Monarchy was no part of the problem but could have been, instead, part of the solution

TGQ1: As a responsible citizen of the country and being a senior political analysts concurrently, how you Mr. Rana have been analyzing the unfolding political events in the country more so after the extension of the Constituent Assembly tenure which is still under severe debate? Some say politics has further deteriorated after the CA tenure extension. Is this a fact given the current political mess or just the otherwise? Your personal observations please.

Mr. Rana: Political analysis in Nepal must unravel the politicization of our recent history and acknowledge the critique of  the multi-party system proposed by King Mahendra to explain the behavior of our democracy where donor driven political organizations insist on imposing donor driven agenda above and beyond the constitution which can be amended whichever way to suit their purposes. For those asking for a system, this is no system and will not yield one. My contention is that the Nepali people have been held hostage by self-seeking political parties at foreign behest and encouragement and it is only when this realization will prompt an organized reaction in all national sectors that a solution will be in sight. So far, we are adrift and the problems are being compounded.

 TGQ2:  Critics of the republican order opine that nothing substantial changes dawned in the nation as promised by the then leaders after the sidelining of the monarchy? Was the removal of the monarchy then the single agenda of the then agitating seven leaders and the Delhi based Nepal Maoists together with some alien forces? What you think of it?

Is it that the Delhi sponsored 12 point agreement has failed miserably which now demand a fresh agreement right inside the Nepali territories in between the Nepali parties and with no alien mediation? What say you Mr. Rana? Your brilliant opinions please.

Mr. Rana: One recalls King Birendra telling Newsweek in his first interview there as a King that the Monarchy was always a constitutional monarchy in Nepal. Perhaps we have been made to forget Raja Tribhuvan Murdabad as a political slogan in vogue in the early Fifties but King Mahendra is still reminded as a murderer of democracy while the latter day popularity of King Birendra masks the previous Bire Chor Desh Cchod  (Bire Thief leave the country) while the 'Pampha Devi' nomenclature given to the late Queen Aishwarya has faded away. Despite continuing media hype and insinuations none less than advocate Prachanda appears to have absolved former King Gyanendra of a role in the murder of his brother and family. The King is no more King but the problems remain. The problem was not with the monarchy but with a self-serving politics that insisted on shunting the blame to the monarchy. A constitutional monarch was to coexist with politicians who organized under the ideology that the King and all he represented was the ultimate exploiter of the people who must be organized under their leadership to overthrow the exploiters. Well, the monarchy is removed but the problems remain. It does not take much brilliance to realize that the monarchy was no part of the problem but could have been, instead, part of the solution. For a solution, political actors now at the helm must concede that donor driven politics is counterproductive and a system that recognizes the sources of independent, sovereign Nepal and strengthens it must be re-imposed.

TGQ3: Whereas the demand for a fresh referendum to seek the people’s verdict on federalism, declaration of a secular state and that of monarchy is being floated by some political parties then political personalities like Dr. Keshar Jung Rayamajhi emphatically claim that there was no need for such a referendum and that the country must run under the tacit and the final agreement that was agreed upon by the agitating parties, the then King and the Indian emissary Dr. Karan Singh, April 2006, wherein it is presumed that the parties then agreed to continue with a ceremonial monarch.

With these conflicting views, which appears to be closer to correct? Your remarks please.

Mr. Rana: I am not privy to what transpired at the apex. I don't know what a ceremonial monarch is. But those who do concede a role for the monarchy in a future constitution must not politicize that institution. If one scrutinizes the roles of the Monarchy, one sees the politicians politicizing the monarchy and not the other way round. One sees the monarchy dragged into controversy for purposes of political benefit. This has been the case since the Fifties. This politicization having now made the overthrow of the monarchy convenient, one even sees the ousted monarch being politicized.

As for a referendum as a panacea to the country's constitutional woes, as a person who did not participate in the elections to the constituent assembly on grounds that it would merely reflect the will of government and not of State, the results of a referendum would have to depend on who would be conducting it wouldn't it? The singular requirement for a political party to accept the status quo in our democracy being whether or not it would be represented in an election government, the correction would have to start with an acceptably independent government for independent elections to take place. The question under which constitution would inevitably crop up. I would still say the constitutionalism should be allowed for Nepal and the Nepalis and this should begin with the realization that the wanton treatment accorded the 1990 constitution should be corrected. The spate of agenda being imposed on the constitution from federalism onwards could compose political manifesto of the political parties who, in contrast, are the most centralized, ethnically and otherwise. How else can one contemplate a constitution emerging from political parties who insist on being above constitutions?  

TGQ4: The former King is touring the Tarai plains and worshipping Hindu Gods and Goddesses as a commoner, however, the ruling parties see in it a grand conspiracy to malign the republican order and even claim that the King was testing the pulse beat of the national population with the final aim of staging a grand comeback .

How do you take his Tarai visits and meeting the people who throng around him? Can it be taken as a Hindu card? Your exclusive comments please.

Mr. Rana: I am proud to identify myself as a Hindu. I subscribe to no religious organization nor is there a sole religious interpreter for me, my religious practice is entirely voluntary, customary and familial. It is a matter of pride to me that this religion compiles beliefs in a super being that mankind held over the years of civilization and had the strength to recognize that all religions are possible (sarva dharma sambhava) and saw utility in advocating long ago that one's own beliefs grants one bliss (swadharmam paramam sukham). It cannot but be a matter of shame that a class claiming to represent us should shun our ingrained secularity in preference of a bible-belt secularism which only recently recognizes the civil toleration of diversity but must still encourage proselytization on the strength of motivated moneys with the promise of deliverance.

I am sure the King has his right to worship as a common citizen too and I am sure that the common citizen are exercising their right to welcome him in their midst. As I say, those who see a problem in this are the very same people that are refusing to recognize the utility of the Monarchy in Nepal but instead have junked it for their own self-aggrandizement at the peril of State. Indeed, there is a sense of desperation among his critics since they too sense the growing degree of alienation from the public that compels them to hold donor shirt-tails for their political survival.

A tempting tailpiece: An INGO seeking land donation for a water project from a previous donor to a government project, upon being spurned their request, asked the donor why he could give land to government and not to them even when the ultimate beneficiary of both were the people. The answer: We don't know the interests of those from whom you take the funds but we will pray to the soul of our King after his death for his absolution for the crimes he must commit for the benefit of the people. This is no tall tail. It actually happened in Kathmandu. No Western ideology can define the ties between a Hindu King and State, and no Nepali has become big by making the King small.
TGQ5: Apart from India’s all pervasive interference in Nepali politics that is there for all to see, the Europeans and the Americans too appear more than interested in securing and ensuring their political special place in Nepali politics. Neighboring China is talked to have already made its place in Nepali politics.

Posted on : 2010-06-23 06:33:43

Comments (13)