communist League into a body that fully respects the legal functioning of the state and is no longer subject to criticism for engaging in its own law enforcement is also, in a way, unfinished business of the peace process.
“And there are many
other peace process
commitments as yet unfulfilled,” he said.
orture in Shaktikhor
cantonment
Responding to criticism that businessman Ram Hari Shrestha was allegedly tortured by ‘People’s Liberation Army’ men in UNMIN-monitored Shaktikhor cantonment, Chitwan, after his abduction from the capital, Martin said his office was mandated to ‘monitor’ the management of armed personnel but not to ‘supervise’ them.
“There really is a misunderstanding about this word ‘monitoring’… Monitoring meant that whenever there were reports of a violation, one investigated it actively and insisted that a proper action was taken to bring those responsible to justice and to prevent further such actions. That is exactly what UNMIN has been doing in terms of monitoring the management of armed personnel by their chains of command,” he said.
He further asked media to not confuse “monitoring” with “surveillance”.
Martin added that the management of the cantonments is the responsibility of Maoist PLA commanders.
“UNMIN’s responsibility is to monitor as best it can with limited resources, the extent to which they are fulfilling those obligations. And we do that...with 186 arms monitors,” he said. “If anyone wanted UNMIN to maintain continuous surveillance of the military sites in Nepal, Nepal would have had to ask for thousands of United Nations peacekeepers, not for a small monitoring body.” (The Kantipuronline)
Item one on the agenda for Nepal's new parliament: evicting the King
The first matter of business for 575 members of a new parliament who were sworn in yesterday is to formally declare Nepal a republic. After that, the king – the last Hindu monarch in the world – is expected to leave the palace and return to his private home.
"A republic will be declared tomorrow. Once a republic is declared, the king will automatically lose his position and place in the palace," said Baburam Bhattarai, deputy leader of the majority Maoist party. "He has no choice but if he refuses to leave the palace we will use the law to force him out of there."
These are tense times for Nepal. Just last month saw a remarkable election in which former Maoist rebels, who had led a 10-year guerrilla war, won the majority of votes. They are preparing to form a coalition government, which they will head.
But while the Maoists have insisted they are committed to peace and that their armed struggle is over, uncertainty still hangs over the country as it prepares to enter a new era.
Part of that is related to the constant threat of violence. In the past two days, a series of bombs have been detonated in the capital, Kathmandu, wounding two people. Reports have suggested that the bombs targeted pro-republic politicians and activists but that remains unclear, as do the identities of those who carried out the blasts. About 10,000 police have been dispatched around the city to tighten up security.
Ian Martin, head of the UN monitoring mission in Nepal, told reporters yesterday that he hoped the swearing in of the assembly would help usher in new security for the country and that politically motivated killings would stop. However, he admitted he was not overly hopeful.
"This is a time for all political parties to show that they have the political will to bring to justice those responsible for violations of human rights, and not intervene as they are accustomed to do to protect their own supporters while calling for justice when their supporters are the victims," he said.
"I hope that but it is a little hard for me to expect that, because it is now more than three years since I came to Nepal and in all those three years there has not been a single case where the perpetrators of [political killings] ... have been brought to justice before the civilian courts."
Nepal's journey towards becoming a republic has been inextricably linked to the peace process established with the help of the international community to end a 10-year civil war, responsible for the deaths of 13,000 people. In late 2006, the Maoists agreed to re-enter the political mainstream and join an interim government. But their unwavering demand for that co-operation was that the royal family would have to be abolished.
Just five years earlier, the other political parties may have been disinclined to go along with the Maoists' demands. But the monarch, King Gyanendra – catapulted on to the throne by a 2001 massacre at the palace in which his brother, King Birendra, and eight other members of the royal family died – had never been popular with the public.
His unpopularity reached new depths in February 2005 when he suspended parliament and seized power for himself, returning Nepal to a state of affairs not seen since 1990 when absolute rule was ended. His decision resulted in widespread public demonstrations against the king and gave the Maoists ammunition for their argument that the political infrastructure was in need of a wholesale transformation.
In addition to scrapping the monarchy, the Maoists say they want to make Nepal a federal state and improve conditions for its impoverished citizens. The challenges are huge; until the 1950s Nepal was virtually closed to the outside world and parts of the country remain utterly undeveloped. Poverty is widespread.
In preparation for the abolition of the monarchy, King Gyanendra's image has already been taken off Nepal's currency and the title "royal" has been removed from the name of the army and the national airline. All references to the monarch have also been taken out of the national anthem. By the end of today, the monarch should also be gone from the royal palace.
Two centuries of royal rule
The Shah family has ruled Nepal since 1768 when the country first became unified. Once considered "living gods", the family's absolute rule over the country only came to an end in 1990. But for the 2001 palace massacre when Crown Prince Dipendra shot dead eight members of his family before fatally injuring himself, the current political turmoil might not be taking place as the then reigning monarch, King Birendra, was popular. Legislation to abolish the monarchy – the process to be formally taken today by the Constituent Assembly – was tabled by an interim government last December. The current king, Gyanendra, is expected to continue to live in Nepal, despite some reports he might move to India where he has supporters among the Hindu right wing. (The Independent)
Parties for president as head of state
KATHMANDU, May 27 - All the political parties represented in the Constituent Assembly (CA) have decided to table a joint proposal Wednesday through the cabinet to implement a federal
republic.
The parties, after parleys throughout Tuesday at different levels, endorsed a five-point proposal declaring Nepal an independent, indivisible, secular, inclusive, federal democratic country as of now. The proposal was prepared by the Nepali Congress, CPN (Maoist) and CPN-UML.
The twenty-five parties in the CA, the 13 major parties, the seven-party alliance and the big three parties held separate and joint meetings till late night before endorsing the proposal.
Following days of differences over the issue of future head of state, the Maoists have ultimately agreed to recognize the president as head of state but the powers and duties of the president have not yet been determined.
When asked what sort of president we will have immediately, Maoist Chairman Prachanda said, “Let’s not term it ceremonial, it will be constitutional.”
Prachanda said this while talking to reporters after the swearing in ceremony of CA members at the International Convention Center.
Prachanda’s party had been insisting that there should not be a separate president, to prevent state power from being divided between two power centers.
The parties have agreed to meet again Wednesday morning to settle the remaining issues. “The three parties
will meet again Wednesday morning to work out what
powers and responsibilities should be given to the president,” said Dr Minendra Rijal, an NC leader.
The parties could not finalize the names of 26 members to be nominated by the cabinet. They have agreed to finalize the list before the cabinet meeting Wednesday.
The parties have decided that the CA meeting should ask the cabinet to prepare necessary constitutional and legal arrangements required for the institution of president.
They have agreed to declare through the meeting that all laws contradicting the declaration of republic will be scrapped ipso facto.
The parties have decided to ask the king to vacate Narayanhity Royal Palace within 15 days and agreed to develop the palace as a historical museum. Some senior leaders of parties, however, oppose the idea and want to place an ordinary person in the building from where hereditary
kings ruled the country for 240 years.
Wednesday morning’s decision by the cabinet is expected to clarify the process for the king’s ouster from the palace.” The meeting has decided to let the council of ministers decide the issue of hoisting a national flag at the Royal Palace following the declaration of republic,” said UML senior leader Amrit Kumar Bohara, who attended Tuesday’s all-party meeting.
Though several issues related to the president’s powers are yet to be decided, Bohara said the president, being a constitutional head, will remain head of the national army with the authority to declare a state of emergency.
They did not reach any decision on forming a new government. “We will take up the issue only after implementation of republic,” Maoist leader Dr Babu Ram Bhattarai said.
The moment the CA meeting passes the proposal through a simple majority, the country’s 240-year-old institution of the crown will be abolished. With the approval of the proposal, Nepal’s Shah dynasty that has reached the 11th generation since Nepal’s founding king Prithvi Narayan Shah will lose all control over the people of Nepal.
King Gyanendra, who became king in June 2001 following the massacre of the entire family of King Birendra, grabbed absolute power in February 2005, leading eventually to abolition of the institution from the country. As the oldest member in the CA, Nepali Congress General Secretary KB Gurung will announce the abolition of monarchy. The interim parliament in January had decided that the first meeting of the constituent assembly will implement republic. (Kantipuronline)
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Nepali author demolishes king’s blue blood claim
By Sudeshna SarkarKathmandu, May 27 (IANS) On the verge of being stripped of his crown and evicted from the royal palace, Nepal’s distressed King Gyanendra now faces another blow - the demolition of the “myth” that his dynasty is descended from India’s Rajputs, a dynasty of warrior kings known for their valour and blue blood. Nepali author and researcher Subodh Kumar Singh contends that the Shah kings of Nepal, once revered as the incarnation of Hindu god Vishnu, are actually the descendants of the Magars, a Mongoloid people who inhabited western Nepal and occupied a low position in social hierarchy. They were dismissively described as ‘matwalis’ - a people known for their drinking prowess.
Singh, a political specialist at the American Embassy in Kathmandu, has been researching for over a decade the history of various communities who enjoyed a position of power in the past but then lost their glory and plummetted to the bottom of the social ladder.
In his new book, “The return of the Mauryas”, Singh says the Shah kings began creating the fiction that they were descended from the Rajput kings of India in order to hide their origin and commend greater reverence from their subjects.
However, several pieces of evidence belie the claim.
“During his last days, Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founder of the Shah dynasty, gathered all his relatives, courtiers and officers around him and advised them on how to conduct their work and themselves,” Singh told IANS.
“The last advice was recorded and still exists as Divya Upadesh (divine advice).”
“On his death bed, the king told the people around him, I am a Magar king. When you face death, you dispense with pretence and speak the truth. The king’s dying declaration is an indication that the Shah kings were not of blue blood.”
The advice was collected and published by a Catholic missionary who had come to Nepal in the 1960s, after the mystic land was gradually opened to foreigners.
Father L.F. Stiller’s book, “Prithvi Narayan Shah in the light of divya upadesh”, had to be published from India’s Bihar state in 1968 as, Singh says wryly, it would have been impossible to publish it in Nepal.
Even Singh’s book had to await the fall of King Gyanendra’s absolute regime and the restoration of democracy.
Singh points out a tradition that still remains in western Nepal as further proof.
“The Shah kings’ family deities - Goddess Manokamana and Gorkha Kali - have Magar priests,” he says. “If you are a Rajput, you would not have a Magar priest.”
Matrimonial alliances also indicate the dynasty’s humble stocks.
“The Magar kings had the tradition of marrying the daughters of Tharu kings. Prithvi Narayan Shah himself married a Tharu princess called Kaushalyavati.”
Though the Tharus are the kinsmen of the Buddha, who came from a royal family, the tides of fate turned them into slaves who are now regarded as untouchables in Nepal.
Later, the class-conscious Shah kings departed from the tradition and sought to marry Rajputs from India or the aristocracy in Nepal.
When Nepal holds the historic first meeting of its constituent assembly Wednesday and formally proclaims the kingdom to be a republic, King Gyanendra, overnight reduced to a commoner, would have his forefathers’ vanity to blame as much as his own overriding ambition.
“The Shah kings completely forgot their roots,” says Singh. “If they had remained true to their origin and kept themselves allied to the Magars, Tharus and Kirants, who form the majority, they would not have come to this pass,” Singh said.
“But they created fictitious genealogy and DNA and so, in the end, they had to face the dire consequences.” (Thaindian news)
| You Are 40% Left Brained, 60% Right Brained |
 Left brained people are good at communication and persuading others. If you're left brained, you are likely good at math and logic. Your left brain prefers dogs, reading, and quiet. The right side of your brain is all about creativity and flexibility. Daring and intuitive, right brained people see the world in their unique way. If you're right brained, you likely have a talent for creative writing and art. Your right brain prefers day dreaming, philosophy, and sports. |
