Crisis in Nepal

India must encourage different parties to work together until the new Constitution is finalised, and then support the functioning of a democracy

The debacle in Nepal could be said to prove yet again that revolutionaries rarely make genuine democrats. The fledgling republic’s first prime minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the Maoist chief who ran a guerrilla campaign for almost a decade to overthrow an increasingly discredited monarchy, has increasingly sought to establish Maoist supremacy in what is still a multi-party democracy. But in the present case he has a legitimate grievance, since the army chief defied civilian authority on a variety of issues, and the constitutional president overstepped his boundaries when he countermanded the prime minister’s order. But these are technicalities; since other political parties have opposed Mr Dahal’s action against the army chief, the underlying issue is a tussle for power at a time when the country’s new Constitution is still being drafted. Mr Dahal has now chosen the high ground by resigning, but he will almost certainly be plotting a comeback. He has shown in the past that his Maoist guerrillas are more than a match for the Nepalese army, and that he can rustle up more support in both towns and villages than the traditional political parties. So it would be unwise to count him out.

The positive sign is that, whatever his detractors’ motives, Mr Dahal’s resignation proves that the impulses for democracy within Nepal remain strong (it has had elected governments since the 1950s, though hobbled by the framework of an absolute and dissolute monarchy). It is also encouraging that Nepal’s 18 other political parties are exploring ways of forming a government that would include the Maoists. Whatever the efficacy of a rainbow coalition, maintaining even-handedness is critical when emotions are running high.

The face-off with the army chief, General Rookmangud Katawal, is over manifestly difficult issues. The agreement that led to the Maoists agreeing to join the political mainstream provided for the guerillas to be absorbed into the army. It is not hard to see that this is not an easy task; the nature and spirit of a guerilla force is fundamentally different from that of a uniformed army, and when 32,250 Maoist guerrillas are involved, the absorption issues can be daunting; indeed, they could overwhelm the army or result in a fractured fighting force. The general’s reluctance can therefore be understood, even if not condoned.

What is India to do? There is no doubt that a stable, sustainable democracy on the northern borders is in India’s best interest, given this country’s volatile neighbourhood — Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. This apart, the increasingly predatory instincts of China in South Asia call for a fine balance between idealism and realpolitik. Indeed, the face-off between the former prime minister and Gen Katwal, an adopted son of the former royal family, is regarded as a proxy war for influence between India and China — the former a backer of the India-trained Katwal and the latter offering to train Maoist forces to make them fit for regular military service. Historically, the Indian establishment has been close to that grey eminence of Nepali politics, G P Koirala, four-time prime minister and now leader of the opposition, and his Nepali Congress Party. But it would be shortsighted in the extreme to start taking sides, or to be aligned against Mr Dahal who has emerged as the most powerful figure in Nepal. The most sensible course for New Delhi would be to encourage the different parties and groups to keep working together until the new Constitution is finalised, and then to support the functioning of a proper constitutional democracy.