Nepal: Two Public Statements In Solidarity with the Movement for Democracy

In Solidarity with the Movement for Democracy in Nepal
- Two Public Statements by Intellectuals and Prominent Citizens

(i)

Please support this statement, publicise it in your country and send copies to your government, Nepal embassy and the UN agencies who are still supporting the king

(23 April 2006)

IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE DEMOCRATIC UPRISING IN NEPAL

The compromise proposed by King Gyanendra of Nepal on Friday, April 21st evening, which envisages his continuance as a constitutional monarch, is a last-ditch attempt to perpetuate the old order. It will not satisfy the demand for the establishment of a true democracy in the country, for the fulfillment of which the nation has risen in a spontaneous and mass revolt.
We must recall that the pledge to go in for an elected Constituent Assembly had first been made through the Interim Government of Nepal Act, 1951, proclaimed by King Tribhuvan in February 1951. After a long period of democratic struggle, the political parties led by the Nepali Congress formed a coalition government in April 1990 and worked out yet another compromise with the palace. Their failure to elect a Constituent Assembly vitiated the promise of democracy. The vitiation resulted in the declaration of a People’s War in February 1996. After a long period of State repression and political violence, all the democratic forces in the country are once again united on the core demand for an elected Constituent Assembly. The latest proposal of king Gyanendra to go back to the old order, after all the violence and turmoil the country has been through, appears to be senseless in not taking cognizance of the aspiration of the Nepali people to be masters of their own destiny. It is also bereft of any pragmatic value. As the inexorable effervescence of democratic uprising in the country demonstrates, the monarchical tyranny in the country does not fulfill even the minimal criterion of an effective regime with at least some semblance of legitimacy. Not only are the people of Nepal out on the streets, even the government officials, in growing numbers, appear to have joined the democratic uprising. It must also be pointed out that the international law forbids external interventions that go against the political will of a sovereign people. The consequences of any attempt to stem the tide of democratic uprising in the country with brutal force or political subterfuge can only be tragic and politically volatile.
The international community of nations and the civil society, especially in South Asia, have an obligation to try to avert the repression of Nepal’s democratic will through violence. It is their duty to recognize and support the arduous and peaceful struggle of the people of Nepal to attain a framework of rule of law that democratizes all important positions of authority within the State. The procedures and the politics of the constitutional process can vary but they cannot develop without respect for the idea of the sovereignty of people; the current state of democratic uprising being a powerful assertion of it.
The struggle of the Nepali people to attain a democratic framework of rule of law has been going on for long. It has survived myriad betrayals and impediments since November 1950 when India first intervened to actively support the demands for a democratic constitution, fundamental rights, free and fair elections and brokered a compromise between the feudal and democratic forces. King Gyanendra terminated the incomplete experiment of democratic transition initiated by his brother in April 1990 by usurping all executive powers of State through a proclamation of Emergency made by him on 1 February 2005. Despite the reign of brutal military repression unleashed by the State, people of Nepal, in urban areas and more significantly in the countryside, have once again risen in massive numbers to defy tyranny and totalitarianism. Hundreds of thousands of people are disregarding the curfew, shoot at sight orders, killing, bludgeoning, torture and imprisonment to defy the monarchic tyranny and to demand true democracy and the rule of law. Yet, the international community of States has done little to support the democratic struggle. On the contrary, it has helped prop up the illegal regime with military hardware and political support, which it has been using implacably to defeat the democratic upsurge. This must stop. Nepal is in the danger of descending deeper into the world of violent anarchy, with irrevocable consequences for the stability and security of entire South Asia, unless the governments and the people of all the countries in the region speak in one voice against the current regression of the monarchic tyranny to its medieval mould.
We are here to extend our support and solidarity. We appeal to the international community of States and the civil society in the region and outside to ensure that the extraordinary phenomenon of democratic uprising in the country in evidence today is not thwarted once again with repression, violence, political ruse and strategic manipulations.

o o o

(ii)

(Statement issued on 23rd April 2006 by a group of eminent Nepali citizens who were arrested in the capital, Kathmandu on April 8 while breaking curfew to press for democratic rights in Nepal.)

To the Ambassadors
Of the European Union member states,
The United States, India, China,
and the Representative of the United Nations.

23 April 2006
Duwakot, Bhaktapur District

Excellencies,

We civil society detainees, kept at the Duwakot Armed Police barrack, believe that your governments’ welcoming response to Friday’s address by King Gyanendra was based on a misperception of Nepali political reality and a misreading of the address itself. Though surely based on the best of intentions, your reaction has needlessly delayed a peaceful transition in the country at a critical hour, when millions of Nepalis are on the streets agitating for an immediate return to democracy. This show of people’s solidarity carried out massively and peacefully all over the country and in Kathmandu Valley, deserves more respect than has been accorded by the international community.

While the royal address certainly indicated a step back by the king, and it might even have been adequate sometime ago, at the given moment it was grievously misplaced in both tone and substance. In terms of tone: the king justified his 1 February 2005 coup d’etat; spoke in favour of the security forces despite their dubious record; did not acknowledge the need to engage the Maoist rebels; and ignored the incredible show of people power on the streets whose essential demand is that kingship be abolished or made absolutely powerless.

In terms of substance, the king has talked about returning power that had been given to him for ‘safekeeping’, when the fact is that the events of 4 October 2002 and 1 February 2005 represented a naked power grab. Further, the king is not the custodian of sovereignty, which is naturally inherent in the people under the constitution of 1990 and it is not up to him to hand it back to the people.

Most importantly, those who welcome the royal address seem to believe that the king has unequivocally conceded sovereignty to the Nepali people. This is not our reading. Nowhere does ‘sovereign’ or ‘sovereignty’ occur in the Nepali original, unlike in the translation, apparently provided by the royal palace, where there is reference to “source of sovereign authority”. In the Nepali original, the king refers to “state power remaining with the people” as part of listing the terms of reference of the government to be formed. This phrase is included only in passing, and does not amount to the king conceding sovereignty as residing in the people.

According to two jurists, both framers of the 1990 Constitution, who are included in our Duwakot group, ‘state power’ does not by any stretch of imagination translate as ‘sovereign authority’. We believe that there is a sleight of hand involved here, by a royal palace intent on misleading the embassies. Overall, we conclude that the king is not prepared to transfer sovereign power.

As things stand, what king Gyanendra has asked the political parties to do is to set up a government with ‘executive power’ but without legislative authority. In substance and form, this government would have the same authority, under the much-maligned Article 127 of the Constitution, as given to governments constituted thrice and disbanded as many times by the king between October 2002 and February 2005. The government would be an executive at the king’s command, meant to take responsibility for the excesses committed under the royal direct rule. It would only have the power over day-to-day administration, without authority to undo the ordinances, appointments, and other actions of the king during his period of active rule. Because the executive would act without the backing of a legislature, the king would be the authority of last resort, retaining the power of dismissing the sitting prime minister.

Given the royal palace’s record, we know that the government to be formed would be hindered at every step as the latter seeks to pursue the publicly announced seven-party roadmap for peace and democracy. Nor would this government have the authority ab initio to challenge the army’s current role and the ongoing militarisation of state and society by the royal regime. Further, the royal address seeks to retain the link of loyalty between the king and the army. This is a far cry from what is needed: a government that works on the mandate of the People’s Movement and not that of the royal palace. In sum, the king’s grudging concession does not address the great issues that cry out for resolution.

We appeal to your excellencies to also recall the many times that the royal palace has played the game of deception with you, and to introspect whether king Gyanendra, retaining all the powers as head of state not responsible to a legislature, will allow any forthcoming government to act independently. Your attitude seems to be “the king has given this much, take it and make the best of it”. Unfortunately, neither the political parties nor we here in Duwakot, are confident that the royal palace will not intervene in the workings of the executive to be formed. This would be in line with the historical record of the royal palace victimizing the people whenever there has been a move toward genuine democracy.

We ask you, in the hours and days ahead, to be more alert to royal machinations and to support the political parties as they challenge the royal palace. For our part, we would hope that the political parties make a pro-active announcement and seize the moment. There is a need for such an initiative in order to prevent anarchy and dangerous collapse of state structures. For this, the political parties should unilaterally declare restoration of the Third Parliament and/or announce a parallel government. Thereafter, they should consult with the Maoist rebels who have credibly indicated their intention to enter open politics, and announce elections to an unconditional constituent assembly. We hope that the international community will come forward with immediate recognition of such a unilateral declaration, required to prevent Nepal from sinking into the pit of one kind of extremism or another. In such an evolution, we see no role for king Gyanendra other than as a mute spectator.

Please note, Excellencies, that this is the only path to stability in Nepal which both the Nepali masses and the international community want so keenly. The world community, which has harboured such enormous goodwill for the Nepali people and which has been party to our nation-building and development efforts for more than five decades, must respect the maturity of the Nepali political discourse which is speeding the current, exhilarating People’s Movement. Please also note, Excellencies, the kingship is not indispensable for the maintenance of Nepali nationhood, and that it should henceforth remain, if at all, at the cognisance of Nepal’s 26 million citizens.

The latest announcement by the Indian Foreign Secretary, about respecting the will of the people of Nepal, we believe, provides a corrective to the error evident in the Indian government’s initial welcome note. The Indian corrective, we believe, should be emulated by all other international players who wish the Nepali people well.

Sincerely,

Signed by:

Mr. Rupak Adhikari
Mr. Anubhav Ajeet
Mr. Bimal Aryal
Mr. Laxman Prasad Aryal
Mr. Ramesh Bhattarai
Mr. Kanak Mani Dixit
Dr. Saroj Dhital
Mr. Daman Nath Dhungana
Mr. Arjun Parajuli
Mr. Bhasker Gautam
Dr. Madhu Ghimire
Dr. Mahesh Maskey
Dr. Sarad Wanta
Dr. Bidur Osti
Dr. Bharat Pradhan
Mr. Charan Prasai
Mr. Padma Ratna Tuladhar
Mr. Malla K. Sunder