The SPA government headed by Girija Prasad Koirala now faces a major test of its authority and resolve. The acting chief of the Western Division, brigadier general Dilip Shumshere JB Rana, in his 15-page speech, made at the inaugural function of the Division Conference-2063 in Pokhara on Monday, exudes the impression that the army has not as yet been able to accept the changes brought about by the people’s uprising in April last year. He told the gathering of army commanders and officers, police chiefs, party leaders and journalists of the possibility of army mobilisation in the Terai if the situation ran out of the control of the Nepali Police and the Armed Police Force. He directed his subordinates to be ready, disclosing that the government has been requested through the army headquarters to that effect.

There is nothing wrong in being in a state of preparedness. But what renders Rana liable to action is his offence of divulging the official secret, that, too, on such a hot and sensitive issue. Besides, he intruded into political areas forbidden by the Army Act, 2063. He also directed his juniors to prepare for action against the Maoists by enhancing both offensive and defensive capabilities in case the latter took up arms again. The part of Rana’s speech dealing with the Maoists and the political parties reeks strongly of his and his bosses’ mindset shown during the now discredited royal regime. Rana’s utterances may provoke both the Terai agitators and the Maoists, the latter already a part of the present political system. He also unabashedly claimed credit for the army for bringing the Maoists into the political mainstream.

It is for the government and the political parties to go into the motives or inspiration behind Rana’s speech. But a brigadier general’s written speech on state affairs can never be dismissed merely as a personal opinion. The contents and tenor of his speech attract the Army Act, Clause 19 of which forbids the making of a speech of a political nature, and Clause 18 gives the government the authority to dismiss any army officer. The government could also institute an inquiry into such a matter of public concern

under Clause 131. However, it should take a dispassionate view of the whole episode and act in conformity with the Constitution, the Army Act and the practices prevalent in democracies like India, the US and the UK. Judging by successive governments’ helplessness about taking action against offending army bigwigs, one is tempted to have doubts that the government will let the brigadier general carry on as usual. But it is nonetheless a test case for the Koirala government to substantiate its claim that the army has been brought under effective civilian control. At the same time, Rana should be given a reasonable opportunity to explain things in self-defence. In this fluid transitional period with public doubts about the army’s intent still unallayed, the least the government can do is to demonstrate that it brooks no indiscipline or insubordination. Otherwise, democracy will be in peril again.