Aditya Man Shrestha

The royal takeover is debatable and will remain so for a long time. King Gyanendra looked vague on Oct. 4, 2002 when he sacked the Sher Bahadur Deuba government but he sounded clear and confident when he acted on Feb. 1, 2005. This time, he did not mince his words. His choice was, without saying so, for Mahendrapath, a revival of the Panchayat polity. It was better articulated in his own words as “constructive monarchy”. Paraphrased further, it means an assertive monarchy with multiparty system. The only politician who understood it in proper perspective is Nepali Congress leader, Ramchandra Poudel, explaining it in his public letter to G P Koirala.

Politicking might be important but

what really counts is on the people’s front. Once the King has taken over he has to

perform for the people. Everybody knows he faces high risks in non-performance.

To perform he has to move fast and solid. There are two ways to do so—one political and the other reform initiatives.

The King must personally deal with the political front, leaving the reform initiatives to the cabinet. He can initiate moves for immediate, serious and direct talks with the leaders. They can speak out their minds to each other in private and come to an amicable settlement. The King says he needs the political parties for his model of democracy and the political leaders say they need the King under their concept of democracy. Where is the problem? The bone of contention centres on the kind and degree of democracy acceptable to them. Open public debate will never help resolve this issue that hinges on power sharing.

On the Maoist front, the King should appoint a royal peace team for holding immediate talks with them. It will be a positive response to popular aspiration for peace and longstanding readiness of the Maoist leadership to hold direct talks with the King. The objective of the team should be to work out ceasefire and start negotiations. Successful or not, the very formation of such a team on the part of the King will be highly appreciated at home and abroad. The people need to be assured of peace and the King can do so by taking such political initiatives. It would be helpful if the ministers are debarred from speaking on political issues in order not to further vitiate the atmosphere.

What is more, the people need some substantive reforms for socio-economic transformation. This responsibility should be left to a cabinet that is composed of young, bright, forward-looking and honest professionals. Nepal is rich in human resources. There are people who have proven their merit not only in academic qualifications but also in practical achievements here and abroad. Such a cabinet will generate high hopes in an otherwise existing despondent mood. The international community will definitely help in the agenda of peace as it is doing in the sustenance of war.

Various sections of the society could be mobilised for promoting the royal agenda for peace and development. The civil societies, as mentioned in the royal proclamation, can help in a big way in promoting and achieving peace. They have developed professional capability and skill to contribute to this cause. They should be more than willing to cooperate in the mission of peace.

Similarly, the academic circle need be brought into play to discuss, debate and find out workable alternative solutions in all fields of public concern—political, economic and socio-cultural. Unfortunately, the intellectual circle of Nepal feels isolated and marginalised by the establishment. Their participation in the search for ways and means aimed at durable peace and development will be highly rewarding for the country. Nepal is in trouble not because there is lack of good ideas but because of

lack of action. There are answers to all questions of relevance to peace, democracy, development and you name it. There are non-government organisations, private agencies and volunteer bodies that have gained good experiences in social services and public works.

There are two most vulnerable regions in Nepal that deserve immediate and special attention—the far west and the Terai. One of the radical measures could be to stop all government expenditure in the central, eastern and western zones and allocate all the resources in the mid-western and far-western zones. That would necessitate the creation of a special mechanism to deliver services to the people at the grassroots level. The King can shift his operational centre from the capital to somewhere within the region. Similarly, the Terai people can be offered some attractive measures like transferring the land to the tillers. It is necessary to launch some measures for the real emancipation and resettlement of slave labour.

Since the King has raised expectations of the people, he has got to fulfil them. If he has embarked on radical political moves there is no reason why he should not launch radical socio-economic measures to justify his otherwise unjustifiable step.

Shrestha is coordinator, Volunteer Mediators Group for Peace