Nepal's Unfinished Democratic Revolution

Prateek Pradhan
Within a span of fifteen months, between King Bir Nikram Shahder Gyanendra's proclamations of 1 February 2005 and 24 April 2006, Nepal went through unfathomable political and social changes. No one, including the Seven Party Alliance (SPA), the Maoists, and the king visualised such transformation within such a short span of time. The revolutionary movement that reached its peak in the first three weeks of April tamed the king, catapulted the democratic political parties to the helm of the power, and helped bring Maoists to the negotiating table. The SPA and the Maoists have moved significantly forward in their talks as the rebel leader opted to make himself public inside the quarters of the prime minister of the country on 16 June 2006. The rebels even made the political parties commit to dissolution of the House of Representatives, which was recently restored after the successful people's movement. Moreover, the Maoists and SPA have agreed to draft an interim statute to rule the country, and form an interim government inducting the representatives of the Maoists and the civil society.

However, despite the historic success of the initial rounds of the peace talks and the public appearance of Prachanda, the leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), many political leaders are grumbling about the recent development. After two months of the change of guard in the government, the country is still hanging in a precarious balance. The king lost the war against his own people but has not lost his position as the head of state and still occupies the royal palace. The political parties have savoured the outcome of the revolution, and have also been successful in restoring the House that was dissolved three years ago, but they are not very comfortable among themselves and with the Maoists. Although the success of the peaceful movement has written off the justification of an armed movement, the Maoists are still at the centre of the political muddle. The Maoists have entered into the capital with huge, but peaceful rallies. They aspire to lay full claim to all the credit for the people's movement, they are demanding the dissolution of the restored House of Representatives, and a national conference (a sort of interim government) with their active participation. They have, more or less, become successful in attaining their goals after the 16 June 2006 agreement.

At the time of writing, the king has reached a position where he would be happy to have saved his status as a ceremonial monarch and retained his son as the crown prince. However, it is not yet clear whether the people will grant him this wish through the elections of the Constituent Assembly. For political parties, the challenge is to manage the arms of the Maoists before laying red carpets for them into the government. The Maoists, on their part, have realised that their armed battle has served its purpose and helped the peaceful democratic movement emerge victorious, so they are striving to enter into the peaceful political fray, and have so far made the SPA tow their line, with certain trimmings at places. However, they are still in a dilemma. If they give up arms, they are not likely to fare well in the elections, and if they do not, they are bound to fall out of the mainstream and will not be included in the interim setup. Moreover, there is also a heavy risk of the militia's disintegration. If they decide to give up arms immediately, a huge group or many smaller groups might disassociate themselves from the party and begin guerilla warfare and extortion in the name of continuation of the people's war. If they decide not to allow the management of their arms by a neutral agency, the democratic parties would not accept them in the government, and the Maoists will be left with no option but to go back to the jungle. This is the reason they are advocating an option where they would enter mainstream politics by keeping their arms within a disclosed area under supervision of the UN.

Due to a traditional and feudal society, a lack of transparency and authoritarian culture even within the democratic parties, the dynamics of Nepali politics is too tedious to comprehend. In order to understand why the king is still there and is expecting to save his throne even if the Maoists are inducted in the government, and to understand why the Maoists would ultimately enter into the mainstream of multiparty political system giving up their radical Maoist revolutionary ideology, an analysis of Nepali politics is essential. The history of Nepal shows why people were so oblivious of the movement waged by the political parties since 4 October 2002 and how they suddenly risked their lives to restore democracy in Nepal during the final leg of the movement from 5 April to 24 May 2006.

In order to explain why confusion reigns despite successful people's movement of 2006, this paper begins by going into the background of Nepali politics, then moving on to discuss the anti-autocracy movement, the last leg known as the April revolution, and an analysis of the causes behind the lingering confusion. Lastly, the paper summarises the immediate steps that have to be taken by both the Maoists and the government to establish peace in the country.

Background
Nepal has experienced numerous successful and unsuccessful movements, but none has achieved its goals. The first revolution in Nepal began when Mahatma Gandhi's independence movement shook India. Social reformer Krishna Prasad Koirala's exile from Nepal sowed the seed of political movement in Nepal. His sons Matrika, Biseshwore, Tarani and Girija (now prime minister) were all influenced by the Indian independence movement. All of them along with Manmohan Adhikari, Puspa Lal Shrestha, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Ganesh Man Singh, Dilli Raman Regmi and other educated and spirited youths formed different political parties to wage movement in Nepal. The movement became successful in 1950, and established democracy in the country, which turned out to be merely an agreement between the political parties, the king, and the Rana rulers.

The main objective of the 1950 movement was not to establish a complete democratic state, with the King having the role of constitutional monarch. Bisheshwore Prasad Koirala himself admitted that they were fighting to establish a responsible government.1 However, he had an idea that the king should behave as per the rule of the law. The people's movement dethroned Rana oligarchs, but instead of the people being empowered by the struggle, the monarchy became more powerful and influential. King Tribhuvan, who had returned to Nepal in 1950 with Indian and the Nepali Congress support, later on abandoned the political parties. He never held the elections to constituent assembly as promised. After the demise of King Tribhuvan in 1956, his son Mahendra chose to rule with an iron fist. The movement that had been termed successful in 1950 did not yield any result until 1958. The two generations of the kings used the period to weaken the parties by creating feud between parties and exposing them in the public. However, after the tremendous pressure from the parties, King Mahendra held elections to the House of Representatives in 1958, which were swept by B. P. Koirala's Nepali Congress Party. However, King Mahendra would not let the people's representative work freely for long. He sacked the government and dissolved the elected house by one proclamation on 16 December 1960. Subsequently, in 1962 the king announced the Panchayat Constitution. Though Mahendra died in 1971, the political system he instituted continued without much trouble until 1980.

The first big challenge to the feudal Panchayat Raj came from the student movement that started after a minor event. The students who went to the Pakistan Embassy in Kathmandu to protest General Zia-ul-Haq's decision to execute Zulfikar Ali Bhutto were brutally repressed by the police. The event triggered huge protest all over the country, and the erstwhile King Birendra was forced to announce a referendum. The referendum was to choose between reformed Panchayati system and a multiparty democracy. It was because of B. P. Koirala's over-confidence in the people and his decision to remain out of the government during the elections that Surya Bahadur Thapa manipulated the elections in favour of the Panchayat. The communist parties' decision to boycott the elections indirectly helped sustain the Panchayat system. The “reformed” Panchayat, in effect, turned out to be more autocratic and feudal. Corruption, nepotism and political discrimination reached new heights after 1980 for the next ten years.

Due to new understanding between the democratic forces and communist alliance under the leadership of Nepali Congress leader Ganesh Man Singh, the movement of 1990 forced the King to give in to the political pressure. King Birendra scrapped the Panchayati constitution and invited Nepali Congress and the communist front to form the government. The interim government was led by Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, which drafted the Constitution of Nepal 1991 and held elections for the House of Representatives. The election brought Girija Prasad Koirala into power as the first democratically elected prime minister.

However, even in 1990 the movement remained incomplete, because it was again a kind of agreement between the king and the political parties. All the high-level officials and royalists, who were corrupt and had grossly abused human rights during the Panchayati Raj were tacitly awarded general amnesty. The king was also given the status of a constitutional monarch with significant powers to remain above the law, made Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Nepalese Army, and given the right to the put royal seal on bills (and the right to send bills in question back to parliament), the right to nominate Upper House members, and the right to raise questions about the performance of the government, among other privileges.
As the king and his accomplices, who were involved in all sorts of corruption at the cost of a population, over 40 percent of which lived under the poverty line (income of less than US$1 a day), were given general amnesty, the regressive and reactionary forces were encouraged to start conspiring against democracy. Those who were disgruntled with King Birendra accused him of cowardice and said that he compromised too soon and gave too much. Those elements sought the shelter of the then businessman-prince Gyanendra. Inside the royal palace a group comprising the prince and Queen Mother Ratna were actively supporting the elements who wanted to restore absolute monarchy in the country.

Perhaps due to heavy pressure from family and friends, King Birendra started interfering with the work of the executive. The king started nominating candidates for the Upper House on his own (which was not the case in the first government after the elections), which was supposed to be on the recommendation of the prime minister. Most of such nominated members were dead-supporters of absolute monarchy, like Ramesh Nath Pandey. The king also started seeking his share in the appointment of ambassadors. Within a few years, it became a trend for only king-appointed persons to become ambassadors to the UK and other countries. The constitutional monarch had already crossed the boundary when he sent a citizenship bill back to the parliament, and when it was returned without any amendment he sent it again to the Supreme Court. As per the constitution of the land he was supposed to give royal endorsement to the bill. While the political parties were confused about how to handle the situation, another issue emerged: a disgruntled group of the Communist Party announced yet another insurgency.

Nepal has been in the global news regularly in the last decade, especially after the beginning of the Maoist-inspired peasant insurgency. In 1996 a small group of leftists went underground announcing armed insurgency against the state and the "bourgeois" parliamentary system. These people had become disillusioned with the parliamentary system (mainly due to its dismal performance) and wanted to establish a communist state as per the ideology of Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung. The insurgents started killing people, and news of policemen being slain by the Maoists became a regular phenomenon. The Maoists seized land from landowners and allocated it to the landless and poor peasants, and forcible evicted the upper strata and local administrators to establish their “people's” government and “people's courts”. Soon, they had captured most of Nepal's far-flung villages at gunpoint.

As if the Maoist insurgency was not enough, the members of the royal family were gruesomely murdered during an attack on the royal palace, allegedly by the crown prince on June 1st 2001. The news of the murder of the whole of the royal family spread like a wildfire around the globe. In the "indiscriminate" shooting by the sniper rifles at almost point-blank range: ten royal family members lost their lives within ten minutes, but the family that would benefit the most from the incident escaped unscathed. The only living brother of the king became the successor of the throne. After taking over the throne, Gyanendra was in a great hurry to do many things within a short span of time. He even declared that he would not remain as a king who would only be seen but he would also be heard.2 The new king's proactive role wrote a whole new history of Nepal. The steps taken by him to usurp power and become the absolute monarch pushed him to the brink of losing the throne within just 15 months, and empowered people to a level that was not anticipated. However, people are not satisfied with the achievements of the 2006 movement because they know that the monarchy has always found a way out to survive the rough weather, and retrieve power.

Anti-Autocracy Movements
Nepal is a typical example of a people willing to sacrifice lives for sovereignty, democracy and freedom. They have snatched their rights back from despotic, autocratic monarchs. Probably no other country in the world has lost democracy, and had it restored as frequently.

However, when the king sacked the democratically elected prime minister in October 2002, it seemed as if no one opposed the king's move. In fact, the monarchists had rightly understood that the people were disillusioned by the political parties' lust for power and had advised the king accordingly. Taking the benefit of the political wrangling among the political parties, King Gyanendra grabbed the first chance that came his way in the form of dissolution of the House recommended by the then prime minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and he (the king) readily obliged Soon, the prime minister approached the king again to postpone the parliamentary elections. However, instead of granting the PM's second wish, the king unconstitutionally and unceremoniously sacked the prime minister on 4 October 2002.

The king then tried three prime ministers in next 28 months, the last one being Sher Bahadur Deuba once again. However, no prime minister could hold elections without resolving the Maoist insurgency and reviving peace. The king then decided to take everything in his hand directly. Hence, the proclamation of 1 February 2005, where the king announced himself as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, formed Royal Council for Corruption Control, imposed emergency, imposed pre-printing censorship on newspapers, etc. It was the monarchy's bad luck that Gyanendra failed miserably in attaining the goals of maintaining peace, ensuring good governance, corruption-free environment etc. Violence accelerated during his reign, and the local elections that he held forcefully to show that he had fulfilled his words, were simply rejected by the people. This was the last spell of the king which lasted only for 15 months, and alienated almost all of civil society.

Yet, it was not easy for the parties to bring people onto the streets against the autocratic monarchy. They tried various methods to woo people. The political parties' mass meetings in Pokhara, Biratnagar, and Janakpur instilled a certain confidence in them. The Nepali Congress' Kathmandu gathering at Baneshwore was also impressive. Later, the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) organised an even bigger rally, which will be remembered in history as the day when Crown Prince Paras's car was stoned. Encouraged by the increasing people's support, the SPA announced a combined rally on 20 January 2006. The government clamped down on this by announcing a curfew. The government found a good excuse to clamp down on the parties' move as Maoists attacked police stations at Thankot and Dadhikot.3
Despite repeated efforts, initially the picture was not very encouraging for the political parties. Their only support had been civil society (mainly Civil Movement for Democracy and Peace), human rights organisations, a handful of media-persons and the Nepal Bar Association, which were incessantly fighting for democracy and fundamental rights. When professional groups like doctors and engineers also joined the movement and came onto the streets openly, the movement received another shot in the arm. However, major credit goes to the 12-point agreement between the Maoists and the SPA in November 2005 and their reaffirmed commitment to the agreement in March 2006.4

The April Revolution
The last leg of the movement lasted only for 19 days--April 5-24. The parties announced the program to encircle Kathmandu from the ring road. The government announced a curfew within the ring road area of the capital. For the people outside the ring road, it became a routine to come up to the edge of ring road and chant slogans against the king and in support of a republican state. Inside the ring road also many pocket areas like Buddhanagar, Anamnagar, Aloknagar, Shantinagar, etc. broke the curfew almost every day, chanted slogans, organised rallies, and burnt tyres on the streets.

The major areas that put up a strong fight against the government were Gongabu, Kalanki, Kirtipur, Kapan and Chabahil. The political parties were trying their level best to join these groups and move them into the city. In the meantime, on 11 April the first major clash broke out between the protestors and the security forces at Gongabu. The security forces used live bullets against the protestors. However, the use of arms and repressive measures only fuelled the movement. On 15 April, the people gathered at Kalanki moved towards Balkhu forming a mass of tens of thousands. Their attempt to enter into the city from Teku bridge was foiled by the use of excessive force. On 20 April, security forces used live bullets on the unarmed people at Kalanki, killing at least three. The Kalanki killing proved to be the last nail in the coffin of the royal regime. On 22 April, over half a million people went around the ring road. The 27-kilometer long ring road was almost half filled by the protestors.

The king, who reportedly observed the rallies from his private helicopter, got nervous and decided to take a step back on the evening of 21 April. The misinformed king made another mistake by thinking that inviting the SPA to the government would resolve the entire problem. In his proclamation on 21 April, he boasted of the good deeds he had done for the country, praised the security forces that had already killed so many people, and called upon the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) to recommend a name for the post of prime minister.

The king did not realise that it was too late for such amends. The 21 April proclamation was widely rejected by the parties and the people. On 22 April, people broke all the barriers and almost a million people entered into the city from all directions and tried to enter the royal palace. No military might could have saved the king on that day, but a heavy downpour with hail storm dispersed the crowd, and saved the royal palace. On 24 April at 11:30 p.m. the king finally bowed down. He accepted the demands of the political parties about the restoration of the House of Representatives that was dissolved on 22 May 2002. He was even forced to extend heartfelt condolences to all those who lost their lives in the people's movement.

The king's second proclamation within a span of three days was considered the victory of the people.5 The SPA formed the government under the leadership of 84-year old veteran leader Girija Prasad Koirala of Nepali Congress, while CPN (UML) was represented by the deputy prime minister. The House of Representatives declared itself sovereign and took many decisions to curtail the powers of the king and for empowerment of the people. His Majesty's Government became a thing of the past. Now it was only the Nepali Government and Nepali Military, no longer the Royal Nepalese Army. The king lost his position as Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the Privy Council has also been dismantled. The Parliament even took the right to decide the crown prince of the country. The House also made the people proud by announcing that a child could receive citizenship on the basis of his/her mother's citizenship as well. Similarly, the House also proclaimed that in all government organisations women would be inducted in larger numbers to increase their participation to at least 33 percent.

The Girija government also formed a team, led by Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula and comprising Pradeep Gyawali of CPN (UML) and Ganesh Dutta Lekhak of Nepali Congress (D), to pursue talks with the Maoists. Earlier, the Maoists had announced a three-member team including Krishna Bahadur Mahara (coordinator), Dev Gurung and Dina Nath Sharma. The first round of talks set the code of conduct to be observed during the ceasefire. It was interesting that the second round began with the public appearance of the rebel leader Prachanda who was underground for over 40 years. Not only that, they even took some phenomenal decisions regarding dissolution of the House, formation of interim statute and formation of an interim government.

Despite such positive developments and optimism in the air, why is there still confusion?

The Confusion
Nepal is a peaceful country once again. The ultimate goal of the SPA and the Maoists is to hold the election for the Constituent Assembly and embark onto the multiparty democratic system with an aim to establish a democratic republic. The rebel militants and their arch enemy, the military, are exchanging pleasantries while providing security to their leaders. The front pages of the newspapers are no more splashed with the news of killings, murders and clashes. Business is slowly picking up, and there are no more strikes and closure of schools, transport, and business houses. The Kathmandu streets are once again relatively safe, barring the spate of looting and other incidents which also seem to be under control after a broad daylight clash between police and the looters following a foiled bank heist. People have started to move outside their houses and domestic as well as international tourism is looking good. The industrial mills are rolling once again, as the goods can be transported to any area without the fear of arson or being looted. Hence, there is a stroke of optimism in the political canvass, which however is still not colourful.

The confusion reigns because of the attitude of the political parties and the Maoists. There is a serious contradiction in their understanding about the people's verdict of the famous April movement. It is true that the movement was successful because of the active participation of both the SPA and the Maoists. However, the general public did not come onto the streets to support any one party in particular. The people supported the movement because they saw hope for sustainable peace after these two parties signed the 12-point agreement.

The people had no faith in the political parties, and still do not believe them completely. If they had faith in the parties, the people would have taken to the streets long ago. The parties had been trying to woo the people since 4 October 2002 when the king dismissed the Deuba government. The people were really annoyed by the unbridled aspiration of the political leaders to earn money, make big houses and provide jobs to their sycophants and close relatives. The only benefit to the political parties is that the majority of the people want a multiparty competitive democracy, and that is the reason they rally behind the political parties despite all their flaws.

On the other hand, the people are also not in support of the Maoists' objective of the establishment of one-party communist rule in the country. Most of the people are negatively influenced by the conflict, and they consider Maoists to be a group of savage people who kill others to achieve their political aspirations. However, the Maoists got the credit of the April revolution because the royal ministers were claiming that the general public was not convinced by the SPA, and the whole move was being organised by the Maoists, leading the Maoists to get this impression as well. They were proven right when the people rejected the king's proclamation on 21 April that asked the SPA to form a government. Over half a million people who swarmed the capital seemed to support the Maoist agenda. However, the Maoists and the royal government were proved grossly wrong within just three days. The Maoists had rejected the king's April 24th proclamation of restoration of the House, but to their utter surprise, people took part in the victory rally the next day, which was bigger than any other rallies in the past. It proved that the people had accepted the restoration of the House as the ultimate goal of the people's movement. The confused and awe-stricken Maoists came up with three statements within a week. On 25 April morning they claimed that accepting the king's call was a "historic blunder" on the part of the political parties.6 Prachanda stated that the blockade of the valley would continue and their struggle would not stop. After seeing the victory rally on the 25th, the Maoists had to change their stance and they came up with yet another statement announcing withdrawal of the blockade. In less than a week, they also announced unilateral ceasefire and showed commitment to accept peaceful settlement on all the issues.

Now when a ceasefire is being observed from both the sides and negotiations are going on, both sides have started blaming each other. The Maoists are blaming the political parties of being content with the restoration of the House and forgetting the major issue of election of a Constituent Assembly. The Maoist team leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara has gone to the extent of denouncing the government and claiming that the attitude would disrupt the peace process. The government is blamed to have done things slowly, and being in favour of supporting the ceremonial monarchy in the country. The Maoists have demanded immediate dissolution of the House and replacement by a National Conference that would incorporate the Maoists as well.

On the other side, many political leader in SPA have shown skepticism about the Maoists' arms. Despite the fact that they have entered into an 8-point agreement with the Maoists on 16 June 2006, the political leaders have gone wild with the pace of the peace negotiations. They have failed to catch up with the development of peace talks. Even before the Maoists have laid their arms, there are talks about bringing them into the government and incorporating their participation in an all-party body that would work like a parliament until the elections of a Constituent Assembly are held. The senior leaders of Nepali Congress, Nepali Congress (D), and CPN (UML) have criticised their own government and asked it to get the mandate from the general assembly of the party.

Confused Foreign Forces
The recent political developments have confused the US the most. They have not yet revoked the terrorist tag from the Maoist party, already on the verge of joining the government. If it happens, the US would have the same situation as they had in Palestine where the party recognised as a terrorist party formed the government. In such a case, the US would be forced to remove all its programs from Nepal.

Political analysts are looking at both Indian and American roles as quite crucial in this conflict. They believe that both India and the US are lobbying for the ceremonial status of monarchy in the country. These countries are worried that if the monarchy is abolished the Maoists would be major players in the politics and will establish their type of authoritarian system sooner or later. The red-carpet welcome to Prime Minister Koirala in India on 6 June, and the welcome by none other than Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh at the airport is also being interpreted in this light.
Maoist supreme leader Prachanda has openly warned the political parties not to follow imperialist American and expansionist Indian line.7 Prachanda has also asked the parties to refrain from taking the credit of successful people's movement by taking big decisions from the "dead House that has been brought to existence by artificial life". The Maoists are desperately seeking the support of middle and lower-middle class bourgeois, because this group would be the most influential at the time where ballot result only decides the power owners. The rally and mass meeting held by the Maoists in the capital on June 2nd was also intended to gain the confidence of the middle class city-ites. On this day the Maoists spent at least 20-30 million rupees from their "hard-earned" extortion money.

The bone of contention at the moment is the credit of the people's movement. The Maoists are worried that the SPA has already emerged victorious, snatching the credit of the movement, whereas the SPA is irritated that the Maoists are demanding more than what they deserve. However, at the moment the Maoists are certainly in a better position, which is confusing the leaders of other political parties.

Conclusion
The state of confusion at the moment is because of lack of trust between the SPA and the Maoists. The SPA is confident that the people's support was for them, so they do not need to compromise much. They are also suspicious of the Maoists' intention. On the other hand, the Maoists want to give an impression that the people's war made everything possible.

Despite the confusion, one does not need to be pessimistic of Nepal's situation because the Maoists cannot afford to go back to jungle, and the SPA government cannot ignore the demand for a Constituent Assembly. For the SPA, the popular mandate of the revolution is to establish sustainable peace by brining the Maoists into the negotiations. If the political parties deny it, not only the Maoists but the republican line within the political parties will also create problems for the leadership. Similarly, the civil society that fought so strongly for democracy has already made it clear that they are going for a republican state. Hence, they will also be coming out strongly against the SPA. So, even if the parties (mainly a few top leaders in the Nepali Congress) want to do away with the Constituent Assembly, it will not be a practical or possible act. In the case of the Maoists, they have openly admitted that they were unable to win over the military because of the involvement of foreign forces.8 The Maoists have also understood the power of the peaceful movement, because the SPA-led movement achieved in 19 days what the Maoists had been trying for over 10 years at the cost of 13,000 lives.

However, it is unfortunate that both the parties, despite knowing their limitations, are trying to achieve as much as they can, leading to the confusion in the country.

References
The Kathmandu Post. Various issues.
Kantipur daily. Various issues.
Subedi, Surya P. Dynamics of Foreign Policy and Law: A Study of Indo-Nepal Relations. Oxford.
International Crisis Group. 2006. Report.
Hutt, Michael ed. Himalayan 'People's War'. London: Hurst & Company.
Nepal, Gyanmani, and Sajha Prakashan. Nepal Ko Mahabharat.
Thapa, Deepak. A Kingdom Under Siege. London and New York: Zed Books.
Press Releases by the Maoists.
Proclamation by the King on various occasions

End Notes
1. Page 93, Aatma Britanta by BP Koirala
2. Time Magazine interview
3. The Kathmandu Post, 15 January, 2006.
4. Separate releases with the same content by SPA and Prachanda on 19th March, 2006
5. The Kathmandu Post May 23, 2006.
6. Prachanda Statement on 25th April
7. Nepal Samacharpatra, Nepali daily, front page, June 6, 2006.
8. Prachanda told to the writer in the first every face-to-face interview with Nepali press. The Kathmandu Post, 6 February, 2006.