The unfolding political unrest in Nepal ever since King Gyanendra seized sweeping power in February last year after sacking an elected government, is a matter of serious concern for the region and particularly for the political establishment in New Delhi. The manner in which protestors have taken to the street in thousands cutting across social and political divide should only give credence to the belief that restoration of a people-centered democracy and the political process thereof is the only way the crisis can be resolved. For India, it should come as a direct challenge that democratic forces in the region are being cornered and stifled by those who are unwilling to forego their hold on dictatorial power.
What is now being witnessed in Nepal is strikingly close to the Pro-democracy protest movement in Myanmar against the military junta’s hold on power. A similar situation prevails in Pakistan in which a military dictator has acquired political legitimacy through open manipulation of the country’s political process. Other neighbors to India such as Bhutan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Sri-Lanka are likewise at a nascent stage of learning democracy and there is always the lurking danger that the emerging States in the region may find themselves falling into a crisis of legitimacy and political upheaval.
Without in any way defending the position of the monarchy, the crisis in Nepal in many ways would also epitomize the ground reality of a third world country struggling to find stability. The failure to put the necessary social and political institutions for the successful working of parliamentary democracy is one such facet of the problem. The political experience has therefore been, one of undermining constitutional democracy and authority, violation of basic rights, disregard for public opinion. As such military coups ‘e’ etat and the overthrow of civilian rule is an area of concern for developing countries experimenting with western parliamentary democracy.
Coming back to the political crisis as far as India goes, Nepal’s problem is its headache. For despite its small size, Nepal’s strategic location has made it a buffer state between China and India. India’s relation with Nepal should therefore be seen largely from the aspect of security. The recent collapse of the democratic experiment and the monarchy back in the political saddle, New Delhi has to walk a tight rope. In the light of all these factors, it would be in the interest of New Delhi to restore civilian rule through multi-party democracy. Once this is done, the political leadership in Nepal must be pushed to restart the peace process with the Maoist groups in order that these violent elements are brought into the political mainstream.
As far as the monarchy is concerned, its role must be one of a constitutional figure head working in conjunction with the civilian government as duly elected by the people through free and fair elections. India’s role at the same time has to go beyond the kingdom of Nepal. If New Delhi has genuine concerns over the development in Kathmandu, there is no reason why it should continue to remain a mute spectator to similar protests taking place in Myanmar since the last two decades. As the world’s largest democracy, much responsibility lies on India to take initiative in restoring people-centered institutions across its immediate geographical frontiers.
