Reviving Nepal

King Gyanendra must be told where to get off

Nearly two and a half years ago, in October 2002, Nepal’s King Gyanendra rudely kicked aside the democratic ideal that Nepal aspired to, and indeed, had grown to cherish, and dismissed the elected prime minister to impose direct rule by the palace. The stated reason was the failure of the elected government to curb the Maoist insurgency.  

In his most recent action in February 2005, in a deftly engineered coup, the king dismissed the same prime minister for the same reason and declared a state of emergency. Meeting the US Ambassador to Nepal some days later, the king reportedly pledged to restore democratic freedoms within 100 days. It is unlikely, however, that the monarch will be found ticking the days off his calendar. If kings gave themselves deadlines, Nepal would have found itself on the path to substantial democracy long ago. King Gyanendra is more likely to continue playing the favourite game of inveterate despots – that of moving the goal posts. 

Rather, the international community would do well to adopt the 100-day timeframe as its own. The struggle to retrieve the gains of democracy will be a long one for Nepal’s citizens and democracy activists. The rest of the world, in the meantime, can take some immediate steps to demonstrate that its early rush of outrage at the king’s act will not taper off into an aimless, wait-and-watch approach.  

Time to act 

The belief among certain sections that India supports the king is fallacious. New Delhi’s immediate response to the king’s action was to describe the coup as “a serious setback” and to restate its support for multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy. Cynics must instead focus on evolving a comprehensive plan of action that can be propelled onto the policy agendas of governments, including New Delhi’s. This must include the suspension of military assistance and of non-essential aid, smart sanctions, forceful statements of condemnation at multilateral fora, and lastly, initiatives to help edge Nepal’s polity back towards democracy.  

Early into the crisis, India had made some preliminary noises about suspending military assistance, engaging with the international community to initiate moves to help restore democracy in Nepal and opening lines of communication with the Maoists. These were reasonable suggestions. Later, however, New Delhi took to vacillating, until finally calling its ambassador home and settling on the unhelpful policy formulation of keeping “the issue of defence supplies constantly under review” South Asia’s biggest country and the world’s largest democracy will have to do better than that.  

The other major player, the United States, too recalled its ambassador but is yet to describe the king’s action as a coup, for this would enable economic and military sanctions to kick in automatically. It is unclear what Washington is waiting for. The UK and the EU too have recalled their ambassadors, and have delivered suitable warnings but have yet to act on them.  

The time for action is now. Part of the king’s confidence stems from the ambivalent attitude of China and Russia to the coup. The failure on the part of India, the US and other concerned countries to act quickly and decisively will only embolden the king and give him the space and time required to reach out to countries and groups that have little interest in the democratic project. China and Pakistan are unlikely to risk antagonising heavyweights like the US and the EU by fishing in Nepal’s troubled waters. However, it would be unwise to leave the king free to seek adventures in the region, however delusive they might be.  

Military assistance 

India, the US and the UK are the largest suppliers of military aid to Nepal. The continuation of such assistance will only strengthen the king’s hand at a time when he has chosen to invest himself with extraordinary powers. The suspension of fundamental rights has already weakened the capacity of Nepali civil society to monitor and challenge state activities. With the Royal Nepal Army’s record of human rights violations being what it is, any reinforcement of these powers will only lead to abuses on a larger scale and stall efforts towards a long and sustained peace. In this context, India must also stop supplying spare parts for military equipment to the Royal Nepal Army.  

Military assistance to Nepal has yielded few results in the war against the rebel Maoists. A strong push for democracy, combined with initiatives to bring all parties, including the Maoists to the negotiating table, will bring greater dividends in the long run.  

Sanctions  

There are several other steps that the international community can take as punitive measures. These must stay in place until the emergency measures are lifted, fundamental rights restored and concrete steps taken towards the restoration of democracy in Nepal.  

To start with, India, the European Union and the US must immediately impose a travel ban on the king, his family and all the ministers and officials of the newly appointed government. In addition, all international assets of the Nepal government must be frozen.  

Non-governmental organisations in the US, EU and other countries must draft legislation to impose punitive fines on governments that continue to maintain trade links with Nepal on the lines of the Helms-Burton Act in the US. The US Government must initiate a Nepal democracy motion in the US Congress on the lines of the North Korea Human Rights Act, 2004.  

The UK has suspended military training for the Royal Nepal Army following the coup. India and the US, however, are yet to follow. As with defence supplies, the halting of military training will send a strong signal to the king and to the army, which, for its part, has failed to incorporate the human rights training it receives – as part of US military assistance – into its activities.  

The king must also not be given reason to believe that the furore will die down and that the world will overlook his actions in the interest of Nepal’s grim humanitarian problems. While essential aid must continue, the next annual meeting of the Nepal Development Forum - the aid consortium on Nepal – must resolve to curtail all non-essential aid to Nepal if by that time the emergency has not been lifted and fundamental rights not restored. Essential aid should be routed through Nepali non-governmental organisations and international aid organisations. It must not be channelled through the government.  

Other initiatives  

At the next annual session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in March-April 2005, India, the US, the EU and Japan must jointly draft a resolution condemning in the strongest possible terms the action of the king. The resolution must also demand the restoration of fundamental rights, the release of political detainees, and concrete steps towards the restoration of democracy. The world’s primary human rights body has, in the past, failed to adequately face up to the situation in Nepal. During its 60^th annual session in 2004, the Commission on Human Rights came out with a lame statement that refused to roundly condemn the ongoing human rights abuses. Instead, it welcomed the "commitment” of the government of Nepal to fulfil its human rights obligations and supported UN efforts “aimed at developing technical assistance and advisory services” to facilitate human rights monitoring.   

Perhaps, if the Commission had seen it fit to draft a stronger statement in the form of a resolution, the king would have received a clear indication, in advance, of what the world thought was wrong with his country. However, human rights is often furthest from the minds of government representatives at the Commission. Calls for a resolution went unheeded as the US refused to look beyond the threat posed by the Maoists to justify its military assistance to Nepal. Asian countries closed ranks and refused to support any criticism of a member of their group.  

This unfortunate lack of foresight must be corrected at the next session of the Commission, due to take place in March-April 2005. The Commission must demand the full restoration of fundamental rights, the release of detainees and a return to efforts to bring about multiparty democracy in Nepal. It must unequivocally demand that Nepal fulfil its obligations under international human rights law and humanitarian law. It must insist on the removal of restrictions on the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal (NHRC) and urge both the government and the rebel Maoists to sign the peace agreement drafted by the NHRC.  

Finally, the international community owes it to the people of Nepal to assist in evolving a functional democratic order. India must take the lead in convening an international meeting in New Delhi on restoring democracy in Nepal. It must bring together leaders of all political parties in Nepal, including the Maoist leadership, as was suggested at the  meeting of India’s cabinet of ministers in early February. This will send a clear message to the king and also to parties that remain cynical about India’s intentions. It will enable the community of democracies to make its case in an effective, yet non-intrusive manner. It may also lay the foundation for lasting peace in the Himalayan kingdom.

 Human Rights Features