The government has taken a major step towards divorcing the Nepali Army from the royal family by introducing in Parliament a bill to replace the Military Act 2016 BS, the Military Power Conferring Act 2015 BS and the Service Conditions of the CoAS Act 2026 BS. The same parliament and MPs who had failed to rein in the army in the past have now mustered the grit to push these changes on the strength of the Jana Andolan II. Among the changes sought: the King will be stripped of his title of the supreme commander; the army will be controlled by the government and mobilised according to the decisions of the Defence Council headed by the Prime Minister which also includes the defence, home, finance and foreign ministers sans the army chief; the Prime Minister will swear in the army chief; the right of appeal against the verdict of the military court; and the government has the authority to sack the army chief if need be.

The proposed changes once incorporated into the law will mark the beginning of a process to democratise the Nepali Army. Indeed, even under the 1990 Constitution, the parliament and the government were free to decide on such issues; it is another matter that they could not display the political courage necessary to do so. Even as it was, the King was the supreme commander of the army for ornamental purposes, as he was bound to operate and use it on the recommendation of the defence council, and constitutionally, he was supposed to appoint the army chief only on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. However, unfortunately, no elected government or the parliament in the post-1990 democratic period could assert its statutory authority over the operation of the army. The political parties and their leaders had reconciled themselves to the fact that the palace exercised effective control over the army. This paved the way for the overthrow of the elected government by the King on October 4, 2002.

The process now set in motion is in the right direction. But in what form and manner the armed forces will be reorganised will be decided through the verdict of the constituent assembly elections. Democratisation of the army also implies introducing transparency and accountability into the army affairs. Measures therefore need to be taken to that end side by side with the changes in the military act. The lingering issue of the alleged misuse of huge funds collected from the soldiers who served on UN peacekeeping missions abroad and said to be deposited into the Army Welfare Fund has had the effect of sullying the army’s image. If the government could bring out the details and take corrective action, it would be making a marvellous contribution. There are certain secrets any army in the world is supposed to keep — things that might otherwise compromise national security. But under such pretexts, corruption and opacity, particularly in financial deals, including procurement of weapons, cannot be kept under wraps. The taxpayers’ money has to be accounted for.