Eight blunders of King Gyanendra

By N.P.Upadhyaya

http://telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=3452

Kathmandu: Whether King Gyanendra vacates the Royal Palace prior to the first Constituent Assembly meet or not is still a mystery. However, media reports have it that the King has already decided to quit the Royal Palace much ahead of the CA first meet to avoid any likely “confrontation” in between him and the champions of republican order in the country.

Nevertheless, some other media quoting high placed sources claim that the King remains undeterred and would not in any case vacate the Palace come what may.

What will happen, if for example, he quits the Palace and the institution of the monarchy with 240 plus long history suddenly collapses? Will the new “managers” of the new system can effectively “manage the turbulent” politics after the institution of the monarchy is declared non-existent? Very difficult question indeed.

Or, contrary to the rumors that with the sudden collapse of the monarchy politics might plunge and acquire a new low, it is also possible that the country may ensure peace and the system thrived as per the demand of the time wherein the managers of the new system would act as per the expectations of the people.

Well, time will only tell as to which course the country’s politics then would take; however, what is for sure is that for some time to come the country’s emerging politics then would remain in an unstable condition with chances of the country being pushed to a sort of civil war if the politics is not handles with proper care.

Whether the King voluntarily quits the Royal Palace or is forced to leave if he ignores the Maoists preference is still a matter of intense debate among the Kathmandu intellectuals. Who else better knows it than the King, the incumbent Prime Minister, the Nepali Army or even the Maoists?

Leaving the topic for debate, analysts wish to point out to some of the political blunders that the King committed which brought his down fall to the extent that the institution of the monarchy itself is counting its last breath.

First blunder: The King must not have exhibited his extra-ambitions to rule the country on his own. The incumbent Prime Minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, whom he sacked on February 1, 2005, was relatively “loyal” to the King and thus the King could have got his jobs done through Premier Deuba as and when he wished so. Sher Bahadur Deuba is still loyal to the King though his hands are tied.

Second blunder: As was the rumor then, the King immediately after assuming the executive powers of the nation-state should not have “depended” much upon the two “dead horses” whose utility had date expired.

King Gyanendra’s preference for Dr. Tulsi Giri and Kirti Nidhi Bista was not taken in good taste even by his staunch followers. These two politicos were the two old hats of the erstwhile Panchayat regime in the early 1960s whose hard-line politics had no relevance in the changed political context in which the King took over the charges of the State. Instead the King could have picked one leader from the “democratic” camp.

Third blunder: Power hungry Girija Prasad Koirala made thirteen appeals to the King for an audience. The King repeatedly rejected which annoyed Koirala to the hilt. An angry Koirala then through the clandestine support of the then Indian establishment made tacit understanding with the Maoists then residing in New Delhi through the kind courtesy of Shyam Saran-then Indian Foreign Secretary. It was in the year 2005 November that Girija inked a 12 point deal with the Maoists which in essence was a sort of agreement in between the then agitating seven and the Maoists to bring about the down fall of the ruling monarch.

Had the monarch then met with Koirala, the country’s politics would have been some what different than what it is today.

Fourth blunder: King Gyanendra could not understand the penetration of the Indian establishment in Nepal’s politics. He simply annoyed India while making a speech in Jakarta, April 23, 2005. The King in an oblique manner blamed India that the latter had been assisting the Maoists-described then as terrorists- and exhibiting double standard. This was too much for the Indian authorities.

A pretty annoyed Indian Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh could not digest the King’s sharp criticisms made against his country and may have later added “troubles” for King Gyanendra.
The fact is that King Gyanendra underrated the Indian establishment to the hilt. Had he been wise enough, he should have exhibited his “friendly posture” towards India and ruled the country as his late father King Mahendra did. King Mahendra enjoyed continued blessings from Nehru.

The King should have taken into account the fact that if even a Nepali media man can’t ignore India if it were to survive in Nepal then how can a ruling monarch stay longer in the position summarily ignoring the Indian establishment?

Albeit, the King’s foreign minister too contributed to the down fall of his regime. Briefing the King with false information was the order of the day to which the King pleasingly accepted and concluded that every thing was moving in the right direction.

Fifth blunder: The King should have taken into confidence the then American Ambassador, James F. Moriarty. However, as Moriarty said to some journalists that whenever he met the King told him, “give me some time”.

However, that “some time” got prolonged which must have caused annoyance to the American Ambassador. Moriarty just wanted that the King handed over the executive powers to the people’s representatives. As regards on how to deal with the Maoists, the King and Ambassador Moriarty possessed “identical views”. Moriarty later left the entire politics to the mercy of the Indian establishment.

Sixth blunder: This was a Himalayan blunder that the King committed. The King exhibited his extra-enthusiasm in favor of China and tried his best to include China in the SAARC regional body as an observer. The 13th SAARC Summit was in progress in Dhaka, November 11-13, 2005.

He even told his foreign minister to sound the message that Nepal may quit Dhaka Summit if China’s inclusion in the regional body was ignored. Why the King needed China in the SAARC regional body is any body’s guess. The attending Indian officials were not that fools not to understand the Nepal King’s inner feelings.

An annoyed India then proposed the name of Afghanistan for full membership of the regional body and it lobbied for Korea and Japan as an observer.

Seventh blunder: Though the Nepal King expected that China, the northern neighbor, would come to his rescue when his regime began dwindling hoping that an “obliged” China surely would thwart any outside designs being made against his rule, China suddenly acquired a “silent” posture.

The King’s regime collapsed hoping against hope. The Chinese officials in Beijing deserted the King while he was in the mid ocean and sided with the agitating parties and listened to what the Indian establishment had to say of the King. India’s subtle diplomacy prevailed. The King emerged as a loser. However, China should have been repenting now for understandable reasons.

Eighth blunder: The King excessively depended on a select group of media men who had in essence brought about the collapse of the Panchayat regime in the not so distant past. A small coterie of media persons who have had no credibility among the elite class of the Nepali society were the ones whom the King liked most. The King preferred not to see in person any media men with academic bent.

Having said that, analysts come to the same question: Will the monarchy having a long history of more than two and a half century be abolished? Or will King Gyanendra fight the battle and secure his place in the Royal Palace? And what about the “loyalty” of the Nepal Army which was given a formal shape by the Shah Dynasty centuries back? Will the Army come to the rescue of the institution of the monarchy at the last moment? Or will the Army take other course?
Questions galore indeed.

As the date of the first meet of the CA is approaching, a sort of sheer confusion is gripping the people who appear frightened a little bit which is only but natural under the circumstances wherein the entire political system is about to see a sea change in a matter of days.
Will the King take a no-confrontation route or otherwise will have to be watched.

Telegraph adds: A fresh news report, though unsubstantiated reveals that King Gyanendra met with Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai at some military camp only recently. Dr. Bhattarai assured the King during the meet that his party will find some sort of “honorific” position for the King. He, however, told the King to remain in a low profile for some time to come. How the King reacted to Dr. Bhattarai’s proposal, however, is not known.

2008-05-20 20:05:20