On the 18 May 2006 Nepalese MPs unanimously approved a plan to drastically curtail King Gyanendra’s powers and remove his control over the army. The King has also lost his title of supreme commander-in-chief of the military. This is a result of over a month of violent mass protest against the King’s autocratic rule.
In February 2005 Gyanendra staged a coup and dissolved parliament (see FRFI 184), making himself absolute ruler of the country. This curtailment of democracy and basic human rights lent weight to the already eight-year-long countryside rebellion led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) CPN(M). The toughening conditions for the Nepalese workers and the disenfranchisement of the bourgeoisie resulted in unification between the CPN(M) and the seven main political parties based in the towns and cities. Out of this ‘seven party alliance’ (SPA) came a two-pronged attack against the monarch that reached a crescendo in April 2006. A prolonged blockade of the capital Kathmandu by the Maoists combined with a three-week strike by workers and students. By mid-April open rioting and defiance against the King broke out onto the streets where protestors were brutally met by riot police. At least 15 protestors were reported killed in Kathmandu, and several others in other towns where there were also mass demonstrations.
With the Royal Palace under siege, Gyanendra reluctantly conceded that his time was running out. After a visit from the Indian Foreign Minister and pressure from imperialism, the King made a statement that he would be willing to sit down and negotiate a timetable for the possible recall of parliament. His ‘offer’ was swiftly rejected by the SPA and the demonstrations intensified. Two more days of violent unrest followed as the Nepalese people refused to be sold out or intimidated by riot police
On 23 April over 100,000 people broke a ‘shoot-on-sight’ curfew to demonstrate against the King. On 24 April Gyanendra backed down and bowed to the pressure for the immediate restoration of parliament. This time the SPA accepted his offer, but the CPN(M) initially rejected the deal, believing that the momentum had been created to remove the head of state for good. However, on 27 April the CPN(M), reluctantly, declared a three-month ceasefire (it will not be handing over any arms) in order to sustain the links made with the political parties and further the political process as far as it can go. Parliament was reinstated on 29 April, with the Congress Party Leader, G P Koirala, heading the swearing in ceremony. On 18 May the government ceased to be known as His Majesty’s Government.
Imperialism appeared to be against the King’s absolute rule and its leaders criticised the brutal clampdown against protestors. However, they and the Indian government were more concerned about Gyanendra’s dictatorship fuelling support for the revolt, than they were against killing Nepal’s people.
At the beginning of the recent unrest the US Assistant Secretary for South Asia, Richard Boucher, met with the Royal Nepalese Army chief, Pyar Jung Thapa. On 3 April Boucher said, ‘I think that the army is going to have a very important role to play. The army has to help defend the nation; it has to help defend the nation against threats. They also have to be able to implement the ceasefire, and carry it out. So I wanted to check with the army and see, first of all, that they were supporting the political process, that they were supporting the civilian leaders in Nepal, and second of all talk to them about how they saw their job in the days ahead, and how, when a civilian leadership wanted us to, we could support them in the future.’ This statement essentially sums up imperialism’s position: defuse the revolution by going back to limited political reform and back up such reform with the brutality of an army which, according to Amnesty International, has been responsible for more disappearances than any other army in recent times.
The imperialists’ position is shared by India, which desperately tries to keep a grip on its own Maoist revolt. Though politically independent, Nepal is essentially an economic sub-state of India. It is in the context of imperialism and revolution in India and South Asia that the importance of the Nepalese struggle should be seen. That is why imperialism is showing such an interest in the world’s third poorest country.
It may appear that the Nepalese people have been sold short by opportunist elements within the SPA and that the revolution is back to the stage before the King’s coup. This is not necessarily so and there is cause for optimism. The whole revolutionary movement within Nepal has grown and matured and the recent uprisings have created a necessary closer unity between the working class and the peasantry. Any sympathy or support for the King has now vanished completely (except from loyal generals in the army) and the experience of struggle itself has raised the level of consciousness of the Nepalese people. Prachanda, leader of the Maoist People’s Liberation Army, said the ceasefire was intended ‘to express deep commitment to people’s desire for peace’. Influential elements in the parliamentary forces may attempt to disentangle themselves from their alliance with the CPN(M) and a possible split between the bourgeois parties and the revolutionaries may occur.
Whatever happens will be dictated by the will of the people. They have been forced to spill their blood to get the King to back down. Now the parties who claim to represent them will have to begin to deliver the goods or the newly awakened Nepalese people will take to the streets again – not just against the King, but against all those who seek to keep them in poverty.
FRFI 191 June / July 2006
