Nepal has rid itself of an archaic form of government, namely, the monarchy. The Constituent Assembly, which abolished it, has also asked King Gyanendra to vacate his palace and live "like a commoner". He has to vacate by June 12, and it is reported that he has been consulting astrologers before he decides on his new residence. The eviction order, too, is as it should be, because the palace in the heart of Kathmandu has a symbolic significance and, had an ex-king gone on living in the palace, it could have turned into a focal point for revivalist forces. And, of course, Gyanendra and the world should be relieved that his departure has not been bloody. History shows that deposed monarchs seldom go peacefully to their maker. Even England, which prides itself for its civilisational values, once cut off its king's head. Many others have done the same thing, including France. The Russians shot the tsar and his family. In contrast, the Maoist government of Nepal has treated the former king well.
But while grace in victory is a virtue always to be cherished, getting rid of the monarchy and asking the king to look for new digs has been the easy part. Now begin the hard bits, such as initiating and implementing wide-ranging land reform, attracting industrial investment, providing the country with proper constitutional governance and sensible international relations. The changeover from a feudal order to a modern one has never been easy for any country. Nepal should not regard itself an exception. It is also a fact that when faced with problems during the transition, which can extend over many years, governments tend to get impatient and seek to abridge the very freedoms they fought for and wrested from the old order. Governments that are dominated by those of a Marxist persuasion, of whatever hue, are more prone to this failing. So it will be interesting to see how the new Maoist-led government handles the problems that lie ahead and what it does when its skills and patience are tested. Indeed, the strains are already showing in the tussle over who should be the ceremonial president replacing the king. The Maoists have rightfully claimed for themselves the office of the prime minister, but their leader Prachanda has said that he wants to be the ceremonial president as well — which is not a very good idea, especially since the Maoists got only a third of the popular vote and therefore cannot claim a monopoly on all high offices.
Where India is concerned, both countries have to ensure that they engage with each other as constructively as possible. The last few years have seen India play a careful game but there have been missteps as well (notably the statement by MK Narayanan, the national security adviser, about India's preferred electoral outcome). On the other hand, China has done what it can to gain goodwill and it should not come as a surprise if Nepal enhances its pro-China tilt. But given the realities of geography, Nepal would be served well if it bears in mind that there are limits to the degree to which it can adopt any kind of anti-Indian slant. On the Indian side, the strangest of all positions is the BJP's regret at the monarchy being replaced by a secular regime. Odd, when the party hopes to come to power by this time next year. |
Content Guide
|