Emulate The Indian Corrective

To the Ambassadors
Of the European Union member states,
The United States, India, China,
and the Representative of the United Nations.


Excellencies,

We civil society detainees, kept at the Duwakot Armed Police barrack, believethat your governments' welcoming response to Friday's address by King Gyanendrawas based on a misperception of Nepali political reality and a misreading of theaddress itself. Though surely based on the best of intentions, your reaction hasneedlessly delayed a peaceful transition in
the country at a critical hour, when millions of Nepalis are on the streetsagitating for an immediate return to democracy. This show of people's solidaritycarried out massively and peacefully all over the country and in KathmanduValley, deserves more respect than has been accorded by the internationalcommunity.

While the royal address certainly indicated a step back by the king, and itmight even have been adequate sometime ago, at the given moment it was grievously misplaced in both tone and substance. In terms of tone: theking justified his 1 February 2005 coup d'etat; spoke in favour of the securityforces despite their dubious record; did not acknowledge the need to engage
the Maoist rebels; and ignored the incredible show of people power on thestreets whose essential demand is that kingship be abolished or made absolutelypowerless.

In terms of substance, the king has talked about returning power that hadbeen given to him for 'safekeeping', when the fact is that the events of 4October 2002 and 1 February 2005 represented a naked power grab. Further, theking is not the custodian of sovereignty, which is naturally inherent in thepeople under the constitution of 1990 and it is not up to him to hand it back tothe people.

Most importantly, those who welcome the royal address seem to believe thatthe king has unequivocally conceded sovereignty to the Nepali people. This isnot our reading. Nowhere does 'sovereign' or 'sovereignty' occur in the Nepalioriginal, unlike in the translation, apparently provided by the royal palace,where there is reference to "source of sovereign authority". In theNepali original, the king refers to "state power remaining with thepeople" as part of listing the terms of reference of the government to beformed. This phrase is included only in passing, and does not amount to the kingconceding sovereignty as residing in the people.

According to two jurists, both framers of the 1990 Constitution, who areincluded in our Duwakot group, 'state power' does not by any stretch ofimagination translate as 'sovereign authority'. We believe that there is asleight of hand involved here, by a royal palace intent on misleading theembassies. Overall, we conclude that the king is not prepared to transfersovereign power.

As things stand, what king Gyanendra has asked the political parties to do isto set up a government with 'executive power' but without legislative authority.In substance and form, this government would have the same authority, under themuch-maligned Article 127 of the Constitution, as given to governmentsconstituted thrice and disbanded as many times by the king between October 2002and February 2005. The government would be an executive at the king's command,meant to take responsibility for the excesses committed under the royal directrule. It would only have the power over day-to-day administration, withoutauthority to undo the ordinances, appointments, and other actions of the kingduring his period of active rule. Because the executive would act without thebacking of a legislature, the king would be the authority of last resort,retaining the power of dismissing the sitting prime minister.

Given the royal palace's record, we know that the government to be formedwould be hindered at every step as the latter seeks to pursue the publiclyannounced seven-party roadmap for peace and democracy. Nor would this governmenthave the authority ab initio to challenge the army's current role and theongoing militarisation of state and society by the royal regime. Further, theroyal address seeks to retain the link of loyalty between the king and the army.This is a far cry from what is needed: a government that works on the mandate ofthe People's Movement and not that of the royal palace. In sum, the king'sgrudging concession does not address the great issues that cry out forresolution.

We appeal to your excellencies to also recall the many times that the royalpalace has played the game of deception with you, and to introspect whether kingGyanendra, retaining all the powers as head of state not responsible to alegislature, will allow any forthcoming government to act independently. Yourattitude seems to be "the king has given this much, take it and make thebest of it". Unfortunately, neither the political parties nor we here inDuwakot, are confident that the royal palace will not intervene in the workingsof the executive to be formed. This would be in line with the historical recordof the royal palace victimizing the people whenever there has been a move towardgenuine democracy.

We ask you, in the hours and days ahead, to be more alert to royalmachinations and to support the political parties as they challenge the royalpalace. For our part, we would hope that the political parties make a pro-activeannouncement and seize the moment. There is a need for such an initiative inorder to prevent anarchy and dangerous collapse of state structures. For this,the political parties should unilaterally declare restoration of the ThirdParliament and/or announce a parallel government. Thereafter, they shouldconsult with the Maoist rebels who have credibly indicated their intention toenter open politics, and announce elections to an unconditional constituentassembly. We hope that the international community will come forward withimmediate recognition of such a unilateral declaration, required to preventNepal from sinking into the pit of one kind of extremism or another. In such anevolution, we see no role for king Gyanendra other than as a mute spectator.

Please note, Excellencies, that this is the only path to stability in Nepalwhich both the Nepali masses and the international community want so keenly. Theworld community, which has harboured such enormous goodwill for the Nepalipeople and which has been party to our nation-building and development effortsfor more than five decades, must respect the maturity of the Nepali politicaldiscourse which is speeding the current, exhilarating People's Movement. Pleasealso note, Excellencies, the kingship is not indispensable for the maintenanceof Nepali nationhood, and that it should henceforth remain, if at all, at thecognisance of Nepal's 26 million citizens.

The latest announcement by the Indian ForeignSecretary, about respecting thewill of the people of Nepal, we believe, provides a corrective to the errorevident in the Indian government's initial welcome note. The Indian corrective,we believe, should be emulated by all other international players who wish theNepali people well.

Sincerely,
Signed by:

Mr. Rupak Adhikari
Mr. Anubhav Ajeet
Mr. Bimal Aryal
Mr. Laxman Prasad Aryal
Mr. Ramesh Bhattarai
Mr. Kanak Mani Dixit
Dr. Saroj Dhital
Mr. Daman Nath Dhungana
Mr. Arjun Parajuli
Mr. Bhasker Gautam
Dr. Madhu Ghimire
Dr. Mahesh Maskey
Dr. Sarad Wanta
Dr. Bidur Osti
Dr. Bharat Pradhan
Mr. Charan Prasai
Mr. Padma Ratna Tuladhar
Mr. Malla K. Sunder