In a democracy, the military is accepted as an important “apolitical professional” institution, which has to fulfil professional responsibility — to protect the peaceful course of social life and to maintain internal and external security. Many questions can be raised whether the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) has been able to fulfil its professional responsibility or not.

RNA has, however, not shown as much strength as is needed to control the insurgency. Is it because of the lack of professional quality or lack of will or military orientation? Or is it due to class interest? Moreover, our experience after 2001 shows that RNA is neither able to feel secure itself nor successful in providing security to the royal family despite the King-military tandem. Second, the military in a democracy stands in support of the existing political system and government, and remains under the control and direction of elected leaders. But, if we study the democratic history of the country and the role of the military, be it in 1960, 1990 or at present, the democratic government and system collapsed mainly because of the non-cooperation of the military to the elected government.

Third, ‘apolitical’ means not to take sides, but to remain as a potential force to be used against the forces which oppose the governing social system and state apparatus established by people’s consent. However, the military continues to support the King against the spirit of the 1990 Constitution.

Moreover, the request of the prime minister to mobilise the army was not favoured by both the King and RNA. Surprisingly, its preconditions — to declare a state of emergency, to reintroduce TADA, to declare the Maoists terrorists — were embarrassing to the elected prime minister. Eventually, the direct rule of the King backed by the military was imposed in 2005.

Fourth, the military is also defined as a comprehensive social system that reflects the social, political and cultural values of society. Being a professional institution, it has to adopt fixed criteria, rules and regulations for recruitment, promotion, training and other opportunities at each level without any discrimination on the basis of caste, class or gender. Yet, RNA remained discriminatory even after 1990. The officers from ethnic groups have not yet reached the level of commander-in-chief. Out of 37 CNCs, 26 have been from the Rana family, and 11 from Shah, Thapa and Basnet respectively. Thus an important question is, how can we expect RNA led by the same class under the same structure to be an apolitical institution?

Also, no democratic leader gave priority to restructuring the army thus making it an exclusive domain of the palace. Finally, RNA by itself has never conspired any coup, but the King has invariably used it for realising his ambition. The “strong military is dangerous to democracy” if military power is under a person or traditional institution. Therefore, it has to be brought under an elected government whose accountability is ensured by the Constitution.