The Hindu Business Line : Nepal at the crossroads

Briefly, the Nepalese monarchy, under King Gyanendra, has reached a point in its history where a decision will have to be taken on its future structure.

The monarchy has reached a point where it will have to share power (in the very real sense of the term) with the people, the most important implication of which would be a dilution in the absolute power which the Nepalese monarch has enjoyed till now. From every point of view, this would constitute real progress so far as democratic governance is concerned.

True, in theory a benevolent monarchy can also look after the people in the way they should be looked after. Indeed, the benefits for the people at large resulting from such a system could even be more substantial than in a situation where the governance structure is more democratic in the sense of popular representation. But the fact would remain that the people would not enjoy the political power to rule themselves through their representatives, an unstoppable form of governance which has gathered steam ever since the French Revolution (inevitably) happened more than two hundred years ago. The Nepal King's motives are not being questioned here.

Of course, he has the welfare of his people at heart, encapsulated in a definite programme for development which he believes will benefit them no end. But that is not the point that should engage the attention of the world at this juncture. The all-important issue is: What precisely is the "people's" input in this "programme for development"?

And, secondly, if the popular perception of the best route for Nepal's progress is not exactly what the King has in mind, has he made it demonstrably clear to his countrymen and to the world that he has agreed to accept the majority's prescription instead of his own? From all available indications, this is not what King Gyanendra has chosen to do. Instead, he has taken the road of confrontation with the people — a road which (as it seems now) is leading directly to the eventual dilution of the monarchy's powers which, to put it mildly, is not what the King has intended to happen. Of course, he will say that the farcical turnout of just 22 per cent of the electorate in the recently held municipal elections is the direct result of the poll boycott by Nepal's political parties and also the threats of intimidation issued by the Maoists.

This may or may not be true, but the fact remains that the poll turnout was unimpressive, which suggests that the boycott was effective as also the stand of the Maoists, which in turn means that both the political parties and the Maoists hold a position in Nepalese society which cannot be ignored by the people let alone the monarchy.

In such a situation what would one expect the Nepal King to do? He would of course scout around for international support to bolster his own position outside his kingdom and also seek material assistance to put down all opposition to his policies by brute force.

It is now clear that there is no support for King Gyanendra in the world at large. Expectedly, New Delhi has been consistent in its discouragement of the King's anti-people policies, its latest stand on the civic polls leaving no one in any doubt that India would like King Gyanendra to "(initiate) a genuine process of national reconciliation, dialogue and participation (of the people) which can facilitate a peaceful political settlement".

Such has been the scale of the Nepalese monarch's unpalatable actions that even Washington has said quite bluntly that the municipal elections were a "hollow attempt to legitimise (the King's) powers" and that his refusal to restore democracy, release political prisoners and talk to the political parties "is leading his country further down the path of violence and disorder".

The writing on the wall is there for the King to see. He should realise that the abolition of the monarchy is not the objective. No one would prefer that a historical relic of the past should be peremptorily consigned to the dustbin of history. As the Maoist leader, Mr Prachanda, has said so very clearly in an exclusive interview given to The Hindu recently, the one objective is to set up a "democratic republic" in Nepal "through the election of a Constituent Assembly under international supervision".

King Gyanendra has nothing to lose but a fearful fate if he agrees to facilitate this change in the governance structure of Nepal, in the process withdrawing gracefully to an honourable slot in Nepalese society, in the footsteps of other, sensible, fellow-monarchs all over the world.